His position is not perfect but he's at least saying some of the right things. I saw one commercial for Obama this week where he noted that he's not taking money from the oil industry so as not to be indebted to them (unlike some current and past administrations).
Also, while campaigning in Indiana this week and talking about reducing or ending a gas tax, Obama said:
Obama spoke out against halting a tax on gasoline during the summer months, a move supported by Clinton and presumptive Republican nominee John McCain, saying it may not bring down prices and would deplete a fund used for building highways.
"The only way we're going to lower gas prices over the long term is if we start using less oil."
Can I get a witness?!
Of course, it won't "lower gas prices over the long term," but it is the right conclusion. We must start using less - much less - oil.
Clinton and McCain? They're in support of reducing gas taxes.
42 comments:
Oh Dan soo much to learn. No one is taking money for the oil industry. As a matter of fact it is illegal. If you don’t believe me read it on the Huffington post, I believe they are liberal friendly enough for ya.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/09/obama-camp-wont-pull-oil_n_95880.html
it is sad when a major democrat candidate has to brag about obeying the law. Whats next he’s going to say “Obama, I don’t sell drugs”
This should shed some light on the lack of substance in Obama campaign.
Here is one more little tidbit from newsweek
http://www.newsweek.com/id/129895
important thing to note here is the first paragraph
Technically, that's true, since a law that has been on the books for more than a century prohibits corporations from giving money directly to any federal candidate. But that doesn't distinguish Obama from his rivals in the race.
But wait!!! What does all this mean??? It means all that propaganda leftist have been saying about Bush being in the pocket of Big Oil, Halliburton etc. . . Is all a bunch of cr@p used to inflame uneducated liberals. Good post Dan.
Are you so naive as to think that oil companies don't have surrogates that buy off politicians? Really?
Apparently you are. If you read the Newsweek article it lays out how Obama gets his dirty dirty oil money.
All I am saying is hold him to the same standard you hold our current President.
Fair enough. Thanks for the heads up. I'd need to know more about the circumstances, but certainly oil companies have always had folk associated with them give money to both Dems and Republicans.
The question is: Will it mean that the candidate in question is in their pocket? Clearly, Bush has demonstrated that he is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the oil and coal companies. Believe me, if Obama starts showing that same trend, I'll scald his hide, as well.
Clearly, Bush has demonstrated that he is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the oil and coal companies.
more propaganda Dan? Way to be a mouthpiece for the party.
Not propagana. reality.
Do you know how many oil/coal company people he has in his administration? Do you know who wrote our energy plan? Do you see who he has placed in charge of making sure our coal companies act in accordance to the law?
I'm no Dem - more of a Green Party kind of a guy - so this is not party allegiance. It's just the reality that Bush has bent far over and took it bravely for his Energy Overlords.
It's hard to draw any other conclusion looking at reality. To draw another conclusion one would almost have to suspect that someone is merely defending their party's bankrupt positions and not looking at reality.
You can check it out yourself if you're unaware of how deeply connected and indebted to the Oil and Coal industries Bush is:
From the BBC
courtinginfluence.net
Mercury News
Los Angeles Times
California Congressman George Miller
And I could go on all day. This is not a secret. Anyone who is concerned about a fair and balanced gov't ought to be outraged at how stacked against the People and for a few Corporations this current administration has been.
Using terms like "Energy Overlords" and "party's bankrupt positions" are common propaganda techniques. It’s so ingrained in your thinking that you don’t even know you are doing it. At this point you are incapable of forming opinions that have not been handed to you by party insiders.
What’s next? "No blood for oil", "make love not war" "you can’t hug your child with nuclear arms"
The current Sec.Of Energy, Samuel Bodman has no ties to "big oil"
The previous Sec. Of Energy, Spencer Abraham has no ties to "big oil"
you have to go back to Clinton to find a Sec. Of Energy (Bill Richardson) who had ties to Oil and oversees Nuclear(two words: wife, espionage).
Go to http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/cabinet.html
I could not find any "Big Oil Goons"
Remember just because you heard it from an “activist” doesn’t make it true. Look it up.
" At this point you are incapable of forming opinions that have not been handed to you by party insiders. "
Oh the irony. You mean like this naive nonsense:
" It means all that propaganda leftist have been saying about Bush being in the pocket of Big Oil, Halliburton etc. . . Is all a bunch of cr@p used to inflame uneducated liberals."
ROFL.
It’s so ingrained in your thinking that you don’t even know you are doing it. At this point you are incapable of forming opinions that have not been handed to you by party insiders.
...and WHAT party are you affiliated with? Is it possible that YOU are the one who is wholly indoctrinated and blinded to YOUR party's failures?
Again, in case you missed it the many times I've stated it already, I'm a Green Party guy by design. I belong nominally to the Dems because our system does not support more than the two parties right now, but if you read my writings regularly, you see I criticize the Dems as well as the Republicans.
I have criticized the Republicans more these last eight years because they have been the ones in charge. And because the Dems are less-awful than the Republicans.
Doesn't mean I don't recognize how awful they tend to be.
You? Are you totally beholden to the Republicans? To a faux-conservative way of thinking? What indicators are there that you're capable of independent thought?
Thanks for your ultra astute observations, Alan. As always.
Edwin, to the point of this post:
Do you think it good that candidates at least state their independence from Big Money Corporations and Lobbyists? Especially ones like the Military complex? The Oil/Coal industries?
Do you share our founders' distrust of a large military? Adam Smith's awareness that corporations' interests are oftentimes in direct opposition to those of we, the people?
Do you agree with Obama that we must need start using less oil?
I do not demonize big corporations, I understand that most Americans work for big corporations. I see it as an extension of the class warfare hysteria that the party (whom you claim no allegiance but still echo their sentiments) promotes in order to scare up votes among the least educated of us.
Some lobbyists are good and some are bad. I’m not going to tell MADD to get out of Washington, just like I’m not going to tell a industry who employs million of Americans to get out.
Should we use less oil? No, we should use less imported oil. The only advantage to cutting back on oil is to cripple the middle east's political foothold.
Alan, are you the official "peanut gallery" for the site. I have yet to witness you make a logical point, only heckling.
perhaps you do represent the "intellectual" side of the left. That’s not really ironic its just sad.
I have yet to witness you make a logical point, only heckling.
Perhaps that's because that word (logical) does not mean what you think it does. Alan's only made one point here and it was exactly a logical point.
And now that you've answered partially my questions, I'll offer you a point to answer all of them:
Are you totally beholden to the Republicans?
To a faux-conservative way of thinking?
What indicators are there that you're capable of independent thought?
I arrived at my positions AFTER having holding so-called "conservative" positions for many years and seeing how they were neither conservative, moral or especially logical.
You? Are you just reciting what you've been taught to believe?
That appears to be the case, given how you've misrepresented my positions in favor of the "party line" of faux-conservatives, neo-conservatives, Bushies, Crunchy Cons are whatever you want to call them. Blind criticism of those who disagree with you, even if your criticisms aren't reality-based, is that your game?
What evidence do we have to think otherwise?
you’re the one who bought Obama "no oil money" commercial hook line and sinker. I on the other hand went to high school and learned that laws have been in place for 100 years prohibiting corporations from donating to federal candidates.
...annnnddd, ONCE AGAIN, Drood has shown himself incapable of answering a direct question.
BZZZZ!
Sorry, but the correct answer was apparently, "Yes, I am a Republican droid employed by the Dark Side!"
But thanks for playing. Now run off to your Demoncrats Stink meeting, you wouldn't want to be late.
"Alan, are you the official "peanut gallery" for the site. I have yet to witness you make a logical point, only heckling. "
When someone offers something other than RNC sound-bites, I do indeed make logical points. I can understand how having someone point out your hypocrisy is uncomfortable for you, but that doesn't mean that the point wasn't logical, just because you didn't like it. ;)
But I don't find particularly compelled to argue with someone like you who regularly makes snotty comments and then whines and complains about being "heckled."
Alan, where are my RNC sound-bites sound bites? I suspect you use that term so often to dismiss opposing viewpoints it has lost all meaning to you.
Isn’t this post based on a Obama sound bite? One that was proven to be misleading even by the most liberal websites (see my 9:46 comment)
Dan, your sources carry assumptions that several members of the administration are more beholding to past employers than their current post. An assumption is not a argument. The LA Times one claims that the Bush is still loyal to a Oil Company that does not exist anymore. Did you even read it? It has more to do with the CIA than anything.
Are you more loyal to past employers than your current one? If you are go and get your old job back?
You use a democrat's website as an objective source? But I’m the one that’s brainwashed? Nice job.
Your position that Bush is beholden to Oil Companies still lacks evidence.
You make assertions in your post that are very common but have never been verified. I suspect you get your facts from the Daily Show or SNL, or some other medium that “reports” news outside of the spectrum of journalism. Never the less this is a prime example of partisan lies that when said enough times become "false truths" because people never follow up and check. When someone does you are quick to dismiss with some colorful adjective combined with a labels.
Just through simple sentence diagrams I could develop a formula that would determine your response before you submit it. Even that would not convince you that it is you who is regurgitating false-truths fed to you by partisan activists.
You make assertions in your post that are very common but have never been verified.
You, on the other hand, come on, make your unbased, illogical and ridiculous attacks, make very little effort to engage in reasonable conversations or to answer questions and generally show yourself to be an ass who is probably incapable of adult conversation and reason.
For that reason, I should be more merciful and gracious towards you than I have been and for that, I apologize.
Nonetheless, if you can't do better than meanmouthing mindless faux-conservative "talking points," then I invite you to stay away.
"I suspect you use that term so often to dismiss opposing viewpoints it has lost all meaning to you. "
*yawn* You keep making these assertions without any evidence. Care to provide some? Please demonstrate, using quotations and citations when and where I have said that "often" and please provide additional evidence that the term has "lost all meaning" to me. Thanks. ;)
checkmate Dan. First one to loose his cool looses the debate. When you argue with ideas and evidence you dont have to get angry
Alan, check the RNC talking points (RNC.org) I have not used any of them, ergo I have proven you dont know what they are. Is that evidence?
Drood, I'd have to care what you say to actually lose my cool. I find your approach to sniping annoying and idiotic. Rather like a gnat.
But I don't lose my cool over a gnat. Thanks for playing, shoo.
Ohh by the way Dan I did say you would dissmiss anything I say with colorfull adjectives and labels. You proved me right.
Can I call it or what
. . .and generally show yourself to be an ass
if you can't do better than meanmouthing mindless faux-conservative
ROFL.
You wrote, "I suspect you use that term [RNC sound-bite] so often..."
I asked for evidence that I use that term "often". Easy enough, just quote and cite the tens, or hundreds, or thousands of times I've used that phrase. I also asked for evidence that the term "RNC sound-bite" had lost all meaning for me, as you claim. Maybe you could provide some FMRI data. LOL
So no, it isn't the evidence I asked for. But have a good day and happy trolling! LOL
Ok Alan, I concede the word "often", As far I as I know this is the only time you have used the term without knowing its meaning.
You have yet to demonstrate that too.
This would be one of these sound-bites: "It means all that propaganda leftist have been saying about Bush being in the pocket of Big Oil, Halliburton etc. . . Is all a bunch of cr@p used to inflame uneducated liberals."
Yeah, the Bush family has obviously never ever had any connections to oil money. ROFL
"Should we use less oil? No..."
And that would be another one.
"uneducated liberals?" BTW, why so elitist, Eddie? tsk, tsk, tsk. ROFL.
And so, now that that business is dealt with; to the questions at hand:
Can we keep using oil/coal as if it's free money - a free and unlimited candy resource? The answer is obviously, No.
Do we want our leaders to be shed themselves of ties to the Oil and coal industries? The answer is Yes.
Is Obama going to be less-indebted and tied to these industries than his last four predecessors? Well, that remains to be seen, but at least he is saying some of the right things. Enough to think he's the better choice of the three candidates.
To suggest this is NOT demonization of the oil industry but the recognition, as Adam Smith noted:
"The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order [of capitalist businesses], ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention.
It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."
Adam Smith, obviously, was no class warrior (although he certainly would be called that if he were saying stuff like this around certain faux-conservatives). He was no commie. And yet, he recognized that these corporations have their own interests at heart AND that their interests ARE NOT one and the same as The People's interests. To have a president with too close a tie to ANY large industry ought send red flags flying and start investigations a-rolling.
And, I quote again that other pillar of communism, Abraham Lincoln:
""I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country...
corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
I see that Dan is very worked up about the million dollar home that Wright has been given and the ten million dollar line of credit given to him. Sure hope the "poor" guy doesn't suffer and if he does, I'm sure Dan will want to help him.
As for Dan being a Green party guy, that comes in handy to call the dogs off but he doesn't seem to tell us much about the Green candidates that he is excited about. Have a good day, Dan. You should be very excited after hearing more from Wright and his clarifications of his views. Mom2
I'll be expecting the cute remarks, so feel free.
No cute comments, mom2. Just the observation that you're off-topic, sniping and rumor-mongering.
Again.
It's what you do, I recognize that. You've not shown yourself to be interested in conversations with your brothers and sisters in Christ but mostly just want to bitch and moan and attack other believers.
Go away, if that's all you wish to do. Your pointless and off-topic bitching is not welcome here.
If you'd like to talk about the conversation at hand, however, you are welcome to: Do you think we need to start addressing our overconsumption of oil? Our cultural dependence upon cheap oil and how it has affected the least of these? Leaders who have been beholden to oil and coal companies and how we need to change that?
These are questions that are on topic and I'll welcome any thoughtful comments about them.
Excuse me, Dan, I thought you are all about greed. Guess it just depends on who. Mom2
At least you're consistent, m2.
Snipe, bitch, lie, twist, rumor-monger, repeat.
Sad and pitiful enough to be funny occasionally.
You do attract quite a cast of characters around here, don't you Dan? :)
Yeah. The thing is, I'm sure that in person, a Drood or m2 are probably relatively decent, kindhearted people who know how to have conversations and behave in public.
But give them some anonymity and a place like this and BOOM! Out the door goes most of their Christian virtue, human decency, adult reasoning and the best of American ideals. And I don't think they even realize it!
It's a strange phenomena.
Of course, perhaps I'm being too generous. Maybe in real life, Drood and m2 are hopeless creeps?
I think it is going be very difficult to find a candidate who is not beholden to some big oil money somehow someway simply because of how our election system is set up. A candidate needs money - big money - to get elected.
And like you said it remans to be seen what Obama will do, if elected. But I would at least like to give him a chance.
I would also like to see a change in the way we elect those who are supposed to serve the commons, so that when elected they will serve the commons and not corporations. Plus it could provide us with more and better choices of candidates.
Don't you think greed is a factor in all of this? Is it capitalism on steroids?
Could public financing of elections help get rid of special interest?
Well that is certainly off topic.
For the record I did not attack you I attacked your ideas.
I figured you could take it since I have seen similar comments by you on other sites.
lets recap all the labels you have put on me:
-faux-conservative
-ass
-Republican droid employed by the Dark Side
-hopeless creep
Oh yes let’s not forget the attack on my Christian virtue.
I know you would never say that to my face, but that alone does not make you a better person. As for my comments, I would say to your face because I don’t engage in personal attacks ,sure I would give a spirited debate but unlike yourself I would maintain a level of decorum and statesmanship.
Sorry Marty I was replying to Dan.
Edwin, your first comment was on topic and helpful. You pointed out that Obama receives money from individuals associated with Oil companies. I responded to that by saying:
Fair enough. Thanks for the heads up.
I went on to note that I would certainly hold Obama accountable if he were to start kowtowing to the Oil industry in the same way that Bush has since the beginning of his administration.
It was then that you went on the attack. You accused me of "At this point you are incapable of forming opinions that have not been handed to you by party insiders."
I responded by pointing out that I'm not a Dem, but a Green Party advocate. I asked you what party YOU were associated with and are you not merely repeating the party line.
You never responded.
You DID suggest that Alan was just heckling and not making a logical argument. I pointed out that his comment was exactly logical. He pointed out the irony of you making a statement about my supposed allegiance to party insiders (even though I'm not that kind of a Dem) when you seem content to hash and rehash stale old stereotypes and half-truths and out and out UNtruths about those you disagree with.
This is a pattern for you. You make statements that are unsupported. When confronted with the mistake of the unsupported comment, you ignore it mostly and continue making the false accusations or twisted statements or move on to other false statements and demogoguery.
You wish to prove me wrong? Tell me if you're a conservative. Tell me which Democrats you have found positive and constructive. Show me that you're not a partisan slug (that which you erroneously suggested was true of me). Have you always been conservative and are now only validating that which you have been taught without considering other possibilities?
Engage in conversation and demonstrate you're an actual human being as I'm sure you would in real life and not a Republican droid gone to the Dark Side. All I have to base such an assumption on is the silence in your conversations when I ask you questions.
As to referring to your statements as "faux-conservative" - that isn't name-calling. I'm striving to differentiate between actual conservative positions (classically conservative) versus the drool that comes out of BushCheneyReagan type minds. BIG gov't solutions. Anti-environment (anti-conservation). Anti-poor folk. Personal IRresponsibility.
These are accurate descriptions of the neo-con tenets that are in contrast to ACTUAL conservatism, with which I'm not nearly so hostile and am in agreement frequently.
When you and/or m2 come by, you often do not engage in conversations (asking AND answering questions) but instead have demonstrated tendencies to make charges and ignore questions or corrections. There are many words for that sort of behavior. ASS is an appropriate one. "Hopeless creep" sounds appropriate, as well. I will note though, that I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you were NOT a hopeless creep in the real world. I just offered that as a possibility, as well.
As to "attacking your christian virtue," I did no such thing. I was describing your and m2's behavior here. Unfounded comments, rumor-mongering, twisting of words, THESE are not Christian virtues. They're the opposite of that.
I have no idea whether you are virtuous in a Christian manner or not. Your behavior here, for the most part, has not been. That's all I was observing.
As usual they start the snotty comments, then they whine and complain about the tenor of the conversation.
Let's look at reality, shall we? Before anyone called poor Edwin names, he was writing things like:
"uneducated liberals."
"Way to be a mouthpiece for the party."
"At this point you are incapable of forming opinions that have not been handed to you by party insiders."
So, as usual, just more phony indignation & hypocrisy.
Marty said:
I think it is going be very difficult to find a candidate who is not beholden to some big oil money somehow someway simply because of how our election system is set up. A candidate needs money - big money - to get elected.
To me, that's one of Obama's advantages. Whereas presidential candidates typically get a bunch of money from a few big donors, Obama has received his money from many smaller donors. Regular folk like you and me.
That bodes well, in my mind. I think there is a strong tendency to be corrupted by power, as Lord Acton noted, but perhaps Obama can be the tide of change we need. As you noted, Marty, it remains to be seen.
But it sure seems to me that Clinton and McCain represent the old, Big Money ways of doing things.
Post a Comment