NationStates Jolt Archive

Oh if McCain can find a way to link this woman to whomever gets the Democratic nomination, this could become a torpedo below the waterline of the Democrat campaign.

http://www.webloggin.com/waterschavez/


Congresswoman Maxine Water once again proved that she is no different than the fascist sick minded degenerate dictator Hugo Chavez when she threatened the CEO of Shell oil that “this liberal would be all about socializing, er, ah would be about basically taking over and the government running all of your companies”

Fascist sick minded degenerate dictator?


Sweet zombie Jesus they don't even try to hide the bias eh? I mean I think Chavez is off his nut, but that's absurd.

Fascist sick minded degenerate dictator?


Sweet zombie Jesus they don't even try to hide the bias eh? I mean I think Chavez is off his nut, but that's absurd.

Of course it's biased. I think that quote came from Limbaugh.

Does that change what Waters said? Does it make it irrelevant?

Sweet zombie Jesus they don't even try to hide the bias eh?

It's a blog... what do you expect? Journalistic integrity?

I love that everybody's focus has more to do with griping about the conservative blog than the actual issue presented.

But then, you can't really defend this one anyway.

I dont blame her for her comment. To be honost, its extremelly frusterating seeing rising gas prices coincide with record oil company profits.

That said, it was a poltically stupid comment for her to make. Guess whos not going to win her next shot at reelection?

Oh if McCain can find a way to link this woman to whomever gets the Democratic nomination, this could become a torpedo below the waterline of the Democrat campaign.
I agree. The American people won't stand for it.

Which is a shame, really. Nationalising the Oil industry would be a good move.

I dont blame her for her comment. To be honost, its extremelly frusterating seeing rising gas prices coincide with record oil company profits.

That said, it was a poltically stupid comment for her to make. Guess whos not going to win her next shot at reelection?

If a gallon of gas in 1974 netted the oil companies about 4 cents, and a gallon of gas nets them about 4 cents today, then naturally they're going to have a record high profit because the demand today is vastly greater than it was in 1974.

Meanwhile a 4% profit margin is ridiculously low when the standard profit margin is ideally about a third.

You want someone to blame for high gas prices, blame your US Government for the taxes you pay for that gas (The Federal Government makes 3-4 times more per gallon of gas than the oil company does, and the state taxes make anywhere from 3 - 10 times more).

Blame the Congress for getting in the way of increasing US domestic oil production. We haven't had a new refinery built in this country in over 30 years despite an increase in demand that's orders of magnitude greater than it was back then. We're the only country in the world that ignores its own natural resources in that we have oil that could be drilled but our Government won't allow it.

I agree. The American people won't stand for it.

Which is a shame, really. Nationalising the Oil industry would be a good move.

Can you please explain how turning oil production over to the Government, a body that is notorious for mishandling just about anything given to it, is going to improve things?

I agree. The American people won't stand for it.

Which is a shame, really. Nationalising the Oil industry would be a good move.
It is! We should hand over all production to the government once prices get too high! In fact, government should have complete control over all production!

This problem will soon solve itself. With newer, more gas efficent cars, hybrids, and other assorted gas-less cars, oil will be a thing of the past. Kind of like steam power.

I dont blame her for her comment. To be honost, its extremelly frusterating seeing rising gas prices coincide with record oil company profits.

That said, it was a poltically stupid comment for her to make. Guess whos not going to win her next shot at reelection?
I too, am fruesterated. However, I still blame her for her comment, as I'm no fan of Big Brother, and that was no slip of the tongue. that was reflecting her true opinons. Socialists...

Em... Am I the only one that thinks the government running all the engery companies is a good idea?

America never ceases to confuse me...

Can you please explain how turning oil production over to the Government, a body that is notorious for mishandling just about anything given to it, is going to improve things?
Do you know why your government mishandles things? It's because you're putting people in it that mishandle things.

Nationalising the oil industry has two effects. First, you begin to realise that voting isn't just a tribal thing. You don't just vote people into office who happen to agree with what your prejudice of the week is. You actually vote people in who would do a decent job, and the quality of your government improves radically. Secondly, this radically improved government can manage supply on a national level such that use and channelling of resources can be equally considered without worrying about generating profit for CEO salaries and bonuses - a huge cost-saving mechanism.

Do you know why your government mishandles things? It's because you're putting people in it that mishandle things.


Ah yes, the old liberal mantra that says the only reason their policies have always failed in the past is because they themselves weren't handling it.


Nationalising the oil industry has two effects. First, you begin to realise that voting isn't just a tribal thing. You don't just vote people into office who happen to agree with what your prejudice of the week is. You actually vote people in who would do a decent job, and the quality of your government improves radically. Secondly, this radically improved government can manage supply on a national level such that use and channelling of resources can be equally considered without worrying about generating profit for CEO salaries and bonuses - a huge cost-saving mechanism.

As opposed to the funds lost to inherent waste and corruption of Government agencies.

Where does the logic come from that somehow we'll just magically have better people in office just because oil companies become Government run?

Hasn't happened in Venezuela yet.

Do you know why your government mishandles things? It's because you're putting people in it that mishandle things.

Indeed. The government mishandles things because it is run by people. People have this natural thing for power, the more they can lord over their fellow man, the more they feel inclined to do so. Government has no competition, and almost (Almost) unlimited power. So I vote we appoint me as supreme dictator. Because I'm not human! :eek: . Also, government at the federal level has no fricken clue how to run things locally, yet tries to anyway. When I say "no fricken clue how to run things locally", I mean less then normal local governments.

Nationalising the oil industry has two effects. First, you begin to realise that voting isn't just a tribal thing. You don't just vote people into office who happen to agree with what your prejudice of the week is. You actually vote people in who would do a decent job, and the quality of your government improves radically. Secondly, this radically improved government can manage supply on a national level such that use and channelling of resources can be equally considered without worrying about generating profit for CEO salaries and bonuses - a huge cost-saving mechanism.
You live in a perfect world, where there are good, kind, honest, corruptionless, competent, and selfless people. Nobody has all of those traits. Most are lucky if they have two of those traits. Government also tries to get more power, because people like more power. And those people only have to agree with each other to get more power (Which they often do). Your faith in mankind is unfounded, stupid, and downright foolish. Mankind is corrupt by nature, and government only encourages this. Not to mention how the government at the federal levels can't meet local needs, which they often try to, and end up micromanaging it horribly.

-snipity-

Neo (I do hope I can call you Neo), you say that government does nothing but mishandle. Why aren't you out on the streets protesting over the US having nuclear weapons? You must live in constant fear that the ineveitable incompetence in government will lead to an accidental apocalypse.

If you're not doing all you can to stop your ineveitable firey death you can't be THAT concerned about incompetence, which makes me think there might be some over reason why you don't want to the government to control vital industries. Is it worries about taxes? Because an elected government is way less likely to screw you and ask for more than they need than a corporate monopoly is. And unfortunately, with big industries like this, those are the only real options.

Not getting into whether or not nationalization of oil companies would be a good idea, that was a politically unwise comment. However, since she was quite specific that this was her own personal opinion, I hardly see this as some sort of "torpedo" to Democratic presidential candidates.

I also think that the statement that wanting to nationalize the oil industry makes one just like Chavez is one of the more idiotic leaps of pseudo-logic I've ever seen. By the same rationale, one could declare that disliking communism makes one just like Hitler.

Neo (I do hope I can call you Neo), you say that government does nothing but mishandle. Why aren't you out on the streets protesting over the US having nuclear weapons? You must live in constant fear that the ineveitable incompetence in government will lead to an accidental apocalypse.

Sure you can call me Neo. Makes me feel like a movie character. ;)

I'm not a big fan of nuclear weapons either but frankly one of the few things a Government must necessarily control is a military. Militaries can't be privately owned.


If you're not doing all you can to stop your ineveitable firey death you can't be THAT concerned about incompetence, which makes me think there might be some over reason why you don't want to the government to control vital industries. Is it worries about taxes? Because an elected government is way less likely to screw you and ask for more than they need than a corporate monopoly is. And unfortunately, with big industries like this, those are the only real options.

Did you just say the elected Government is LESS likely to screw me out of my money?

You do realize that the United States Government makes 3-4 times more money for every gallon of gasoline sold than the company that harvested/purchased it, refined it, transported it, created the facilties to handle it, pays the employees to work it, and franchises the facilities to sell it, right? State Governments get an even bigger cut on average.

And what does the Government actually do to facilitate the delivery of this gasoline to my gas tank?

Squat. In fact, if anything the Government is an obstacle.

Furthermore, there's hardly a corporate monopoly. There are a number of oil companies out there.

Hasn't happened in Venezuela yet.
I figured you'd mention that. And the thing is, I haven't seen much to say that Chavez is doing a bad job. In fact, if unemployment is down at 6% and its GDP increase is at 8.3% a year then it's doing better than France now, and if 12.5% of its people are below the poverty line then it's providing better social support than the United Kingdom.

To reverse an economic slump and establish an excellent social programme is no mean feat. Credit where credit's due; Venezuela seems to be doing good, however uncomfortable that might settle with the libertarians.

You live in a perfect world, where there are good, kind, honest, corruptionless, competent, and selfless people. Nobody has all of those traits. Most are lucky if they have two of those traits. Government also tries to get more power, because people like more power. And those people only have to agree with each other to get more power (Which they often do). Your faith in mankind is unfounded, stupid, and downright foolish. Mankind is corrupt by nature, and government only encourages this.
Wow, I'm impressed. You've worked me out. Not only do I believe there are empathetic, generous, honest, loyal, thoughtful and self-giving people, but also that there is no-one incapable of being so. Everyone has the capacity to help, to contribute to the greater good and to help life thrive.

And maybe I am foolish and stupid and irrational, and maybe I am holding to that faith against all possible evidence to the contrary. Maybe assuming that the lust for power is simply a satisfaction of the base needs for security and social recognition doesn't cut it. Maybe thinking that the exploitation of the poor is a survival mechanism in a climate of competition is incomplete. Maybe asserting that gluttony is simply the urge to feed taken to extremes ignores something in the human condition that simply oozes "Corruption".

But you know, I can do things about it in my world view. Helping people with their basic physical needs gets them up and living and even enjoying life. Being polite and friendly makes those around me enjoy their day that little bit more. Looking straight at the root of conflict helps to resolve it. Sympathy for the outcasts of society helps them to realise they are not as alone as they think they are.

Whereas what has the "Corrupted Humanity" movement accomplished? Social division, that's what. Be it on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, posession of natural resources or whatever, the view of mankind as self-irredeemable has been nothing but self-fulfilling in driving a stake of suspicion between the members of our world.

Maybe it's all just a fantastical dream. But I prefer this fantasy. And I believe that if I keep it up, it'll slowly become reality.

What about you? Don't you dream?

It's a blog... what do you expect? Journalistic integrity?

I was hoping for unicorns...

Although, having watched the video, her colleagues snickering in the background was amusing.

I figured you'd mention that. And the thing is, I haven't seen much to say that Chavez is doing a bad job. In fact, if unemployment is down at 6% and its GDP increase is at 8.3% a year then it's doing better than France now, and if 12.5% of its people are below the poverty line then it's providing better social support than the United Kingdom.

To reverse an economic slump and establish an excellent social programme is no mean feat. Credit where credit's due; Venezuela seems to be doing good, however uncomfortable that might settle with the libertarians.

It's not really all that unsettling, given that the economic growth has been driven by the market: Specifically, the price of oil. After all, from 2003-2008, the price of crude has increased by near 400%. Not to mention the fact that GDP growth is far easier to accomplish in a less developed country, rather than fully developed France.

Further, poverty is a relative measure, unemployment figures are universally unreliable (just look at the various methods industrialized countries use to manipulate their figures)