Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gulp...oil.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Re: Gulp...oil.

    Yeah your right Eli you never accused Cheney, Bush, or Condi of any wrong doing. But here are some of your quotes from these posts. If you are not making accusations about them doing something wrong, I guess it is me.


    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    "I wonder how the Bush family is making out during this crisis? I wonder how they will be affected by the opening of offshore drilling? I wonder how Mr. Cheney's "blind trusts" are fairing. And Condi's?"

    No accusation here

    "The fact that these folks and their families have or have had direct ties to companies who have made record profits during their time in office may just be coincidence, but it should not even be an issue because they should not be qualified to hold the office."

    Nope, nothing here either

    "Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton. Fact. He still knows the board, still presumably has friends in the upper management of that company. While he is in office he gave up his financial stake in that company. But a blind trust is also common."

    Lets see, Cheney WAS the CEO gave up his shares, but he PRESUMABLY has friends on the board plus he MIGHT have a blind trust. Definitely no accusation here

    "Condi was the head of Chevrons public policy department. She had an oil tanker named in her honor. Bush has oil interests. Bush Senior is on the board for the Carlyle Group, an international company that has interests in Saudi Arabia--including the Bin Ladens who have disowned Osama"

    Rice WAS the head of Chevrons PUBLIC POLICY dept yeah and what has Chevron done wrong? Gee they made money, how dare those bastards make money. Holy crap Bush SR is on the board of the Carlyle Group ( a PRIVATE global investment group) http://www.carlyle.com/Company/item1676.html
    that son of a *****, how dare he be on a private GLOBAL investment group

    "And as for my questions as to how the current cabinet is making out financially during this crisis, if they have the appearance of possibly benefiting from anything within their control it is a conflict of interest. I really don't understand why that doesn't bother you. Seriously, why would these particular people with these concrete ties to companies that are benefiting so much from their policy be the best choice for office? I mean for the people, obviously they are the best choice for the companies."

    Give me a break with the concrete ties cr@p


    "Why did Cheney give up his personal finacial stake in the company if there is no influence his decisions could have on the company. The decision to go to war, the decisions to use the number of forces they did, the attempts to open offshore drilling all directly affect these companies bottom line in a huge way. Again, that doesn't have to be proven as the reason they made the decisions, only that there is a conflict of interest that could influence those decisions. Not only that, those industries can directly affect the country and the public interest"

    Which one is it? Was he right or wrong for giving up his stake? I guess Im just dumb, because I can't make out your point here

    If he gave up his shares why still accuse him of a conflict of interest?

    Yeah I guess you were right and I was wrong, you are smarter then me I guess I just didnt see the whole picture, but thanks for clearing it all up. Maybe one day I'll see what a conflict of interest really is, I guess like Obama and Tony Rezko
    Last edited by Masterplumb; 08-19-2008, 10:18 PM.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Gulp...oil.

      Originally posted by Masterplumb View Post
      Yeah your right Eli you never accused Cheney, Bush, or Condi of any wrong doing. But here are some of your quotes from these posts. If you are not making accusations about them doing something wrong, I guess it is me.


      ----------------------------------------------------------------------
      "I wonder how the Bush family is making out during this crisis? I wonder how they will be affected by the opening of offshore drilling? I wonder how Mr. Cheney's "blind trusts" are fairing. And Condi's?"

      No accusation here

      No accusation, sarcastically pointing out the fact that because there IS a conflict of interest, any actions or decisions made by these folks is suspect. Even if they are clean as a whistle, the conflict of interest makes them less than perfect for a position that demands 100% trust--and no, I do not.



      "The fact that these folks and their families have or have had direct ties to companies who have made record profits during their time in office may just be coincidence, but it should not even be an issue because they should not be qualified to hold the office."

      Nope, nothing here either

      No accusation, pointing out a conflict of interest. That is a point of fact, not a point of opinion. You seem to have the two mixed up.


      "Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton. Fact. He still knows the board, still presumably has friends in the upper management of that company. While he is in office he gave up his financial stake in that company. But a blind trust is also common."

      Lets see, Cheney WAS the CEO gave up his shares, but he PRESUMABLY has friends on the board plus he MIGHT have a blind trust. Definitely no accusation here

      No accusation. I was wrong about the blind trust in HIS case, but regardless, no accusation just pointing out a conflict of interest that makes him a poor choice to represent the public.

      "Condi was the head of Chevrons public policy department. She had an oil tanker named in her honor. Bush has oil interests. Bush Senior is on the board for the Carlyle Group, an international company that has interests in Saudi Arabia--including the Bin Ladens who have disowned Osama"

      Rice WAS the head of Chevrons PUBLIC POLICY dept yeah and what has Chevron done wrong? Gee they made money, how dare those bastards make money. Holy crap Bush SR is on the board of the Carlyle Group ( a PRIVATE global investment group) http://www.carlyle.com/Company/item1676.html
      that son of a *****, how dare he be on a private GLOBAL investment group

      I am not saying that they shouldn't do exactly what they are doing. I am saying that we shouldn't elect their executives and relatives to positions that can POSSIBLY be compromised by that fact.


      "And as for my questions as to how the current cabinet is making out financially during this crisis, if they have the appearance of possibly benefiting from anything within their control it is a conflict of interest. I really don't understand why that doesn't bother you. Seriously, why would these particular people with these concrete ties to companies that are benefiting so much from their policy be the best choice for office? I mean for the people, obviously they are the best choice for the companies."

      Give me a break with the concrete ties cr@p


      The concrete ties are that they are former members of those companies. That's it. That's all there needs to be for the conflict of interest to exist. It takes no further action on their part, just makes them poor choices to represent us because we can't be certain it won't affect their job.

      "Why did Cheney give up his personal finacial stake in the company if there is no influence his decisions could have on the company. The decision to go to war, the decisions to use the number of forces they did, the attempts to open offshore drilling all directly affect these companies bottom line in a huge way. Again, that doesn't have to be proven as the reason they made the decisions, only that there is a conflict of interest that could influence those decisions. Not only that, those industries can directly affect the country and the public interest"

      Which one is it? Was he right or wrong for giving up his stake? I guess Im just dumb, because I can't make out your point here

      If he gave up his shares why still accuse him of a conflict of interest?

      Yeah I guess you were right and I was wrong, you are smarter then me I guess I just didnt see the whole picture, but thanks for clearing it all up. Maybe one day I'll see what a conflict of interest really is, I guess like Obama and Tony Rezco
      Yup, like Obama and Tony Rezco.


      See how easy that is. I'm not going to pretend that the conflict of interest isn't there. Was there wrong doing? Irrelevant! The conflict of interest makes it suspect.

      Now, I don't care if I am smarter than you or not, and frankly it doesn't interest me in the least. I am 100% sure there are many topics you can teach me about, and things you grasp that I don't, and skills and subjects you have mastered or can master better than I have or can. All I am saying is that in this ridiculously extended exchange I have not been able to make clear what a conflict of interest is and why it is important to not have them in the whitehouse. All the parts that you highlighted say exactly what I mean. THERE IS POTENTIAL FOR THESE PEOPLE TO MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON FACTORS OTHER THAN WHAT IS RIGHT FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. IF THEY DID OR DIDN'T IS IRRELEVANT. THAT IS WHAT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST IS. IT IS NOT ILLEGAL. IT IS NOT AN ACCUSATION AGAINST THE PERSON. IT IS THE POTENTIAL FOR IMPROPRIETY THAT CAN MAKE THEIR DECISIONS SUSPECT AND THE POTENTIAL FOR IT TO INTERFERE WITH THEIR DUTIES.

      The conflict of interest is not something that they have done, it is something that exists outside of their actions. How else can I explain that? I am not telling you this because I want to be smarter than you, I am telling you this because you think I am saying something that I have not friggen said. Cheney does not have a blind trust, but that was his own decision because he didn't want to have the appearance of a personal financial conflict of interest. That was my mistake, I didn't know he gave that up until I looked it up, but it doesn't change anything. And if he kept it it wouldn't have changed anything either.

      As for Obama, eff him! I am not supporting him. Finally you hit something that I agree he deserves scrutiny on.

      Now, back to oil. Any reason you think we should have oil executives appointed to office in the whitehouse? Any reason that might not be good? Any chance it may play a factor in what we are being told about how important drilling is? Can anyone tell me how drilling will help us besides those who have $ to be gained? I see the benifit in the fact that it is an industry that can be profitable. I have yet to hear anything else concrete beyond very broad strokes about how we need to get off foreign oil, we need to bring down prices and we need to have our own reserves available. Nobody has said how that will come to pass by drilling.

      Eli
      Last edited by woodenstickers; 08-19-2008, 10:48 PM.
      A good carpenter makes few mistakes, a great carpenter can fix his own.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Gulp...oil.

        Well lets see think of drilling like planting Orange trees.If theres more trees theres more oranges which equally lower prices for oranges ...same with oil.Now if theres way too many trees the price drops drastically and some growers will switch to another crop.That won't happen with oil wells because of the costs involved are extremely higher then planting a tree.
        Also with so much money now going out of the country it'd be very nice if more of that stayed here,besides the fed gets money off oil produced here.
        As for who gains the most on oil/fuel profits ..look into just how much tax is charged the oil companies, plus the obvious taxes too on every drop of oil everyone buys.All the taxes hidden,ie corp taxes,plus the road taxes sales taxes etc are much more then the oil companies manage to keep...that can be found on line with some searching.Don't blame the "big" oil companies blame the exporting countries for being big oil,the opec countries ARE the big oil companies now.A publically owned company has a requirement to return the highest and best profit to its shareholders so blaming them just doesn't make a lot of sense.Equate that to a personal savings account...no one will invest in a savings account at 1% when the bank across the street pays 5%.
        As for having an executive from any corporation,not just oil, in office well I guess some would prefer the janitor of a big company in a political office instead.Some people are meant to lead others to follow thats just the pecking order of life.Besides just how many poor retired politicians are out there,I can't think of any.Clinton certainly has extremely much more wealth now then when he took office.Those sponsored speaking engagements pay pretty well for an ex pres.And guess who pays that? Generally some big corp.Simple politics and politicians aren't clean and pure in the USA or any country.Palms are greased for later payments thats just how it is.
        Personally I hope they drill a whole lot more in better lease areas.More renewable energy too in every form wind,solar,geothermal.wave,whatever.I personally also feel that oil should only be used for transportation needs and lubricants not used to fuel a plant to produce electricity ,coal can be used for that,if it must be a fossil fuel, and its emissions cleaned up,,btw look it up.. coal is bringing record profits now and theres a bit of a supply shortage right now in the world.The USA has a lot of coal.Along with the electric cars out and coming out continue hard research into other transport fuels.
        Its too bad so many are against nuclear plants as if there was some standard design made ,that could be copied many times exactly, the price of the plants would drop too.I'd like to see them built on huge barges that can float and be towed anywhere in the world.Then theres extremely little worry about earthquake faults,perhaps a tsunami threat,they would have the cooling water needed all around them and once beyond useful life span towed to a site to be dismantled.And geez fully reprocess the fuel for them as much as possible as is done in other countries.One could be built in Mississippi and towed to Hong Kong and be plugged into the grid ready to run.Basically huge portable generators.I have no doubt if you can build a plant with a 50 year life span you can build a barge that will last longer.A nuke sub or aircraft carrier works well so could a barge.As a side benefit its waste heat could make fresh water for whatever area its parked at.These wouldn't have to be truelly huge in size either.If it needed serious repair tow in another and tow it to a repair facility.
        Sam

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Gulp...oil.

          Originally posted by woodenstickers View Post
          Yup, like Obama and Tony Rezco.


          See how easy that is. I'm not going to pretend that the conflict of interest isn't there. Was there wrong doing? Irrelevant! The conflict of interest makes it suspect.

          Now, I don't care if I am smarter than you or not, and frankly it doesn't interest me in the least. I am 100% sure there are many topics you can teach me about, and things you grasp that I don't, and skills and subjects you have mastered or can master better than I have or can. All I am saying is that in this ridiculously extended exchange I have not been able to make clear what a conflict of interest is and why it is important to not have them in the whitehouse. All the parts that you highlighted say exactly what I mean. THERE IS POTENTIAL FOR THESE PEOPLE TO MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON FACTORS OTHER THAN WHAT IS RIGHT FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. IF THEY DID OR DIDN'T IS IRRELEVANT. THAT IS WHAT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST IS. IT IS NOT ILLEGAL. IT IS NOT AN ACCUSATION AGAINST THE PERSON. IT IS THE POTENTIAL FOR IMPROPRIETY THAT CAN MAKE THEIR DECISIONS SUSPECT AND THE POTENTIAL FOR IT TO INTERFERE WITH THEIR DUTIES.

          The conflict of interest is not something that they have done, it is something that exists outside of their actions. How else can I explain that? I am not telling you this because I want to be smarter than you, I am telling you this because you think I am saying something that I have not friggen said. Cheney does not have a blind trust, but that was his own decision because he didn't want to have the appearance of a personal financial conflict of interest. That was my mistake, I didn't know he gave that up until I looked it up, but it doesn't change anything. And if he kept it it wouldn't have changed anything either.

          As for Obama, eff him! I am not supporting him. Finally you hit something that I agree he deserves scrutiny on.

          Now, back to oil. Any reason you think we should have oil executives appointed to office in the whitehouse? Any reason that might not be good? Any chance it may play a factor in what we are being told about how important drilling is? Can anyone tell me how drilling will help us besides those who have $ to be gained? I see the benifit in the fact that it is an industry that can be profitable. I have yet to hear anything else concrete beyond very broad strokes about how we need to get off foreign oil, we need to bring down prices and we need to have our own reserves available. Nobody has said how that will come to pass by drilling.

          Eli
          There's only one of us who is missing the point here. I know the difference between a conflict of interest and an accusation.
          Last edited by Masterplumb; 08-20-2008, 08:36 AM.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Gulp...oil.

            I don't care to get into the debate you two are having as I just don't have the time or the desire right now. However, keep in mind the more successful a person becomes the more connections he ends up having. If you really want to vote for someone who has zero conflicts I suggest you find someone who has been an absolute failure in life.

            Mark
            "Somewhere a Village is Missing Twelve Idiots!" - Casey Anthony

            I never lost a cent on the jobs I didn't get!

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Gulp...oil.

              I don't believe it's possible to reach a position such as President without having made strong ties to powerful people and corporations which would somehow constitute a conflict of interest at some point. Bush and Cheny clearly have their histories of powerful friends and business associates and Obama could not have gone through the system unscathed. I also find the tv news media comical when switching between fox news and msnbc, they each favor different candidates and twist their reporting of events. How can either candidate deny their desire for political elevation? I expect that anyone running for office wants to win. My biggest concerns are how poorly both parties have ruled the country, and what to expect from our new President. You guys are smart, tell me is it remotely possible to do what is in the best interest of the American public of all income levels without showing favoritism? Can the country be governed in the areas of energy, transportation, education and so forth without benefitting some and burdening others? Can we accurately say we have a people's President when these candidates have almost nothing in common with most Americans?

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Gulp...oil.

                Originally posted by ToUtahNow View Post
                I don't care to get into the debate you two are having as I just don't have the time or the desire right now. However, keep in mind the more successful a person becomes the more connections he ends up having. If you really want to vote for someone who has zero conflicts I suggest you find someone who has been an absolute failure in life.

                Mark
                Big difference between zero conflicts of interest and working for a a company that has the potential to be so influential or influenced by the most important political decisions of the whitehouse.

                The absolutes don't work for me or on me gentlemen. I am tired of defending points of view that I have not given and do not hold. I have spent more time on here explaining that than I have talking about the question that I asked. It is a lot easier to dumb down my opinion until you can reject it out of hand, but it doesn't wash.

                No, I do not expect everyone in office to be squeeky clean. No I do not think that politicians should not or won't or haven't used their connections to their advantage after they leave office. No I don't think a janitor should be the president. No I don't have a theory that Cheney is a shill who was planted to start a war for profit. I do think that oil companies should try to make a profit. I do think that it Bush Sr. working for Carlyle is perfectly legal and acceptable. What isn't acceptable is for people connected to them to be in the whitehouse.

                Again, and it can be ignored for the twentieth time here because there is no good response, that people who worked for industries who spend millions and millions trying to influence government with lobbies, who are at the very heart of the biggest debates and problems that the country is facing, who have the very most to gain or lose from the political decisions being made are not the best choice for the job--at least not for the publics best interest. Yes, they are powerful successful men and women. Agreed they are capable of working in the private sector and making their companies a lot of profit. Working for a corporations interest and public interest are two very different things. You can pretend I am naive all you want, but until you address that fact it may be you who owns that.

                Over and over I hear about how oil companies are supposed to try and make profits. How Halliburton is a private company. How Carlyle is doing what they are supposed to be doing by making money. Now, I ask very effin simply, are the people who worked in these industries with these goals or have family members who still do the best choice to protect the PEOPLES interests? I don't care if you think that implies smoke filled rooms. I don't care if you want to say that is an accusation. It is a question. There are over 300,000,000 people in the country. Everyone else is a janitor?



                Eli
                Last edited by woodenstickers; 08-20-2008, 11:35 AM.
                A good carpenter makes few mistakes, a great carpenter can fix his own.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Gulp...oil.

                  Jimmy Carter was a peanut farmer. Should he not have been allowed in office because it is a conflict of interest with the peanut industry?


                  Harry Truman owned a haberdashery so I guess there was a conflict of interest in the button,ribbon and hat industry.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Gulp...oil.

                    Originally posted by Masterplumb View Post
                    Jimmy Carter was a peanut farmer. Should he not have been allowed in office because it is a conflict of interest with the peanut industry?


                    Harry Truman owned a haberdashery so I guess there was a conflict of interest in the button,ribbon and hat industry.
                    Problem with your line of thinking is that neither of those industries involve a commodity that is essential to our lives. No other commodity will spark wars which many Americans believe is the true reason we are in iraq. Personally I don't see why we are not benefitting with cheap oil in return for the money spent and lives lost on our end? President Bush has to go there under the cover of night and that moron leader with the cheap suit from iran gets the red carpet treatment, what the hell is that all about?

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Gulp...oil.

                      Originally posted by Frankiarmz View Post
                      Problem with your line of thinking is that neither of those industries involve a commodity that is essential to our lives. No other commodity will spark wars which many Americans believe is the true reason we are in iraq. Personally I don't see why we are not benefitting with cheap oil in return for the money spent and lives lost on our end? President Bush has to go there under the cover of night and that moron leader with the cheap suit from iran gets the red carpet treatment, what the hell is that all about?
                      It was a joke Franki, do you really think that I thought we can equate a haberdasher with the oil industry?

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Gulp...oil.

                        Originally posted by Masterplumb View Post
                        It was a joke Franki, do you really think that I thought we can equate a haberdasher with the oil industry?
                        I'm having a hard time these days figuring out my own thoughts, so if I missed the humor sorry. Doctor upped my blood pressure medicine and I'm beat. Your post did give me a chance to insult that little bum from iran, but he still gets more respect in iraq than our President which bothers me. I've had to explain my attempts a humor more than once on this forum, I guess some things get lost through the Internet. Good night, I have to rest.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X