Printable View
Yes, it'll get worse, but only because the demand is getting higher. Not because the oil companies have a big consipiracy to rip you off.
So in that case there wouldn't be groups in the oil industry forming cartels to fix prices and remove competition so they can fleece the consumer ?
Because that would be a conspiracy to rip you off wouldn't it .
I wonder how may other sectors of industry also don't form cartels to rip off people .
GC wake up , you must be dreaming of another world .:dizzy2:
We don't need to buy gas, either. We'll just use public transportation. :laugh4:
Lemur for President '08!
No conspiracies theories there GC. It could be argued that money means everything in business and that's what liberals want, all separate business. That's what we live on today, corporation making business and money rules in all plains, specially the justice one. When you say that the government rules, it's of course formally, because actually the government can be transformed in the machine that operates for the ruling clase, as it has always been with the state, a box were you put a lot of ideas and it starts to work, who puts the ideas...well I'll risk myself and state that in USA it's the big corporations and industries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Bwahahahaha! In a thread named: What is your reason for being liberal, that takes the cake, when typed by an anti-liberal. Priceless!Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Well played, mate! :thumbsup:
You're acting like Oil is a god-given right.
Can you read GC ?
Since when are Cartels anything to do with God or rights ?
Or are you under the illusion that the illegal practices and rip offs do not occur .
How many examples would you like of companies being convicted for running illegal cartels to rip off the consumer ?
It's just another product that is manufactured and sold.
Yes , as long as it is manufactured and sold in accordance with the law then there is no problem , when they are in violation of the law it is a problem .
But of course , as I said it isn't only the oil companies , you had a big problem over there with the Cartel in the pre-mix concrete business a little while back .
Man...touche there :2thumbsup:...Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
He'll be the best interim leader while I mature and prepare to rule... :yes:
I'm surprised noone has asked the obvious question...
When did the American view of 'liberalism/liberal' diverge from its original/european meaning? And why did this happen?
WWI and umm, WWII. In short. IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
This thread...bugs me.
Greatly.
How ignorant.
Therefore, I shall waste time on a different, unrelated argument on an irrelevant point instead of the topic, because it's a better use of my time. (Sorry, BP :) ):
I disagree. The term "liberal" is extremely vague and its meaning changes continuously, throughout history, varying depending on location and time. Are you claiming that there can only be one definition for such a term, despite the history of it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
Mills's and Bentham's philosophy could be better argued as utilitarianism the term in which they coined. Their philosophies...have flaws, IMO.
Quite right. Though it had not been a revolutionary process as much as an evolutionary one. American hatred of socialism go waaaay back, like, in the Prussian German Empire days. I think they hated Nietzche. On the other hand, the degrading term for that bunch of unionists struggling to carve a place in a social darwinist society was socialism. A liberal in the days of William Graham Sumner (ca 1880s) would be a fiscal conservative by the American Deragatory Partisan's Dictionary of Modern Terms (by me) and a social darwinist. A liberal during the Progressive movement would, well, that's really hard to define. A liberal during the 1920s was still in the realm of classical liberalism, associated with Locke and that bunch of Natural Rights people, not with Marx and others, though it began to change by that time; Hoover, in a bid to challenge the perception of him=conservative vs FDR=liberal, even gave a speech proclaiming "true" liberalism as the old classical liberalism.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
The real change was during the New Deal; and the degradation of it during the Cold War.
As of this thread, I shall refer to the American Deragatory Partisan's Dictionary of Modern Term (of course, it does not exist) that liberal means: commie bastard.
Why am I liberal? cause the beer tastes better!
There's people (not many) that get paid by the power company instead of paying a bill. They generate enough themselves to power their households plus add some back to the grid via wind, solar, whatever. However, most people dont have the interest to take on something like that. More realisticly, you conserve power when it get's too expensive- you can also choose another power provider if you wish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
The only price fixing is done by OPEC- not the oil companies. But again, there are alternatives- alternative fuels, more fuel effecient vehicles or *gasp* public transport.Quote:
When oil companies fix and raise prices, and make galactic profits, will you ditch your car and walk twenty miles to work or simply quit your job and hope welfare kicks in before the kids get hungry?
Not the best example. US healthcare is already fairly socialized and far from a free market system. Its a mess. I think it's telling that our healthcare is becoming more expensive and less effecient the more socialized it becomes. As more retirees go on medicare and new entitlements are added it will only get worse.Quote:
When the health insurance provider says "give us more or else...", do you cough up a little extra or simply drop your insurance and hope for the best?
Many corporations get our money- but we almost always have a choice. It's just that most of us are not willing to do without the convenience offered by the goods and services of those companies. At the very least, you're getting something tangible in return for your money. This is often not the case with taxes- Ill likely never see anything from my Social Security taxes.Quote:
Many corporations get your money whether you like it or not.
Let's get a few things out of the way:
1) I believe that the ideal world is a confederation of small communities. Those communities decide their own way and freely associate with others to do things they can't on their own.
2) Number 1 is a pipe dream in my lifetime, maybe my great great grandkids.
3) Social Liberalism is a damn good idea. Gays should be able to marry; marijuana should be legal (with restriction similar to alcohol), etc.
4) Fiscally the government should try to make sense, there are things that we need to spend money on, there are a hell of a lot that we don't.
5) I consider myself very liberal.
All that said the government should act to serve the people, and therefore should provide certain services that are to the benefit of the nation.
Things like the military, education, highways, CDC, and law enforcement we need to spend money on.
Things like the Peace Corps, The Smithsonian, national parks, and NASA are nice, but only if we can afford them.
Things like funding for Historically Black Colleges (that to me is institutionalized racism), the small business administration, and the national endowments for the arts are unnecessary and the government should not be involved with.
So no, I do not want the government taking my property, I am willing to give some of my property to the government so that they can give it back to me as roads, an education, and a safe community. They do all of this with my, and every other citizen's, oversight.
Not always true. You have to buy power, water (if you don't live on a well), and heat. All of which have the potential to come from private corporations. I have to buy kilowatt hours from Nova Scotia power, and our tree killing moderator has to buy his from Quebec hydro. It's not like we could go across the street to the other power company, because there isn't one. NSP has been a private company for 15 years. And they have been ripping us off for 14 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Then ofcourse there is car insurance which you have to buy in order to drive a car. Legalized extortion, all perpetrated by private companies.
One very quick example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in620626.shtml
You're right. How could I have ever thought that the oil companies would stoop to unscrupulous behaviour. What a shmoo I am. :shame:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
They dont need to. Right now, they're in an incredible position to make buckets of money- without the need for price fixing or any other balogna. Although, I suspect we could fill up a whole seperate thread with oil company bashing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
They dont need to. Right now, they're in an incredible position to make buckets of money- without the need for price fixing or any other balogna.
Yet they still do it . Only last week 8 oil companies were found guilty of running an illegal cartel to rip off the consumer by rigging the market for home heating oil .
And two were caught last month smuggling petroleum to avoid tax ,boost profits and rip off consumers .
Then again I suppose that is their God given right eh :idea2: :dizzy2:
Everything a leftist wants becomes an inalienable right. They want it and don't want it cheaper, so they claim its a right and screech at anyone who dares to make a profit.Quote:
You're acting like Oil is a god-given right. It's not. It's just another product that is manufactured and sold.
Any proof, as in links to reputable sources? And are you trying to use heating oil companies to incriminate traditional Big Oil?Quote:
Yet they still do it . Only last week 8 oil companies were found guilty of running an illegal cartel to rip off the consumer by rigging the market for home heating oil .
And two were caught last month smuggling petroleum to avoid tax ,boost profits and rip off consumers .
Then again I suppose that is their God given right eh
Crazed Rabbit
P.S. I don't remember all the leftists whining about big oil when a barrel was $25 several years ago. But, oh noes!, they're making a profit because of the millions they risked and invested, and that just can't be had. We have to subvert their property and rights for the good of the people.
Everything a leftist wants becomes an inalienable right.
Very good rabbit , congratulations , you quote a rant about something that was not stated and give it the big "ME TOO":no:
Any proof, as in links to reputable sources?
Links ? from me ? you have got to be joking .
P.S. I don't remember all the leftists whining about big oil when a barrel was $25 several years ago. But, oh noes!, they're making a profit because of the millions they risked and invested, and that just can't be had. We have to subvert their property and rights for the good of the people.
Read what is written , it isn't that hard , or are you not able to ?:book:
Yes , as long as it is manufactured and sold in accordance with the law then there is no problem , when they are in violation of the law it is a problem .
Would you like it in bigger letters ?
Are there some words there that are too complex for you to understand ?:inquisitive:
I recently saw a liberal politician refer to Internet access as a basic human right. :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
I'm still confused what confiscating property has to do with Liberalism. Conservatives in the US have mutated the word into something that is just contra their positition. Why do you have to tag the word on there anyway? Frankly, I don't miss American politics at all.
I'm still confused what confiscating property has to do with Liberalism.
If you want to get confused Kanamori , try and make sense of this rant.....
They want it and don't want it cheaper, so they claim its a right and screech at anyone who dares to make a profit.
....it must mean something , because there is words there and everything , but does it actually mean aything at all ?:laugh4:
Well, we're moving that way here, but only because so many government services are now provided through the internet to cut administration (and paper) costs. It certainly isn't a basic human right, but it can be seen as a right in some circumstances.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Computers with internet are available for free in pretty much any public library here.
Erm...isn't it traditionally the right that whines about oil prices ? The left traditionally complains about the companies' immoral practices and their hold on the government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
recently saw a liberal politician refer to Internet access as a basic human right.
Well perhaps that it because that is one of the things that the world bank uses to measure countries by . You know along with access to water , medicine , employment , levels of corruption , wages , housing , food prices taxes .
Now we may not consider internet access to be such a basic essential , just like some other things on the list .....telephones , electricity , radio reception .
But the W.B. does , and you can hardly call them Liberal can you .
Or on another note can you explain what the politician was talking about when he said it ? You know, that little thing called context :inquisitive:
Was it about governments restricting peoples access to information over the internet because they want to control what information their population can access?:idea2:
In South Korea, perhaps.
Or china perhaps , or maybe North Korea .
I don't. I think the government should keep their greazy mitts out of my wallet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
I do, however, hate freedom.
So I guess I am a liberal.
Now, riddle me this (since the whole point of this thread seems to have been to reduce an opposing philosophy to a single indefensable viewpoint):
What is your reason for being conservative?
Why do you believe the government is qualified to dictate personal morality to all of us?
That's basic populist and socialist policy. Since the low substracts of society are, for any given reason, unable to reach certain capital to buy certain things, then the government tries to minimize the breach between the maximum and the minimum average. It's not unreasonable, what's unreasonable is always the rethoric used. In this particular case I find it pleasant, since almost everyone, even here, even with the most mundane of jobs, has a lot of use for a computer and internet. Society today is not reduced to organical needs like sleeping or eating. though that should have been provided since a long time ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Really? Me too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
Are you going to the meeting tonight? :shifty:
I've been pretty puzzled for a while, here in US, by the so called "liberal" perspective. It actually isn't liberal at all. Those claiming to be "liberals" in US are nothing but neo-communists in disguise. Their political convictions are a mixture of sleazy social-democracy, hysteric christianity and sheer stupidity.Quote:
Liberalism is an ideology, philosophy, political tradition, and current of political thought, which holds liberty as the primary political value.[1] Broadly speaking, liberalism seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on the power of government and religion (and sometimes corporations), the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports private enterprise, and a system of government that is transparent. This form of government favors liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law, and an equal opportunity to succeed. Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions which dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion. Fundamental human rights that all liberals support include the right to life, liberty, and property. In many countries, modern liberalism differs from classical liberalism by asserting that government provision of some minimal level of material well-being takes priority over freedom from taxation.
No offence! I like to think of myself as a liberal but it's obvious that I'm not, at least according to the american standards of liberalism.
I can't really come up with an explanation for this gross misuse of the term "liberal", nor for the placidity with whom the scholars, the politicians, the columnists and so on, do accept the perpetration of this misuse.
According to the so called "liberals", the government should literally help those in need instead of providing them with the means to help themeselves.
The rich should unconditionally help the poor and they should never dare to ask the poor "Hey, poor man, how come I've been helping you for more than 50 years and yet you're poor?".
The majority should renounce to its privileges (democratically won) for the sake of the minorities and it should not annoy the minorities with its cultural, political an religious views because it wouldn't be "politically correct". In other words, the smaller is the number, the greater are the rights.
"Politically correct" is an expression both utopian and meaningless at the same time.
Within the bounds of democracy, for any reasonable human being, holding any of the decent political views from the right to left, "politically correct" would mean the dominance of the democratically elected majority.
But not for the liberals...They would turn the other cheek. Instead of Easter they would celebrate the muslim Eid, or maybe the hindu Maha Shivaratri.
They would ban heterosexuality as it is discriminative. By law, we all should become bisexual. More than this, we should have sex with partners of different sex and etnicity in the same proportion as they are found in the general population --ie, having slept with more chinese men than their actual proportion should be regarded as a felony.
We should return to those times of cave liberalism in wich the father used to be "semper incertus".
They would embark the whole nation on Volkswagen mini-vans, driving its way towards rebirth as a huge flower-power multiethnic tribe.
Why all these? Because they're a minority in this country, don't you get it? ...and the identity of the minorities, be they social, religious, ethnic or sexual, MUST be preserved even with the risk of losing the identity of the majority....at least this is what they say they'd do.
In what I'm concerned, I think they're a bunch of crooks and demented idealists as dangerous as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Charles Manson.
On one hand they proclaim their support for gay marriage. On the other, they do not agree with polygamy. Not that I do...but it's not quite what one would expect from a "politically correct" american "liberal", is it?
Liberalism in US is mere BULLSHIT.
Man, it's at my house :balloon2:....Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
Why don't we just settle on "progressive" and leave it at that?