Why the Christian Right is Wrong
62The Christian Right is Wrong
As a former Republican, fundamentalist, born-again evangelical Christian, I feel compelled to inform my readership as to why, in this environment, voting religion as opposed to politics is wrong. The failing comes from the view of the Christian right that anything contrary to their personal interpretation of the Bible (itself a very disputable document) is bad for the country and against God’s will, as well as the intention of the framers of the Constitution. This view, widely believed, is based upon falsehood, bad teaching, and outright deception in the presentation of scripture, history, and American origins. The purpose of the exposition of these false viewpoints is obviously to advance the lately conceived agenda of a hidden power structure that seeks to retain, consolidate, and expand itself.
In many ways, the American Christian Right is philosophically similar to the radical fundamentalist Islamic jihadists. Both groups contend that any perspective different from their own is anathema in the eyes of God. Both groups seek to overthrow established governments and principles to be replaced by theocracy wherein the guiding work for all law is to be found in religious texts. Both groups believe that their way leads to salvation and only their people are true followers, and only their people are entitled to rule. Both are avid subscribers to the uninformed anachronistic thinking behind the philosophies of divine right and manifest destiny.
The Christian Right attempts to make the false claim that the United States is a Christian country. While that may be true demographically, it is not true legally. In all of the federal documents encompassing the broad body of law that provided the framework for the creation of this union, God is barely mentioned, a Christian god not at all, and the establishment of such a Christian nation is specifically prohibited. The Declaration of Independence refers to “their Creator” and “Nature’s God”; neither term can be, even out of context, rationally thought to intend the god of the Christians. In international treaties, the legal precepts espoused form a body of precedence that applies even after any particular treaty’s expiration. The Treaty of Tripoli of 1796 states unequivocally that the United States of America is not in any since a nation defined by religion and makes, neither domestically nor internationally, any distinctions or ordinances based upon a religious view. As the Treaty expired without being overturned and no subsequent ruling has contradicted it, there is no argument but that the US was intended by its founders to be a wholly secular nation and government. The other documents, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, make no reference to a God of any description. In fact, the First Amendment specifically prohibits exactly what the Christian Right is attempting to accomplish. That there should be no establishment of religion by government infers also the inverse proposition that there should be no establishment of government by religion. Yet, that is specifically what the Christian Right is attempting to do. In attempting to legislate morality to a particular religious standard, the Christian Right is establishing a state religion.
The Christian Right evinces a desire to impose, in a most un-American fashion, its minority views (while most of America shares theological ground, as Christians, with the CR, only about 10-15% agree politically) upon the majority of Americans, without regard to culture or theology. This may be due to the fact that the Christian Right is intellectually little more than an evolution of the same mindset that saw slavery, native dislocation and extermination as positives. All of these were, in their time, viewed as justified actions by people who were bringing the “Word” to America and its peoples. To the Christian Right, the 19th Century idea that the law should only favor the Christian believer (the new “chosen people”) and allow non-believers and non-Christians to be treated as infidels and apostates is an appropriate philosophy of governance.
The Christian Right sees America as a geo-theo-political entity devoid of any ideal other than the advancement of Christianity and democracy. However, their democratic ideals are tainted; they espouse ideas of freedom and liberty while seeking legally justified imposition and intolerance. They seek to impose a monolithic morality conceived upon a particular, and very flawed, interpretation of religious text. They seek to do this as a minority actor on the American political stage and have no problem with breaking the commandment against false witness to see their ends met. Jesus taught a personal salvation and grace, he taught that his followers should be charitable to others, especially one another, but never did the Master instruct, nor is it anywhere present in scripture that it was a Christian duty to enforce their beliefs or moral standards upon others. The calling to Christ’s service is a personal event, and the relationship a personal one. Christ said to render unto Caesar what is his, but the Christian right seeks to force others to render unto God what is Caesar’s; the attempt to do so by the Christian Right is heresy.
It should be fairly obvious to anyone who pays attention to the news, or the evangelical broadcasts, many of which are sponsored by the Christian Right, that there is much money to be made in Christian evangelism. The message of salvation sells very well. As too does the condemnation of those who, by choice, acculturation, or biology, are different. The Christian Right is one of the largest among many others that seek to have their interests advanced through political manipulation, I mean contribution.
The Christian Right does not actually show any real concern for the issues facing voters in elections. While they may show strength in being tough on crime and standing for a “united” America, who doesn’t make those claims? The Christian Right does not show genuine concern for the economy or the environment, and seems to have been quite pleased with the former criminal U.S. presidential administration. This makes one wonder how much they have profited off the fear- and war-mongering. Many of the Christian Right’s leaders are heavily invested in defense and oil, and not simply because they are profitable ventures.
Voting on religion is voting against freedom, it is voting against progress, it is voting for a monolithic, monotheistic, homogenized, military-industrial imperialist nation, wherein civil rights are ignored, and Jesus takes a backseat to greed.
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
Thanks; it always helps to have the other side's perspective
Though I disagree with some of the so called "Christian Right" on some issues, I disagree with your characterizations of them even more, not to mention your characterization of the founding documents, your claims on statistics, and assertions of secular roots. Sorry, but the facts just do not back you up. Your assertion that the Christian Right "does not actually show any real concern for the issues facing voters in elections" is 180 degrees from the truth. It is the issues that drives their cause. I know their paradigms very well. They tend to be better educated on issues than most secularists.
As to your claims that they establish a state religion by encouraging their participation or influence in government, you have that completely backwards. The promise of the First Amendment was against a state establishing a religion, not that the goverment should be free from religious influence. Your comparison between Christians and Jihadists is just plain embittered hyperbole.
It is ironic that those who wish to thrust forth hedonistic, atheisitic, humanistic, and secularistic agendas are considered to be ethical whereas Christian values are skewered as manipulative and intolerant. The most intolerant people I have ever met were supposedly open minded secularists. I find that hypocritical about your hub here. You wrote, "never did the Master instruct, nor is it anywhere present in scripture that it was a Christian duty to enforce their beliefs or moral standards upon others" but that is exactly what atheists and secularists try to do. They "legislate morality" incessantly, as you claim Christians do. They also do it from the judicial bench, regardless of case law or Constitutional standard.
Dude, you just seem so bitter. Maybe it is time to return to The Master and no longer be a "former" Christian.
Sorry, I am not at all bitter about any of this. My position and observations come from long study of this entire matter. While you're argument is eloquent, it does not find support in fact. The Founding Fathers envisioned and mostly attained a totally secular government as was their desire. Most of them were not Christians save in name, and they were certainly not in purpose. Even the models the founding fathers used in developing their new form of government came from two "pagan" societies: the Iroquois Confederacy and the Roman Republic, not the Holy Roman Empire. My sympathies if someone has given you a redacted version of American history; I know that I suffered in my youth from similar disinformation.
Atheists and secularists do not seek the imposition of morality through legislation, unlike the Christian Right, they seek freedom for all from such unconstitutional intrusions on personal belief. Furthermore, my posting here does not seek to "thrust forth" any agenda other than truth and reason, and I have rarely found myself in the company of a tolerant Christian. True Christian values, based on the Master's teaching, should be upheld as honorable, but the truth is your argument has nothing to do with the teachings of the Master, but of heretical, power-seeking modifications using Pauline Doctrine as justification.
In the end, I believe that your arguments might be better reasoned if, like me, you could find and quote some source that actually does other than belie your statements.
I was once a Christian minister-in-training and thought as you do, but, as the Master taught, the truth has set me free. The rest of my argument comes from my training as a degreed Political Scientist and Historian.
You almost make it sound like a bad thing to legislate moral issues by this weak comparison of Christianity to Jihadists; Your statement: "Both groups seek to overthrow established governments and principles to be replaced by theocracy wherein the guiding work for all law is to be found in religious texts."
This is inacurate, one of the teachings of Christ was to render to Ceaser what is Ceaser's, and to render to God what is God's, in no way does this mean to take over the government, Jesus never taught that and it is not congruent with the nature of the God head. Niether is it to take away the basic freedoms of the individual; accept to place in effect, laws which prevent the endangerment of the people, to insure the God given rights to life and liberty.
It is a bad thing to legislate a moral issues from singular religious perspectives. and, unfortunately, the Christian Right Ideologically shares many common objectives; the elimination of secular government in favor of theocracy. Unfortunately for them, they also share the history of failure in the execution of their proposition.
Thank you for affirming the contention that even the Master taught separation of Church and State. additionally, Jesus asked, "why do you care for the things of this world? Know ye not that you are not of this world...?"
The issues presented by my posting concern the Religious Right's attempts to impose a Christian-specific morality on all manner of governmental actions, from the sexual conduct of an individual to economic practice of the government while saying nothing about the absolutely reprehensible practices of torture and illegal war. The criticism goes not to Christians as a whole, but to the more extreme of the Right who violate the majority of the Master's teachings and desire the legislative imposition of their personally chosen morality, not even entirely "Christian" usually, upon all others. This goes well beyond the prevention of endangerment to the people and protection of life and liberty, and has usually been expressed in words and actions that actually undermine those goals.
Extreem right wing anything ends in abuse, wether it be Christian or Atheist, or Islamic, Agnostic. do you think that the Atheist proponents of Communism did any good for the religous freedoms of the people in their countries? No way, read the book "Tortured for Christ" and it is plain to see that the shoe fits well on the other foot. So don't be so quick to judge the beliefs of others otherwise you end up being the hypocrite.
I believe, that as my opening paragraph and a comment response should indicate, that I haven't been "quick to judge" about any of this; it has taken over fifteen years for this hub's premise to become adequately verified by my studies. And it isn't about the beliefs so much as the practice.
Great Article-Troylaplante has it wrong when he said "The promise of the First Amendment was against a state establishing a religion, not that the goverment should be free from religious influence." See my article on the "Wall of Seperation"
Hi Iconoclast, you referred to yourself as a former Republican, but didn't mention what you are now. I would guess by your disillusionment that you have gone liberal. I can understand how you might not agree with the Republican party on every issue, I don't either, but to totally change your own ideology is unexplicable. For example, you seem as though you lost your faith in Evnagelisism, but did you lose your faith all together? And if you did, does that mean you found nothing of moral value to hold onto ? I am Christain, but not Evangelical, and I think that if I did lose my faith I would still be able to hold onto the good moral things I found in that religion. There are some things that you could hold onto that cross the lines of both religion and our founding documents. "The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", "rights that are endowed by the creator". This certainly brings God into our founding documents. And in a modern way without heavy biblical interpetation, it is clear that the founding fathers held the right to life above all other issues. It is the modernity of this document that makes it so awesom. Based just on this one issue it is hard to accept the liberal position of on demand abortion. Our current President, when a member of the IL senate argued for the right of doctors to perfom post birth abortions. That is if a baby survied the abortion the Dr. should still have the right to terminate that life. There is no way that this can be interpeted in any way but contrary to the opening line of the Decleration of Independence. The liberals have argued about when it is a child, Barbara Boxer, D Senator from CA argued in front of a Senate panel that it's only a baby when the Dr. says it is. She was further prodded and asked what about after birth has started, (same respone), further prodded, what about after it is born? Her response was the same. Boxer and her party may not know when it is a baby, but the Declaration of Independance says the "Right to Life". It doesn't say a week after birth. So there is no doubt that after birth that child is guaranteed the full protection of US Constitution. As far as when it is a baby before birth, the liberals may be confused, but I am not and I doubt God is. I had a daughter that was born 3 months early! Born at just under 6 months, she graduated from Penn State two years ago, a beautiful young woman making a contribution to society. She was born 3 months early, and that was 24 years ago. I wonder with todays technology how early a child could survive, or as the libs. call it a fetus.
On the finacial aspect of the two philosophies of liberal vs conservative I would find it hard to see how one could just abandon their belief that less gov't intervention in your life is better, and that people should keep as much of their earnings as possible. How do you just abandon those basic beliefs and decide more government and keeping less of your income is good because the government can do better with your money than you? I believe that we are always better off with a Republican in the office because there will be less damage to us financially, even with a weak Republican. MCain was definitely a weak candidate, but I seriously doubt that if he had been elected that we would have a three trillion dollar bail out, and I doubt the government would own GMC.
Iconoclast, your religious followings are something only you can come to grips with, but on the political side I would urge you to reconsider your leanings and come back to the party.
The Shark---taking a bite out of liberalism
No bite, sorry.
Our President argued not against partial birth abortion, as the rabid right contends, but against a redundancy in law. Partial birth abortion was banned under federal law, so it is not necessary to ban it under state law. I myself currently oppose abortion, but as a men's reproductive rights and gender equality issue regarding the biased post partum distribution of custody and child-support.
Great story about your daughter, happy for all. But, that is your story, based on your choice(s). This government was never intended to be the theocratic entity that conservatives wish. The writings of Madison, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, Washington and many others make that abundantly clear. That being the case, it is completely inappropriate, as the conservatives have often tried to do, to legislate morality from any sort of a religious sense. The vast majority of morality can be argued effectively from the humanist viewpoint without harm to the religious elements of the society. They may occasionally be exposed to something in public with which they do not agree, but their private practices remain unharmed. This was not the case when, fifty years ago, the conservative elements of society were generally free to impose their various theocratic heresies upon those who disagreed.
Liberal government policies actually seem to reduce government intervention in what is actually ours. Liberal, unlike conservative, government, is less likely to intercede in our private lives and personal choices. Businesses that behave unfaithfully and wreak havoc upon our public economy do not have the right to go unregulated or unpunished. If McCain had been elected President, we would now suffer full blown depression rather than recovering recession with staggering debt, and we would have drug the world with us, which would have probably sparked greater military international conflict. All of this would have come as a consequence of conservative economic policy and that would have been more damaging to all of us financially.
As for my religious beliefs, they come partially from understanding that the order in which the Biblical books are arranged is not the order in which they were written, nor is it possible that most of the ascribed authors actually wrote the texts bearing their signatures. Someday, I will post on that.
Inflation, you want to talk about inflation?? You haven't seen inflation yet, but I assure you, you will. We just committed 3 trillion dollars to the bail out, and what no one else is talking about---another 1 trillion for the world bail out. The new estimated cost of this euphoric spending in additional taxes to the under 40 group is now calcualted to be $152,000 additional taxes in the under 40's lifetime. Up from the$134,000 projection when the rosy growth figures and the rosy, "the Chinese will buy the debt" didn't happen. Instead we are now printing money to buy our own debt securities that no other country is interested in, definitely a sound plan. It's similar to the same genius plan that individuals use when they get themselves over their head on a credit card, so they get another card to pay the 1st card, which is now having interest earn interest. It is exactly what we just did on a national level. A simple formula in macro economics---let people keep more of their own money and they will spend it. Thereby creating a need for more goods, thereby creating more jobs, thereby creating more tax payers. It is why in the 80's when we cut taxes the Treasury had a record increase in revenue collections. (you can verify, just go to the web and look at macro econmic growth in the US for the entire 20th century, you will see a climb unmatched at any period in the entire century and it sustained itself for 20 yrs). Read the Wealth of Nations, it is the basis on which all western countries ecomies are built. I wish Obama had read it.
As for abortion, you didn't get the message, my daughter was born 3 mos. early 24 years ago. Forget it's a great story, what it tells us is these are children. I wonder how excited the liberals would be if NASA announced they had found some tiny micro organism on a planet. I remeber one night it was announced that NASA had theorized that a rock found in Antartica had come from Mars and had some micro organs on it. Immediately the news cast was: "We are not alone." Really? So the libs are willing to recognize some tiny micro as life? But a woman pregnant is not life? Yhea right.
So honestly Iconoclast, I don't believe you ever were a conservative or a true Christian. You probably had some leanings to the right, but ran back to the left where you were comfortable. Now the Government can do it all for you. They can take care of you from the cradle to the grave. Need health care, don't worry, Daddy Obama will get it for you. Need a new car, don't worry, we now own GM we'lll give you a car. Why not, the Governor in MA is giving free cars to welfare recipients, including free repairs, and a free membership in AAA. Counrty is broke, (according to Obama), don't worry we'll just print some more of those dollar bills. Don't worry about social security going broke, we have a plan. We'll tax those earning $250,000 a higher tax rate. After all, who do they think they are earning this money, Americans?? No, Americans are a thing of the past, we are now "citizens of the world."
And that is working out so well, I hope the Hawiians enjoy the fireworks show that the North Koreans have promised them on the 4th of July. Wow, this new diplomacy is so effective that even the No Koreans want to celebrate the 4th. I remember a time when if a country threatened to launch a missile at us the response might be the same anti missile ship to shoot it down. But there would have been a warning to go along with that ship, you shoot a missile at American territory and we will retaliate. Do you remember the Cuban Missile crisis? You never win by being weak, even Kennedy a Democrat knew that. But maybe we can count on our friends in NATO or the UN to help us, after all they are helping us so much in Afghanastan. Enjoy the show Hawaii, I hear radiation will make those pineapples grow even better. The Shark---taking a bite out of liberalism
I mentioned nothing about inflation. Seriously, you have no idea, because you have never truly examined the evidence. Therefore, I won't bother denying you your delusions.
(Liberal government policies actually seem to reduce government intervention in what is actually ours. Liberal, unlike conservative, government, is less likely to intercede in our private lives and personal choices). Ok, Ok, you got me---good one. Sorry I missed that fact that you were writing satire. But when you threw the line in about liberal gov' t. you gave it away. We all had a good laugh at the office knowing we had been had. I should have known seeing as I use satire all the time, check out my home page.
I am sure the "secured" creitors of GM share your view, seeing that for the 1st time in history secured creitors have taken a back seat to "unsecured creditors", like Indiana Funds, which will most likely end up with several lawsuits against the Fed. GM was an illegal purchase funded with TARP money. As for intervention, I consider anyone taking more of "earned" money from me as personal intervention in my life. And a peculiar thing is that every time we have a Democrat in the White House on in our Governor's chair I am "asked to contribute more."
On abortion, it sounds as if you had some personal experience that you considerd bad with child support. It sounds as though that is driving what comes across as a bitter tenor, as if you might have preferred to have aborted your children rather than pay child support, I hope I am wrong, but that is the way your statement comes across. My view on abortion has less to do with religion than it does humanity. I think it is wrong to be aborting these babies, and make no mistake these are babies. When my daughter was born Under Six Months and the Dr. put that tiny "baby" in my arms no one had any doubt, except Barbara Boxer, that this was a baby.
Lastly, on the founding father's religious beliefs, I think their writings are "self evident". I am not an overly religous person, but I would not try to rewrite history as many secularists are attempting to do by calling the founding fathers deists. No different than Iran trying to rewrite history by claiming the holocaust never occurred. But maybe they are just being satirical too.
Wow, calling the Founding Fathers deists is not a re-write. The secularists didn't start the trend; the Founding Fathers themselves did. Calling them believing Christians is revisionism.
I will never again be convinced of the lies on which I was raised. Even those who raised me on such have abandoned them for reason.
Straw men and red herrings are the logical fallacies of those in dispute. Need explanation? Logical fallacies are falsehoods that do not follow reason.
It sounds like you have joined the hate America crowd, two of the founding members, Alec Baldwin and Sean Penn promised to leave the country, funny how the hate America crowd never keeps their promise to go. You don't have to worry though Iconoclast, if you don't have the America you want, you will very soon. The claim that we as a country don't manufacture anything any more is a fallacy, we actually have a huge mfg. base of new products that turns out millions of units every year. Although Al Gore would not be happy with this because they are carbon based units. They would be the millions of liberals being turned out by our government schools. I walk the mall once and a while and see these units, they look like mindless trout mouths more concerned with being able to get their next Big Mac then about the fact that their gov't just made a hostile take over of GM. So hold on Iconoclast, in the words of the Beatle's song, "It won't be long." I wonder what is more stylish, wearing my hat backwards or sideways?
I do not hate America. I graduated public school a full blown conservative blowhard; it was life as an instrument of American policy that initiated my re-examination. Unlike my previous conservative self, and, you, having seen the "socialism" of Europe, I do not fear change or progress from the self-destroying robber baron system of unfettered capitalism.Thank you for pointing out the accuracy of my preceding comments.
The conservative movement fell upon its own sword when it slipped into the fascism of trying to legislate people's sexual and spiritual lives while promoting the true thieves and murderers of the military-industrial-corporate complex. Dwight D. Eisenhower warned of this.
First, let me correct you, you graduated from a government school. Today our language is compromised to soften the effect of something in an attempt to make it socially acceptable. You are not alone this is an ongoing effort to manipulate our lanuage and our thinking. Do you call the state prison in your state the "public prison", or the state house the "public house"? Look at "global warming", it is now "climate change", a "homosexual" is now "gay", the list goes on and on. It is a subtle way to change our language and our perception and is very effective. Our goverment schools are most effective at this behavior because they have young people at a time in their lives that they are easily influenced. It is why I tell you to just hold on and you will have the America you are looking for. I believe your quote from Eisenhower was aimed at the McCarthy supporters. He attempted to distance himself from McCarthy but make no mistake about it, he was tough on traitors to American National Security, he refused to pardon the Rosenbergs. No one party is perfect and certainly can not be all things to all people, but liberalism by nature depends on taking from produtive people and giving to non producers. Just look at the angry crowd on Oprah, she gave her audience free cars, and what was their complaint that nearly turned into a riot? We have to pay a sales tax on this car? So Oprah, under the gun, tried to amend things and offered to pay the sales tax, then the IRS stepped in and said, if you pay their sales tax we will treat that as income to these people---more complaints from her useless audience. This is what happens in a liberal give me more society. I told you MA is giving free cars, insurance, repairs and AAA memberships to welfare recipients. That's why I say just hold on, at the rate that the government schools are graduating little liberals, and at the rate that the "government owes me" society is growing you will have "your" America in your lifetime. I know that my America and my father's generation ,(WWII), America will be gone forever. Gee, maybe France won't look that bad after all.
The Shark---taking a bite out of liberalism
First, you have corrected nothing, there is no difference between a public and a government school; second, your rant is so off tangent that I have lost track; third, the conservatives started the whole me first thing in that they demanded to be left alone to do their own thing (deregulation) which was to impose their demonstrably failed ideology upon us all.
Okay, I am no longer, on this post, going to respond or reply to rampant and rabid stupidity. Fifteen years ago, I agreed with the neocon morons, but I have grown.
That's to bad, it was getting deep.
Conservative vs Liberal, political vs religion by backing your view with any of these views logic tends to be smothered by emotions. You sounded like a child that when he did not get his way, got mad, and said he would no longer play with him.
tomdhum: I don't consider myself a liberal; although I support many of their positions, I am adamantly opposed to some. I usually don't argue so much from the ideology, as I don't fully subscribe. However, I do subscribe, as a consequence of experience and study, to the idea that conservative ideology is largely bankrupt.
As for sounding like a child, well, actually, I don't debate for the sake of debate. I make every effort to present accurate information and informed opinion. I have accomplished this, and the debate was devolving into mud-slinging. Besides the thread has reached the end of its utility.
Iconoclast, the thread reached the end of it's utility because just like a typical liberal when things get tough they run. Look at how your leader is handling the fourth of July show promised by the Koreans, the silence is deafening. Do you know how the Koreans got the reactors and the uranium to weaponize? It was given to them by Clinton as part of trying to buy them off, oh yes he made one condition clear. It was not to used for anything but nuclear power. All the sanctions in the world will not stop them from funding this program. It is a known fact that Korea is the largest counterfeiter of US currency in the world. Guess where they got the technology from? Right again that great conservative, Clinton. He gave them two, (2), US Treasury computers and printers with the latest state of the art technology for printing currency. As for bankruptcy, if Obama keeps spending the way he is...
The Shark---saying Give GM Back!
One, your being insulting and uninformed just like a typical conservative. Two, Bill Clinton helped them build the nuclear reactor because they had already been acquiring plutonium and already built a couple of bombs by 1993; but had no effective means of delivery. Three, If all sanctions will fail to stop the program, why rant about it? Four, American mint technology was meaningless at the time, as the US had just about the easiest currency in the world to counterfeit at the time, all it took was cotton fiber paper and a high-tech copier. Another thing the Europeans rightfully laughed at us over.
If GM was given back, it would just fail. Thanks for advocating for the Second Great Depression.
Ohh Clinton only helped them to build the reactors. That's like saying we only helped the Nazi's build the ovens. They had nuclear bombs in 1933?? But just didn't have the planes to drop them? So why did it take 12 more years and thousands of men and the greatest team of scientists we could find to develop it by 1944? And the Germans with all their scientists and reseach were also that far behind Korea? Talk about dillusional. Funny how No.Korea had agreed to shut down their WMD program when Bush was in, and verified by the UN. But the community organizer gets in and the community goes to hell. As for our currency, so Clinton just assisted them so they could perfect the fake bills. As for GM, Give it Back. They ended up going bankrupt even after we poured Billions of taxes into it. Bankruptcy allows them to reorganize whether the Gov't owns them or not. I think you are being dramatic with 2nd great depression line. If not, then you are saying R. Craig of GM was correct over 30 yrs ago when he said "What's good for GM is good for the country." He took a lot of heat for that line, but according to you he was right. GM is America, GM goes down and the entire American economy fails.
The Shark---trying to keep Iconcalst honest
ps, you should have approved my twilight posting.
North Korea agreed, but never actually took full steps to dismantle WMD program. In fact, that "axis of evil" declaration was followed by renewed NK efforts on the nuke front. Only the Chinese were actually able to get much progress after that. http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron#20 The Bush years read pretty much like the Clinton years, and the "community organizer's" problems with North Korea are simply the continuation of North Korea's ongoing game with the world.
As I said, they didn't need much help with counterfeiting; Clinton gave them material they essentially had. Do you really believe, with their determination and patience, they hadn't already produced plates from the American ones they received from the USSR in the 1980's? Yes, they already had the equipment; the KGB had stolen it. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32167.pdf
GM's bailout was intended to reduce the synergetic economic collapse that an earlier bankruptcy would have contributed. This would have resulted in the shuttering of many other companies which happen to provide US jobs in the manufacture of various components for many automakers. This would have probably resulted in the total collapse of all of Detroit's brands. Finally, the GM bailout started under Bush. http://www.cleveland.com/autonews/plaindealer/inde/base/business-0/122977051683900.xml&coll=2 And no, that isn't being overly dramatic; it is being realistic and pragmatic. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23198.ht
GM failure started with the housing demise. Most of GM's profits came from GMAC, both in home loans and in car finance. They were losing approx $2,000. on every veh. but made it back with GMAC and GMAC Lease. With the housng collapse and the lost new revenue along with foreclosed property it put a huge drag on GM. Then when the car sales slipped it was a crossroads for them.
Having said that, Americans wil buy the same number of vehicles in a year whether from GM, Ford or Toyota, Nissan etc.. All of theses vehicles are built in the US. So if GM went completely out of business, (highly unlikely), those companies would pick up the sales that would have been GM's. Those companies would probably have to expand production, new assembly plants, more jobs. To quote one of my illustrious Senators, J.Kerry, "Good Jobs at good wages", only they wouldn't be union jobs, (thank God). The GM take over was a hostile take over and will face many challenges in court. Indiana funds, a secured lienholderl, has taken a back seat to non secured lien holders, a first in US history. The take over amounts to nothing more than a payback to the unions for the millions dumped into the community organizer's campaign chest. The same way taking back that merit scholarship for poor inner city kids in DC to attend private schools was a payback to the teacher's union. But the community organizer was so benevolant, after all of the complaints he said the kids, all 17 of them, that have it now can keep it, Thank you Massar!! It just ends with them.
Also, a great time to move the CAFF standard up by four years! Economy hurting, GM bankrupt, Ford on the ropes. You have to ask why now? It can only be one reason, We need to break Ford and nationalize them too.
As for Clinton, your not going to get to many arguments from me, this guy is making Clinton look like the good old days!
The Shark---waiting patiently for 2012
Bailing out GM prevented the immediate addition of about a quarter million GM people to the unemployment rolls; your balanced demand/supply hypothesis would most likely not have held, as balanced supply and demand has not been present for many years at the upper echelons, as all those wonderful popping bubbles proved. In all likelihood, with so many put out of work at once, there would have been greatly increased tendencies to postpone purchases, meaning fewer sales and greater slack in the market.
In more robust economic times, say 2005, I would have been all in favor in letting GM fail. As you said, GM was actually losing money on vehicles and had gone to mortgages to shore up the balance sheets. However, GM's problems were not caused by unions, they were caused by declining market share orchestrated by a refusal to innovate and adapt. Factual statistics, not the blame game produced by multi-million dollar executives, indicate that the per hour payroll difference between Toyota and GM is only $3, until you look at executive compensation. The unions oversaw the greatest period of general economic prosperity after Korea; things started going downhill when most of the conservative deregulation dreams were accomplished in the '90's.
The bailout bought everyone time to figure out what they were going to do, and how to do it. Allowing GM to bankrupt in the heart of the economic crisis would have deepened the crisis.
Ford will probably not go through this process, as they have avoided the totality of the idiocy that ran GM between Smith and Wagonner(?).
As for nationalization being harmful, why not talk about BMW? Fully unionized, partly nationalized, best cars in the world, and, only mildly damaged by the slumping industry.
The US automakers deserved to fail, but the havoc of allowing that to happen in December, or at any point after August 2008, would not have been corrected by the free market. The market was not looking for opportunities to expand, it was looking for opportunities to conserve.
As for Clinton being the good old days, well he was the only President to produce a balanced budget that resulted in a surplus. I suspect, given enough time, President Obama can do the same, until another conservative comes in and wastes it on some pointless war designed to further the interests of corporate America, the truest and largest recipients of welfare.
What many conservatives don't understand is that their philosophy benefits only the large corporations, allowing junk-mongers like GM and Wal-Mart to stifle smaller local competition and glut the market with garbage.
Look at the unprecetented growth that began during the Reagan years on a 20th centry gdp chart, the climb is incredible.
For GM, not only was their assembly line wages almost 2X Toyota's, but add in the exorbitant cost of the retirees health plan and and the cost of an over the top pension plan and there was no way they could turn a profit, not to mention the cost of the "job bank". About 3 years ago GM announced an idiling of a plant in Lancer, MI to stop building a model no one wanted, only to told by the Union if they idled that plant they would call for a company wide strike, the union was now dictating product. GM was obviously building something someone wanted as they were still the number one auto mfg in the world. The technology was cuttining edge as is Fords. Cadilac STS, Denali's and Ecalades are amongst the top cars off a production line in the world. I will say the same for Ford, having had one of my Lincoln Town Cars turning 300,000 mi on Fri. This is a car that rides as if it had 40k. Forbes referred to the Town Car as the "Pre-eminent" car of the American Road and found it surpassed the top Merz in everything but hard cornering at high speed. It is also the "only car, not just in it's class, but amongst all cars to get the gov't highest rating (1st in history! 5 star in all crash, front, side, etc . every year). See quote from Forbes below:
Quote from magazine:
"Highest Possible Safety Rating. The Town Car is the first car in automotive history to receive a five-star rating in all five categories"
I was so impressed with what this veh. gave me in quality I just went out and purchaed a brand new one. I don't know how much driving it will see, as I parked it in the garage while I continue to drive my 300k car. But it assures me I will have a real car while the gov't forces toy cars on the American public.
As long as the Gov't owns GM I would never buy one. I read a great article with great insight on how and why Obmama has the view he has on how gov't should operate and why they differ from most Americans. Written by a woman Dr. that like Obama has parents from Africa. Like him, she was born here, and unlike yourself went from liberal Democrat to conservative. I will send the name and sight you can get it from, I have it at my office. I still would have let GM go into bankruptcy, one thing for the gov't to have a piece of the company, but 60%?
As for defecit spending, we are doing more of that now than all Republican presidents added together. I also don't think the Iraqi war was a waste, we took the fight off of our turf. Look at where we are now, 35,000 troops in Afghanastan and no sign of them coming home. I don't remember Aghanastan ever attacking us. I don't even think they even own a Jet fighter.
The Shark---still saying give GM back
GM assembly line wages are not twice of Toyota's. Management costs are. Toyota line workers start at $16/hour. GM was only number one manufacturer from about 1990 until 2007 because its largest customer was US GSA (government). And you are correct that Ford has survived for producing a superior product, but GM's superiority only showed in top-end vehicles. And BMW still makes better cars for the money- too bad the import tariff is high.
As for Iraq, no al-Qaida affiliation; al-Qaida attacked us, not Iraq. Even Colin Powell said so in 2002. Al-Qaida came from Afghanistan and was protected by the Taliban there, hence the involvement. Iraq was simply about getting oil and work and extending inflence for the benefit of Haliburton and subsidiaries linked conclusively to Dick Cheney. Afghanistan is where the attention should have been, Iraq was and is not.
Interesting how the post is about the religious side of conservatism, but most of The Shark's criticism, thus far successfully refuted, is about the economic issues. As for President Obama's deficit, it is a projection, not yet a fait accomplit; remember, this President is starting with a deficit, once fixed by his party's predecessor, of 7 trillion dollars, arising from illegal, irrational war and pandering to the "free market".
Iconoclast, if you want to go back to religion we can. You have refuted nothing. Afghhanistan never attacked us, they gave safe haven to Bin Laden, who after we attacked, slipped away out of Afghanistan. The Taliban was out, a new giv't was in so we had no more business in Afghanistan then and now. So the community organizer has illegally sent troops into Afghanistan. We have no beef there. Also, wasn't that supposed to be a NATO effort.
Like that old liberal peace song: Where have all the NATO troops gone--long time passing."
Where were we at that ime:
< UN orders inspections in Iraq for WMD < Sadam plays games with inspectors, stalling them before theyare allowed to their destinations, and moving things out. < President calls on UN to inforce it's own inspection rules < UN fails to inforce inspections, Sadam throws UN inspectors out of country < President gives Sadam a deadline to allow inspectors back in < Sadam ignores request, continues hostile fire on American Planes inforcing the no fly zone < All top US Officials, Clinton, Gore, CIA, etc have claimed Sadam either has WMD or is close to getting them < 3000 Americans dead, a country refusing to devulge it's WMD program < Seems like it made sense to go in and take him out, in the process bringing democracy to the people of Iraq, and ending genecide fo the Kurds.
Under your line of thinking we should never have been involved in a war if we were not directly attacked, even if their appeared to be a clear and present danger. With your reasoning, or lack of, we should never have gone to war in Europe, after all, when did Germany attack us? Didn't Pearl get hit by the Japs?
So I guess we shouldn't have gone to Korea. I'm sure So Korea would agree with you.
So by your statement it appears you think we should not have had the 1st Gulf war. So allowing a country like Iraq to invade and seize border nations is ok.
The problem is that we end up with Chamberlin type Democrats that undo our victories and embolden our enemies. This leads to us having to go back to finish the jobi in the future. If Clinton had treated the attacks against us seroiusly, the way Bush did, we might never have had the Iraqi war.
Let's not forget the facts, the two embassies in Africa, the USS Cole, and the Trade center the first time were all on Clinton's watch. The Sudanese had Bin Laden in their custody and offered extradition to the US, Clinton wouldn't even take their call. So they sent a representitve to meet with Clinton about the extradition. He refused to meet with him, the guy has told the story himself. But Sadam was such a nice guy....I hold in my hand the paper that bears Heir Hitler and mine....." remember that Mr Chamberlin.
The Shark---still not refuted
All of the above has been refuted by history.
There was not even the slightest appearance of clear and present danger from Iraq until it was fabricated. Much like the USS Maine incident and the Tonkin Gulf incident, the evidence was falsified. The CIA made no claim of Iraq's having WMDs until well after Bush's first attempt to say as much stalled. CIA reports of early 2002 indicated no threat of WMDs from Iraq. If we wanted to go after a real contributor to Osama's 9/11 attack, in addition to Afghanistan, we should have gone after Saudi or Yemen. But, no, we have multi-billion dollar oil and weapons deals with Saudi.
All of the incidents mentioned during Clinton's administration add up to about a tenth of those lost on 9/11 and after, after Bush received a brief in August that said such a thing would happen soon, and ignored the brief. If Bush had sent all of those troops to Afghanistan instead of Iraq, Osama would almost certainly already be in Saddam's condition. And those servicemembers' lives lost in Iraq might have been fewer if the effort had been concentrated on the actual US enemy. Osama bin Laden was ecstatic to learn that the US was going after Iraq, his other avowed enemy; he knew that the distraction would permit him to escape, which it thus far has. Also, Bush I informed the shia of Iraq that if they rose up, post Gulf I, the US would help them; the US didn't. Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan was al-Qaida's and Osama bin Laden's base of operations.
Your WWII analogies don't hold up. Pearl Harbor was hit by the Japanese, yes, and the Japanese had a treaty with Germany; declaring war on Japan automatically declared war on Germany. In South Korea, we had a treaty and an established presence already in existence.
As for bringing Democracy to oppressed people; the US has never gone to war for that reason, although we have often justified it thus. The US goes to war in response to attack, that would be Afghanistan, and business interests, that would be Iraq. Please read some non-partisan history, which is not to be found in "government" High School textbooks.
There is no appeasement in my stance; Saddam Hussein could have, and should have, been safely ignored while the US focussed on more important combat.
The Bush-Cheney propaganda machine confused a lot of people over Iraq; I was not among them, even though I kept trying to find reason to support a President whom I had initially defended. Apparently, you appear to be still among those confused in the smoke screen, even though it has dissipated. Bush broke the law and he caused the deaths, through an illegal war, of more Americans than al-Qaida ever did.
I love how you are so dismissive, typical of liberal elitist behavior. " All of the above has been refuted by history."
So nothing I wrote is correct, Iraq never invaded it's border, UN inspectors were not thown out. Well I guess the Navy will be pleased to learn the Cole was never attacked. Which also means the Trade center was not attacked and the embassies were not attacked while Clinton was in office. This also means the guy from Sudan is liar, and his gov' sent him here for no reason. Well actually they sent him on a fools mission, thinking Clinton would take Bin Laden. The only response Clinton had was to launch a cruise missile and take out an aspirin factory.
As for falsified cia doc's well they were real enough for Clinton to believe, If you would like to hear the words from the great ones own lips go to youtube and you can watch his speech, as well as Gore's. Ohh I bet those tapes have been manipulated. You need to adjust the tin foil around your house.
How about that necessary war we had in Kosovo, now exactly when did they attack us? That war was an attempt to make Gore look tough for the election he ended up losing. Remember that tough tv moment: "Mr Melovovich, it is time for you to go."
As for Saudi, I don't think the gov't was responsible for some terrorists behavior just because they were born there. If the Saudi gov't gave them shelter and refused extradition and condoned their actions, then an attack on them would be justified.
You must be joking about US History texbooks, nothing could be more liberal. These government schools aren't the schools you and I attended never mind your parents. You said earlieer you graduated a full blown conservative, that couldn't happen today. Not unless you spent hours on your own reading conservative papers.
As for Bin Laden being happy we went to Iraq---Hows that working out for him now? I wonder if he's so happy now, hiding in his cave somplace. The truth is that bafoon Biden hadn't shot off his mouth we would have had Bin Laden following 9-11. In days following the attack, Biden was interviewed on the steps of the Capitol. While trying to look important he had a Biden moment. Telling the interviewer, We're going to get Bin Laden, make no mistake we will track him down, We're tracking his satellite phone conversations, we'll find him. Well, that was the last time Bin Laden ever made a satellite call---Say it ain't so Joe!
As for Bush, Cheney we were never hit again. You are very concerned about the economy, but what good is the economy if you don't have a country?
Let's hope the community organizer is as successful at keeping us safe. But with him we might have the opposite, a country and no economy. I hoped you enjoyed seeing the testimony that Barney Fag and some other Democrat Senator have recently made calls to GM getting dealerships back for friends of theirs. In the words of Michael Barone, we now have "gangster politics". welcome to Chicago style politics.
The Shark---keeping the record straight
Keeping the record straight with straw men and red herrings doesn't cut it. I am dismissive because of your attempts to twist my argument rather than presenting facts and evidence. I mentioned all of the terrorist incidents you did, and noted that those occurring in the Clinton years only amounted to 1/10 the American lives lost under Bush.
I try, as much as possible to get my information from value-neutral sources; that is why I object to most conservative measures and am disappointed in the "liberal", which really is hardly liberal, or even progressive, at all anymore.
Because the US focused on going after Saddam, bin Laden has been permitted an extra eight years, nearly long enough that he may die of medical rather than military problems. Only now has Pakistan actually decided to honor its commitment to the "War on Terror", which under Bush operated more as either the "War on Islam" or the "War for More Oil".
As for military commitment, in case you missed it, this year's budget actually increased military spending, and, no, that wasn't done by the Republicans.
As for gangster politics; that has been the way since Washington's second term. If you want to talk about fraud in Congress, you might as well put McConnell, Inhofe, McCain (though getting better), Bachmann, Boehner (who can't even pronounce his own name right), Bunning, Coleman; and let's not forgeet the 2000 election. No, you don't have Chicago-style gangsterism with the "community organizer". Most of the pork laden into the recent climate change bill and the stimulus, came from Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats. What you perceive as gangsterism is business as usual, and, in that, I am disappointed.
That's a laugh!! Let me gain control of myself. Only 1/10th of the lives lost in the Bush years. OK. so that justifies Clinton's head in the sand defense of America, enough Americans hadn't been killed yet to take action. Sorry, I believe one American killed is reason to take action. And "everyone" knows, even the liberal media, that the 9/11 attackes were planned two years in advance, that would put it squarely in the Clinton years. Following the other successful attacks against us, and the militaries plea for help in Somalia being ignored by Clinton leaving our guys to fend for themselves, brought Bin Laden to the conclusion that the US was a paper tiger. A country that would not fight back.
I remeber the 2000 election well, counting chads from fools that can't even punch a ballot, we'd be better off if they didn't vote at all. But the liberals really wanted to be fair in that recount. Hmmmmmmmmm, let's see, I can still hear Gore, I want a recount in Broward county...and every other liberal only county. He might have had his recount if he had called for a state wide recount, and if the recount wasn't interpertive. Joey what do you think this voter was tring to do?? I dunno, it must be a Gore vote. Right that was a real fair recount he tried to run. Just like that staged phony televised phone call from Gebhardt and his side kick. Hi Al, I'm calling to see what 's going on if Fl,(why not just turn the tv on loser), Well Rich, they've putting a hold on the count right now, we're trying to smake sure every vote is counted and every vote counts. Al, you mean every vote hasn't been counted?
Iconoclast, give me a break, I want to have some respect for you so please drop the 2000 election was stolen line ---please. The only votes in FL that were not counted were the absentee ballots cast by members of the US military overseas. We had the same problem in MA, the FBI has been investigating MA for several years. They finally agreed to settle with the US Gov't for improplerly not counting military absentee ballots. Funny how it is always military ballots that liberals don't like to count, I wonder why???
Here we go with the language manipulation again, "climate change" what's the matter with global warming, what?? people aren't supporting that hoax any more?
Cliamte change bill---give me a break, what you mean is the new revenue stream bill, other wise known as "Cap and Spend". Gee, why would the word "Spend" be in a global warming bill, and exactly who is going to do the spending?? I guess that would be the same suckers that are paying for GM, the US tax payers.
I think good old PT said it best:
"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American People."
I guess the community organizer read his book.
The Shark---defending the militaries right to vote
Iconoclast---you ok??
Happy 4th!!
The Shark
Thanks for the holiday greeting- been on vacation. Hope your Fourth was good.
Once again Shark, your mastery of history astounds. Clinton's head in the sand? That's a conservative fallacy based on events in Somalia alone. After the Iraq-directed attempted assassination of George HW Bush, Clinton sent a cruise missile at Iraq's Intelligence Headquarters. After the embassy bombings, he sent 6 cruise missile strikes at al-Qaida training sites in Afghanistan and attacked another site in Sudan.
The story about Sudan offering Osama bin Laden doesn't check out either; Sudan never held him and never offered to extradite him to the US. What did happen is that Sudan, under pressure from the US and Saudis, demanded that Osama leave. Osama ended up in Afghanistan again because Saudi Arabia had revoked his citizenship and refused to allow him entry there. Interestingly, Osama was reportedly glad to leave Sudan as he had recently escaped two assassination attempts. These attempts are believed to be the work of the CIA under Clinton.
The cruise missile strikes on Afghanistan probably killed more actual al-Qaida personnel than our ground operations there have. We are currently fighting more Taliban than actual al-Qaida. And Clinton's actions had a much lower collateral damge toll.
As for the paper tiger line of thought, that applied to actually deploying troops because, yes, Clinton made a series of mistakes in Somalia. The first problem was that he micro-managed the operation and did not listen to his commanders on the ground. In this, George W Bush proved no better with Rumsfeld insisting that Iraq wouldn't require the troop commitment his commanders suggested. I lost friends in Mogadishu, and am well aware that Clinton was trying to launch a spectacular operation based upon an underestimation of Aidid. What the daylight raid proved wasn't that we needed to depart, but that we needed to operate on the advice of the ground commanders, not the President and the UN. When 126 men face down 10,000, lose 19 and inflict over 1000 deaths on the enemy, that is not reason to withdraw; that is reason to press on. But Somalia was not an anti-terrorism mission; it was humanitarian.
As for the 2000 vote, the reason the focus was on the liberal counties is because the liberal counties were the counties with the greatest populations, and as anyone knows, the more paper generated, the more likely an error. Now, I will give you this much; Gore should not have sent a member of the Daley clan to help monitor the count. Doing that made it look like a Chicago-style attempt at fraud. I voted for Bush in 2000, and was glad that he won that coin toss; but even then, I was skeptical about the means by which that election proceeded.
Climate change was the term coined by conservatives; others know it is in fact global warming.
In the end, though, Clinton's Presidency had enough factually questionable activity without one needing to misrepresent, so why not bring that stuff up? I am, as I said, not fully partisan except to oppose the militant fascism that the conservative movement has come to represent. I would be willing to see the Clinton's and Janet Reno prosecuted.
****************Had a geat 4th********************
Gald you did as well!
But first let's get the facts straight on Clinton's war on terror. He held a televised address in prime time to announce his plans for the missle attack. (I wonder if FDR had a radio fire side chat to announce his D Day invasion plan?)
Then after the big televised announcement he sent cruise missles into what the Sudan Gov't said was a pharmacetical plant. That plant was responsible for 50% of all of Sudan's medications. Clinton claimed intelligence reports said the plant produced chemical weapons. However, a thorough investigation proved that the intelligence had been unreliable. (Wow, can you imagine a President making a strike and finding afterwards the intelligence was wrong???)
As for the cruise missle killing more al-qaida than our troops in Iraq, that's a laugh. I don't even know if we can ever get a real count on how many enemy have been killed. As a former military person you have to know that you needed ground troops to begin to turn things around in the Middle East. We now have a chance to have a Democratic Iraq, which will have major influence in that region, just look at the effect on Iran.
Bush and Rumsfeld definitely made a mistake with not enough troops. The belief was with our Air superiority, smart bombs and professional soldiers we could do the job with less, a "lighter" military. They were wrong, but they were also big enough to admit they were wrong and called for the surge. But by that time the liberals in Congress wanted to cut and run, calling for retreat. So I give Bush a lot of credit for standing against the constant barrage of criticisizm from both the Libs in the House and Senate as well as the constant drum beat from the media. He did what he took the oath for, Serve, Protect and Defend. I think history, (real history not Doris Kearns Goodwin type of history), will treat Bush very well, especially if Iraq's gov't is able to survive.
On the election, don't forget the media threw in with Gore calling FL. while the polls were not only opened, but while the conservative pan handle section was still voting. Gore made a travesty out of it by calling for Democratic Counties to be recounted. I agree wiht you they had more populartion, but if your going to recount, recount the whole thing. The counties he wanted recounted happened to have the most people not knowing how to vote. Again, I'll point to that ridiculous phone call with Gebhardt, that was staged for all of the uneducated of our country. I mean come on Iconclast, can you honestly say that you believed Gebhardt had to have a televised phone call to Gore to find out what was going on in FL? But the media was all over it like it was real news....And today Richard Gebhardt will phone Al Gore to find out the status of how things are going in FL. Let's go live now......Give me a break! Also the throwing out the absentee military ballotts is a disgrace. As I said it happened in MA too as well as a mid west state.
I'm not in favor of prosecuting former Presidents, some decisions they have to make are subjective and immediate. I would not want a President making decisions by what might occur legally when he leaves office, even Clinton.
This whole Global Warming thing is nothing more than a scam for selling carbon credits. It was only thirty years ago the "scientists" were claiming we were going to be experiencing Global Cooling. There is a scientist at MIT I heard interviewed last week, you can check him out on line. He is a scientist that defintely is not on board, and outlines why.
Gore is making millions selling carbon swaps, he is part of a co. from England selling the phony paper. What we need to do as an industrialized nation, (if we want to stay one), is to start drilling and exploring for our own oil.
CA is going broke, and it is est. that CA alone would make 5 Billion per year with off shore gas and oil. The new Tax and Spend bill, ohh I mean Cap and Spend will do a lot to help India and China as we export more jobs due to high electricity costs. It's time to explore our shores and land for new oil supplies, use our uranium deposits for nuclear energy, and start to tap into our 400 year supply of coal. We need to do this if we are serious about remianing the top economy in the world. If not we will have the America Jimmy Carter dreamed of and Obama is making---a 2nd rate country.
Brazil, never an oil exporting country had two major off shore strikes last winter. They announced they will now be a petrolium exporting nation. Ghana, a country that never produced oil had three major strikes off shore last year. They will now be energy independant, as well as an exporter of petroleum. Russia, had a major strike off shore in Feb, they will be bringing tha oil to mkt. by the end of this year.
It's time for the President to stop holding press confrences on changing light bulbs at the White House and go back to Bush's exec. order to allow off shore and on shore drilling and exploration.
Interesting as I write, a story just broke on the news that a major strike of two Trillion ft of natual gas and unspecified amount of oil have been discovered off the coast of FL. What do you think the anchor desks question was to the correspondent? But what about spills if they go after that oil?. No let's leave it there, maybe the Chinese can reach it with that horizontal drilling that they are doing off our shores. That way they can have or oil and our jobs...Talk about timely!
T2U soon Iconclast,
The Shark----trying to find oil off the coast
Clinton announced the strikes after the fact, not before. All he announced before was that action would be taken. The pharma plant may well have been a mistake, but, as you said, imagine acting on bad intel.
On oil; I know from a government document that was provided during Gulf I that the US has plenty of oil and needs neither ME oil or new drilling. We have plenty of capped wells sitting on trillions of barrels worth. The document was retracted and destroyed 24hrs after distribution, but either Time or Newsweek carried some of the info. In it, in 1991, 60% of US production capacity equalled 100% of world consumption, even though most US refineries were only refining OPEC oil. I now believe the oil companies' plan is to drain the Middle East so that the US can become a major exporter. I also believe that the oil companies have overplayed their hand in this and will wind up sitting on obsolete fuel as the world switches to alternatives. Oh, you know that the capacity to manufacture synthetic fuel and eliminate bio-degradable waste products has been around for about 25 years now? Some guys in Britain came up with the process, but didn't want to sell it to the oil companies, because they figured the oil companies would conceal the technology so as to continue their current methods (kind of like American auto makers)? Well some oil company, BP, I think, managed to purchase the patents and all through some third-hand subsidiary. And guess what? We don't have that solution commonly available; although there are some synthetic products out there, they are more expensive than the standard ones. The process was designed to be more economical than standard refining.
Global warming/climate change: yes I know there is debate; but a Mechanical Engineer I know with Shell has admitted to me that their unpublished studies indicate it is essentially a reality.
Knows oil is in the backyard- under that idle pump.
Hi Iconclast, hope things are well in KY. Nothing but rain in the NE.
You are correct on US oil supply, actually there is even more. The problem with the capped wells is that they were capped when imported oil became cheaper than domestic. During that time these green groups lobbied to have these laws passed prohibiting us from uncapping or new drilling.
I used to believe the scenario too that we would use Middle East oil till it ran out then tap ours, I don't anymore. The reason being that more and more oil is being found every day, and now the technology has been developed to explore and drill in the deepest parts of the ocean, it is called submarine drilling. The amount of undiscovered oil on the ocean floor could exceed all of the known land oil in the entire world, meaning there may be another 1000 years at current use sitting out there. But in the meantime we as a country are exporting billions of dollars per year to foreign countries, as well as disrupting our economy with spikes in prices due to turmoil in these countries.
I never believed the auto co. conspiracy, they are not in the oil business, it would be better for them to either have cheap gas, or if alt. fuels were available to just build the car to run on it. They have and use that tech. now with flex fuel vehicles. So I don't see any gain in them holding the tech. back.
The major reason we don't tap our own oil is the greenies, they don't want to see any piece of Earth moved or changed. It's amazing they haven't complained about new buildings going up and taking up virgin earth. And Obama goes along and reverses the exec. order for drilling our own as a pay back to the greenies for the money dumped into his campaign. that's the real travesty, that national policy and thereby national security is decided on campaign contributions.
BP says they only need aboutr six acres in Alaska to extract oil on about a 15 mile area. Altrenative, or synthetics are more expensive, the refining may be less. But the cost of the product to refine based on the amount of tonnage verses how much oil is realized, and the energy needed to do the conversion. Ethanol is a prime ex. of a failed attempt to produce oil, in the end it takes more enegy to produce per gallon then the pay off. But we continue to fund it because of pandering for votes from farmers. I will give McCain that one, he at least came out and said as much. He probabaly should have waited till after the election for that one.
Climate change, again I say go to the climate engineer at MIT, he and many disagree. The fact is that one volcano erupts and puts up more carbon then we can in a hundred years. Climate has always shifted due to different things going on, sun spots, etc. Look at the natural carbon from major forest fires, this occured since forests existed.
Some scientists are now claiming we are now entering a period of cooling, go figure. Gore has used anecdotal and made up stuff to support his argument. For ex, he likes to show the photo of Mt killamnjaro in the 30's snow capped, supposedly in summer. The truth is no one knows exactly what month that photo was taken. But the truth is as pointed out by one scientist that that mountain was completely tree covered in the 30's and has now been clear cut. The trees used to protect the ground from sun as wll as hold moisture allowing for snow year round. Without the trees the protection and moisture being held is gone. Hence, you want that mt. snow capped again in summer? Then just reforest it.
One way or another the world is not going to stop using oil, and as long as we need it, we should help our own cause and drill for our own. The cheapest oil comes from simply finding it and sticking a pipe in the ground and sucking it up.
National Grid, the Canadian co. that provides electricity to MA filed a 100 million dollar rate hike today in anticipation of cap and spend. It's starting already, we need to stop that bill or we are going to see jobs go over seas faster then we could have imagined.
The Shark---saying stop cap and spend
Okay, the greenies didn't stop those US pumps already in place; the oil companies did. The greenies stopped new development. We don't need new development because we have plenty right here, already drilled and waiting.
If the auto companies had focused on the long-term, there would be far more flex and alternate fuel vehicles. Toyota got that one better than almost anyone with their Prius. The problem isn't developing the tech, it is being willing to do the re-tool. Adaptation to change shouldn't be an emergency matter, which is what Detroit forced on itself.
The world isn't going to stop using oil, it is certainly better than coal; but there are suitable alternatives for most applications. If the auto industry had really sought change instead of marriage to gas and oil, then they would have spent more R&D on electric, which has been around for fifty years. Electric was on the cusp of viability for twenty years before anyone major bothered to do something with it.
National Grid has for years been using any excuse to raise their rates, which have about doubled in the past five years. The new proposed increases of 5.5% are less than the previous ones, so I doubt that Cap and Trade is the reason, and it isn't the reason stated by National Grid.
Correct, the pumps were stopped because of the free market, imported oil became cheaper than domestic, so it made sense to stop. But in the interim Sierra Nevada, Green Peace etc got plenty of anti oil laws passed with lobbying our useless congress.
Exploration is the key to continued supply, look at the restraints put on drilling in the Gulf of Mex. Chevron had a major strike last year and immediately the EPA put restrictions on how far they could reach with their drilling. We just do the prudent thing and allow the co's to explore, this reversal of the exec. order to drill is absurd. Obama is trying to sell his lame Tax and Spend bill as a jobs creator. Exploartion, drilling and trasporting oil creates jobs too, ones that give guaranteed energy.
The auto co's have had all they can to stay ahead of the endless regulations being thrown at them by the Gov't over the last 35 years. I commend them for being able to stay viable during that period. It's funny how the libs rail against the US auto insdustry constantly. Your buddy Gore called the SUV man's worst enemy----while boating around in one himself. But he is an important man.
Elec. cars were not really viable until recently, lithium batteries changed the weight problem they had prior. Lee Iacoco had tried in the 80's but said the tech. for lighter batteries just didn't exist at that time.
In addition the added expense is ridiculous. Look at the cost of a hybrid, and the same model non hybrid, it's about 10g's, not worth it, 10 G's buys a lot of gas. Not to mention these batteries are bad for the environment at life's end, and the charging is done by elec. plants probably run on coal. I'll take my gas run car any day over one of those hybrids.
I think all these things help, wind, solar, syn fuels, etc. But we should also not be putting any restrictions on exploring and extracting our own resources. We don't even know the real extent of oil and gas in Alaska alone. Do you think if Russia stil had Alaska they wouldn't be drilling and selling it to us?
There is no way the tax and spend bill is not going to add to energy costs. MA joined this foolish New England Kyoto treaty for the region, limiting the carbon allowed by generating plants, then the fine kicks in. That's part of the rate hike filing for MA by Nat'l Grid. So it is like a microcosim of what we are in for on a national scale.
Anytime you want to see how something will work on a national scale just check out MA they probably already tried it, our liberals are ahead of the curve then the libs around the country. For ex. our own Kyoto treaty, and just look at the univerersal health bill---oh yes---we have what Obama wants.
It has almost bankrupt the state, which is why they never brought up it's success at their convention, nor has Obama used it as an ex. on his current push for taking over our health care. Businesses have been killed by the new "fair share" tax to help support it. Sure whenever the libs come up with these ingenius ideas, how do they get funded? By taxing businesses and working people, who else can they get it from? The recipients are sitting home watching the View or Oprah.
I am going to back to my origonal premise, even if you hate the Republican party, how do you become a liberal?? How can you go from believing people should work, provide for themselves and their families and keep as much of their income as possible to, Government is the answer?
I would be willing to let the Gov't keep every dime they have taken from me for Social Security, and never have to pay me the benefit, in return just stop taxing me on it.
The Shark----saying stop cap and spend , drill now--pay less
Another option for fuel that is cleaner is propane- once had a truck that ran just fine on it. NY and Chicago taxis have run for years on it. There have been other options that could have been developed, but the auto companies never really took it seriously.
Funny thing about lighter batteries; the military had them in the 80's; someone had to be making them.
The added hybrid cost isn't really in production so much as in roll-out. So long as business can get away with it, they will gouge. If the cap and trade had not been screwed up by the envirorapists, the power plant wouldn't be using coal for very long. They would switch to natural gas, of which there is plenty around.
On American auto makers doing surprisingly well to have survived all the regulation; that is an amusing position considering that European auto makers are generally not in bankruptcy and have generally more stringent regulations with which to contend. Primary reason Daimler dumped Chrysler: the American side was contaminating the quality of the engineering with too many shortcuts and thereby pulling the overall brand down, just as GM did to Saab.
If all of these sorts of things have almost bankrupted MA, and will bankrupt the US, please explain how they generally work so well in most of Europe.
And, because of the lack of a reasonable plan to eliminate coal, I will now agree on cap and trade- it is now worthless to its intended purpose.
Propane is expensive, hydrogen is the better option, Ford and Shell have put millions into the development. Companies have to remain competitive inorder to sell the product, I would guess that is why they can only commit so much to R&D.
A gov't run auto industry is a failing auto industry with a crappy product. Look at Jaguar, nationalized by the Brits and the car turned into crap. It took Ford,(an American Auto Maker), to save Jaguar. They returned the car to a world class veh. Ford has been mfg in Eurpoe for years, they currently have been nominated for "World car of the year' on a car they sell in Europe and plan to introduce in America this year. Ford has world class products, owning Bosch fuel injection etc.
You can't compare a Merz to an every day Chrysler, one sells for a start price of 45k, the other for 14k. Funny how Merz had no suv vehicles but adopted the Jeep Liberty platform for their ML series, which they continue to use today for three veh's.
Natural gas has serious drilling restrictions is our country as well, we need to become a nation serious about using our natural resouces. We have a 400 year supply of coal--burn baby burn!!
As for Europe being successful with national health, Holland is trying to get out of national health care. Brits have serious wait times, Canadians come to the US for operations. MASS GEN HOS in Boston once every few years has a total floor closed for the one of the Kings from Saudi that comes here for treatment. We have the best and are about to turn it over the to same fools that run Fanny May and Freddie Mac. We have way to much gov't intervention in our lives.
Again I say, they can keep every dime I have paid into Social Security, and I will never take a payment, if they just agree to stop taking the tax. My SS tax exceeds my income tax. In a few years I might be saying my health care tax exceeds my income tax too. Then you will have your wish, we will be Europe. I want to be the USA!!
Have a good weekend Iconoclast---Sun is shining (1st time in a weeK)
The Shark--saying if you want to be Europe--go to Europe, leave us alone
Keep burning that coal at current rates and we as a species won't have another 40 years.
Perhaps you should take some time, visit Europe for about a month and see if you don't see how they have generally outdone the US. I'm just waiting for their downward population trend to relax immigration rules.
There has been dooms day predictors for centuries. I have been to Europe, and Africa, haven't found any place that has outdone us. It is just the opposite, this we are the world and celebrating diversity has slowed our progress down.Your gov't schools are now more interested in socializing the kids rather than educating them, as one guidance counselor from the local gov't HS said to me recently, "we have a wonderful arts dept" "we haven't had any cuts like other towns". I could only wish---how about more time on science and math.
If we hadn't been so "we are the world" constious, our space program would never have gotten bogged down in this phony international space station. We should have continued with the American space program, and following the success of a start up program with post WW II tech that got us to the moon in 1969, we would would have had manned flight to Mars by now, and maybe a manned station there. (God forbid-- we might pollute that pristine Martian surface)
On immigration to Europe, they already have a huge immigration problem from the Middle East, hence the French president out lawing burk-as. The French police had all they could do to keep the riots out of Paris and the tourists eyes last summer. The car burnings and rioting were kept just far enough away so tourists wouldn't run----ahhh yes, the city of lights.
I have a friend not unlike yourself, every time he comes back from France or Switzerland he can't talk enough about it. My response is always the same, if you love it so much there, and it's so bad here, why not just go there permanently. As for me I love the USA, not the USA that your group is trying to make us into, the one we have.
Obama couldn't even give the US credit in a recent press conference for being the main force that brought the cold war to a conclusion, through both Democrat and Republican Presidents remaining tough with the Soviets over a 50 year period, (except Carter).
Let's face it, if not for the US, who else could have stayed the course and had the technology it took to fend the Ruskies off. Now we have a situation where the Commie Russians are referring to us as "Reds" The Russian President said about a month ago that Russian co's doing business in the US should consider getting out while they can and their co is still worth something. Further stating, I can't believe the US didn't learn anything form us after watching us trying to manage economies through gov't for 40 years in Easter Europe. The reds calling us red, that's how bad Obama's hands on is being accepted globally.
You want Barney (Fanny and Freedie are solvent and will never go broke) Frank, John, (Our troops are breaking into Iraqi's homes in the dead of night terrorizing woman and children, and that should be the job of the Iraqi army), Kerry, Nancy,(The CIA llliiiiied to meee, I didn't knooooow, and Oh I need a big military jet at my disposal and my staff's disposal all the time), Pelosi , Harry,(no one knows what to do),Reed
and of course the Community organizer, (nice $9,000. bag and $600 sneakers Michelle wore this weekend, wonder if she's proud of America now?)
Today is Sunday, are they back getting the holy word from Rev Wright today? Do we have more chickens coming home to roost?
Your beloved tax and spend bill was drafted by Ed Markey, from Malden MA. I knew Ed Markey when he was a State Rep. His illustrious career ended with being thrown out---literally from the senate. He was so disliked that they redistricted and did away with his seat. He showed up at the State House and found they had even thrown his desk into the hallway. He was a man without a seat to run for as an incumbent. But as luck would have it, Torbit McDonald, long time Congressman from our dist died, and low and behold, Markey was there to run. He still claims his father's attick bedroom as his residence, but word is he has a mansion in Chevy Chase VA.
I know it makes your argument to quote the "scientists" like Gore that support your position. But again, why not go to the web and check out the climatologists that laugh at this, one a professor at MIT. I'll take his word over Professor Gore any day. I told you his scare techniques like the photo of MT Kilimanjaro, mountain is now clear cut, put trees back and snow caps appear again year round.
We probably have a bigger threat of extintion by being struck by a meteor then we do from global warming. That's where we should be spending money on a global meteor defense system.
As I said on energy, I think it's all important, wind, solar, syn fuel, oil, coal, nuclear. Your beloved French use almost 100% nuke for their elec. So why aren't we----the greenies. They are hiding behind a movie made in the 70's as reality. As one nuclear physicist said, 3 mile island is the reason we should be building nuclear plants. The accident was 35 years ago, no one died, and with today's technology even that accident is almost impossible.
So while these things get developed, burn baby burn on coal, and go and get our oil and natural gas and let's stop the madness of paying other countries for what we already own.
Your worried about us burning coal, we probably have the most stringent coal burning emissions in the world. The Chinese are bringing a new plant on line every couple of months. I doubt they require the scrubbers that we do. While in Africa, I texted a picture to a friend captioned, "these people don't worry about their carbon foot print."
I don't know why the new liberals or Progressives as you preferr to be called now, hate our country so much. The last time I checked, we fought a war to get away from Europe and build our own democracy. Now your group hates the way it operates, it's too free for you. Your group is afraid of self reliance, making it on our own. I and millions of Americans are not, we love America, we want very little from our gov't. I find it interesting you never comment on my remark about Social Security. I'll give you another chance.
I have paid into Social Security for 37 years, the SS tax exceeds my inome tax. I would be willing to let the gov't keep all of my "contributions", and release them from ever having to pay me any benefit. In return all I ask is to not have to pay the tax anymore.
Unfortunately, once the gov't has it's grasp on you it won't let go. It's the same thing that will happen with health care. Businesses in MA are being killed with the "fair share" tax. The owner of one small co told me that they employed about 90 people. They just gave up a contract allowing them to cut their employee numbers to lower their fair share tax. The owner said the co. will make about the same profits by cutting employees so they don't have to pay the "fair tax". Then the illustrious Mayor of Boston is seeking an increase in payroll taxes for co's that employ individuals that work in Boston but don't live there----huh?? These aren't gov't jobs, these are private co's!! That' a real jobs creator too, I can see the trucks carrying co equip. as they leave Boston for the 40 min drive to southern NH. Thanks Liberals---I mean Progressives.
The Shark---asking all people that want to change America into Europe to Just go there instead and leave us alone.
Hey Iconoclast--hope all is well,
shark
well I guess our conversation on this subject is over.
In the words of Bill O'Reilly, Thank you for the spirited debate.
If you get time, check out one of my hubs, maybe we can have a good debate on one of them.
Hope all is well,
The Shark
bgpappa says:
9 months ago
This a a very thoughtful analysis. Great Hub