2008 Depression

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Destitution, poverty, dying because an old person can’t afford to heat their home (basically caused by the environmentalists) are hardly subjects for humor, among civilised people.

In this scenario, the high oil and gas prices are caused by a US invasion of Iran… and you would blame environmentalists?

That’s a little twisted.

At the very least we all deserve a good kick in the teeth for being so reliant on one limited resource. It’ll be good economic incentive to switch to alcool and build windmill farms and solar fields. Increased use of renewables means remaining oil reserves will last even longer! Look on the bright side!

As for humour, most everything is fair game except the Holocaust and 9/11. Aren’t you the one who invested heavily in oil and war companies after 9/11? Don’t tell me you don’t grin a little when you check up on your investment returns. The thought crosses your mind. Admit it. “Damn, I’m clever!”

Oil crises turn this province into a gold mine That means new roads, better infrastructure, lower taxes, and jobs galore because somebody, somewhere, is buying that oil. If America invades Iran, and seeing as we’re the top supplier of oil to the American military, we will see prosperity even in the face of a depression in our trading partners.

Forgive me if the global suffering won’t constantly be weighing on my heart and conscience. Humour is good for the soul. Dwelling on all the tragedies of the world you can’t do anything about is not. You don’t drop to your knees and cry for the homeless when you get a raise and buy a new house.

Then again my family’s humour comes from the Ukraine, where generations of famine, war, revolution and genocide lend to what some would call “dark” humour. If you can’t laugh while you’re starving, diseased, and the Russians have murdered 20 million of your people, you’re really not going to make it.

Sick Ukrainian humour: It’s genetic. ;D

Although I can see your point. If you’re that worried about it, my suggestion is to not invade Iran.

ElbowStrike[/quote]

The USA has 22 billion barrels of proven reserves. Environmentalists won’t allow drilling, and file lawsuit after lawsuit. Old people freeze, little kids can’t have Christmas because of the oil price, all so caribou can shit without having to look at a pipeline.

The Iranian oil fields belong to British and American oil companies. We NEED to invade to return the loot to its rightful owners. (Iranians are goat herds. They thought oil was a curse from Allah, probably for sodomizing the goats.)

Take over the fields and bomb anyone who goes near the fields. That’ll bring the price down.

22

[quote]orion wrote:
Hardly, because he neither killed them nor wished for anybody to kill them.

Those not so subtle nuances do make a difference, you know?

[/quote]

If lixy truly does not laugh and wish for the terrorists to kill people, then I’m the Queen of England.

Sorry, I don’t buy it when the kid makes 24 5-paragraph posts defending the actions of terrorists in Iraq, and then tacks on a one-line disclaimer: “Oh, I don’t support them at all. They’re bastards!”

23

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

The USA has 22 billion barrels of proven reserves. Environmentalists won’t allow drilling, and file lawsuit after lawsuit. Old people freeze, little kids can’t have Christmas because of the oil price, all so caribou can shit without having to look at a pipeline.

The Iranian oil fields belong to British and American oil companies. We NEED to invade to return the loot to its rightful owners. (Iranians are goat herds. They thought oil was a curse from Allah, probably for sodomizing the goats.)

Take over the fields and bomb anyone who goes near the fields. That’ll bring the price down.

[/quote]

It is amazing and scary that this was written by someone that is a teacher and shaping young minds.

24

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
If the rest of the world judges us by our leaders, why can’t we judge the rest of the world by their leaders? [/quote]

Because anyone doing that is a moron.

Ahmadinejad is a democratically elected leader. And just like Bush, he won’t be ruling forever.

Strawman.

I asked you simple question: If it’s OK to attack Iran on the basis that they may attack Israel (with fists and chairs?), wouldn’t the same apply to anyone who wanted to attack the US when they were about to attack Iraq? I’m serious here.

25

They could not stand the Shah being a brutal dictator and American puppet after America and Britain overthrew the democratically-elected Mohammed Mossadeq.

…because America had recently overthrown Iran’s democratically-elected government.

You don’t overthrow a peoples’ democracy and expect them to be happy about it, let alone love you, hand over their oil fields, and send you flowers on your birthday.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The USA has 22 billion barrels of proven reserves. Environmentalists won’t allow drilling… all so caribou can shit without having to look at a pipeline.[/quote]

If you’re talking about the “frozen wasteland” of wildlife preserves in Alaska, that has more to do with completely shutting off wildlife migration patterns than the animals’ level of comfort while taking a shit.

Last I read those reserves would only fuel the USA’s needs for four years, anyway. Not worth it. Just buy from us. We have more oil than Saudi Arabia and given new reserves being discovered in Saskatchewan, we might have more than double what we’d thought before.

More to the point, however, after those reserves are all burnt away, who is there to blame for the next lack of oil? The next? How about when all the oil is burned and gone? What then?

Drilling more and more oil while expanding an oil-dependent economy is the economic equivalent of alcoholism. We need to kick the habit eventually. Oil crises are our “wake up calls”.

Property belongs to whomever the government says it belongs to. Nothing “belongs” to anyone unless the authorities agree that it does. We own private property in the West because we have capitalist governments. The Government of Iran, just as any other nation, has the sovereign right to administrate its resources as they see fit. If it is their decision to run an “inefficient” nationalized oil industry, then that is their decision to make.

The rightful owners would be the Iranians. Oil companies do not “own” the oil in the ground, they own the oil they extract. That’s a very important difference. If a country will not allow a multinational corporation to drill their oil, that company can go cry about it, or find somewhere else to drill.

You don’t spend billions of taxpayers’ dollars and American lives to steal that oil for the sake of a few wealthy shareholders.

From “bringing freedom to Iraq” and “fighting terrorism” to “taking their motherfucking oil!!!”

At least you’re honest about it. I’ll give ya that.

[quote](Iranians are goat herds. They thought oil was a curse from Allah, probably for sodomizing the goats.)

Take over the fields and bomb anyone who goes near the fields. That’ll bring the price down.[/quote]

Let me guess. You get your learnin’ 'bout Iran from StormFront.Org.

Again at least you’re honest about it. Good on you for admitting your fanatical Imperialism. It’s a big step.

ElbowStrike

26

[quote]lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
If the rest of the world judges us by our leaders, why can’t we judge the rest of the world by their leaders?

Because anyone doing that is a moron.

Achmanijihad, Robert Mugabe, Kim Jung-Il, and all the rest of those shiteaters need to die.

Ahmadinejad is a democratically elected leader. And just like Bush, he won’t be ruling forever.

If the leaders are evil (using the world’s logic), then Iranians, Zimbabweans, on and on are evil.

Strawman.

I asked you simple question: If it’s OK to attack Iran on the basis that they may attack Israel (with fists and chairs?), wouldn’t the same apply to anyone who wanted to attack the US when they were about to attack Iraq? I’m serious here.
[/quote]

Lixy,

The difference is that Iraq was threatening US — switching out of dollars, bluffing about WMDs, violating the 18 UN sanctions. How does that compare with Iran telling the Israelis that they (the Iranians) will never rest until Israel is dead or all the Jews have moved to Alaska?

27

[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
Let me guess. You get your learnin’ 'bout Iran from StormFront.Org.

Again at least you’re honest about it. Good on you for admitting your fanatical Imperialism. It’s a big step.

ElbowStrike[/quote]

You know, you make excellent points. Canada DOES have large reserves. Why should we send our troops way over to nutso-land with all those demented idiots, when lots of oil is right next door? I’ll point all this out at the next Bilderberger conference.

28

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
You know, you make excellent points. Canada DOES have large reserves. Why should we send our troops way over to nutso-land with all those demented idiots, when lots of oil is right next door? I’ll point all this out at the next Bilderberger conference.[/quote]

To confirm, just so we’re all on the same page:

You freely admit that you hate peoples’ inalienable rights to democracy and freedom.

Because that’s what you’re saying.

ElbowStrike

29

[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
You know, you make excellent points. Canada DOES have large reserves. Why should we send our troops way over to nutso-land with all those demented idiots, when lots of oil is right next door? I’ll point all this out at the next Bilderberger conference.

To confirm, just so we’re all on the same page:

You freely admit that you hate peoples’ inalienable rights to democracy and freedom.

Because that’s what you’re saying.

ElbowStrike[/quote]

No, what he is saying that their rights inalienability depend on whether they park their asses on his oil.

30

[quote]orion wrote:
No, what he is saying that their rights inalienability depend on whether they park their asses on his oil.[/quote]

That’s what it sounded like to me.

So by his logic, a street gang has a right to his wife and daughters (and him, if they so choose) so long as they have the ability to overpower him.

Or, at the very least, all of his property.

That’s an shocking lack of morality he’s got going on there.

I wouldn’t want to live in his world.

ElbowStrike

31

[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
orion wrote:
No, what he is saying that their rights inalienability depend on whether they park their asses on his oil.

That’s what it sounded like to me.

So by his logic, a street gang has a right to his wife and daughters (and him, if they so choose) so long as they have the ability to overpower him.

Or, at the very least, all of his property.

That’s an shocking lack of morality he’s got going on there.

I wouldn’t want to live in his world.

ElbowStrike[/quote]

That is exactly his world. He doesn’t see it though.

32

HH is a self-admitted troll; he’s said many times before that he’s here basically to stir shit up.

I wouldn’t waste my time trying to understand his positions if I were you guys.

33

Point well taken.

34

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
ElbowStrike wrote:
orion wrote:
No, what he is saying that their rights inalienability depend on whether they park their asses on his oil.

That’s what it sounded like to me.

So by his logic, a street gang has a right to his wife and daughters (and him, if they so choose) so long as they have the ability to overpower him.

Or, at the very least, all of his property.

That’s an shocking lack of morality he’s got going on there.

I wouldn’t want to live in his world.

ElbowStrike

That is exactly his world. He doesn’t see it though.[/quote]

This by a man who was offered the chance to explain it all to me, as he shamelessly dismissed my philosophy as ‘bubblegum philosophy’. Guess he had to know what philosophy is before he could explain or have one. Like many engineers — clueless about anything not concrete (like their heads).

Look, in case you guys can’t figure it out — oil belongs to those who discover it aand develop the fields. Why does anyone have a ‘right’ to nationalize a business? Because it was on their land? So a landord can confiscate a business existing on his property, for which he is paid rent?

And I’d bet American oil companies found the oil in Canadian swamps, which Canada now claims belongs to it. What criminal logic decided such nonsense?

I’d suggest before some of you twerps lecture me on morality, you might try to discover what it is.

35

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Look, in case you guys can’t figure it out — oil belongs to those who discover it aand develop the fields. Why does anyone have a ‘right’ to nationalize a business? Because it was on their land? So a landord can confiscate a business existing on his property, for which he is paid rent?

And I’d bet American oil companies found the oil in Canadian swamps, which Canada now claims belongs to it. What criminal logic decided such nonsense? [/quote]

You are one sick old man.

36

[quote]lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Look, in case you guys can’t figure it out — oil belongs to those who discover it aand develop the fields. Why does anyone have a ‘right’ to nationalize a business? Because it was on their land? So a landord can confiscate a business existing on his property, for which he is paid rent?

And I’d bet American oil companies found the oil in Canadian swamps, which Canada now claims belongs to it. What criminal logic decided such nonsense?

You are one sick old man.[/quote]

You are a member/supporter of Al-Qaeda, who thinks 13 year old girls should be raped and/or imprisoned and whipped if they complain about said rape.

Rainjack had you nailed, coward.

37

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
And I’d bet American oil companies found the oil in Canadian swamps, which Canada now claims belongs to it. What criminal logic decided such nonsense?
[/quote]

It is clearly spelled out in the Canadian constitution that natural resources belong to the People of the province in which it is found. Not the “person” who found it.

The person or corporation who discovers and develops the resource has extraction rights, nothing more.

When they extract and sell the People’s resource, they owe a small royalty on the profits from the sale.

Whoever discovered and developed the oil agreed to this when they decided to go looking for it on Canadian soil.

It’s really not that hard to follow. You’d have to be an idiot not to get it.

38

[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
And I’d bet American oil companies found the oil in Canadian swamps, which Canada now claims belongs to it. What criminal logic decided such nonsense?

It is clearly spelled out in the Canadian constitution that natural resources belong to the People of the province in which it is found. Not the “person” who found it.

The person or corporation who discovers and develops the resource has extraction rights, nothing more.

When they extract and sell the People’s resource, they owe a small royalty on the profits from the sale.

Whoever discovered and developed the oil agreed to this when they decided to go looking for it on Canadian soil.

It’s really not that hard to follow. You’d have to be an idiot not to get it.[/quote]

Oh, I get it. You want someone else to invest money finding the oil and developing the fields, then collect a reward. As long as a corporation understands that going in, fine and dandy. Since Canadians usually follow the rule of law, no problem. Did the Iranians do that?

Did Iran compensate the oil companies for the massive wealth created for them? Nope.

You also need to realize that any oil shortage is non-existent. There are trillions of barrels out there but environmentalism prevents the development of said fields. They allowed ME dictators and theologic-fascists to get the West by the balls.

Ever try to drill a new well in the Gulf of Mexico? OMG you’d think you had tortured a baby seal to death, with the lawsuit after lawsuit. (One of my investments is a company that searches and develops fields. The company is a good investment because others have been driven out of the business!)

Anyway, I guess I’ll go back to reading Stormfront.org.
Jeeeezzzzzz…

39

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Look, in case you guys can’t figure it out — oil belongs to those who discover it aand develop the fields. [/quote]

Since when? Oil belongs to anyone that has title to the land as a matter of private property rights. Whether they choose to develop oil fields or not is a choice protected by private property rights - if I choose to keep a lush forest on my land instead of cutting timber for cash, that is my business.

And you telling me otherwise is messing with my private property rights. “Development” earns you no more of a right to the land than my lack of development - if I have title to the property.

Most likely because the people of a nation surrendered that power to a government authority - likely by choice.

Well, what does the contract between landlord and tenant say? Did the tenant surrender that right in the contract?

The analogy is apt - if the people/tenant negotiate that right away, then they give someone else the power to do it.

If Canada owns the property - coming onto the land to do something in violation of what the property owner wants is called trespassing, and is one of the ultimate bulwarks of private property rights.

You have some idea that private property rights are subordinate to someone else’s right to make that property economically productive or monetized - if so, you are an enemy to private property rights.

I could likely take the property you live on in your house and turn it into a office building or company headquarters for a small business - so I can come in and claim a right to your piece of land on the theory I can make your land more productive than it is now?

40

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Oh, I get it. You want someone else to invest money finding the oil and developing the fields, then collect a reward.[/quote]

From one perspective I can see what you’re saying, but I don’t agree with the underlying assumptions.

Consider, if for a moment, that those natural resources are physically a part of the nation. You are literally taking a piece of nation and selling it.

The roads, fences, power lines, trucks, drills, pumps, tanks, and the surface of the ground they occupy… those are all private property. The oil itself? That’s physically a part of the “mass” of the nation.

You can’t just “take” 5,000 valuable tons of the nation and then sell it. You’ve got to pay for it somehow. It’s got a price attached.

Alaska and some mainland states have a similar policy, if I’m not mistaken. Alaskans even get a cheque on a regular basis from their natural resource royalty revenues.

Whatever way you look at it, this system affords the provincial government zero debt and that means lower taxes for me. Therefore, I like it.

On another tangent altogether…

What are you talking about with regards to lixy? Those are some pretty strong claims. Would you mind posting a link to the thread/incident you are referring to?

ElbowStrike