The Secret Campaign of President Bush's Administration To Deny Global Warming

[GaryC 7]

I certainly don't think anyone can claim rightful ownership to oil, although I would agree, in cases where the oil is found under the ground of someone's land, they should have first dibs at it. But Gary, think of all the offshore drilling, drilling on public land, or drilling in the Alaskan wilderness - who then owns the oil? Or who has rightful claim to it?

Whoever bought the mineral rights! Who else would? Why should oil be any different than some other resource? Are you advocating nationalizing mineral rights to privately owned lands? Are you advocating the government not selling drilling rights to private companies? Please explain!!

Should we privatize well water that is on public land, Gary? Where do you draw the line? Point being - it's not a given that natural resources on public land be automatically sold off to private interests, particularly when the general public has a strong dependency on that resource. Call that socialism if you want, but it makes logical sense to me. Now I could see the government licensing contracts for private companies to extract the oil, but to say that the bulk of their profit belongs to them and should not be heavily taxed is ludicrous. Alaskan residents are compensated by the oil companies in the form of an annual payment - what do see that as?

And there ladies and gentlemen is why the liberals should never be given free reign.

Steven, where do I begin? hehe, I can't respond to your view without name calling so I won't. All I can say is this. Our country was founded on the belief of private ownership of land and the private ownership of business. If you don't like it I suggest you go somewhere that is more to your liking. Maybe China or N Korea?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I certainly don't think anyone can claim rightful ownership to oil, although I would agree, in cases where the oil is found under the ground of someone's land, they should have first dibs at it. But Gary, think of all the offshore drilling, drilling on public land, or drilling in the Alaskan wilderness - who then owns the oil? Or who has rightful claim to it?

Whoever bought the mineral rights! Who else would? Why should oil be any different than some other resource? Are you advocating nationalizing mineral rights to privately owned lands? Are you advocating the government not selling drilling rights to private companies? Please explain!!

Should we privatize well water that is on public land, Gary? Where do you draw the line? Point being - it's not a given that natural resources on public land be automatically sold off to private interests, particularly when the general public has a strong dependency on that resource. Call that socialism if you want, but it makes logical sense to me. Now I could see the government licensing contracts for private companies to extract the oil, but to say that the bulk of their profit belongs to them and should not be heavily taxed is ludicrous. Alaskan residents are compensated by the oil companies in the form of an annual payment - what do see that as?

And there ladies and gentlemen is why the liberals should never be given free reign.

Steven, where do I begin? hehe, I can't respond to your view without name calling so I won't. All I can say is this. Our country was founded on the belief of private ownership of land and the private ownership of business. If you don't like it I suggest you go somewhere that is more to your liking. Maybe China or N Korea?

Gary, did I lose you there? Public land is owned by whom? Resources on that public land belong to whom? Let's take this one step at a time.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I certainly don't think anyone can claim rightful ownership to oil, although I would agree, in cases where the oil is found under the ground of someone's land, they should have first dibs at it. But Gary, think of all the offshore drilling, drilling on public land, or drilling in the Alaskan wilderness - who then owns the oil? Or who has rightful claim to it?

Whoever bought the mineral rights! Who else would? Why should oil be any different than some other resource? Are you advocating nationalizing mineral rights to privately owned lands? Are you advocating the government not selling drilling rights to private companies? Please explain!!

Should we privatize well water that is on public land, Gary? Where do you draw the line? Point being - it's not a given that natural resources on public land be automatically sold off to private interests, particularly when the general public has a strong dependency on that resource. Call that socialism if you want, but it makes logical sense to me. Now I could see the government licensing contracts for private companies to extract the oil, but to say that the bulk of their profit belongs to them and should not be heavily taxed is ludicrous. Alaskan residents are compensated by the oil companies in the form of an annual payment - what do see that as?

And there ladies and gentlemen is why the liberals should never be given free reign.

Steven, where do I begin? hehe, I can't respond to your view without name calling so I won't. All I can say is this. Our country was founded on the belief of private ownership of land and the private ownership of business. If you don't like it I suggest you go somewhere that is more to your liking. Maybe China or N Korea?

Gary - can you actually respond to a point without name-calling... or even the 'threat' of namecalling?

You begin by addressing the point - so far all I've seen from you is a bunch of spurious assumptions about 'anti-capitalist types', yet when questioned on those assumptions you shrink away with backhanded insults and refuse to answer the points raised. Pretty weak IMO.

[GaryC 7]

I certainly don't think anyone can claim rightful ownership to oil, although I would agree, in cases where the oil is found under the ground of someone's land, they should have first dibs at it. But Gary, think of all the offshore drilling, drilling on public land, or drilling in the Alaskan wilderness - who then owns the oil? Or who has rightful claim to it?

Whoever bought the mineral rights! Who else would? Why should oil be any different than some other resource? Are you advocating nationalizing mineral rights to privately owned lands? Are you advocating the government not selling drilling rights to private companies? Please explain!!

Should we privatize well water that is on public land, Gary? Where do you draw the line? Point being - it's not a given that natural resources on public land be automatically sold off to private interests, particularly when the general public has a strong dependency on that resource. Call that socialism if you want, but it makes logical sense to me. Now I could see the government licensing contracts for private companies to extract the oil, but to say that the bulk of their profit belongs to them and should not be heavily taxed is ludicrous. Alaskan residents are compensated by the oil companies in the form of an annual payment - what do see that as?

And there ladies and gentlemen is why the liberals should never be given free reign.

Steven, where do I begin? hehe, I can't respond to your view without name calling so I won't. All I can say is this. Our country was founded on the belief of private ownership of land and the private ownership of business. If you don't like it I suggest you go somewhere that is more to your liking. Maybe China or N Korea?

Gary - can you actually respond to a point without name-calling... or even the 'threat' of namecalling?

You begin by addressing the point - so far all I've seen from you is a bunch of spurious assumptions about 'anti-capitalist types', yet when questioned on those assumptions you shrink away with backhanded insults and refuse to answer the points raised. Pretty weak IMO.

When faced with a blatent socialist view there isn't much else to say. Private ownership of land and business is fundamental to our country. So just what assumptions should I be explaining? Anyone that advocates curbing our rights as Americans to own land and the mineral rights that go along with it is pretty lame and dangerous IMO.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I don't see how anyone can be both lame and dangerous at the same time. But that's probably something I should take up on another thread......

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

When faced with a blatent socialist view there isn't much else to say. Private ownership of land and business is fundamental to our country. So just what assumptions should I be explaining? Anyone that advocates curbing our rights as Americans to own land and the mineral rights that go along with it is pretty lame and dangerous IMO.

I'm not sure you read what was actually written. The suggestion was that oil companies should not derive the bulk of the profits derived from the exploration of natural resources located on publicly owned land. In effect its taking something you already own and selling it back to you at a premium.

On the assumptions - I was addressing the earlier point about 'anti-capitalist elites' which you never qualified.

You also said it was easy to find out Hillary Clintons campaign contributers. Again not qualified.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

When faced with a blatent socialist view there isn't much else to say. Private ownership of land and business is fundamental to our country. So just what assumptions should I be explaining? Anyone that advocates curbing our rights as Americans to own land and the mineral rights that go along with it is pretty lame and dangerous IMO.

I'm not sure you read what was actually written. The suggestion was that oil companies should not derive the bulk of the profits derived from the exploration of natural resources located on publicly owned land. In effect its taking something you already own and selling it back to you at a premium.

On the assumptions - I was addressing the earlier point about 'anti-capitalist elites' which you never qualified.

You also said it was easy to find out Hillary Clintons campaign contributers. Again not qualified.

Really. Big Oil hasn't purchased the Gulf of Mexico just yet but somehow they don't have to pay all those royalties anymore for taking out of the ground what really is not theirs but ours. Private ownership? Absolutely. Put the Gulf up for sale then or charge them for extracting and profiting off of public property.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Gary, I love competition when it really exists. I'm in favor of ownership of property when it really exists. What I'm against is when everyday Americans like you want to give carte blanche to private companies taking natural resources from public land and decry it as 'anti-capitalist' should anyone make them share in those profits - particularly when those profits are at an all time high. Suggesting that I'd be better off living in China or N. Korea for having such opinion is dishonest at best. You are smarter than that.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Indeed. It's not as though oil prices are being held artificially high or anything like that...

Edited June 26, 2007 by erekose

[GaryC 7]

When faced with a blatent socialist view there isn't much else to say. Private ownership of land and business is fundamental to our country. So just what assumptions should I be explaining? Anyone that advocates curbing our rights as Americans to own land and the mineral rights that go along with it is pretty lame and dangerous IMO.

I'm not sure you read what was actually written. The suggestion was that oil companies should not derive the bulk of the profits derived from the exploration of natural resources located on publicly owned land. In effect its taking something you already own and selling it back to you at a premium.

On the assumptions - I was addressing the earlier point about 'anti-capitalist elites' which you never qualified.

You also said it was easy to find out Hillary Clintons campaign contributers. Again not qualified.

They don't derive the bulk of thier profits from oil drilled from publicly owned land. They get it from refining the oil. Oil companies pay a huge price for drilling on public land. They do pay royalties to the states they drill in. They have unbelevable up-front costs to even put a drill bit on the ground with no assurence they will find oil. They take a large risk and deserve a large profit.

As far as the anti-capitalists comments go it is apparent that the left is rife with them. If you want me to flood this thread with examples I will. But right now I am at work and don't have the time. Let me instead give you my deffinition of anti-capitalist. When someone wants to take profits over and above the taxes levied to pay for their own pet project that is anti-capitalist (Clinton). When someone attempts to taxe a company out of exsistence, that is anti-capitalist (tobacco). When someone tries to regulate private business to the point they can no longer run their business without a team of lawyers to make sure they have lived up to the regulations that is anti-capitalist (auto industry). I can go on and on but you get where I am coming from. I am sure your going to come back and ask if business should just be given free reign and the answer is no. But the left has taken it to such extremes that it is now anti-capitalists.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

When faced with a blatent socialist view there isn't much else to say. Private ownership of land and business is fundamental to our country. So just what assumptions should I be explaining? Anyone that advocates curbing our rights as Americans to own land and the mineral rights that go along with it is pretty lame and dangerous IMO.

I'm not sure you read what was actually written. The suggestion was that oil companies should not derive the bulk of the profits derived from the exploration of natural resources located on publicly owned land. In effect its taking something you already own and selling it back to you at a premium.

On the assumptions - I was addressing the earlier point about 'anti-capitalist elites' which you never qualified.

You also said it was easy to find out Hillary Clintons campaign contributers. Again not qualified.

They don't derive the bulk of thier profits from oil drilled from publicly owned land. They get it from refining the oil. Oil companies pay a huge price for drilling on public land. They do pay royalties to the states they drill in. They have unbelevable up-front costs to even put a drill bit on the ground with no assurence they will find oil. They take a large risk and deserve a large profit.

As far as the anti-capitalists comments go it is apparent that the left is rife with them. If you want me to flood this thread with examples I will. But right now I am at work and don't have the time. Let me instead give you my deffinition of anti-capitalist. When someone wants to take profits over and above the taxes levied to pay for their own pet project that is anti-capitalist (Clinton). When someone attempts to taxe a company out of exsistence, that is anti-capitalist (tobacco). When someone tries to regulate private business to the point they can no longer run their business without a team of lawyers to make sure they have lived up to the regulations that is anti-capitalist (auto industry). I can go on and on but you get where I am coming from. I am sure your going to come back and ask if business should just be given free reign and the answer is no. But the left has taken it to such extremes that it is now anti-capitalists.

Sure - and all I'm asking is for you to substantiate it (at your leisure) - rather than say things like "its obvious", "easy to find" etc. Prove it (at your leisure).

Who are these 'anti-capitalists' and exactly how do they have more money and resources than corporate lobbyists? - lobbyists who are working out of ####### Cheney's office to cook the books on man-made global warming; and promote private interests while systematically destroying, defaming and denying any opposition.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

When faced with a blatent socialist view there isn't much else to say. Private ownership of land and business is fundamental to our country. So just what assumptions should I be explaining? Anyone that advocates curbing our rights as Americans to own land and the mineral rights that go along with it is pretty lame and dangerous IMO.

I'm not sure you read what was actually written. The suggestion was that oil companies should not derive the bulk of the profits derived from the exploration of natural resources located on publicly owned land. In effect its taking something you already own and selling it back to you at a premium.

On the assumptions - I was addressing the earlier point about 'anti-capitalist elites' which you never qualified.

You also said it was easy to find out Hillary Clintons campaign contributers. Again not qualified.

They don't derive the bulk of thier profits from oil drilled from publicly owned land. They get it from refining the oil. Oil companies pay a huge price for drilling on public land. They do pay royalties to the states they drill in. They have unbelevable up-front costs to even put a drill bit on the ground with no assurence they will find oil. They take a large risk and deserve a large profit.

As far as the anti-capitalists comments go it is apparent that the left is rife with them. If you want me to flood this thread with examples I will. But right now I am at work and don't have the time. Let me instead give you my deffinition of anti-capitalist. When someone wants to take profits over and above the taxes levied to pay for their own pet project that is anti-capitalist (Clinton). When someone attempts to taxe a company out of exsistence, that is anti-capitalist (tobacco). When someone tries to regulate private business to the point they can no longer run their business without a team of lawyers to make sure they have lived up to the regulations that is anti-capitalist (auto industry). I can go on and on but you get where I am coming from. I am sure your going to come back and ask if business should just be given free reign and the answer is no. But the left has taken it to such extremes that it is now anti-capitalists.

Five years ago, ... energy companies paid more than $400 million to settle charges that they had not paid royalties owed on oil taken from public land. Today, most of the focus is on natural gas production, which is booming on public land in the Rocky Mountain West, with the enthusiastic backing of the Bush administration.

"We think the underpayment on gas royalties could be much bigger than the fraud that was exposed for the oil wells," said Beth Daley, of the Project on Government Oversight, a Washington-based interest group that plays a coordinating role among the various groups challenging the energy companies.

"The industry seems to have all sorts of ways to avoid paying what it owes for this gas," Daley said. "And the Bush administration has been loosening the rules. At a time when drilling is way up, the government has cut back on its audits, so it is easier for a company to get away with fraud."

Oil and gas accounting rules are complicated, and it is difficult to assess whether or how much the companies may have underpaid. But one veteran of the Western oil patch, independent driller Jack Grynberg, of Centennial, charges that the industry owes the federal government more than $30 billion in unpaid royalties for natural gas alone. By comparison, the deficit-cutting bill that Congress passed earlier this year would save $39 billion over five years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6050600905.html

[GaryC 7]

Sure - and all I'm asking is for you to substantiate it (at your leisure) - rather than say things like "its obvious", "easy to find" etc. Prove it (at your leisure).

Who are these 'anti-capitalists' and exactly how do they have more money and resources than corporate lobbyists? - lobbyists who are working out of ####### Cheney's office to cook the books on man-made global warming; and promote private interests while systematically destroying, defaming and denying any opposition.

Ok, one deffinition (to me at least) of an anti-capitalist as a socialist. Socialism is making large inroads into the democratic party. As a way to illistrate this I give you the Q&A from the Democratic Socialists of America web page. I am sure you will see some reflection of todays dems here.

What is Democratic Socialism?

Questions and Answers from the

Democratic Socialists of America

Democratic Socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to

meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our

government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so

that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.

Democracy and socialism go hand in hand. All over the world, wherever the idea of democracy has taken

root, the vision of socialism has taken root as well—everywhere but in the United States. Because of this,

many false ideas about socialism have developed in the US. With this pamphlet, we hope to answer some of

your questions about socialism.

Doesn’t socialism mean that the government will

own and run everything?

Democratic Socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy. But we do not want big

corporate bureaucracies to control our society either. Rather, we believe that social and economic decisions should be

made by those whom they most affect.

Today, corporate executives who answer only to themselves and a few wealthy stockholders make basic economic

decisions affecting millions of people. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet

human needs. We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and

control them.

Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises

managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic Socialists favor as much decentralization as possible.

While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state

ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives.

Democratic Socialists have long rejected the belief that the whole economy should be centrally planned. While

we believe that democratic planning can shape major social investments like mass transit, housing, and energy, market

mechanisms are needed to determine the demand for many consumer goods.

Hasn’t socialism been discredited by the collapse of

Communism in the USSR and Eastern Europe?

Socialists have been among the harshest critics of authoritarian Communist states. Just because their bureaucratic

elites called them “socialist” did not make it so; they also called their regimes “democratic.” We applaud the authentic

democratic revolutions that have transformed the former Communist bloc. We also expect that the socialist parties

that are reemerging in Eastern Europe will be essential in the struggle to protect workers’ rights, to ensure equality for

women, and to promote social justice. The improvement of people’s lives requires real democracy without ethnic

rivalries and/or new forms of authoritarianism. Democratic Socialists will continue to play a key role in that struggle

throughout the world.

The fall of Communism should not blind us to injustices at home. We cannot allow all radicalism to be dismissed

as “Communist.” That suppression of dissent and diversity undermines America’s ability to live up to its promise of

equality of opportunity.

Private corporations seem to be a permanent

fixture in the US, so why work towards socialism?

In the short term we can’t eliminate private corporations, but we can bring them under greater democratic control.

The government could use regulations and tax incentives to encourage companies to act in the public interest and

outlaw destructive activities such as exporting jobs to low-wage countries and polluting our environment. Public

pressure can also have a critical role to play in the struggle to hold corporations accountable. Most of all, socialists

look to unions make private business more responsible.

Won’t socialism be impractical because people will

lose their incentive to work?

We don’t agree with the capitalist assumption that starvation or greed are the only reasons people work. People enjoy

their work if it is meaningful and enhances their lives. They work out of a sense of responsibility to their community and

society. Although a long-term goal of socialism is to eliminate all but the most enjoyable kinds of labor, we recognize that unappealing jobs will long remain. These tasks would be spread among as many people as possible rather than distributed

on the basis of class, race, ethnicity, or gender, as they are under capitalism. And this undesirable work should be among

the best, not the least, rewarded work within the economy. For now, the burden should be placed on the employer to make

work desirable by raising wages, offering benefits and improving the work environment. In short, we believe that a

combination of social, economic, and moral incentives will motivate people to work.

Why are there no models of democratic socialism?

Although no country has fully instituted democratic socialism, the socialist parties and labor movements of other

countries have won many victories for their people. We can learn from the comprehensive welfare state maintained by

the Swedes, from Canada’s national health care system, France’s nationwide childcare program, and Nicaragua’s

literacy programs. Lastly, we can learn from efforts initiated right here in the US, such as the community health centers

created by the government in the 1960s. They provided high quality family care, with community involvement in

decision-making.

But hasn’t the European Social Democratic

experiment failed?

For over half a century, the nations of Western Europe have enjoyed both tremendous prosperity and relative

economic equality thanks to the policies pursued by social democratic and labor parties. These nations used their relative

wealth to insure a high standard of living for their citizens—high wages, health care and subsidized education. Most

importantly, these states supported strong labor movements that became central players in economic decision-making.

But with the globalization of capitalism, the old social democratic model becomes ever harder to maintain. Stiff competition

from low-wage labor markets in developing countries and the constant fear that industry will move to avoid taxes

and strong labor regulations has diminished (but not eliminated) the ability of nations to launch ambitious economic

reform on their own. Social democratic reform must now happen at the international level. Multinational corporations

must be brought under democratic controls, and workers’ organizing efforts must reach across borders.

Now, more than ever, socialism is an international movement. As socialists have always known, the welfare of

working people in Finland or California depends largely on standards in Italy or Indonesia. As a result, we must

envision reforms that can withstand the power of multinationals and global banks, and we must imagine a world order

that is not controlled by bankers and bosses.

Aren’t you a party that’s in competition with the

Democratic Party for votes and support?

Wait for it, here it is!!!!

No, we are not a separate party. Like our friends and allies in the feminist, labor, civil rights, religious, and

community organizing movements, many of us have been active in the Democratic Party. We work with those movements

to strengthen the party’s left wing, represented by the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

The process and structure of American elections seriously hurts third party efforts. Winner-take-all elections

instead of proportional representation, rigorous party qualification requirements that vary from state to state, a presidential

instead of a parliamentary system, and the two-party monopoly on political power have doomed third party

efforts. Maybe sometime in the future, in coalition with our allies, an alternative national party will be viable. For now,

we will continue to support progressives who have a real chance at winning elections, which usually means left-wing

Democrats.

If I am going to devote time to politics, why

shouldn’t I focus on something more immediate?

Although capitalism will be with us for a long time, reforms we win now—raising the minimum wage, securing a

national health plan, and demanding passage of right-to-strike legislation—can bring us closer to socialism. Many

democratic socialists actively work in the single-issue organizations that advocate for those reforms. We are visible in

the reproductive freedom movement, the fight for student aid, gay and lesbian organizations, anti-racist groups, and

the labor movement.

It is precisely our socialist vision that informs and inspires our day-to-day activism for social justice. As socialists

we bring a sense of the interdependence of all struggles for justice. No single-issue organization can truly challenge

the capitalist system or adequately secure its particular demands. In fact, unless we have a vision of a world without

oppression, each fight for reforms will be disconnected, maybe even self-defeating.

What can young people do to move the US

towards socialism?

Since the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s, young people have played a critical role in American politics.

They have been a tremendous force for both political and cultural change in this country: in limiting the US’s options

in the war in Vietnam, in forcing corporations to divest from the racist South African regime, in reforming Universities,

and in bringing issues of sexual orientation and gender discrimination to public attention. Though none of these

struggles were fought by young people alone, they all featured youth as leaders in multi-generational progressive

coalitions. Young people are needed in today’s struggles as well: for universal health care and stronger unions, against

welfare cuts and irresponsible multinational corporations.

Schools, Colleges and Universities are important to American political culture. They are the places where ideas are

formulated and policy discussed and developed. Being an active part of that discussion is a critical job for young

socialists. We have to work hard to change people’s misconceptions about socialism, to broaden political debate, and

to fight the cynicism and apathy all political groups face on campuses today. Off-campus, too, in our daily cultural

lives, young people can be turning the tide against racism, sexism and homophobia, as well as the conservative myth

of the virtue of greed.

If so many people misunderstand socialism,

why continue to use the word?

First, we call ourselves socialists because we are proud of what we are. Second, no matter what we call ourselves,

conservatives will use it against us. Anti-socialism has been repeatedly used to attack reforms that shift power to

working class people and away from corporate capital. In 1993, national health insurance was attacked as “socialized

medicine” and defeated. Liberals are routinely denounced as socialists in order to discredit reform. Until we face, and

beat, the stigma attached to the “S word,” politics in America will continue to be stifled and our options limited. We

also call ourselves socialists because we are proud of the traditions upon which we are based, of the heritage of the

Socialist Party of Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas, and of other struggles for change that have made America more

democratic and just. Finally, we call ourselves socialists to remind everyone that we have a vision of a better world.

Join Us!

http://www.dsausa.org/pdf/widemsoc.pdf

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That 'what' not 'who'.

[GaryC 7]

That 'what' not 'who'.

Anyone in the left that calls themselves "progressives". Look for the names yourself. It's clear that you see my point but are just dragging it out.