Conservative Bastion
The only blog that can factually claim to shift the Bell Curve, along with the hearts & minds of America, to the right.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Democrats to the Rescue!!!
This is a perfect story to use satire with, but I’ll do my best to stay serious...

Preliminary drilling tests of a deep-water well in the Gulf of Mexico indicate that the site could boost U.S. oil and natural gas reserves by 50 percent. The Jack 2 well was drilled by San Ramon, Calif.-based Chevron, along with Devon Energy of Oklahoma City and Norway's Statoil.

"The results of the Jack test are very encouraging," said Stephen Hadden, senior vice president of exploration and production. "They further support our positive view of the lower Tertiary trend and demonstrate the growth potential of our high-impact exploration strategy on long-term production, reserves, and value."

According to published reports, the Gulf of Mexico's lower-Tertiary formations could hold up to 15 billion barrels' worth of oil and gas reserves. By comparison, Alaska's Prudhoe Bay, the largest U.S. oil field, has produced 13 billion barrels of oil since 1977, with an estimated 3 billion recoverable barrels remaining. Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--not yet in production due to opposition from environmental activists--has an estimated 10 billion barrels of recoverable oil. Statistics from the Energy Information Administration peg current U.S. oil and gas reserves at around 30 billion barrels. Currently, the United States consumes about 20 million barrels a day.

So let me get this straight…the 15 billion barrels of oil in the Gulf of Mexico are good, but the 10 billion barrels of oil in ANWAR are bad.

Come on liberals...save the sand in the Gulf of Mexico. These oil companies only care about money, stop them before they destroy the Gulf!

GO DEMOCRATS...YAY!!!

I'm trying my best to control myself, I really am. Seriously, what is the deal? Why aren't the Dems complaining about this oil find? Oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico would affect more humans and wildlife than an oil spill in Alaska. I don't know why I am trying to understand these people. They are freaks.
StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
15 Comments:
Blogger Democrat said...
So let me get this straight…the 15 billion barrels of oil in the Gulf of Mexico are good, but the 10 billion barrels of oil in ANWAR are bad.

Why don't you go read up about AMWAR? Why don't you watch CSPAN and listen to the democrats who supported drilling in the Gulf? They explained---best so was a senator from Florida---why they support the Gulf and not AMWAR! Lol. It is hillarious how you Right Wingers just go on yapping about something and not even know why you are yapping about it.

Democrat

Blogger Media Tycoon said...
the oil in alaska is more dangerous. everyone knows that.

Blogger Democrat said...
It poses a greater risk to the environment of Alaska, whereas the oil in the Gulf poses little to no threat. So, if you knew that, why were you being satirical?

Democrat

Blogger Democrat said...
Furthermore, find out how much American oil we actually keep in America. Then, find out how much of it goes to Asia. All about money, Media. That's what it is about. These Republicans are all about money. Now, I wouldn't be so disingenuous as to say that SOME Democrats are not interested in money, but I know who helps me and it isn't republicans. Republicans help the rich, and the rich only.

Democrat

Blogger Media Tycoon said...
If Dems aren't interested in money, then get rid of the welfare state. that is all about money. get rid of the welfare state, and I could be a Dem. I vote for that party that is best for hte country and geting millions of people addicted to government aid is not good for anyone. It is not compassionate. True compassion comes in teh form of personal involvement, not faceless checks mailed out by big brother.

Blogger Democrat said...
If Dems aren't interested in money, then get rid of the welfare state.

What the hell does helping your fellow man have to do with wanting money? That's a stupid argument.

get rid of the welfare state, and I could be a Dem.

Stop using that stupid term "welfare state"... It's a Right Wing term, and it's weak. How about we get rid of corporate welfare?


I vote for that party that is best for hte country and geting millions of people addicted to government aid is not good for anyone

Go look at the law Clinton signed. Nobody can stay on social programs for longer than five years. What is it with you? You actually think the Republican way is rosey? Right. Go look at the numbers. More people are in poverty, without health care, etc... since this nazi has been in office. The Democrat way is better. More people came off Welfare when Clinton was in office than when Bush or Reagan was in office... Do you kno why? Because Clinton created good paying jobs. About 2% of the people on social programs abuse them, the rest WANT to get off them. That study has been proven countless times.

It is not compassionate. True compassion comes in teh form of personal involvement, not faceless checks mailed out by big brother.

Again, go look at the numbers. More people are without a job, health care, and in poverty since Bush has been president.

Absolutely unbelievably... You Right Wingers are something else.

Capote

Blogger Media Tycoon said...
there is a difference between me and you. I don't believe everything my party says. You do.

I don't care what is best for the group, I care about freedom of the individual. The "best" form of government would probably be a dictatorship with a very wise and very merciful leader. I guess it depends on what your definition of best is. However, I think the right of the individual trumps the right of the group.

As for the unemployment rate...it is very low right now...at least low for those of us who know history didn’t start in 1997. The economy in general does not change overnight. You could get an economic genius in the white house, and his policies may not have an affect on the economy for years.

for instance, lets say a president provided tax cuts for companies to research...stem cell research. If stem cell research provided amazing life saving capabilities 10 years after he was out of office, who deserves credit? Similarly, if a president provided massive tax cuts for r&d and it sparked the production of all sorts of new products 10 years later…who deserves the credit?

i am all for ending corporate welfare, but talk about something that doesn’t exist...at least at the federal level. we spend 10 times as much on social welfare than corporate.

I don’t know why you think the welfare state doesn’t exist. About half of the federal budget– at least $1.3 trillion out of $2.7 trillion – goes to social welfare programs.

Blogger Democrat said...
there is a difference between me and you. I don't believe everything my party says. You do.

No, I don't. I believe 90% of it. You believe 95% of what your party tells you.

I don't care what is best for the group, I care about freedom of the individual. The "best" form of government would probably be a dictatorship with a very wise and very merciful leader. I guess it depends on what your definition of best is. However, I think the right of the individual trumps the right of the group.

Well, you couldn't have said anything less American. I congratulate you. I think you are now a full-blown right wad.

As for the unemployment rate...it is very low right now...at least low for those of us who know history didn’t start in 1997. The economy in general does not change overnight. You could get an economic genius in the white house, and his policies may not have an affect on the economy for years.

No, it isn't. The unemployment level is higher now than it was under Clinton. Poverty is higher, people without health care, etc...


for instance, lets say a president provided tax cuts for companies to research...stem cell research. If stem cell research provided amazing life saving capabilities 10 years after he was out of office, who deserves credit? Similarly, if a president provided massive tax cuts for r&d and it sparked the production of all sorts of new products 10 years later…who deserves the credit?

Yeah. I'm sure tax cuts for the rich is a great way to stimulate the economy. Foolish.



i am all for ending corporate welfare, but talk about something that doesn’t exist...at least at the federal level. we spend 10 times as much on social welfare than corporate.


No, we don't. Do you have any idea how much of a tax break we have to give these coroporations? What the hell is wrong with social welfare? Getting a person back on their feet has always stimulated this economy. As I mentioned, more people came off social welfare when Clinton was president.

Democrat

Blogger Media Tycoon said...
i only agree with republicans on 60-70% of their issues.

Social Security - $544.82 billion
Aid to Low-Income Families - $206.78 billion
Medicare - $345.76 billion
Medicaid - $192.72 billion
Total - $1.29 trillion

There are more programs that I would classify as social welfare, but these are the main ones.

A tax break is welfare? So lets get rid of all social welfare and exempt the poor from taxes then. Your problem is that you think that it is the right of the many to tax the few. It is stealing. It is not your money. Go get your own. That being said, big business pays its fair share in America.

Well, you couldn't have said anything less American. I congratulate you. I think you are now a full-blown right wad.

Individual freedoms are what this country was founded on. If the rights of the individual are protected, then the rights of the collective body are protected. It is very basic. I know you hate when conservatives enforce their moral agenda, but you are for the same exact thing economically. You want your moral values regarding economics enforced. Rights be damned. I do not have the right to work for myself and bring my money home in your America. That is un-American. You would have us all be slaves of the state to pay for some people who are unable to provide for themselves.

My right to do with my time what I want trumps someone else’s “right” to live comfortably…PERIOD.

Blogger Media Tycoon said...
as for the unemployment rate, you are either clueless or dishonest. if you look at the numbers, Clinton came into office during a time when the unemployment rate was dropping.

Bush came to office while the unemployment rate was rising.

Can you honestly believe that the unemployment rate 2 years into Bush's first term could be blamed on him? Do you know how complex our economy is? Talk about a simple-minded, black and white way of looking at things. This is absurd. No man and no policy can affect unemployment the way some people pretend it can. Especially in America where we have fairly low unemployment.

Sure if we had a 50% unemployment, there would be obvious steps one could take to immediately improve the problem. However, changing the unemployment rate from 6% to 4.7% has more to do with the natural fluctuations of the economy and a lot less to do with some random policy.

BTW, Clintons unemployment rate at this time in his term was 4.5...Bush's is 4.7...

OMG BUSH DOES SUCK!!! GEEZ HE IS SUCH AND IDIOT. 0.2 percent...damn he is so dumb. Maybe if he studied at Harvard instead of snorting crack he could have lowered the unemployment rate to at least....

You get the point. This whole situation is ridiculous. Bush does not control the US economy.

Similarly, it would be foolish to say that bill gates controls the computer industry.

A national economy is much more complex, yet people think the president has all this power. He does not. All he can do is make the tax and regulation environment good for business or bad for business. That is all, and it takes years for a good business to fully establish itself and years for a once good business to go out of business. This means that you could have massive job cuts from a given business, but those job cuts did not occur because of something that happened today, but for something that has been happening for years.

A good example of this were all the corporate scandals of the 90’s. yes all those Enron and rite-aid scandals happened under Clinton. However none of them were known until Bush was president. it then because easy for people to link bush to the scandals and showing how he favored big business or some shit like that. Of course, the whole thing is utter nonsense.

it seems basic to me.

Blogger Democrat said...
Social Security - $544.82 billion
Aid to Low-Income Families - $206.78 billion
Medicare - $345.76 billion
Medicaid - $192.72 billion
Total - $1.29 trillion



Media, you are forcing me to get serious with you. Given your political youth, I have generally granted you a little latitude, but you've ruined that.

I see you listed the social welfare spending methodically, but you fail, as usual, to give the complete story. First of all, you have illustrated a fundamental misunderstanding of Social Security. Here is an excerpt from something I read regarding the federal budget.

Social Security is not part of the Federal Budget general fund. It is a separate account and has its own source of income. Social Security payments do not go into the general fund, they go in the Social Security trust fund, and should NOT be counted as general revenue. The trust fund is supposed to be used to pay future benefits.

Currently, there is more being payed into the Social Security Trust Fund than is being paid out to beneficiaries. What's left over is routinely being "borrowed" and used as if it were general budget revenue. Government agencies using that money promise to pay it back (IOUs). All of the money in the Social Security Trust Fund has been spent! That's part of the National Debt. So Social Security is just a very large tax collection tool.


That is thanks to Bush and his cronies. Corporate welfare is 150 billion dollars a year, which is more than the 145 billion a year spent on CORE social programs: "Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), student aid, housing, food and nutrition, and all direct public assistance (excluding Social Security and medical care)."

Republicans are proponents of corporate welfare. You can say whatever you want about the Medicare and Medicaid, but health care is a fundamental human RIGHT. Yes, A RIGHT, a HUMAN RIGHT. It should not be something to be profited from. It’s a human right.

Social Security benefits everyone who pays into it. You do realize that in order to collect social security you must have acquired so many points, right? You get points for each year you work for a non-government business.

A tax break is welfare? So lets get rid of all social welfare and exempt the poor from taxes then. Your problem is that you think that it is the right of the many to tax the few. It is stealing. It is not your money. Go get your own. That being said, big business pays its fair share in America.

First of all, the poor do not pay enough in taxes for it to make a difference. Secondly, it is the right of the government to tax the people; it is clearly laid out in the 16th amendment, and any attempt by your idiot, conservative friends, i.e. My Conservative Mind, Shoot a Liberal, is erroneous, because the 16th amendment is pretty clear and unambiguous in this matter. Therefore, it is not stealing. Big business hardly pays its fair share of taxes in America.

Individual freedoms are what this country was founded on. If the rights of the individual are protected, then the rights of the collective body are protected. It is very basic. I know you hate when conservatives enforce their moral agenda, but you are for the same exact thing economically. You want your moral values regarding economics enforced. Rights be damned. I do not have the right to work for myself and bring my money home in your America. That is un-American. You would have us all be slaves of the state to pay for some people who are unable to provide for themselves.

Yes, individual freedoms. Which conservatives contort, distort and destroy. Being taxed is not a destruction of your personal freedoms. This country was founded on the belief of a republic, not a dictatorship. For someone to be so “in tune” with what the founding fathers had set out for, you sure as hell do not show such. You show a complete misunderstanding of what they were about. I do not force my economic agenda on people at all. Being taxed, as I said, is the right of the government. I would much rather my tax dollars pay to feed a child, rather than mangle him. The only key player in this debate that expresses any un-American views is you. You and your buddies have distorted the 16th amendment to a sickening level. You can be loud and repetitious all you want, but none of your bellowing is going to make what you say fact or scripture; the constitution is clear.

You also have to wonder how petty an individual has to be to bitch about a hungry kid being fed, a naked kid being clothed.

as for the unemployment rate, you are either clueless or dishonest. if you look at the numbers, Clinton came into office during a time when the unemployment rate was dropping.

That is not true. In no way is that true. That is complete and utter bull shit.

http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/20000112_1
.html

I suppose you will tell me that website expresses a liberal bias.

Bush came to office while the unemployment rate was rising.

No. No, he didn’t.

Can you honestly believe that the unemployment rate 2 years into Bush's first term could be blamed on him? Do you know how complex our economy is? Talk about a simple-minded, black and white way of looking at things. This is absurd. No man and no policy can affect unemployment the way some people pretend it can. Especially in America where we have fairly low unemployment.

First of all, if anyone here lacks critical thinking it’s you. I blame the unemployment rate during the first two years of his term on two things: 9/11 and idiotic policies that he put into affect. Such as the tinkering he did with the energy policy that caused that massive energy shortage in California; look it up. The unemployment rate has continually increased since Bush has been in office. He is the only president in history to lose jobs; look it up. Productivity has increased FIVE YEARS IN A ROW, yet workers wages remain flat. Minimum wage is absolutely ridiculous. The national debt is the highest it has ever been and our economy is stagnating, rapidly. All thanks to Bush and his for-the-rich-only policies. The American worker is getting fucked and anyone with a mind of his own can recognize it.

Sure if we had a 50% unemployment, there would be obvious steps one could take to immediately improve the problem. However, changing the unemployment rate from 6% to 4.7% has more to do with the natural fluctuations of the economy and a lot less to do with some random policy.

Yeah, run with that, Media. The presidents policies have nothing to do with the economy. Sure.

BTW, Clintons unemployment rate at this time in his term was 4.5...Bush's is 4.7...

Which one is better? Then, once you answer that, go find the average hourly pay for when Clinton was in office compared to now. The jobs that are being created now are bull shit jobs. Clinton created high paying jobs. A job someone could be proud of. Bush has created jobs like Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart created a slew of low paying jobs. That helped Bush out as far as the unemployment rate is concerned. Dead-end jobs, though.

OMG BUSH DOES SUCK!!! GEEZ HE IS SUCH AND IDIOT. 0.2 percent...damn he is so dumb. Maybe if he studied at Harvard instead of snorting crack he could have lowered the unemployment rate to at least....

Your ignorance when it comes to the economy is staggering; it really is. The jobs under Bush are bull shit jobs. Explain why the average household income has FALLEN for three years straight? Ridiculous. Explain the productivity, explain the rise in Americans working more than one job; explain it, Media.

Truth is, you can’t. You have the Republican idiocy so indoctrinated into you that you refuse to admit their failures, which they have many. You just repeat the same bull shit: “The economy is complicated”... It isn’t that complicated. We are heading towards another recession because of this Nazi we have in the oval office. This man cares about the rich and the rich only.

Nobody has ever suggested that the economy is controlled solely by the president. At least, I have not suggested that. But I am pointing out the facts. This president and his policies have caused a decrease of jobs, people with health care and house hold income. All along with an increase in poverty and productivity. Productivity has increased, but workers wages remain flat. The first president in 74 years or so, to LOSE JOBS!

You need to wake up, Media. You need to get out of this mindset you’ve had driven into you. The new conservative movement is nothing like it was. John Dean, a staunch traditional conservative, has written two books on the matter. Barrie Goldwater, a staunch traditional conservative now dead, R.I.P., was once asked about social programs. He said that if families, charities, and churches cannot help the poor, the government MUST! This certifiable conservatism around now is nothing like it was. Compassion and common sense has been left far behind in this new movement. The conservative movement now days is best compared to authoritarianism.


I will give you one thing, at least you allow someone who disagrees with you to express themselves on your blog. Your buddy won't allow anything I say to be posted. At least you try to defend what you believe; he won't.

Democrat

Blogger Media Tycoon said...
Too much to respond to. of course, most of what we write comes down to ideological differences rather than solid facts.

I’ll say this in my defense of a smaller government and the economy. for the long time, America was a country with no social welfare, yet immigrants (my family included) came here by the millions. Why is that? It is because of opportunity. Opportunity is allowed by having less regulations and taxes. is it an accident that the country with basically an anarchist view of the economy became the richest country in the world? is it an accident that poor people come to the US and have been coming here for centuries?

If the US economy sucks so much, why do we have such a large influx of immigrants right now?

is everything perfect? NO. it never was perfect though. I believe we should keep doing what we were doing when we became an economic super power, rather than change everything to look more like Europe (whose economy sucks monkey balls). there wasn't even an income tax at the time America became the richest country in the world. its amazing that this country could become so prosperous without government help.

Actually, i would say its just common sense. Who do you want running an industry? Do you want some know-nothing moron politicians, or the guys that created the industry in the first place? I fall on the side of business (run by individuals); you fall on the side of government (the great coercer) under the guise of helping the poor.

I am waiting for the billions in poverty spending to finally win the war on poverty…still waiting. Frankly, the war on poverty is like the war on drugs, it will never be won.

In a free society, people have the right to make the wrong decisions. As long as that right exists, poverty will remain.

as for social security benefiting everyone...if it benefits me so much, why can't we have a situation where i simply invest my portion of social security into a 401k rather than some bottomless pit that the government calls social security? let those who want that backwards/caveman plan stick with it if they love it so much. Frankly, (and no one in their right mind could deny this) if a bank offered several retirement options (ira’s, investing in stock, bonds, cds, and social security was another option….no one would pick social security. imagine the pitch…

ok this plan you pay 6% of your wages to the bank, and you can’t collect until you are 65. however, if you die before then, you will lose most of what you paid. Yea sorry, your family will not inherit what you paid in. The good news is if you live to be 100, you will make a killing.

This system disproportional hurts the poor…the poor don’t live as long because they have a lesser standard of health care. Plus they tend to have lower levels of education which means they wont know how to take care of themselves as well.

Blogger Media Tycoon said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Blogger Democrat said...
I’ll say this in my defense of a smaller government and the economy. for the long time, America was a country with no social welfare, yet immigrants (my family included) came here by the millions. Why is that? It is because of opportunity. Opportunity is allowed by having less regulations and taxes. is it an accident that the country with basically an anarchist view of the economy became the richest country in the world? is it an accident that poor people come to the US and have been coming here for centuries?

What you fail to realize, Media, is that we no longer live in the time of your parents immigrating to America; we no longer live in the time of the Irish coming in masses, etc... Also, many of those people you speak of were dirt poor until FDR came along. For you to believe that social programs are the problem is incredibly disingenuous.


If the US economy sucks so much, why do we have such a large influx of immigrants right now?

First of all, we don't. It's a vote getter, that's all. Funny it's only now begining to be a major issue. Secondly, because Mexico is a very poor country. I mean VERY POOR. Someone in America who makes about 70 grand a year is considered a millionaire in Mexico.


is everything perfect? NO. it never was perfect though. I believe we should keep doing what we were doing when we became an economic super power, rather than change everything to look more like Europe (whose economy sucks monkey balls). there wasn't even an income tax at the time America became the richest country in the world. its amazing that this country could become so prosperous without government help.

We are still the richest country in the world. The only industrialized nation that does not provide health care to its citizens. Greed has taken over in America. The good Christian Republicans are to blame.


Actually, i would say its just common sense. Who do you want running an industry? Do you want some know-nothing moron politicians, or the guys that created the industry in the first place? I fall on the side of business (run by individuals); you fall on the side of government (the great coercer) under the guise of helping the poor.

You see, this is where you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what exactly liberalism is. Liberalism in no way prevents capitalism, it prevents monopoly. You need to realize that. Help a person get back on their feet they can then contribute to this economy, which helps it grow. That is pretty basic to me.

As for your social security bit, talk to Enron... There are many problems with the privitization of social security, many. Go look them up if you are interested. Just type it in.



the poor don’t live as long because they have a lesser standard of health care. Plus they tend to have lower levels of education which means they wont know how to take care of themselves as well.

Yes, and poverty was decreasing under Clinton. Now that Bush is in office it has increased.

You need to join another party. Because your beliefs are not republican, at all. Not the modern day republican party, anyway.

Democrat

Blogger Media Tycoon said...
sorry i keep missing your im's...don't think i'm doing it on purpose.

Links to this post:
Create a Link