Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    10:22 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Conservatives Who Don't Conserve! Wassup Whiddat? Back to Topics
SemiSteve

Champion Author
Tampa

Posts:19,290
Points:439,085
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jun 3, 2013 12:49:23 PM

The origin of the word conservative is from the word to conserve.

But that seems to be the last thing on the minds of so many conservatives.

'Drill, baby, drill. Burn, baby, burn. Frack, baby, frack.

No, don't encourage us to use light bulbs that conserve energy. Don't encourage us to drive efficient cars that conserve energy. Don't have any regulations that reduce CO2 emissions.'

Many conservatives have even boasted on this forum about how much energy they use and waste.

Many conservatives appear to be doing everything possible to do the opposite of conserving.

Maybe some of them need to take a closer look at what it really means to be a conservative.
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,085
Points:3,445,270
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Nov 16, 2013 1:00:15 AM

SemiSteve said: "Maybe radical liberals want to change everything but rank and file liberals like to pick and choose to keep the things that are working.."

--OK, then why are you libs so "hot" for ObamaCare? It's not working, and Obama has said so himself. I would also say as much about much of Johnson's Great Society programs. They had a meaning at one time. However, much of that has been lost. And that is due to the bleeding heart interference of foolish, rank and file liberals, in my estimation..
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,813
Points:1,874,090
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Nov 15, 2013 9:56:53 PM

SS: "--Because liberals are not in control of this tyrannical government. Big money is. A more appropriate quesiton should be:"


Wrong. Because liberals at the top are MAKING BIG MONEY through the control of the apparatus of a tyrannical government via bribes and extortion.


mudtoe

[Edited by: mudtoe at 11/15/2013 9:56:18 PM EST]
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,290
Points:439,085
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Nov 15, 2013 12:10:33 PM

teacher_tim: "Why don't liberals liberate us from this tyrannical government?"

--Because liberals are not in control of this tyrannical government. Big money is. A more appropriate quesiton should be:

'Why doesn't big money liberate us from this tyrannical government?'

And the one-word answer to that is...

Greed.
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,359
Points:150,335
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Nov 14, 2013 11:41:12 PM

Their very conservatism is secondhand, and they don't know what they are conserving.
~Robertson Davies
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,281
Points:826,510
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Nov 13, 2013 8:11:05 AM

Why don't liberals liberate us from this tyrannical government?
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,290
Points:439,085
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Nov 13, 2013 7:55:09 AM

Maybe radical liberals want to change everything but rank and file liberals like to pick and choose to keep the things that are working while making the bold decisions to be willing to change those things that stand to be improved with new technology, information and possibilities.

As the world changes opportunities arise. Liberals want to seize them, not sit on our hands as conservatives urge us to live in the past.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,085
Points:3,445,270
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Nov 13, 2013 12:47:46 AM

Lead was found in groundwater and surface water. That's what started the whole "unleaded" thing. Actually tellurium compounds are more effective than lead. However, the whole world would have smelled rather garlicky. That's why they boosted burnability with lead.

But I will say that the essence of conservatism is to CONSERVE those things that are "working" for America. Radical liberals, however, want to change everything, even that which IS working (with the exception of ObamaCare, it would seem. Even though it's not working, liberals want to keep it, I'm guessing for sentimental reasons).
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,359
Points:150,335
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Nov 12, 2013 9:56:30 PM

Semisteve said
"You mentioned chemicals. One really scarey thing is that there is no government approval process for releasing new chemicals. Just whip up some new concoction and stick it in products. Nobody has to show that it is not dangerous in any way. Today's children have more lab-created chemicals in their blood than ever before. Plastics, flame-retardents, poly- this and phosphate that. Hundreds of them. And none of it tested to see if it is
cancer-causing or birth-defect prone".

And that is just in our food
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,290
Points:439,085
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Sep 19, 2013 5:38:13 PM

"Conservative, by definition, means not wanting things to change."

--Good thing we have liberals or we would see nothing new.

(hope you don't mind a bit of word play)

You mentioned chemicals. One really scarey thing is that there is no government approval process for releasing new chemicals. Just whip up some new concoction and stick it in products. Nobody has to show that it is not dangerous in any way. Today's children have more lab-created chemicals in their blood than ever before. Plastics, flame-retardents, poly- this and phosphate that. Hundreds of them. And none of it tested to see if it is cancer-causing or birth-defect prone.

They never tested the lead in gasoline for human safety either. Turns out many years later that a clear and measurable trend can be seen linking leaded gasoline to crime. Areas which had the most exposure of leaded gasoline auto exhaust for children were shown to have higher crime about 21 years later - the approx amount of time for the young to grow up and decide to be thug.

Mother Jones article

Who cares if a new chemical might alter lives or the environment? There's money to be made and we don't want that to be spoiled by seeing if it is dangerous first.

There may or may not be anybody upstairs but we're not waiting to find out if the things we do will make life lousy for others while there's money to be made. After all. What's more important? Preserving our habitat or making somebody rich?
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,290
Points:439,085
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Sep 19, 2013 10:51:54 AM

A pretty good critique of my narrow point, AC-302. Although it does assume that all liberals believe in a need to reduce CO2 relase because of human-caused global warming. Certainly it is an easy assumption that most do but I wouldn't be surprised if there are liberals who don't, just as there still must be conservatives who do.

***

Good point, NothingNew. I find that most Christian conservatives are glaringly hypocritical because if they really followed the Jesus' mandate they would not even have any possessions, much less be so obssessed with money.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,085
Points:3,445,270
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Sep 18, 2013 12:37:55 AM

SemiSteve said: "I view it is kind of absurd to chastise liberals for using things liberally in the same way that I am trying to make a point that it is fundamentally hypocritical of conservatives to use power and CO2-generating devices liberally."

--Well, that's your "view", then. I think most fairminded people would intuitively understand that the liberals who expel CO2 "liberally" are hypocrites, as are those would would defend them. Personally, I think your response is somewhat absurd (using your own word, and not actually trying to pick on you). It appears you are, in effect, crying: "but... but.. this topic is about Conservatives.. don't even mention liberals here.." Again, you have to acknowledge the ridiculousness of the argument you are making. You'd have a stronger argument to bring up facts of, say, liberal democrats, or "blue states" having better fuel efficiency per person than "red" states (climate adjusted, of course). However, I think you'll find the opposite is true.
Profile Pic
NothingNew
Rookie Author Rockford

Posts:77
Points:1,080
Joined:Aug 2013
Message Posted: Sep 17, 2013 8:58:08 PM

Conservative, by definition, means not wanting things to change.

Fine, some things do not need changing. Liberals want to change everything, then hope they can fix what didn't work.

But conservatives sometimes fail to see that some thing DO need changing. And worse, they often fail to see that some things should NOT be changed.

Nature (or God, as some people refer to it), made things so that they worked well for this planet. Nature (God) made things as close to perfect as possible. Yet some people who call themselves conservatives keep trying to improve on Nature's (God's) perfection. And wind up killing Nature's (God'd) people with chemicals, dams, and everything else that makes money. We pollute Nature's (God's) air, Nature's (God's) water, Nature's (God's) animals, Nature's (God's) environment. And all for the so called capitalist ideal of the so called conservatives.

By pushing destructive change, conservatives are polluting their own stated philosophy, and showing the rest of us that they are truly hypocrites in employing that term.

We can judge, but God will judge AND punish.

All that time in church won't buy you a place in heaven.

Better start conserving Nature's (God's) planet before it's too late.

The Man upstairs must be getting pretty ticked off by now.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,290
Points:439,085
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Sep 17, 2013 10:45:00 AM

"It is a preference for the established order. "

--Thanks for the very interesting political history lesson, teacher_tim: "Sorry Steve, Conservative from the political party sense is not related to "conserve" as in resources."

--Well, I think that is glaringly obvious. Hence the reason for this thread. I hope you didn't think I was under any delusion that to be politically conservative had ANYTHING to do with conserving resources.

Now, let us delve a bit further into it. When the industrialized age came upon the world that progress must have been something new. As in not being the 'established order' of building things by hand. I can now imagine blacksmiths and hand-bellowed forges creating intricate iron articles. Then I wonder if some of these conservaitve craftsmen who faced being put out of work by the new industrialization fought the new push to drill, baby, drill, and burn, baby, burn.

Was it a case of reversed roles in that very different age?
Profile Pic
FluffyDogAttack
Champion Author Riverside

Posts:1,770
Points:190,965
Joined:Oct 2012
Message Posted: Sep 16, 2013 6:15:57 PM

In honor of this thread, once a week I will wrap my recyclables with a big bow labeled "From SemiSteve" and put them in the regular trash.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,758
Points:4,582,830
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Sep 16, 2013 4:35:24 PM

plastic, ">"Topic: Conservatives Who Don't Conserve! Wassup Whiddat?"

From the same man who tried to say "Progressive" meant progress. LOL!"

Good point!
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,281
Points:826,510
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Sep 16, 2013 3:56:28 PM

If pro is the opposite of con,
what is the opposite of progress?
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,281
Points:826,510
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Sep 16, 2013 3:55:26 PM

conservative (adj.) late 14c., conservatyf, from Middle French conservatif, from Late Latin conservativus, from Latin conservatus, past participle of conservare (see conserve).

As a modern political tradition, conservatism traces to Edmund Burke's opposition to the French Revolution (1790), but the word conservative is not found in his writing. It was coined by his French disciples, (e.g. Chateaubriand, who titled his journal defending clerical and political restoration "Le Conservateur").

Conservative as the name of a British political faction first appeared in an 1830 issue of the "Quarterly Review," in an unsigned article sometimes attributed to John Wilson Croker. It replaced Tory (q.v.) by 1843, reflecting both a change from the pejorative name (in use for 150 years) and repudiation of some reactionary policies. Extended to similar spirits in other parties from 1845.
Strictly speaking, conservatism is not a political system, but rather a way of looking at the civil order. The conservative of Peru ... will differ greatly from those of Australia, for though they may share a preference for things established, the institutions and customs which they desire to preserve are not identical. [Russell Kirk (1918-1994)]
Phrases such as a conservative estimate make no sense etymologically. The noun is attested from 1831, originally in the British political sense.Sorry Steve, Conservative from the political party sense is not related to "conserve" as in resources

It is a preference for the established order.
Profile Pic
plastic
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:47,693
Points:3,021,420
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Sep 16, 2013 3:43:04 PM

>"Topic: Conservatives Who Don't Conserve! Wassup Whiddat?"

From the same man who tried to say "Progressive" meant progress. LOL!
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,290
Points:439,085
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Sep 16, 2013 12:08:00 PM

A poster who criticized my lack of acknowledging that liberals are also guilty of this, which I would deem to be a different topic, apparently missed this:

SemiSteve, Message Posted: Sep 13, 2013 4:51:36 PM: "That doesn't mean there are not conservatives who don't conserve. There certainly are plenty of them. Neither does it mean that there aren't wasteful liberals either!"

--The whole point I built this topic around is that the very word 'conservative' has it's root in the act of conserving. The word 'liberal' has it's root in the concept of liberty or freedom.

To use something liberally means to use a lot of it.

To use something conservatively means to use as small an amount as possible.

I view it is kind of absurd to chastise liberals for using things liberally in the same way that I am trying to make a point that it is fundamentally hypocritical of conservatives to use power and CO2-generating devices liberally.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,758
Points:4,582,830
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Sep 15, 2013 5:07:09 PM

I see a lot of liberals where I work that do not conserve or recycle.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,085
Points:3,445,270
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Sep 15, 2013 12:37:29 AM

sgm - I appreciate your understanding the point, and what I would deem fairminded responses. Now let's see if we can get SemiSteve to also acknowledge that his own idols have been as bad or worse than the people he's chiding.
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,063
Points:2,979,695
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Sep 14, 2013 1:28:52 PM

<<--OK, but the reciprical question is also valid. Why are you beating on conservatives, yet again, without also pointing out something like: "Well, yeah, you're right, there are plenty on my side, fellow liberals and democrats who also are a problem."? It would make your argument stronger to point out the hypocrisy on your own side.>>

I think that is true with every single issue. People are not monolithic on either side of any debate.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,085
Points:3,445,270
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Sep 13, 2013 8:10:00 PM

SemiSteve posted: "he operative word there being 'Who.' I am talking about the ones who don't. The word 'all' is not in there, nor is it implied. I carefully worded that so it recognizes that there are plenty of conservatives who DO conserve"

--OK, but the reciprical question is also valid. Why are you beating on conservatives, yet again, without also pointing out something like: "Well, yeah, you're right, there are plenty on my side, fellow liberals and democrats who also are a problem."? It would make your argument stronger to point out the hypocrisy on your own side.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,290
Points:439,085
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Sep 13, 2013 4:51:36 PM

Streetrider, that's what FlyboyUT says. I think I'm the same guy I always was.

Labels are a funny thing. The connotations attached to them may or may not be truly descriptive of the subject.

A long time ago somebody passed a political test around here to see where you stand. I scored a bit left of center. Some didn't believe me. Because I have argued for some things that hard righties didn't like I was labelled as a 'hopeless liberal.' Along with that label might go a number of assumptions, depending on how prejudiced the assumer is.

I don't just believe in things because they are part of a 'side'. I consider each topic and how it affects people, the country, and the planet. Then I decide what I think the best approach is based on what I think is the best balance for all concerns.

I'm never afraid or hesitant to admit when I'm wrong because making mistakes is the best way to learn and improve. Reluctance to admit failure is the best way to ensure one's inability to correctly preceive reality. A little humility goes a long way in self-education!

I used to think all conservatives were alike. That was a mistake. Participating in this forum has changed my view. That doesn't mean there are not conservatives who don't conserve. There certainly are plenty of them. Neither does it mean that there aren't wasteful liberals either! I do tend to be more vocally critical of conservatives than liberals. That doesn't mean I don't see what's going on.
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,587
Points:1,856,665
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Sep 13, 2013 3:57:43 PM

SemeiSteve, >>In 1917 Alexander Graham Bell wrote “[The unchecked burning of fossil fuels] would have a sort of greenhouse effect”, and “The net result is the greenhouse becomes a sort of hot-house.” Bell went on to also advocate for the use of alternate energy sources, such as solar energy. <<
~
How can you possibly believe a man who stole another man's work? A history lesson from the movie, "The Godfather.'
~
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,359
Points:150,335
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Sep 13, 2013 3:47:24 PM

STeve
I think your becoming more of a conservative every day.

Roflmao
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,593
Points:3,166,670
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Sep 13, 2013 1:05:55 PM

>> I detect a STRONG whiff of hypocrisy coming from the direction of Tampa/St. Pete..<<

Why, AC? Did Steve say he doesn't conserve?
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,290
Points:439,085
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Sep 13, 2013 12:58:36 PM

I do wish more people would read carefully.

I never said that conservatives in general do not conserve. The reference in the title is "Conservatives Who Don't Conserve!" The operative word there being 'Who.' I am talking about the ones who don't. The word 'all' is not in there, nor is it implied. I carefully worded that so it recognizes that there are plenty of conservatives who DO conserve.

My point is that how can someone call themselves a 'conservative' when they have no interest in conserving ANYTHING?

How about those flippant remarks in the global warming debates where people say they are going to purposely burn more stuff up than they need to; or use more energy than is prudent, just to rub it in? It may be their money but is our shared environment.

The fact that UV radiation strikes this planet is accepted science. So is the fact that this warms the planet which then emits IR radiation. This IR radiaiton is then absorbed by atmospheric gases and re-radiated in all directions, including back toward the planet. More of such 'warming gases' in the atmosphere means more warming for the planet.

"In 1917 Alexander Graham Bell wrote “[The unchecked burning of fossil fuels] would have a sort of greenhouse effect”, and “The net result is the greenhouse becomes a sort of hot-house.” Bell went on to also advocate for the use of alternate energy sources, such as solar energy.* **"

* Bell, Alexander Graham, Dictionary of Canadian Biography Online, 1921–1930 (Volume XV), University of Toronto and Université Laval, 2000. Retrieved March 1, 2013.
** Grosvenor, Edwin S. and Morgan Wesson. Alexander Graham Bell: The Life and Times of the Man Who Invented the Telephone. New York: Harry N. Abrahms, Inc., 1997, p. 274, ISBN 0-8109-4005-1. Also page 269.

If you think Bell was wrong, don't call anybody on the phone to tell them about it.

[Edited by: SemiSteve at 9/13/2013 1:00:08 PM EST]
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,063
Points:2,979,695
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Sep 13, 2013 11:11:40 AM

<<If conservatives don't conserve, then why is it that George Bush's Crawford, TX ranch house is more fuel efficient than Al Gore's 40,000 sq ft mansion? If Gore and you liberals believe in "conserving" energy and being more gentle to the environment, then why aren't fools like Gore or Michel Moron actually practicing what they preach?>>

Except for the name calling, I agree with this.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,085
Points:3,445,270
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Sep 13, 2013 12:14:54 AM

If conservatives don't conserve, then why is it that George Bush's Crawford, TX ranch house is more fuel efficient than Al Gore's 40,000 sq ft mansion? If Gore and you liberals believe in "conserving" energy and being more gentle to the environment, then why aren't fools like Gore or Michel Moron actually practicing what they preach? Hmmm??Do you smell that smell? I detect a STRONG whiff of hypocrisy coming from the direction of Tampa/St. Pete..
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,359
Points:150,335
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Sep 12, 2013 11:17:46 PM

Steve you overgeneralized the word conservative. The current day meaning is defined by putting social in front of conservative.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,290
Points:439,085
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jul 1, 2013 11:40:37 AM

I am amazed that there is even any discussion over which party is the greater benefactor of corporate / big money support. I had just assumed that most agree that Republicans get significantly more money from big corporations and the super-rich. (Just look at ALEC) Perhaps there is a bit of a PR battle going on then between what liberals and conservatives read. Is it that each side would have it's members believe they are being outspent by the other and so there is a great urgency to contribute ever more? And which side is closer to the truth?

Since there has been so much discussion about this one thing I think it deserves it's own topic. Perhaps then we'll get to the bottom of it.

Let's talk it all out here.

Then this topic can get back to the subject at hand.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,085
Points:3,445,270
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Jun 30, 2013 5:33:13 PM

SemiSteve asks why conservatives don't "conserve"?

-- OK, then why are progressives against "progress"? Here, now... in LaLa land, most of the folks here are Democrats and bleeding heart liberals. But it's them that are the wealthy and the ones with McMansions. Generally so-called conservatives are not generally a force in Southern California.

But let's talk about your bogus premise. It would seem to me that most folks will do the calculation to figure out whether purchasing hardware to conserve energy is actually worthwhile. Speaking of which, have you bought solar panels for your house yet? If not, why not?

You mentioned that you bought a hybrid car and are hypermiling. Bully for you. I looked at trading my paid for SUV for a hybrid. If you also include the replacement cost of the battery every, say 7 years, I would never be able to pay for the hybrid car. I've done the calculation and found that it wasn't worth it. Ditto with solar panels. Not worth it.
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,587
Points:1,856,665
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Jun 30, 2013 1:06:21 PM

nstrdnvstr,>>Well, I can name 3 right off the bat! GE, Berkshire Hathaway and Microsoft! Then there are all the big banks, as mentioned below!<<
~
All good examples pointing to Steve's 'fact challenging' statement. Google is another example.

What say you, Steve?
~
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,758
Points:4,582,830
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jun 30, 2013 1:44:06 AM

SemiSteve, "fly, do you honestly expect anyone to believe that big business supports Democrats over Republicans?"

Well, I can name 3 right off the bat! GE, Berkshire Hathaway and Microsoft! Then there are all the big banks, as mentioned below!
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,152
Points:1,521,245
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jun 29, 2013 7:56:24 PM

"Even as we find the need to force oil out of tar sands, drill in ocean that is miles deep, and use tons of good water to force gas out of rock as aquifers are destroyed."

Well your free to go back to pre fossil fuel days if you choose. Myself I kind of like it the way it is now if you dont mind.

Do yourself a favor - look at the quality of life in New York City when the only transportation was horses. What was the average lifespan? Why did they have to convert to burning coal - hint because the small population that existed then had over harvested their local forests till there wasnt enough wood to heat the houses with. But they had whale oil lamps though.

One of the primary reason they developed 'coal oil' was he whales were getting scarce.

[Edited by: flyboyUT at 6/29/2013 7:57:34 PM EST]
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,587
Points:1,856,665
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Jun 29, 2013 8:15:35 AM

SemiSteve, >>Why don't conservatives conserve?<<
~
Again, way off base. Present day Conservatives both conserve and preserve Freedom for both themselves and their posterity. The left on the other hand use crisis after crisis to undermine our the foundation of country.

Without Freedom, all is lost.
~
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,587
Points:1,856,665
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Jun 29, 2013 8:05:11 AM

SemiSteve, >>But you have failed to show that more big businesss money flows into Democrat's campaigns than Republican's.<<
~
I'm confident that most BIG businessses are more inclined to vote for any party that increases regulations as it helps keep down competition. SMALL businessses on the other hand, strive to have regulations decreased so that they may compete on a level playing field. Hence under the present circumstances, small business owners tend to be Republican and BIG businessses tend to support Democrats.

I really see no need for me to prove anything as it is you that has failed to provide proof contrary to my statement that it was only the heads of Financial Corporations that benefited from the 2008/9 bailouts.

I did leave out Unions and the politicians who kept their hold on the reigns of Government from that statement.
~
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,587
Points:1,856,665
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Jun 29, 2013 7:52:13 AM

SemiSteve, >>Even as we find the need to force oil out of tar sands, drill in ocean that is miles deep, and use tons of good water to force gas out of rock as aquifers are destroyed.<<
~
From what I've read, the water used in fracking is made potable. One Governor, I believe from Colorado, even drank it. If this is true, wouldn't you say you were wrong?
~
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,290
Points:439,085
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jun 28, 2013 3:13:42 PM

Why don't conservatives conserve?

Some seem to think resources are endless.

Even as we find the need to force oil out of tar sands, drill in ocean that is miles deep, and use tons of good water to force gas out of rock as aquifers are destroyed.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,290
Points:439,085
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jun 21, 2013 11:47:37 AM

Yep. You've mentioned some large companies which supported the likely candidate so they could get their hooks into the new administration.

But you have failed to show that more big business money flows into Democrat's campaigns than Republican's.

It is very enlightening that there are those who think Republicans are not the recipients of more cash from the wealthy than Democrats.

I would have thought that this was common knowledge.
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,587
Points:1,856,665
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Jun 20, 2013 1:01:17 PM

SemiSteve, >>fly, do you honestly expect anyone to believe that big business supports Democrats over Republicans?<<
*
Again you're way off base. All one needs to do is look at who was really bailed out in 2008/9. It wasn't the shareholders of Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, CitiBank, Merrll lynch, Wachovia, etc. It was the CEO's who all supported Democrats.

One can say that it started under a Republican Administration but the architect was none other than Hank Paulsen (Secretary of the Treasury) a Democrat and former head of Goldman.

Here's some info you should 'bone up on' before making such ridiculous statements.
~
Here's some additional reading about a Libertarian CEO who was FORCED BY GOVERNMENT to comply with US Treasury demands.



[Edited by: MahopacJack at 6/20/2013 1:07:28 PM EST]
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,290
Points:439,085
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jun 20, 2013 10:42:31 AM

fly, do you honestly expect anyone to believe that big business supports Democrats over Republicans?

Well, I guess since there are those who believe that each of 7 billion humans can burn things every single day, or have it done in their name, and that all of this burning of wood, oil, gas and coal, going on for centuries, has absolutely no effect on our atmosphere then I guess there are those who think that (ha HAAAAA!) big business gives more money to Democrats than it does to Republicans.

Tis a strange world we live in.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,152
Points:1,521,245
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jun 14, 2013 8:08:09 PM

"It is well known that big business supports the Republican Party over the Democrats."

No Steve its not well known - do you have any links to provide some proof of that. I suppose people like Bloomberg and Soros and Kerry and all their friends are staunch conservatives? Do you know that most of the 'donations' of your hated big banks went to democrats?
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,290
Points:439,085
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jun 14, 2013 4:35:45 PM

It is well known that big business supports the Republican Party over the Democrats.

Hollywood celebs represent a miniscule portion of earnings in this country.

The Waltons alone earn more than most of Hollywood.

I wonder how big the Koch brothers homes are?

Ya think they care about conservation?
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,758
Points:4,582,830
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jun 14, 2013 4:29:54 PM

SemiSteve, "And still. What does that prove?"

It proves that liberals that claim to "care about the environment" Have the do as I say, not as I do attitude.

"
All of it overlooks the fact that most large wasteful homes are owned by private individuals who prefer not to be public figures. The majority of them are politically conservative; but they don't seem to care much about conserving resources."

Do you have stats to back that up? Where did you get the info on political beliefs by house size?

If you look at the California electoral map, most of the coast, where the "rich people" live vote democrat.

Statewide results
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,290
Points:439,085
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jun 14, 2013 4:05:54 PM

"How big is Eastwood's home, do you know? After looking online at celebrity homes, it seems like Eastwood's home is much smaller than many of the liberal celebrities out there like Jerry Seinfeld, Barbra Streisand, Bette Midler, and Helen Hunt, just to name a few! "

--Oh, so you found some homes bigger than Eastwood's and that somehow proves he is not hogging resources. And did you look at the homes of conservatives Dennis Hopper, Kelsey Grammer, Mel Gibson, Bo Derek, Drew Carey, Pat Boone, Heather Locklear, Chuck Norris, Pat Sajak, and Sylvester Stallone?

And still. What does that prove?

All of it overlooks the fact that most large wasteful homes are owned by private individuals who prefer not to be public figures. The majority of them are politically conservative; but they don't seem to care much about conserving resources.

--> There is no 'conserve' in conservative! <--
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,758
Points:4,582,830
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jun 10, 2013 4:36:58 PM

SemiSteve, "Be that as it may, what of all the not-so-public doctors, lawyers and business executives who inhabit the lion's share of big wasteful homes? Are you going to maintain that most of them are liberal? Good luck selling that idea."

Prove it to be otherwise!
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,758
Points:4,582,830
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jun 10, 2013 4:35:55 PM

SemiSteve, "
You are only talking about a miniscule itty-bitty teeny-tiny portion of the rich population. Just because you can cite some public figures which reenforce your myths does not make them apply to all the millions of non-public rich citizens I was referring to. You've mentioned three people by name and then talked about PART of a class of celebrities. BTW, there are plenty of Hollywood celebs living in oversized wasteful homes who are conservative. I am picturing Clint Eastwood wandering about a giant home filled with 'empty chairs' he can talk to."

How big is Eastwood's home, do you know? After looking online at celebrity homes, it seems like Eastwood's home is much smaller than many of the liberal celebrities out there like Jerry Seinfeld, Barbra Streisand, Bette Midler, and Helen Hunt, just to name a few!
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,152
Points:1,521,245
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jun 10, 2013 12:50:20 PM

No Steve most folks don't 'hate the rich'. What we dislike is those who are rich and wasteful of resources getting richer and richer while using glowbull warming and other lies to do it. Its called hypocrisy. Most folks do not enjoy being lied to.

Most of the folks I know have this strange idea of those speakers should "walk the talk".
Post a reply Back to Topics