Oil & Gas Bedtime Fairy Tale Reading?
[QUOTE=Tiny 12;2751910]About the issues you bring up above, first the only people who care about the alleged "lies" big oil companies made about global warming are two Democratic constituencies. The plaintiff's bar ...
The second constituency is the environmentalists who want to see an end to oil and gas production in the USA. ... [/QUOTE]
Two (2) that's it, in your opinion. Nope, there are millions of people who care (or suffered), w/r to the big oil & gas companies lying. If you're talking about "people", meaning interested "groups of people" (ie. organizations/instutions), then you would be dead wrong their too.
Such groups, such as hedge funds, investors, capitalists, lobbyists, PACs, NGOs or governments from municipals, states and federal worldwide, would also naturally be invested in some form or another with regards to the "big lies".
[b]Oil And Gas Giants Spend Millions Lobbying To Block Climate ...[/b]
[URL]https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/03/25/oil-and-gas-giants-spend-millions-lobbying-to-block-climate-change-policies-infographic/[/URL]
Look, behind all the politicking, I DO NOT believe Dems (and the world at large) want to see big oil & gas companies, [B]FAIL[/B] outright (as oil is still need and Dems do still lobby for Oil & Gas, just no way near the spending of Repubs). But they do what to see them [b]MORE ACCOUNTABLE[/b] for their actions/lies. Being accountable, something that big oil & gas companies seem to have in common with Repubs.
[b]Lobbying spending of oil & gas companies in the United States during election cycles from 1990 to 2022, by receiving political party [/b]
[URL]https://www.statista.com/statistics/788056/us-oil-and-gas-lobbying-spend-by-party/ [/URL]
So just like big tobacco and big pharma, the big oil & gas companies, should be held accountable for their harmful lies/product/practices.
[b]Big oil and gas kept a dirty secret for decades... [/b]
[URL]https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jun/30/climate-crimes-oil-and-gas-environment[/URL]
[QUOTE=Tiny 12;2751910] As to Pakistan, it's getting its incremental power supply from coal, and building coal fired power plants financed by China. ... In Bernie Sanders' wet dream, where we ban fracking immediately and otherwise immolate ourselves like Europe ... [/QUOTE]
My Pakistan reference was w/r to Elvis's story being duped by Bill Maher and scientists. Whether its activists, comedians, politicians or capitalists and their "wet dreams", Europe/Ukraine should be a wake up call for better energy independence, with more emphasis on renewable clean energy, were appropriate and viable.
[QUOTE=Tiny 12;2751910] And as to your link about oil company subsidies, the writer, Nathan Taft, is a dumb ass. Canada and I both know about 1000% more about taxation of energy companies than he does. ... Take these factors into account, and also take into account that the subsidies are negligible compared to income, and the oil and gas industry [b]is more heavily taxed[/b] and receives less subsidies than average. ...
Most bizarrely, Taft doesn't even note the one significant "unfair" tax break given to smaller American producers, the percentage depletion deduction. Taft doesn't know sh*t [/QUOTE] Nathan Taff, may say the same of you, that you don't know "sh*t", if he perhaps read one of your papers (assuming of course you've written one) on, "Oil Companies Subsidies/Taxation". After all he's not here to defend himself.
Sure his paper suits my narrative and the accounting factors you've presented may very well, not have be taken into account by Taft. But my question is, if the oil & gas companies are "more heavily taxed" as you say, wouldn't they lobby hard, to be treated just as fairly, tax wise, like most businesses/companies? Why would gov't even need to have special tax breaks just for oil & gas, shouldn't all companies be treated equally?
[QUOTE=Tiny 12;2751910]Ask me for links and sources. I dare you. I double dare you. [/QUOTE]
Dare excepted!
Your links on Oil Companies Subsidies/Taxation, might be interesting. I don't know why you didn't include them in the first place (as you usually do), [b]other than to perhaps grandstand.[/b]
So the [i]"Oil & Gas Bedtime Fairy Tale reading"[/i], may prove educating and I'll learn something new or at the very least I should get a good nights sleep, well enough.
Actual result speak louder, As does vetting due diligence
[QUOTE=Tiny 12;2751921]You fail to mention the other suck ass candidates, in addition to Walker, who are only got the Republican nomination because of support from Trump. And yet the punters are giving Republicans a 47% probability of controlling the Senate and an 82% probability of controlling the House. Apparently the electorate isn't happy with the status quo, where Democrats control the presidency, House and Senate.
[URL]https://www.predictit.org/markets/2/Congress[/URL][/QUOTE]
Nope! I've been very prolific indeed. Ask around, check my posts or check with your fellow QAnon/Repubs/Bothsidesists. I've more than mentioned those [b]"suck ass candidates"[/b] (as you put it) on several occasions, like (R) Donald C. Bolduc of New Hampshire, and several of those dumb-dumb Repubs along with a number of decent civic minded Repubs, here: [URL]http://www.internationalsexguide.nl/forum/showthread.php?2467-American-Politics&p=2745900&viewfull=1#post2745900 [/URL].
Polls are nice and make for good "water cooler" talks, if you're into it. I'll let [u][b]the results[/b][/u] speak for themselves. Same goes for the electorate.
But the question is, [b]you've failed [/b] to say, why on earth would I need to mention the other [b]"suck ass Repub candidates"[/b], like Dr. Mehmet Oz, Donald C. Bolduc and others that Agent Orange endorsed, in a post that was clearly and solely about one (1) candidate, the hypocrite, pro-life, anti-abortionist that is Hershel Walker?
[URL]https://www.newsweek.com/heres-growing-list-trump-endorsed-2022-candidates-1673241[/URL]
Surely, you're smart enough to make that connection [b]"by extension"[/b], given the all-time historical ineptitude of Donnie [b]"the Devil"[/b] J. Dummkopf? Not to mention the massive failure of the Repubs, to allow Donnie J. Dummkopf to [b]"hijack"[/b] their "vigorous" due diligence when vetting candidates.
[QUOTE=Spidy;2752272] Dare excepted! ... [/QUOTE]
Correction, that should read "Dare accepted!"
Red vs Blue states, links mishap?
[QUOTE=Tiny12;2751916]The red state / blue state thing is a red herring.
According to this link from 2021, only 36% of people making over $200,000 per year supported Democrats, compared to 63% making less than $15,000 per year.
[URL]https://www.debt.org/faqs/americans-...ics-democrats/[/URL]
And from this link, people making over $221,572 paid 59.4% of the income tax.
[URL]https://taxfoundation.org/publicatio...come-tax-data/[/URL]
Tie the two together. Republicans on average undoubtedly pay more to the federal government than they get out of it in benefits. As to Democrats, I'm not sure. But our system at the federal level is so wasteful and inefficient I suspect they get a bum deal too.[/QUOTE]I wanted to take a look at your sources but received a "404 - Sorry, we couldn't find what you were looking for! Message. Upon closer inspection, I looked at your links here in your post, and they have [b] "..."[/b] ellipses in the URL, which doesn't make for a valid link URL.
So my guess is, it's either because:
[LIST] 1. you used "copy" instead of "copy link", when constructing your post (this has happened to me); or[/LIST][LIST] 2. the pages have been taken down, which would be strange after a few days[/LIST]
Could you please provide the correct URLs you were referencing?
" ... You just tell them and they believe you", Really?
[QUOTE=Tiny 12;2752360]What I wrote is original content from my experience in the industry. [/QUOTE]Since this is a political discussion group (located in a Sex Forum), you should by now realize, even those with experience in said fields of industry/business are very often going to get push back, perhaps more so, because of said bias. Also realize, [b]when things become politicized[/b], wrightly or wrongly, is when, even "experience" gets pushed aside.
[QUOTE=Tiny 12;2752360]EhiTooms, PVMonger and you accept what you read and hear in the left of center media without critical analysis. And you believe that links to pontifications of people who think exactly like you do proves you're right. [/QUOTE]
Again, personally for me, it's not about ME being "right" or YOU being "wrong". More often than not, I have opposing political opinions, views and beliefs and provide them as counterpoints, to your political arguments, most times they may not align, sometimes they do.
Since the right-wing media infrastructure/block, has 1500+ English and 300+ Spanish radio stations across America and of course blanket Nationwide coverage of Fox News
(I am not entirely sure), but a conservative estimate, puts right-wing distribution of propaganda, maybe about 15:1 right vs. left radio stations. As well as a vast right-wing internet and social-media influence, online.
Right-wing PAC, dark money groups, special donors and right-wing billionaires pumping millions/billions into legal political bribery (thanks to a right-wing POTUS 1972) on the right, far out paces anything on the left. The fact that Repubs, are constantly "banging their drums" and messaging through this massive right-wing media block, it's a wonder at all, those of us with an opposing opinions on the left, get heard.
And you think, those on the left, are the ones that are brainwashed, or should I say, [i] "...accept things without critical analysis".[/i]
[QUOTE=Tiny 12;2752360] And you demand we provide links to prove our point. What do you want, a Breitbart for every Intercept? Research papers with footnotes? If you don't know that China's building lots of coal fired power plants, or you don't believe GDP or inflation numbers, then instead of asking for links, do some research. [/QUOTE]
I didn't demand anything. I asked a simply a question. Show me where I disputed China's stance on coal. I primarily highlighted China's impressive march toward more cleaner energy solutions.
As I told another BM: [QUOTE=Spidy;2751552] ... [b]PS: 1.[/b] The point of providing "a reference/link" when submitted, is so that the reader of your post may garner new insights into your POV, or your frame of reference, or [u]perhaps read what a more accomplished writer/expert has to say on the matter[/u], that you maybe referencing. ... [/QUOTE]
Sorry I don't believe everything I hear on right-wing media and I didn't go to Trump University.
[QUOTE] [b]"People will just believe you. You just tell them and they believe you"[/b]
What Donnie "the devil" J. Dummkopt said about his favorite target suckers. [/QUOTE]So unless your calling BMs suckers, I'll continue to ask for references, should I think it's appropriate. And no doubt I'll get the standard QAnon/Repub/Bothsidesist reply of [b]"Google it!"[/b] or [b]"Do the research, man!" [/b]
So if we DO NOT included links to articles/references, does that mean we are "MORE" believable?
[QUOTE=Tiny 12;2752360]I will say however that your beliefs about what the Russia Ukraine war is teaching us about renewables and energy security is ass backwards. Sorry if that sounds harsh but I dont know a better way to say it. Europeans are scrambling to re-open coal fired power plants and Germany and other countries are rethinking their bans on fracking. ... [/QUOTE]
Sure in the short term they should. In the long term not so much. It will be the US, who's caught with its pants down, going forward, if we don't get our act together on cleaner renewables and electrification of the US.
