13 Jun 21
@averagejoe1 saidHere Haliburton only got access to someone else's "potatoes" because the US invaded another country, killed tens of thousands of that country's People and then imposed rules allowing Haliburton and other big businesses to get their hands on Iraq's resources.
Paper is worth SOMETHING, is it not? Like, a $1 bill is paper.
Now, please follow these facts, I think your link did not 'close'.
The govt had to 'hire' entities, corps or whatever, to get in there and clean things up. Firstly, the Govt could not do what it takes. Secondly, had it not been Haliburton, then it would just be somebody else. Third-ley, you qu ...[text shortened]... I, and anyone invested in my farm, are going to make a lot of money. Is there some fault in this??
Do you think there's no fault in that?
13 Jun 21
@no1marauder saidOk, so since then, the Iraq government SOLD it. Ya think??
I'm never impressed by the failure of right wingers to admit error.
Earl: We never took Iraq's oil, the Iraq gov has complete control.
Hardly.
You still say the US TOOK the oil and that has never been substantiated. Do you admit your error??
Jeeezus.
13 Jun 21
@earl-of-trumps saidNo, I didn't say that.
Ok, so since then, the Iraq government SOLD it. Ya think??
You still say the US TOOK the oil and that has never been substantiated. Do you admit your error??
Jeeezus.
Iraq's "government" made deals with foreign oil companies while under military occupation as insisted on by the occupying power. You think that equates to "control by the Iraqi" government?
13 Jun 21
@no1marauder saidContrare', I have a lot of stock, I have Bitcoin. I left college with no money, no help, and have never been given, in any form, money from an outside source. I borrowed $50 for a UHaul to get where I was going. Not hard to believe, this happens all the time.
10% of stockholders own 84% of stock value; 1% own 38%. More than half of US households own no stock at all.
Policies that favor corporations and stock holdings, like lower taxes rates than on personal income, favor the elite just like I said.
So, I dont know what everyone else was doing, you must be speaking of poor planners? People who never made investments? Settled for mediocrity, ran out of money each week?
OK, enough of that. So, there were people like me, and people that 'bought no stock at all'.
You say that there are 'policies that favor corporations and stock holdings.". I guess you mean that the people who have corporate interests and stocks are favored by policies that govern corporations and stockholders? Please clarify your meaning, so i dont get off on a wrong tangent.
Anyway, no matter what your meaning, everyone in the country has the same opportunities as everyone else. I paid (way low) for Bitcoin, and a friend told me that he wishes he had,......but he didn't. Does your underlying 'philosophy, if you will, under this thread maintain that the friend did not get the same break as I did? Applying that to your first sentence above, has some transgression occurred to the half of the USA that owns no stock? That is, I bought stock (Ramada Inn was my first stock, $6/share) early on, and they did not.
What is your position on all this, and have I presented this issue properly?
13 Jun 21
@AverageJoe1
One can get out of an Uber on wall street, and go into a clothing store to buy a $1200 suit, or,,,OR, he can take a left and walk into Merrill Lynch and buy 10 shares of Apple, thinking, Man, I better put my money to work, my children will by golly go to good colleges!!!!
13 Jun 21
@no1marauder saidI don't believe it. For many years after Iraq was invaded, no such change in ownership occurred.
No, I didn't say that.
Iraq's "government" made deals with foreign oil companies while under military occupation as insisted on by the occupying power. You think that equates to "control by the Iraqi" government?
SHOW me where the US forced the sale of Iraq oil holdings. I can tell you right now, you may find some
whacked out web site that claims it, but I don't buy it. I used to follow this stuff closely, watching all the while.
13 Jun 21
@earl-of-trumps saidHard to believe internet stuff. One site purported to show what Aunt Bee (Sorry, Duchess, you are not from around here) looked like in her 30's, as a beautiful swim suit lady. It was all bogus. And I BELIEVED it! Be veddy, veddy caiddful.....
I don't believe it. For many years after Iraq was invaded, no such change in ownership occurred.
SHOW me where the US forced the sale of Iraq oil holdings. I can tell you right now, you may find some
whacked out web site that claims it, but I don't buy it. I used to follow this stuff closely, watching all the while.
13 Jun 21
@AverageJoe1
Why has not ONE person written about the crux of this thread, which are the things we conservatives believe in??? I did not list 'making money', thinking that that might run them off, but they are STILL run off!!!
14 Jun 21
@very-musty saidOh, once again, one of the many manifestations of the same person pops its head above the toilet rim.
Nobody likes fat guys named Mark.
Nobody.
I forget what you were originally called. But every couple of months you reappear with a new name.
And every time you do, you spew forth a new level of stupidity.
Imagine how disgusting you are that your mum, your daughter and your wife would rather lick a fat and horrible person’s arse, than kiss, cuddle or look at you.
Welcome to reality. Where one’s drive for personal gain may give them digital credits or a sports car which they can never drive on a European motorway; a reality where one’s personality is hung up on gun ownership, stocks and believing that American Beauty befalls us all; the failure to grasp why a French reduction and wine are better than chicken nuggets and fries.
You live in nothing more than a bubble. A tiny hole where you see James Bond, but you see the action, yet fail to enjoy the surroundings.
Poverty.
And no matter how much money you make, how fast your cabrio is, how many slaves clean your swimming pool, you still haven’t felt the route de Napoleon, you’ve never drank absynthe in the Black Forest and you’ve never strolled aimlessly through Rome and stumbled upon a Caravaggio.
It is time for you to drive through the Mojave: from Baker via Fort Irwin to Bonnie Claire; on your own, without music and the airco off.
Time to live a little and experience life.
Good luck.
14 Jun 21
@averagejoe1 saidNo one is running.
@AverageJoe1
Why has not ONE person written about the crux of this thread, which are the things we conservatives believe in??? I did not list 'making money', thinking that that might run them off, but they are STILL run off!!!
Ultimately, conservatives should be okay. There is nothing inherently wrong with wanting to work hard and profit from it.
There is no absolute that states that one’s personal gains shouldn’t be linked to increased healthcare options, better holidays and a private swimming pool.
What riles people, is the conservative belief that their way is the only way which is justifiable. The failure to comprehend that a community can choose to achieve the same through cooperation, and that it is just as worthy as individual profit; that capitalism is nothing more than a means, not a goal.
It’s this that leads to absurd points of view about migration, religion and morality.
Gun ownership and the constitution? The bible? US interference in third parties?
Why do conservatives uphold trumpism? It’s because they feel threatened instead of enjoying what they’ve got.
The same mechanism which makes some socialists defend the USSR and Cuban revolution; not that these systems weren’t better than that which they replaced, but they’re not exactly shining examples of progress & enlightenment either.
And that is the truth of it all.
We can sit and bicker all night on social media, digging ourselves into ever deeper holes of what we think is rational, but in reality; in bar or on a hike, 70% of what we think and feel is the same. And that connection fails to manifest in these discussions.
So to sum it all up: conservatives have stuff and they don’t want to lose it. It’s a fear of change and instability. In a world where everything is constantly changing at an increasing pace. And instead of adapting to change, they grasp whatever security they can and shout tradition; forming politics and economics into sacred texts instead of methods to be used.
Is this what you wanted to read? Does it do your aims justice? Or do you just feel threatened and want to lash out. Again and again.
@shavixmir saidA nice post.
No one is running.
Ultimately, conservatives should be okay. There is nothing inherently wrong with wanting to work hard and profit from it.
There is no absolute that states that one’s personal gains shouldn’t be linked to increased healthcare options, better holidays and a private swimming pool.
What riles people, is the conservative belief that their way is the only ...[text shortened]... Does it do your aims justice? Or do you just feel threatened and want to lash out. Again and again.
Refreshing that you are OK with the American Dream, which you are saying in para #1.
I think the prob with libs is evidenced in your second paragraph. "What riles people". If conservatives are not directly, or indirectly for that matter, affecting anyone with their way of life, what in the world would cause someone to 'get riled with' the life of the conservatives? This is the common denominator of all threads. Are we wrong to know that you are in our face all the time, ....all we want is to be left alone, if that makes any sense. Last I heard, the libs were after more money of the people who earn it. When conservatives are in power, they REDUCE the amount of money available to libs.....the amount of taxes.
Then you mention that libs like the idea of cooperative community, which to them is equally as rewarding as the goal of capitalism, which is to make money, to profit. If that life style does not bother us, let them have at it.
So, to recap, you say firstly that it is OK for conservatives to work hard and profit.
Then you say liberals can achieve satisfaction through cooperation, or in any way they want to, that it doesn't have to be capitalism.
So, why can we not all co-exist that way? It seems that we have evidence of the laid back 'community' citizens looking over the fence and asking for a bit of 'coverage', eg paying for tuitions, etc. At the same time, you are correct, that the conservatives are threatened big time. We don't just feel threatened , we ARE threatened. It is tangible stuff. Yes, that is the truth of it all.
You may be thinking AvJoe is being a little partisan about the conservative point of view at this point, but pure co-existence just does not end after your two perfect explanations of the tenets of each of the two sides. One side is demanding stuff of the other, and the other side is demanding nothing from the first side.
As to migration, we want sovereignty. Liberals never mention it. It is being lost on our southern border. You would just have to live in that little ranch house in Del Rio Texas and watch the world as we knew it come to an end. SO, we feel that libs do not care about sovereignty.
As to religion and morality, that is private, and I don't know how discussions about it get anyone anywhere. It has been like that, 100 different religions, for 10,000 years. A non-issue. Everyone could just practice their religin As Long As They Don't Bother Others.
As to morality, it is in the eye of the beholder, for the same 10,000 years. It is definitely evolving, and yes I have been shown the raunchy websites. It cannot be regulated or handled, all we can do is raise our children as best we can. I have been teaching self-reliance since they were two, that is just my way. My way should not "Rile" anyone, should it?
Gun ownership is covered by the 2nd amendment, no argument there.
USA interference is not 'always' interference, it is to stop communism or whatever, to assist with world order. Not an easy or faultless task, but in my opinion, that of a conservative, we have done good throughout the world. Iraq and VNam were mishandled, no question. Yes,absurd. For the record, the USA has never started a war.
But your comments above are basically that we should co-exist without anyone looking over the fence of the other. Most musicians are prob liberals, I look over their fences.....but I pay them for their CDs.
😏
@earl-of-trumps saidRight wingers often don't want to believe things that are true. But the Iraq Study Group Report which came out in December 2006 committed the US to the following policies regarding Iraqi oil reserves:
I don't believe it. For many years after Iraq was invaded, no such change in ownership occurred.
SHOW me where the US forced the sale of Iraq oil holdings. I can tell you right now, you may find some
whacked out web site that claims it, but I don't buy it. I used to follow this stuff closely, watching all the while.
RECOMMENDATION 62:
• As soon as possible, the U.S. government should provide technical assistance to the Iraqi government to prepare a draft oil law that defines the rights of regional and
local governments and creates a fiscal and legal framework for investment. Legal clarity is essential to attract
investment.
RECOMMENDATION 63:
• The United States should encourage investment in Iraq’s
oil sector by the international community and by international energy companies.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-IRAQSTUDYGROUP/pdf/GPO-IRAQSTUDYGROUP.pdf pp. 102-103
The US then announced an extra 30,000 troops would be deployed to Iraq less than a month later "the Surge".
What happened to the oil proposals?:
"Last week The Independent on Sunday revealed that a BearingPoint employee, based in the US embassy in Baghdad, had been tasked with advising the Iraqi Ministry of Oil on drawing up a new hydrocarbon law. The legislation, which is due to be presented to Iraq's parliament within days, will give Western oil companies a large slice of profits from the country's oil fields in exchange for investing in new oil infrastructure."
https://web.archive.org/web/20070717185159/http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2152438.ece
So the law was drawn up by a US company getting paid almost a quarter billion dollars by the US government for its work " It was charged with supporting the then Coalition Provisional Authority to introduce policies "which are designed to create a competitive private sector". Its role is to examine laws, regulations and institutions that regulate trade, commerce and investment, and to advise ministries and the central bank."
The bill was approved by the Iraqi cabinet in late February 2007 but it was never approved by the Iraqi parliament mainly because "Iraqis oppose plans to open the country’s oilfields to foreign investment by a factor of two to one." http://priceofoil.org/2007/08/09/iraqi-oil-law-poll-june-july-2007/
"Iraqi public opinion strongly opposes the handing of authority and control over the oil to foreign companies, that aim to make big profits at the expense of the people. They aim to rob Iraq's national wealth by virtue of unfair, long term oil contracts that undermine the sovereignty of the State and the dignity of the Iraqi people.
For example, through production sharing agreements these companies shall not be subject to the Iraqi courts in the event of any dispute, nor to the general audit, nor to democratic control. The proprietorship of the oil reserves under this draft law will remain with the State in form, but not in substance.
This means that the occupier seeks and wishes to secure themselves energy resources at a time when the Iraqi people are seeking to determine their own future while still under conditions of occupation."
https://archive.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2006/1214tradeunion.htm
So the US sent a law to the Iraqis opening up their oil industry to foreign control, sent in a bunch of extra troops and pressured the Iraqi government to approve it even though the Iraqi People strongly opposed it.
And eventually foreign oil companies got control over Iraq's oil as contracts were put out while the country was still under foreign occupation and even though the oil law was never passed.
Really Earl sometimes 1 + 1 = 2
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 142863
14 Jun 21
@no1marauder said“ even though the oil law was never passed. ”
Right wingers often don't want to believe things that are true. But the Iraq Study Group Report which came out in December 2006 committed the US to the following policies regarding Iraqi oil reserves:
RECOMMENDATION 62:
• As soon as possible, the U.S. government should provide technical assistance to the Iraqi government to prepare a draft oil law that define ...[text shortened]... foreign occupation and even though the oil law was never passed.
Really Earl sometimes 1 + 1 = 2
Read that until you understand it.
14 Jun 21
@mott-the-hoople saidIt was never passed by the Iraqi parliament but its terms went into effect anyway because it was authorized by the Cabinet.
“ even though the oil law was never passed. ”
Read that until you understand it.
Reading the whole post might help.
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 142863
14 Jun 21
@no1marauder saidyou're good at quoting...show in your article where it says that.
It was never passed by the Iraqi parliament but its terms went into effect anyway because it was authorized by the Cabinet.
Reading the whole post might help.
"Those who claim that the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 to get control of the country's giant oil reserves will be left scratching their heads by the results of last weekend's auction of Iraqi oil contracts: Not a single U.S. company secured a deal in the auction of contracts that will shape the Iraqi oil industry for the next couple of decades. Two of the most lucrative of the multi-billion-dollar oil contracts went to two countries which bitterly opposed the U.S. invasion — Russia and China "
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1948787,00.html
Im beginning to think liberals and democrats are in cahoots with the communist.