Friday, July 30, 2010

The Condition of the Gulf

Like many people these days, I have a Facebook presence. I never understood the point, but one of the lefties who never comment here anymore, one of my faves by the name of "Les" emailed me asking if I had one. Eventually I got one and I found one good reason (possibly the only one worth the effort) of having anything to do with FB and that was to try and contact old friends. It worked. I've been able to contact quite a few, including one I haven't seen in about thirty years.

Another I haven't seen in awhile is a regular poster and presented the final few minutes of one of the worst Steven Segal movies ever, called "On Deadly Ground". Absolutely horrible, except for the cool fight scenes.

Anyway, my friend posts the end of the movie which is an overwrought environmentalist pleading, not much different than your basic AlGore drivel. It shows those weepy shots of oil-covered animals and like most such calls for action, assume we can just drop oil consumption and switch to wind, solar, electric cars and fairy dust, and do it *SNAP!* just like that! Needless to say, I posted as somewhat snarky comment, mostly regarding the quality of the movie, but some directed at this part of it.

WELL! My buddy was none too pleased and launched into a raving chastisement which included knocking me out if we were close enough for him to do so (it's possible---we used to be martial arts students together). I asked him, "Why the hate, dude?" and he replied that I don't know a damned thing and that the Gulf is now just so F'd that I have no idea! There was talk about greedy oil people and such, I defended against such childish claims, he called me other names and suggested I don't know what I'm talking about.

This led to him sending me, upon my request, a sizable list of videos to watch (in order educate myself on things beyond my ability to fathom), some of which I've been able to watch and the rest still on tap. I haven't viewed enough for a report on the lot of them, but of the few I've seen some good ideas and also some conspiracy stories (hapless inventors oppressed by the man).

But I digress.

Getting back to the Gulf, I've read in this morning's paper a story from the Washington Post regarding a missing 4 million barrels of oil that spewed from the BP well. Here's some of what "experts" are saying:

"On Wednesday, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration chief Jane Lubchenco said the oil is now much less visible on the surface and present only in microscopic, dilute droplets further down. She said that was a sign that the Gulf ecosystem is resilient and processing the hydrocarbons.

But she said that 'doesn't mean the situation is benign because it is not.'

'There's so much noise out there now saying the Gulf is dead or the Gulf will come back easily,' Lubchenco said. 'The truth is in the middle.'"


That sounds reasonable. In fact, it's kinda what I was saying myself, or at least I was speaking in that tone as regards the hyperbolic nature of the Segal movie and my buddy's rants. Here's more:

"The best-case scenario is that much of this amount has been eaten by the Gulf's natural stock of oil-munching microbes."

It goes on to say that some scientists think these microbes, which I believe I've mentioned to my friend, might cause problems of their own, depleting oxygen that sea creatures need, but that no oxygen-free dead zones have been detected thus far. Ed Overton, a professor at LSU, believes the microbes, helped by the summer heat (Hurray for global warming!) was helping. In fact, he believes we're "well, well over the hump" and that the environment is in the recovery stage.

Already? I thought we had a "fragile earth"!

All seriousness aside, it's still not a joking matter. The condition, as Lubchenco said, is still a matter of great concern. The effects could last for quite some time and will likely be monitored for years to come.

But what this article points out is that nature can indeed handle quite a bit. It always has and likely always will. It's bigger than mankind and I personally doubt that we could destroy it without an intense and concerted effort on everyone's part, worldwide. That's not to say that we shouldn't play cleanly as we continue moving forward with technological developments. Of course we should. But the political games have to stop. This event is being played for the benefit of economically damaging political policy proposals, like cap and trade. We can't allow that to continue because the fact is that the condition of the earth isn't going to matter to people without jobs. And the fact is that we need oil still, (as well as coal and nuclear) because there hasn't been any really practical alternatives ready to step in and take over without breaking the bank. What's more, if we finally can drive decent cars that don't look like crap as well as don't need gas and oil, we'd still have over four thousand other products for which we need oil to produce.

UPDATE: I just read and article by Jonah Goldberg, someone that makes lib heads explode with his smarts, that actually could have been used for its own post, but contains more info regarding the actual measure of the Gulf disaster. And as he points out, despite the over-hyped nature of the environmental laments, it is still a disaster. It's just not as bad as everyone of the environmentalists and Obama people shamefully hoped it would be. Apparently it isn't enough that eleven men lost their lives. It must really suck for them when more suffering does not occur. It seems two points I can plainly see are true has thus far been validated: 1) The earth is not the fragile planet some hope is the case, and 2) Technology has advanced to the point that even with government intervention, more commonly known as "government interference", the worst scenarios of any given disaster can be mitigated effectively. The left just hates that.

38 comments:

Mark said...

I've been having a similar discussion on Facebook with my Liberal Doctor nephew. He wants a scientific explanation for why the oil is disappearing, as though the article he linked to, which states "Mother Nature" is doing her job" doesn't explain it fully. The fact is, he isn't satisfied with the explanation, because it doesn't comport with his idea that there is some monumental immediate imminent deadly crisis or disaster just over the horizon.

Liberals just aren't happy if they have no crisis to exploit.

Although, he did link to an article which reports the chemical used to disperse the oil is having some very unpleasant side effects, like burns and lesions on the skin of the workers trying to clean up the oil.

Of course, that is man made. It seems if we let it alone, the ocean will clean itself up.

God is good, no?

Marshall Art said...

Indeed He is.

Regarding those microbes, I actually know of a product that uses them. A network marketing company, with which I was once a part, markets it and it works rather well. I had one gear-head customer who loved it for cleaning engine parts and I used it to clean old oil stains on my garage floor.


One of my arguments with the friend to whom I referred in the post was that the oil companies work on ways to clean such messes as well as prevent them. Advances are always being made in both areas and using these microbes is part of it. Of course they also have the help of those microbes that already exist out there, but they've also "harnessed" them for use elsewhere. It's just another argument that oil guys aren't just unfeeling, greedy a-holes. That's a sweeping generalization that requires proof of intent, not examples that they might not have all bases covered yet.

Feodor said...

"Scientists have found signs of an oil-and-dispersant mix under the shells of tiny blue crab larvae in the Gulf of Mexico, the first clear indication that the unprecedented use of dispersants in the BP oil spill has broken up the oil into toxic droplets so tiny that they can easily enter the foodchain.

Marine biologists started finding orange blobs under the translucent shells of crab larvae in May, and have continued to find them "in almost all" of the larvae they collect, all the way from Grand Isle, Louisiana, to Pensacola, Fla. -- more than 300 miles of coastline -- said Harriet Perry, a biologist with the University of Southern Mississippi's Gulf Coast Research Laboratory.

And now, a team of researchers from Tulane University using infrared spectrometry to determine the chemical makeup of the blobs has detected the signature for Corexit, the dispersant BP used so widely in the Deepwater Horizon"

Marshall Art said...

Like it was said, Feo, "somewhere in the middle".

Feodor said...

Enjoy the middle part of your lobster and shrimp and fish, Marshall. And what it will do to the middle part of your digestive tract. And the middle part of your life. Or... oh, you're not really worth the effort.

Marshall Art said...

There you go again, fool. Trying to appear clever. You project again attempting to imply that I'm in any way trying to downplay the real damage to the Gulf. Typical, and typically pathetic.

Instead, I'm looking at the situation as it is without hyperbolic rhetoric in either direction. Someting sorely lacking from bloviators like yourself.

Marty said...

"Apparently it isn't enough that eleven men lost their lives. It must really suck for them when more suffering does not occur."

Same type of snarky comment made about Bush after Katrina. Like Bush and conservatives didn't care about the suffering. Like Obama and liberals don't care about the suffering. It's a bunch of bull.

Marshall Art said...

You miss the point, Marty. It is true that Bush was accused of not caring about the suffering. It is also true that such accusations were loads of crap. What I'm saying is that the suffering that HAS occurred doesn't seem to be enough. For my part, I think one lone death would have been tragic. But we have eleven. Is that not tragic enough? It doesn't seem so. No. Instead there has to be all sorts of wailing and gnashing of the teeth over impending death to the entire Gulf. They had to hype it up big in order to sell the notion that the greedy oil men have screwed us again and we need to be done with petroleum once and for all RIGHT NOW before more sea creatures lose their lives.

Bush was accused of not caring. I'm accusing Obummer and his admin, as well as environmetal kooks, of exploiting the situation for all they're worth. And that would only be bull if it wasn't happening. The reports I've presented, the quotes of experts involved demonstrate the truth of it.

Marty said...

"What I'm saying is that the suffering that HAS occurred doesn't seem to be enough...

That's bullshit Marshall.

I'm accusing Obummer and his admin, as well as environmetal kooks, of exploiting the situation for all they're worth."

Yeah... well... the left accused Bush of exploiting 9/11 for all it was worth. So? Doesn't make it true just because you're the accuser.

You missed MY point. Let me make it more clear. The rightwinged reports you cite want you to think exactly what you are thinking. The left wing reports want left wingers to think exactly what they are thinking.

And as far as the environmental impact. No one really knows the long term effects of this disaster. Some think it won't be as bad as others say it will. Only time will reveal the truth.

Marshall Art said...

Marty,

In what manner WAS Bush exploiting Katrina supposedly "exploiting" Katrina? You're just making up nonsense now. I don't recall that anyone was accusing Bush of exploiting Katrina since they were so busy blaming him for everything. Get your BS lefist accusations straight. Now you're simply lying about lefy lies.

But that Obabble is exploiting the Gulf disaster is more than an accusation and borne out by his using it to insist that "WE MUST FREE OURSELVES FROM OUR DEPENDENCE ON OIL!!!" And he has called for more regulation of the industry. One rare accident is not proof that we need to do ANYTHING but be more careful.

The difference between my "rightwing" reports is that it deals only in factual data, and not hyperbolic ramping up of the situation for the purpose of demonizing an industry or our dependence on that industry's products. Moreover, nothing in any of my presentations suggests the political leanings of the scientists, researchers and experts cited in those reports. And since the original is from an AP article, just how is it "rightwing"?

The bullshit here, Marty, is your attempt to suggest that the right and the left are doing the same thing as regards coverage of the Deep Water Horizon disaster. My reports do not seek to downplay the reality of the situation. My presentations are revealing that lefty predictions were overwrought hyperbole.

Marty said...

"In what manner WAS Bush exploiting Katrina supposedly "exploiting" Katrina? You're just making up nonsense now."

I didn't say Bush "exploited" Katrina. I said the leftwing accused him of exploiting 9/11. Read my comment again.

You're doing the same thing to the Obama Administration that the left wing did to the Bush Administration.

I'll have to hand it to "W", however...no matter how I felt about him as governor and president...he has kept his mouth shut since he left office and gone on about his life actually doing a few good deeds. And those daughters of his have done some awesome work.

I just wish that VP of his would have the good sense to keep his big mouth shut.

"My reports do not seek to downplay the reality of the situation. My presentations are revealing that lefty predictions were overwrought hyperbole."

And you believe what YOUR reports say 100% because you've been to the Gulf and witnessed and investigated it for yourself right?

Marty said...

"WE MUST FREE OURSELVES FROM OUR DEPENDENCE ON OIL!!!"

WE MUST FIGHT THE TERRORISTS OVER THERE SO WE DON'T HAVE TO FIGHT THEM HERE!!!!

Marshall Art said...

Marty,

I realize I inadvertantly mistyped my comment. I'll restate it.

In what manner was the left saying that Bush was exploiting Katrina. My point is that I don't believe that was ever the case. All they were doing was blaming him for it and any suffering connected to it. I don't recall any attempts to accuse him of exploiting it. Don't get me wrong. The left said all sorts of bullshit lies about Bush, so I may be overlooking something. But I don't recall that that particular accusation was common.

Regarding Obama, he IS exploiting the situation. This isn't just an accusation. It's a fact. An accusation would be that he purposely complicated the situation with his stupid actions to make the situation worse. I wouldn't go that far because it's so hard to tell when he's being stupid or calculating. The effect is the same.

But he has used the situation to his advantage. It's a freakin' standard operating procedure for his admin as Rhamm Emmanuel will tell you.

The problem is you don't understand the distinction. The right doesn't just accuse without facts to back them up. That isn't commonplace. For example, we KNOW that his stimulus plans are useless and damaging to the economy. It's provable. We KNOW that letting the Bush tax cuts are damaging to the economy. It's provable.

The notion that the right does to Obama what the left did to Bush is crap. The left accuses and tries to find proof, the right sees effects and shows how the left caused them. You're just too biased a lefty to see reality.

My reports indicate that I don't have to go to the gulf myself. What an insipid comment. The hyped predictions were made by the left, and now experts have shown them to be nothing BUT hype while still acknowledging the reality of the disaster. What's your exact problem here? It seems to be with the truth that conflicts with the hype.

As to your last, I don't understand the point of posting the statements.

The first is said by people from both sides, though the right says it a bit differently, mostly as regards to who's oil. The second is a true statement based on reality. What don't you get about it?

Marty said...

"In what manner was the left saying that Bush was exploiting Katrina"

Sigh.

Ok. Let me say this slooooowwwly.

The. left. accused. Bush. of. exploiting. 9/11.

The comment I made regarding Katrina was that the left said Bush didn't care about the suffering.


To many the BP disaster was a wake up call to depend less on oil. Nothing wrong with that.

Sometimes it takes a tragedy to change a situation. The Texas City disaster and the fact that BP has done things on the cheap and put their workers at risk for many years including the recent spewing of 538,000 pounds of toxins into the air of which their employees were exposed...the fact that BP has violated Texas air quality laws again and again and again again... So much so that now the Texas Attorney General's office has filed suit. It seems to me that we need to take another look at how we regulate this industry. And it's not hyperbole to note this.

Marshall Art said...

Marty,

Now I see where the problem between us is:

"Ok. Let me say this slooooowwwly.

The. left. accused. Bush. of. exploiting. 9/11.

The comment I made regarding Katrina was that the left said Bush didn't care about the suffering."


What you repeated slowly isn't supported by the second statement. The second statement isn't Bush exploiting Katrina, it's the left exploiting Katrina to prove Bush doesn't care about the suffering of the people. So, it's another example of the left exploiting a situation for political gain.

And why would we need the BP disaster to wake us up to anything? It's not like the lefty environmentalists will ever let us forget about oil dependence. It's just too bad that they have no practical solutions. Don't forget that oil is used in the production of between 4000-6000 products. There's no easy answer to get over that kind of dependence. What we can do, however, is to drill for our own so that while we still must use oil (while those alternatives are being cured of their many expensive and impratical components), we won't be dependent upon FOREIGN oil which makes the issue far worse for us than it has to be.

Dan Trabue said...

It's just too bad that they have no practical solutions.

This is the excuse of an addict.

Sure, we have practical solutions. Begin living within our means.

Easy solutions? Not if you want to live the opulent life to which we've become accustomed. But solutions exist.

Presuming that because no easy solutions exist, therefore we must keep doing what we're doing is the excuse of an addict.

"I can't quit. It hurts. I NEED my drug. I just can't make it without it."

The excuse of an addict.

Marshall Art said...

"Living within our means."

This is not the problem. Rather, it is not the problem with the need for oil, coal and the energy they provide.

Living within our means is a lesson that most of the poor refuse to learn, which is why they are poor, or if not poor, soon to be.

But "living within our means" is an incomplete lesson if there exists no means by which to live.

But aside from that, as I said, it is a lesson that makes no sense as regards the issue at hand. The need for oil is not a matter of means and living within them unless you're suggesting we go back to riding horses and warming ourselves by a campfire. So that's a stupid suggestion and I'm gonna wager an attempt by you at elaboration will not make it any smarter. I invite you to try nonetheless. So, what PRACTICAL solutions exist to relieve us of our need for coal and oil?

Dan Trabue said...

1. The personal auto-as-norm is not something we can maintain. Trying to do so is living beyond our means every bit as much as if an average family tried to eat out at the fanciest restaurant every night.

We can't do it, we need another model. Trying to do it has run through most of our accessible oil in less than 100 years.

2. Another model? Easily accomplished. Good mass transit. Bike lanes. Living in smaller circles. Walk more.

All easily accomplished IF we decided to live within our means.

It's no different at all than a poor family simply choosing NOT to have cable TV, buy expensive cars, etc, etc.

Live within our means.

3. Smaller homes consume much less energy to heat and/or cool. We easily have it within our means to live in smaller homes, but we choose not to.

We're addicts and refuse to kick the habit of hyper-consumption.

4. Quit buying petrol-based stuff. Don't use plastic bags. Stop wrapping products in plastic, then wrapping THAT in plastic, then putting all that in a plastic bag. There are other alternatives. No sweat.

5. No one is saying that individual cars HAVE to go away. We can keep ambulances, fire engines, taxis, some cars for some reasons. But it can't be the norm. Trying to make it the norm is not sustainable, we can't keep doing it so we ought not encourage it.

6. All of these and many more are easily accomplished IF we had the will. We don't. We're addicts.

7. The way to make it happen does not need to involve forcing people NOT to hyper-consume, we just need to quit subsidizing the hyper-consumptive model (and thereby encouraging it). We need gas to cost something closer to its ACTUAL cost, not the gov't cheese price we're getting it. If gas cost the $10-20/gallon it actually costs, people would voluntarily cut back.

But that won't happen easily because we're addicts.

Mark said...

LOL! Dan, the "Progressive" would have us believe he is regressive.

He wants businessmen and women, politicians, etc, to forgo air travel and take a horse and buggy cross country and across oceans.

Oh, and let's all walk through 3 foot high snow drifts on our ten mile walk to work.

But Danny, How would your Muslim terrorist buddies take down office towers with a horse and buggy?

You're stifling their freedom to wreak havoc and cause mayhem!

That's not just absurd, Dan. There are no adequate words to describe the level of your absurdity. Fortunately you and your opinions are not important. You have an equal amount of importance to the first person thrown out of a life boat.

Dan Trabue said...

And once again, "I can't cause it's not easy, ohhh, no..." whiny princess shit is the excuse of addicts.

I think we're made of sterner stuff than that, myself.

Dan Trabue said...

Dan, the "Progressive" would have us believe he is regressive.

I keep telling y'all I'm more anabaptist (with their curious blend of conservative, liberal and all else) than progressive or liberal.

Picture an Amish guy with gay friends... A conservative with a heart, perhaps?

Marty said...

Marshall, the right and left both exploit situations for political gain. And they will continue to do so as long as long as it is politically expedient for them to do so. That has been my point all along. But you don't seem to admit the right ever does it. Or if you do, you've never commented on it. At least since I've been reading here anyway.

I really have no desire to go back and forth with you on this. My attention span won't allow it.

Marshall Art said...

"Marshall, the right and left both exploit situations for political gain."

Maybe I'm going about this in the wrong manner. If I concede that both sides exploit for political gain, there is still a glaring difference in how that manifests. I would suggest that generally speaking, political gain is not the point of a right wing "exploitation" of a situation. For example, Paul Ryan has some great ideas, supported in it's credibility by the CBO and other bodies, that would improve our economic picture. He will gain politically if enough people see the wisdom of his plan. He will gain politically by exploiting the current economic wasteland caused by and/or exacerbated by Obamanomics. But his point ISN'T political power, but merely to improve life for the most Americans possible.

But that isn't the form of exploitation common to the Dem politician. In general, they will use a situation to merely put themselves out as the answer, John Kerry was the perfect example, without really laying any cards on the table. Obama campaigned in the very same manner. No plans of substance, only marketing, and exploiting the condition of America to draw attention to himself as the answer, but not to a real answer. THAT is exploiting for political gain in the manner the expression means to me. THAT is not how the average conservative works. There are exceptions, but then that would not be the average guy.

Parklife said...

"Living within our means is a lesson that most of the poor refuse to learn, which is why they are poor, or if not poor, soon to be."

Ma,
Its expensive to be poor

Marty said...

"For example, Paul Ryan has some great ideas, supported in it's credibility by the CBO and other bodies, that would improve our economic picture......But his point ISN'T political power, but merely to improve life for the most Americans possible."

This is supposed improve life for most Americans? I don't see it Marshall. Sorry.

Marshall Art said...

Park,

Sure. When one is poor, everything is expensive. So what would YOU do about it? Whine and demand that the gov't pay your bills, or cut expenses where you can, find more work, or pool your resources with others by, for example, moving in with someone else or having someone move in with you? And when the time comes, vote for the same jackass that has made your ability to find work harder than it was before Nov '08, or people like him?

There are resources for the poor and there will always be safety nets for the truly needy.

Of course none of this has anything to do with the topic, to which I'd prefer the discussion stay.

Dan Trabue said...

Whine and demand that the gov't pay your bills, or cut expenses where you can, find more work, or pool your resources with others by, for example, moving in with someone else or having someone move in with you?

Unfortunately for you, no one is "whining and demanding" anyone pay anything.

Well, except for you.

You want to whine and demand that we keep going on an unsustainable path, not paying your own way, living off the poor, off of creation, off of your children.

Danged parasites who don't want to live within their means, what you gonna do about them?

We know who the real cadillac kings and queens are.

(said with a wink and a smile, lest you can't "hear" that in my writing...)

Marshall Art said...

Marty,

Rather than take someone else's word for it, a better idea might be to look at Ryan's actual proposals. Ryan offers himself to stand before any inquiry regarding his proposals.

Off the top of my head, your link looks to ignore the impact of what a good economic plan will do. This is typical of the tax the rich folk. When Bush's tax cuts went into effect, the result was the the rich ended up paying a greater share of the total revenues than they did before the cuts. This is because proper tax legislation, in the form espoused by Ryan, stimulate private industry in a manner that means something. Nothing in Obama's plan stimulates anything but his own ego. There have been five (at least) stimulus plans. Nothing has been stimulated. Obama wishes to let the tax cuts expire on the most productive people, the people who are now sitting on trillions of dollars instead of spending it for expansion and considering taking their business to places like China, where they won't be financially raped.

As I said, Ryan's plan has been srutinized by independent bodies that have agreed his plan will do what he planned it will do.

We're on a definite downhill track right now. There's no doubt about it. If Ryan's plan means we go downhill at all, it will mean only that it can't make a sharp upward turn without first slowing the fall. There's too much momentum for that. What this means is that we might not see an immediate change, but a positive change will result in the same manner it did for Kennedy, Reagan and Bush Jr.

I would also suggest that your link assumes tax revenues that aren't coming now because of the current tax law. It assumes that the upper percentages will be bringing in more from the expiration of the Bush cuts for them and THAT'S the money their saying would be lost. But even if we assume that the cuts will expire and the wealthy will be paying more, they will, as they always do, find ways to preserve the fruits of their labors and other means of increasing revenues will have to be found. That means the rest of us paying more. Happens all the time.

You need to do two things: Start paying real attention to how similar proposals have worked in the past, and stay on topic. I used Ryan as an example of what is acceptable exploitation and what is the usual case when lefties exploit, not to turn the discussion to Ryan's plan.

Marty said...

"Nothing has been stimulated."

Obama's stimulus has helped to stimulate my income. I'm bringing more home on my paycheck now. My salary was cut a couple of years ago. I'm bringing home more now than I was before the pay cut.

So I'm thinking if the stimulus plan helped me it is helping others as well.

Marshall Art said...

Please, Marty. Tell me how anything Obama did directly benefited your employer so that he could pay you more money. This would not only be enlightening, but would mark a likely unintended consequence of Obama's plan. The other alternative is that you work for one of the supporters he's paying off. Much of his stim money is paybacks.

Marty said...

Actually Marshall I work at a church. Too many members have passed away and offerings aren't what they used to be. Looks as if the church will go the way of it's members eventually with no young people to keep it going. Average age is probably 75 and most are living on retirement and/or Social Security.

Marshall Art said...

Marty,

So are you saying there is NO connection between your raise and Barry's stimulus? If so, why the comment saying otherwise? If not, what is the connection?

Marshall Art said...

"Unfortunately for you, no one is "whining and demanding" anyone pay anything."

Are you now openly lying, proving Bubba's opinion of you to be correct, or are you hoping to prove Mark's opinion? You, of all people, have no right to insist you don't demand others pay. Anyone who supports a progressive income tax is doing exactly that. That's enough to properly paste both "lie" AND "stupid" to your statement. But as if that's not enough, you are definitely asking for others to pay the price of what YOU believe, without supporting evidence, is a superior lifestyle regardless of the desires of those upon whom you would demand sacrifice.

And in what way are we living an unsustainable lifestyle now? Because of our need for oil? We have oil within our own territory to sustain us for a couple of centuries by recent reports. That should be time enough to develop the alternatives you think we can just jump to, and do so in a manner that is pratical, affordable and efficient as our current modes of transport and do so with style that won't make people puke.

And where does this "living off the poor" crap come from? Wealth is not created by living off the poor. Not in THIS country. I thought you were a conservative. What kind of dumb-assed conservative believes such a thing, except one who was only calling himself a conservative without really understanding what one is or how to be one. One thing is for sure: it takes a dumb-ass to move from conservatism to socialism like you have. Here's another bit of truth for ya, Danny: Though wealth is not created by "living off the poor", poverty is created by living off the wealthy. Hand outs do not lift people up, they only give them another day to lift themselves, but lift themselves they must and YOU do very little to affect THAT needed change.

"Living off creation"? Creation is here for our benefit. We grow more food from smaller plots of land than ever before. We have more fuel efficiency than ever before. We grow more trees than we log. We limit hunting and fishing to prevent animal and fish populations from growing extinct. There is more light and better air to breathe if you'd only pull your head out of your ass.

"Living off your children"? Hello. Barry Obummer? Can you spend more money so that we have debt to last the next three centuries, please? You voted for living off of your children. Thank you very much.

Those who don't live within their means are those you and your Jeff St jamokes claim to help, as well as those who seek to enter our country illegally. They are those who think Social Security will fuel their retirement. They are those who insist upon a flat-screen HD-TV before they have enough to properly feed and clothe their kids.

If your wink and smile means you actually agree with any of the above, then it marks a new sun-shiney day in the life of Dan Trabue. Somehow I don't think that's what you were winking and smiling about.

Marty said...

"So are you saying there is NO connection between your raise and Barry's stimulus? If so, why the comment saying otherwise? If not, what is the connection?"

I never said I received a raise. I said I received a pay CUT.

My pay was cut about 2-3 years ago. In 2009 Obama's stimulus package cut my federal withholding taxes substantially. Because of that tax cut my take home pay was increased even beyond what I was taking home before my pay was cut.

Hasn't anyone noticed a decrease in your fed/wh payroll tax?

Marty said...

Getting back on track:

"I would suggest that generally speaking, political gain is not the point of a right wing "exploitation" of a situation"

In your dreams Marshall.

The Right has taken exploitation to a new level and made it into a rare art form. They have exploited the fears of the average American with regards to terror, illegal immigration, health care, medicare, socialism, you name it. All for politcial gain.

Marshall Art said...

"They have exploited the fears of the average American with regards to terror, illegal immigration, health care, medicare, socialism, you name it. All for politcial gain."

Marty,

This is where you, like so many on the left, make an improper parallel. Terror, for example, was not a case of exploiting a situation. You may not recall, but on Sept. 11, 2001, there was this terrorist attack that killed 3000 Americans. Google it. I'm sure you'll find something. To warn against future attacks, to rally the nation that we can no longer pretend their isn't a faction of Islam with evil intentions is NOT exploiting in the manner that Barry O is exploiting the BP disaster.

Illegal immigration is another fact that carries a myriad of problems and is something that needs to be addressed. Even you goofy lefties know that, though you want to let them all in instead of regulating the flow of immigrants in an orderly fashion. Thus, there is no exploitation. Barry O, as well as other goofy lefties exploit it by saying concerns of people, such as the AZ governor and Bill 1070 is a case of racism rather than a concern for the problems faced by Arizonans because of the illegal crossings. THAT'S exploitation. What the right is doing is pointing out the REAL problems, many of which have been presented in numerous links at this here blog.

Health care is a situation by which the right is and was looking for ways to actually cut costs that left-wing regulations imposed on the system. This isn't exploitation, either, but documented facts. Obrother, however, has exploited the situation in order to impose even more economy destroying mandates and proposals, some of which force Americans to buy what they don't want to purchase.

And where is the exploitation with Medicare when it is costing far, far more than was ever projected and going up more. Is that not actually happening? Is it exploitation to point it out and rally voters to elect leaders with sound ideas? I don't think so.

And we've counted all the ways that Barry has expressed his socialist bent, despite your (and others) intent to keep your head buried in the sand (wich is better than where Feodor has HIS buried).

Look at it this way, and Dan might be please that I'm considering the dictionary definition:

"1 : to make productive use of : utilize
2 : to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage "


The BP disaster gave Obumble an opportunity for exploitation. He declared it the worst disaster in American history, and now the gov't is saying almost all of the oil is gone. That doesn't sound like the worst disaster ever to me. Does it to you? But he immediately began to call for alternatives to oil. THAT'S definition #2 above and typical of the left. In fact it's S.O.P. for them.

The right sees a problem and warns of the potential based on past examples of the same action or event. That is NOT the #2 definition (or, simply not #2). And all your above examples do not qualify for the type of exploitation that the 2nd definition describes and the Dems engage in routinely. Your denial does not change that fact.

Marty said...

"Improper parallel"...says you.

The Right has done an excellent job of convincing it's lemmings that what you have said is indeed true.

Marshall Art said...

Marty,

Your last comment demands that you show what is untrue with anything that I've put forth. I've done my part to support all I've said in this and past blog posts. Now it seems you're just engaging in school yard antics. "Sez you" is not an argument.