OT: FOX News and the oil blowout

[Aecetia]

Very thoughtful eaves and the quote: “They are still missing the boat on what really is pissing off Americans” applies to both parties. I think there is a very anti-incumbent sentiment now, not just anti Democrat or Republican. Both parties have seriously misread the tea leaves and are going to pay a price for their arrogance and for appearing to not care about what is worrying the average American- it is still the economy for most people.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=briansd1][quote=eavesdropper]
In the meantime, these people need to stop writing checks with their mouths that their asses can’t cash. If they think that the government is too big, too into their business, too restrictive, and tyrannical to boot, they SHOULD go ahead and denounce them. In the meantime, however, they should give up their Social Security, give up their disability, forego their government-sponsored health care, take in their elderly relatives, and pay for their kids’ education. And if any of their loved ones get sick, they can have them treated to the extent of their abilities and bankbooks, and accept the inevitable if the treatment is not successful. It can be done. Yes, it will be tough. But tough is what these rebels are all about, right?[/quote]

That’s excellent, eavesdropper. Quitting their government or government subsidized jobs is another one I would add.

And someone told me to stop driving or support drill-baby-drill. ;)[/quote]

I don’t know, Brian. In the purest sense of “employment”, there is an ostensibly even exchange of the employee’s labor/services for the employer’s money. In that situation, I believe that an employee of the government can openly criticize and protest the actions of that government, without the least hint of hypocrisy.

However, given the widely-held largely derisive (but not necessarily true) views of government employees, and their value, my “equal exchange” theory could be considered flawed. Likewise, employees/beneficiaries of government contracts and other sponsored programs. It comes down to whether the employee is benefiting disproportionately from the job or program.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=briansd1][quote=eavesdropper]
In the meantime, these people need to stop writing checks with their mouths that their asses can’t cash. If they think that the government is too big, too into their business, too restrictive, and tyrannical to boot, they SHOULD go ahead and denounce them. In the meantime, however, they should give up their Social Security, give up their disability, forego their government-sponsored health care, take in their elderly relatives, and pay for their kids’ education. And if any of their loved ones get sick, they can have them treated to the extent of their abilities and bankbooks, and accept the inevitable if the treatment is not successful. It can be done. Yes, it will be tough. But tough is what these rebels are all about, right?[/quote]

That’s excellent, eavesdropper. Quitting their government or government subsidized jobs is another one I would add.

And someone told me to stop driving or support drill-baby-drill. ;)[/quote]

I don’t know, Brian. In the purest sense of “employment”, there is an ostensibly even exchange of the employee’s labor/services for the employer’s money. In that situation, I believe that an employee of the government can openly criticize and protest the actions of that government, without the least hint of hypocrisy.

However, given the widely-held largely derisive (but not necessarily true) views of government employees, and their value, my “equal exchange” theory could be considered flawed. Likewise, employees/beneficiaries of government contracts and other sponsored programs. It comes down to whether the employee is benefiting disproportionately from the job or program.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=briansd1][quote=eavesdropper]
In the meantime, these people need to stop writing checks with their mouths that their asses can’t cash. If they think that the government is too big, too into their business, too restrictive, and tyrannical to boot, they SHOULD go ahead and denounce them. In the meantime, however, they should give up their Social Security, give up their disability, forego their government-sponsored health care, take in their elderly relatives, and pay for their kids’ education. And if any of their loved ones get sick, they can have them treated to the extent of their abilities and bankbooks, and accept the inevitable if the treatment is not successful. It can be done. Yes, it will be tough. But tough is what these rebels are all about, right?[/quote]

That’s excellent, eavesdropper. Quitting their government or government subsidized jobs is another one I would add.

And someone told me to stop driving or support drill-baby-drill. ;)[/quote]

I don’t know, Brian. In the purest sense of “employment”, there is an ostensibly even exchange of the employee’s labor/services for the employer’s money. In that situation, I believe that an employee of the government can openly criticize and protest the actions of that government, without the least hint of hypocrisy.

However, given the widely-held largely derisive (but not necessarily true) views of government employees, and their value, my “equal exchange” theory could be considered flawed. Likewise, employees/beneficiaries of government contracts and other sponsored programs. It comes down to whether the employee is benefiting disproportionately from the job or program.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=briansd1][quote=eavesdropper]
In the meantime, these people need to stop writing checks with their mouths that their asses can’t cash. If they think that the government is too big, too into their business, too restrictive, and tyrannical to boot, they SHOULD go ahead and denounce them. In the meantime, however, they should give up their Social Security, give up their disability, forego their government-sponsored health care, take in their elderly relatives, and pay for their kids’ education. And if any of their loved ones get sick, they can have them treated to the extent of their abilities and bankbooks, and accept the inevitable if the treatment is not successful. It can be done. Yes, it will be tough. But tough is what these rebels are all about, right?[/quote]

That’s excellent, eavesdropper. Quitting their government or government subsidized jobs is another one I would add.

And someone told me to stop driving or support drill-baby-drill. ;)[/quote]

I don’t know, Brian. In the purest sense of “employment”, there is an ostensibly even exchange of the employee’s labor/services for the employer’s money. In that situation, I believe that an employee of the government can openly criticize and protest the actions of that government, without the least hint of hypocrisy.

However, given the widely-held largely derisive (but not necessarily true) views of government employees, and their value, my “equal exchange” theory could be considered flawed. Likewise, employees/beneficiaries of government contracts and other sponsored programs. It comes down to whether the employee is benefiting disproportionately from the job or program.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=briansd1][quote=eavesdropper]
In the meantime, these people need to stop writing checks with their mouths that their asses can’t cash. If they think that the government is too big, too into their business, too restrictive, and tyrannical to boot, they SHOULD go ahead and denounce them. In the meantime, however, they should give up their Social Security, give up their disability, forego their government-sponsored health care, take in their elderly relatives, and pay for their kids’ education. And if any of their loved ones get sick, they can have them treated to the extent of their abilities and bankbooks, and accept the inevitable if the treatment is not successful. It can be done. Yes, it will be tough. But tough is what these rebels are all about, right?[/quote]

That’s excellent, eavesdropper. Quitting their government or government subsidized jobs is another one I would add.

And someone told me to stop driving or support drill-baby-drill. ;)[/quote]

I don’t know, Brian. In the purest sense of “employment”, there is an ostensibly even exchange of the employee’s labor/services for the employer’s money. In that situation, I believe that an employee of the government can openly criticize and protest the actions of that government, without the least hint of hypocrisy.

However, given the widely-held largely derisive (but not necessarily true) views of government employees, and their value, my “equal exchange” theory could be considered flawed. Likewise, employees/beneficiaries of government contracts and other sponsored programs. It comes down to whether the employee is benefiting disproportionately from the job or program.

[Jim Jones]

[quote=briansd1]

Jim Jones, consider the facts Allan enumerated above.

I was specifically addressing the post made by Allan who, on this thread, warned me to be precise and that words have meanings.

Did Obama’s supposed lack of a “national energy program”, and “the difficulties in permitting, approvals and loan guarantees” in “the private nuke sector” contribute to THIS disaster in the Gulf? Consider the facts Allan pointed to and their contribution to THIS gulf disaster.

Remember, Allan is the one who suggested that I should not use the word “drilling” to refer to the oil industry in general because drilling is not cementing.

Are we talking big picture policy or meanings of words?[/quote]

Brian,

Stop trying to use straw man logic to support your position when it lacks logic in order to attempt to undermine my statement. My remarks had nothing to do with the wider energy policy of any presidential administration. Instead I wanted you fully recognize that THE RIG IN THE GULF WAS CERTIFIED BY A DEPARTMENT RAN BY AN OBAMA POLITICAL APPOINTEE.

[quote=allan from fallbrook]Allan, since you are so much for technically assigning blame where blame is due, Bush/Cheney relaxing the rules contributed to the lack of safety and THIS Gulf of Mexico environmental disaster.[/quote]

For once your language was precise in that you say that Bush/Chaney only “contributed” to the relaxing the of the rules. What you fail to admit/realize or digest is that the Obama appointee actively continued to operate under those same rules which your found so reprehensible.

Brian, I believe that you are a semi-productive poster on this board but think you could do well to follow eavesdropper’s statement below and avoid staying locked into the orthodoxy in which you currently reside. Your preference to only analyze facts which support your idea of what is “right” is why your are presently facing criticism from members on this board.

[quote=eavesdropper]There are many on this forum who are in the practice of carefully considering situations from a number of angles, and who realize that there will always be some bit of contradiction in our philosophies. We approach these questions critically, working through a number of scenarios, refining as we go, until we arrive at a rational conclusion. We will change our philosophies if that becomes necessary. Unfortunately, most people these days seem to prefer changing the facts of a situation instead.[/quote]

[Jim Jones]

[quote=briansd1]

Jim Jones, consider the facts Allan enumerated above.

I was specifically addressing the post made by Allan who, on this thread, warned me to be precise and that words have meanings.

Did Obama’s supposed lack of a “national energy program”, and “the difficulties in permitting, approvals and loan guarantees” in “the private nuke sector” contribute to THIS disaster in the Gulf? Consider the facts Allan pointed to and their contribution to THIS gulf disaster.

Remember, Allan is the one who suggested that I should not use the word “drilling” to refer to the oil industry in general because drilling is not cementing.

Are we talking big picture policy or meanings of words?[/quote]

Brian,

Stop trying to use straw man logic to support your position when it lacks logic in order to attempt to undermine my statement. My remarks had nothing to do with the wider energy policy of any presidential administration. Instead I wanted you fully recognize that THE RIG IN THE GULF WAS CERTIFIED BY A DEPARTMENT RAN BY AN OBAMA POLITICAL APPOINTEE.

[quote=allan from fallbrook]Allan, since you are so much for technically assigning blame where blame is due, Bush/Cheney relaxing the rules contributed to the lack of safety and THIS Gulf of Mexico environmental disaster.[/quote]

For once your language was precise in that you say that Bush/Chaney only “contributed” to the relaxing the of the rules. What you fail to admit/realize or digest is that the Obama appointee actively continued to operate under those same rules which your found so reprehensible.

Brian, I believe that you are a semi-productive poster on this board but think you could do well to follow eavesdropper’s statement below and avoid staying locked into the orthodoxy in which you currently reside. Your preference to only analyze facts which support your idea of what is “right” is why your are presently facing criticism from members on this board.

[quote=eavesdropper]There are many on this forum who are in the practice of carefully considering situations from a number of angles, and who realize that there will always be some bit of contradiction in our philosophies. We approach these questions critically, working through a number of scenarios, refining as we go, until we arrive at a rational conclusion. We will change our philosophies if that becomes necessary. Unfortunately, most people these days seem to prefer changing the facts of a situation instead.[/quote]

[Jim Jones]

[quote=briansd1]

Jim Jones, consider the facts Allan enumerated above.

I was specifically addressing the post made by Allan who, on this thread, warned me to be precise and that words have meanings.

Did Obama’s supposed lack of a “national energy program”, and “the difficulties in permitting, approvals and loan guarantees” in “the private nuke sector” contribute to THIS disaster in the Gulf? Consider the facts Allan pointed to and their contribution to THIS gulf disaster.

Remember, Allan is the one who suggested that I should not use the word “drilling” to refer to the oil industry in general because drilling is not cementing.

Are we talking big picture policy or meanings of words?[/quote]

Brian,

Stop trying to use straw man logic to support your position when it lacks logic in order to attempt to undermine my statement. My remarks had nothing to do with the wider energy policy of any presidential administration. Instead I wanted you fully recognize that THE RIG IN THE GULF WAS CERTIFIED BY A DEPARTMENT RAN BY AN OBAMA POLITICAL APPOINTEE.

[quote=allan from fallbrook]Allan, since you are so much for technically assigning blame where blame is due, Bush/Cheney relaxing the rules contributed to the lack of safety and THIS Gulf of Mexico environmental disaster.[/quote]

For once your language was precise in that you say that Bush/Chaney only “contributed” to the relaxing the of the rules. What you fail to admit/realize or digest is that the Obama appointee actively continued to operate under those same rules which your found so reprehensible.

Brian, I believe that you are a semi-productive poster on this board but think you could do well to follow eavesdropper’s statement below and avoid staying locked into the orthodoxy in which you currently reside. Your preference to only analyze facts which support your idea of what is “right” is why your are presently facing criticism from members on this board.

[quote=eavesdropper]There are many on this forum who are in the practice of carefully considering situations from a number of angles, and who realize that there will always be some bit of contradiction in our philosophies. We approach these questions critically, working through a number of scenarios, refining as we go, until we arrive at a rational conclusion. We will change our philosophies if that becomes necessary. Unfortunately, most people these days seem to prefer changing the facts of a situation instead.[/quote]

[Jim Jones]

[quote=briansd1]

Jim Jones, consider the facts Allan enumerated above.

I was specifically addressing the post made by Allan who, on this thread, warned me to be precise and that words have meanings.

Did Obama’s supposed lack of a “national energy program”, and “the difficulties in permitting, approvals and loan guarantees” in “the private nuke sector” contribute to THIS disaster in the Gulf? Consider the facts Allan pointed to and their contribution to THIS gulf disaster.

Remember, Allan is the one who suggested that I should not use the word “drilling” to refer to the oil industry in general because drilling is not cementing.

Are we talking big picture policy or meanings of words?[/quote]

Brian,

Stop trying to use straw man logic to support your position when it lacks logic in order to attempt to undermine my statement. My remarks had nothing to do with the wider energy policy of any presidential administration. Instead I wanted you fully recognize that THE RIG IN THE GULF WAS CERTIFIED BY A DEPARTMENT RAN BY AN OBAMA POLITICAL APPOINTEE.

[quote=allan from fallbrook]Allan, since you are so much for technically assigning blame where blame is due, Bush/Cheney relaxing the rules contributed to the lack of safety and THIS Gulf of Mexico environmental disaster.[/quote]

For once your language was precise in that you say that Bush/Chaney only “contributed” to the relaxing the of the rules. What you fail to admit/realize or digest is that the Obama appointee actively continued to operate under those same rules which your found so reprehensible.

Brian, I believe that you are a semi-productive poster on this board but think you could do well to follow eavesdropper’s statement below and avoid staying locked into the orthodoxy in which you currently reside. Your preference to only analyze facts which support your idea of what is “right” is why your are presently facing criticism from members on this board.

[quote=eavesdropper]There are many on this forum who are in the practice of carefully considering situations from a number of angles, and who realize that there will always be some bit of contradiction in our philosophies. We approach these questions critically, working through a number of scenarios, refining as we go, until we arrive at a rational conclusion. We will change our philosophies if that becomes necessary. Unfortunately, most people these days seem to prefer changing the facts of a situation instead.[/quote]

[Jim Jones]

[quote=briansd1]

Jim Jones, consider the facts Allan enumerated above.

I was specifically addressing the post made by Allan who, on this thread, warned me to be precise and that words have meanings.

Did Obama’s supposed lack of a “national energy program”, and “the difficulties in permitting, approvals and loan guarantees” in “the private nuke sector” contribute to THIS disaster in the Gulf? Consider the facts Allan pointed to and their contribution to THIS gulf disaster.

Remember, Allan is the one who suggested that I should not use the word “drilling” to refer to the oil industry in general because drilling is not cementing.

Are we talking big picture policy or meanings of words?[/quote]

Brian,

Stop trying to use straw man logic to support your position when it lacks logic in order to attempt to undermine my statement. My remarks had nothing to do with the wider energy policy of any presidential administration. Instead I wanted you fully recognize that THE RIG IN THE GULF WAS CERTIFIED BY A DEPARTMENT RAN BY AN OBAMA POLITICAL APPOINTEE.

[quote=allan from fallbrook]Allan, since you are so much for technically assigning blame where blame is due, Bush/Cheney relaxing the rules contributed to the lack of safety and THIS Gulf of Mexico environmental disaster.[/quote]

For once your language was precise in that you say that Bush/Chaney only “contributed” to the relaxing the of the rules. What you fail to admit/realize or digest is that the Obama appointee actively continued to operate under those same rules which your found so reprehensible.

Brian, I believe that you are a semi-productive poster on this board but think you could do well to follow eavesdropper’s statement below and avoid staying locked into the orthodoxy in which you currently reside. Your preference to only analyze facts which support your idea of what is “right” is why your are presently facing criticism from members on this board.

[quote=eavesdropper]There are many on this forum who are in the practice of carefully considering situations from a number of angles, and who realize that there will always be some bit of contradiction in our philosophies. We approach these questions critically, working through a number of scenarios, refining as we go, until we arrive at a rational conclusion. We will change our philosophies if that becomes necessary. Unfortunately, most people these days seem to prefer changing the facts of a situation instead.[/quote]

[briansd1]

[quote=eavesdropper]In the purest sense of “employment”, there is an ostensibly even exchange of the employee’s labor/services for the employer’s money. In that situation, I believe that an employee of the government can openly criticize and protest the actions of that government, without the least hint of hypocrisy.[/quote]

I agree.

That’s why I don’t feel any qualms about criticizing the oil industry while using their products.

[briansd1]

[quote=eavesdropper]In the purest sense of “employment”, there is an ostensibly even exchange of the employee’s labor/services for the employer’s money. In that situation, I believe that an employee of the government can openly criticize and protest the actions of that government, without the least hint of hypocrisy.[/quote]

I agree.

That’s why I don’t feel any qualms about criticizing the oil industry while using their products.

[briansd1]

[quote=eavesdropper]In the purest sense of “employment”, there is an ostensibly even exchange of the employee’s labor/services for the employer’s money. In that situation, I believe that an employee of the government can openly criticize and protest the actions of that government, without the least hint of hypocrisy.[/quote]

I agree.

That’s why I don’t feel any qualms about criticizing the oil industry while using their products.

[briansd1]

[quote=eavesdropper]In the purest sense of “employment”, there is an ostensibly even exchange of the employee’s labor/services for the employer’s money. In that situation, I believe that an employee of the government can openly criticize and protest the actions of that government, without the least hint of hypocrisy.[/quote]

I agree.

That’s why I don’t feel any qualms about criticizing the oil industry while using their products.

[Author]

Posts