OT: FOX News and the oil blowout

[briansd1]

[quote=eavesdropper]
Well, strictly speaking, you are a consumer of the oil industry, not an employee. But I’m nitpicking for nitpicking’s sake. I like to blame it on the nuns who beat me at the orphanage.[/quote]

Nitpick away. 😉

Yes, as a consumer of the oil industry, I’m farther removed from the oil industry; so I have more leeway to criticize the oil industry than a government employee or contractor criticizing the hand that feeds.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] from Hippias to Socrates, when Hippias refused to debate him, saying, “You mock at others, questioning and examining everybody, and never willing to render an account yourself or to state an opinion about anything” (from Xenophon’s “Memorabilia”).[/quote]

Allan seriously, here, read the tread again from the beginning.

I made my position known that I felt this gusher was an environmental disaster. Did you state your position? No.

Responding to the OP, I said that I felt that Fox is only doing scant coverage of the gusher because of their general support for the drill-baby-drill mantra.

You are the one who took issue with my use of the word “drilling”, cautioning that words have meaning.

It seems to me like you were the one mocking and examining first.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] from Hippias to Socrates, when Hippias refused to debate him, saying, “You mock at others, questioning and examining everybody, and never willing to render an account yourself or to state an opinion about anything” (from Xenophon’s “Memorabilia”).[/quote]

Allan seriously, here, read the tread again from the beginning.

I made my position known that I felt this gusher was an environmental disaster. Did you state your position? No.

Responding to the OP, I said that I felt that Fox is only doing scant coverage of the gusher because of their general support for the drill-baby-drill mantra.

You are the one who took issue with my use of the word “drilling”, cautioning that words have meaning.

It seems to me like you were the one mocking and examining first.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] from Hippias to Socrates, when Hippias refused to debate him, saying, “You mock at others, questioning and examining everybody, and never willing to render an account yourself or to state an opinion about anything” (from Xenophon’s “Memorabilia”).[/quote]

Allan seriously, here, read the tread again from the beginning.

I made my position known that I felt this gusher was an environmental disaster. Did you state your position? No.

Responding to the OP, I said that I felt that Fox is only doing scant coverage of the gusher because of their general support for the drill-baby-drill mantra.

You are the one who took issue with my use of the word “drilling”, cautioning that words have meaning.

It seems to me like you were the one mocking and examining first.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] from Hippias to Socrates, when Hippias refused to debate him, saying, “You mock at others, questioning and examining everybody, and never willing to render an account yourself or to state an opinion about anything” (from Xenophon’s “Memorabilia”).[/quote]

Allan seriously, here, read the tread again from the beginning.

I made my position known that I felt this gusher was an environmental disaster. Did you state your position? No.

Responding to the OP, I said that I felt that Fox is only doing scant coverage of the gusher because of their general support for the drill-baby-drill mantra.

You are the one who took issue with my use of the word “drilling”, cautioning that words have meaning.

It seems to me like you were the one mocking and examining first.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] from Hippias to Socrates, when Hippias refused to debate him, saying, “You mock at others, questioning and examining everybody, and never willing to render an account yourself or to state an opinion about anything” (from Xenophon’s “Memorabilia”).[/quote]

Allan seriously, here, read the tread again from the beginning.

I made my position known that I felt this gusher was an environmental disaster. Did you state your position? No.

Responding to the OP, I said that I felt that Fox is only doing scant coverage of the gusher because of their general support for the drill-baby-drill mantra.

You are the one who took issue with my use of the word “drilling”, cautioning that words have meaning.

It seems to me like you were the one mocking and examining first.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=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.[/quote]

I agree that the anti-incumbent sentiment is at an all-time (at least in my lifetime) high, but I think the parties differ. I believe that the Dems are, overall, generally clueless about what’s going on aside from a very narrow financial-educational demographic. Whether this is the result of stupidity, or not giving a shit, I can’t say. I just have a vision of the DNC staff taking a daily siesta in their conference room, where they smoke a pound and a half of Maui Wowee, and watch “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure” with director’s commentary in slow mo.

The Repubs, on the other hand, developed a taste for blood in the late 80s and have been after it ever since. Power trumps everything, and winning is essential to acquiring that. I don’t know that they truly are in touch with Americans (I vote “no”), but they have a gift on zeroing in on what issues will elicit the most visceral and vitriolic response from the voters, even if they are non-existent issues. I think that they have the skills to figure out what is pissing off Americans, but will exercise it only to the extent that it gets them publicity that will engender votes. But they are brilliant at leaving a great many people with the impression that they truly care, which makes it appear all the more cruel when their Senate and House votes prove otherwise.

The fallout from this rapidly increasing distrust is that it threatens to become a permanent condition, and Americans are looking to candidates that are diametric opposites from incumbents. There are more and more candidates like Sarah Palin appearing on ballots, as the average American is searching for someone they perceive as similar to themselves to trust. And there’s no talking them out of it.

As for the economy, you couldn’t be more accurate. None of them, including LaPalin, has the faintest idea of the insurmountable financial challenges being faced by millions of their middle-class constituents.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=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.[/quote]

I agree that the anti-incumbent sentiment is at an all-time (at least in my lifetime) high, but I think the parties differ. I believe that the Dems are, overall, generally clueless about what’s going on aside from a very narrow financial-educational demographic. Whether this is the result of stupidity, or not giving a shit, I can’t say. I just have a vision of the DNC staff taking a daily siesta in their conference room, where they smoke a pound and a half of Maui Wowee, and watch “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure” with director’s commentary in slow mo.

The Repubs, on the other hand, developed a taste for blood in the late 80s and have been after it ever since. Power trumps everything, and winning is essential to acquiring that. I don’t know that they truly are in touch with Americans (I vote “no”), but they have a gift on zeroing in on what issues will elicit the most visceral and vitriolic response from the voters, even if they are non-existent issues. I think that they have the skills to figure out what is pissing off Americans, but will exercise it only to the extent that it gets them publicity that will engender votes. But they are brilliant at leaving a great many people with the impression that they truly care, which makes it appear all the more cruel when their Senate and House votes prove otherwise.

The fallout from this rapidly increasing distrust is that it threatens to become a permanent condition, and Americans are looking to candidates that are diametric opposites from incumbents. There are more and more candidates like Sarah Palin appearing on ballots, as the average American is searching for someone they perceive as similar to themselves to trust. And there’s no talking them out of it.

As for the economy, you couldn’t be more accurate. None of them, including LaPalin, has the faintest idea of the insurmountable financial challenges being faced by millions of their middle-class constituents.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=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.[/quote]

I agree that the anti-incumbent sentiment is at an all-time (at least in my lifetime) high, but I think the parties differ. I believe that the Dems are, overall, generally clueless about what’s going on aside from a very narrow financial-educational demographic. Whether this is the result of stupidity, or not giving a shit, I can’t say. I just have a vision of the DNC staff taking a daily siesta in their conference room, where they smoke a pound and a half of Maui Wowee, and watch “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure” with director’s commentary in slow mo.

The Repubs, on the other hand, developed a taste for blood in the late 80s and have been after it ever since. Power trumps everything, and winning is essential to acquiring that. I don’t know that they truly are in touch with Americans (I vote “no”), but they have a gift on zeroing in on what issues will elicit the most visceral and vitriolic response from the voters, even if they are non-existent issues. I think that they have the skills to figure out what is pissing off Americans, but will exercise it only to the extent that it gets them publicity that will engender votes. But they are brilliant at leaving a great many people with the impression that they truly care, which makes it appear all the more cruel when their Senate and House votes prove otherwise.

The fallout from this rapidly increasing distrust is that it threatens to become a permanent condition, and Americans are looking to candidates that are diametric opposites from incumbents. There are more and more candidates like Sarah Palin appearing on ballots, as the average American is searching for someone they perceive as similar to themselves to trust. And there’s no talking them out of it.

As for the economy, you couldn’t be more accurate. None of them, including LaPalin, has the faintest idea of the insurmountable financial challenges being faced by millions of their middle-class constituents.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=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.[/quote]

I agree that the anti-incumbent sentiment is at an all-time (at least in my lifetime) high, but I think the parties differ. I believe that the Dems are, overall, generally clueless about what’s going on aside from a very narrow financial-educational demographic. Whether this is the result of stupidity, or not giving a shit, I can’t say. I just have a vision of the DNC staff taking a daily siesta in their conference room, where they smoke a pound and a half of Maui Wowee, and watch “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure” with director’s commentary in slow mo.

The Repubs, on the other hand, developed a taste for blood in the late 80s and have been after it ever since. Power trumps everything, and winning is essential to acquiring that. I don’t know that they truly are in touch with Americans (I vote “no”), but they have a gift on zeroing in on what issues will elicit the most visceral and vitriolic response from the voters, even if they are non-existent issues. I think that they have the skills to figure out what is pissing off Americans, but will exercise it only to the extent that it gets them publicity that will engender votes. But they are brilliant at leaving a great many people with the impression that they truly care, which makes it appear all the more cruel when their Senate and House votes prove otherwise.

The fallout from this rapidly increasing distrust is that it threatens to become a permanent condition, and Americans are looking to candidates that are diametric opposites from incumbents. There are more and more candidates like Sarah Palin appearing on ballots, as the average American is searching for someone they perceive as similar to themselves to trust. And there’s no talking them out of it.

As for the economy, you couldn’t be more accurate. None of them, including LaPalin, has the faintest idea of the insurmountable financial challenges being faced by millions of their middle-class constituents.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=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.[/quote]

I agree that the anti-incumbent sentiment is at an all-time (at least in my lifetime) high, but I think the parties differ. I believe that the Dems are, overall, generally clueless about what’s going on aside from a very narrow financial-educational demographic. Whether this is the result of stupidity, or not giving a shit, I can’t say. I just have a vision of the DNC staff taking a daily siesta in their conference room, where they smoke a pound and a half of Maui Wowee, and watch “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure” with director’s commentary in slow mo.

The Repubs, on the other hand, developed a taste for blood in the late 80s and have been after it ever since. Power trumps everything, and winning is essential to acquiring that. I don’t know that they truly are in touch with Americans (I vote “no”), but they have a gift on zeroing in on what issues will elicit the most visceral and vitriolic response from the voters, even if they are non-existent issues. I think that they have the skills to figure out what is pissing off Americans, but will exercise it only to the extent that it gets them publicity that will engender votes. But they are brilliant at leaving a great many people with the impression that they truly care, which makes it appear all the more cruel when their Senate and House votes prove otherwise.

The fallout from this rapidly increasing distrust is that it threatens to become a permanent condition, and Americans are looking to candidates that are diametric opposites from incumbents. There are more and more candidates like Sarah Palin appearing on ballots, as the average American is searching for someone they perceive as similar to themselves to trust. And there’s no talking them out of it.

As for the economy, you couldn’t be more accurate. None of them, including LaPalin, has the faintest idea of the insurmountable financial challenges being faced by millions of their middle-class constituents.

[briansd1]

[quote=eavesdropper]

I believe that John McCain may well have won the election if he had picked a more suitable VP candidate. People chose the “least objectionable” team (or simply declined to cast a vote), and hoped for the best.

[/quote]

Here are the facts:

2004 Elections:
62,040,610 Bush
59,028,444 Kerry

121,069,054 Total

2008 Elections:
69,456,897 Obama
59,934,814 McCain

129,391,711 Total

Growth in voters:
8,322,657 6.874%

Populations estimates:
July 2004 293,655,404
July 2008 303,947,734

Growth in pop 10,292,330 3.505%

Seems to me like Obama was a big factor in voter turnout.

Source:
Population:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004986.html
There was no total for 2004 so my spreadsheet total numbers differ from the source totals… but you get the idea. Had I used the source totals, population growth would be slightly lower.

Voters:
Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Presidential_Elections

[briansd1]

[quote=eavesdropper]

I believe that John McCain may well have won the election if he had picked a more suitable VP candidate. People chose the “least objectionable” team (or simply declined to cast a vote), and hoped for the best.

[/quote]

Here are the facts:

2004 Elections:
62,040,610 Bush
59,028,444 Kerry

121,069,054 Total

2008 Elections:
69,456,897 Obama
59,934,814 McCain

129,391,711 Total

Growth in voters:
8,322,657 6.874%

Populations estimates:
July 2004 293,655,404
July 2008 303,947,734

Growth in pop 10,292,330 3.505%

Seems to me like Obama was a big factor in voter turnout.

Source:
Population:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004986.html
There was no total for 2004 so my spreadsheet total numbers differ from the source totals… but you get the idea. Had I used the source totals, population growth would be slightly lower.

Voters:
Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Presidential_Elections

[briansd1]

[quote=eavesdropper]

I believe that John McCain may well have won the election if he had picked a more suitable VP candidate. People chose the “least objectionable” team (or simply declined to cast a vote), and hoped for the best.

[/quote]

Here are the facts:

2004 Elections:
62,040,610 Bush
59,028,444 Kerry

121,069,054 Total

2008 Elections:
69,456,897 Obama
59,934,814 McCain

129,391,711 Total

Growth in voters:
8,322,657 6.874%

Populations estimates:
July 2004 293,655,404
July 2008 303,947,734

Growth in pop 10,292,330 3.505%

Seems to me like Obama was a big factor in voter turnout.

Source:
Population:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004986.html
There was no total for 2004 so my spreadsheet total numbers differ from the source totals… but you get the idea. Had I used the source totals, population growth would be slightly lower.

Voters:
Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Presidential_Elections

[briansd1]

[quote=eavesdropper]

I believe that John McCain may well have won the election if he had picked a more suitable VP candidate. People chose the “least objectionable” team (or simply declined to cast a vote), and hoped for the best.

[/quote]

Here are the facts:

2004 Elections:
62,040,610 Bush
59,028,444 Kerry

121,069,054 Total

2008 Elections:
69,456,897 Obama
59,934,814 McCain

129,391,711 Total

Growth in voters:
8,322,657 6.874%

Populations estimates:
July 2004 293,655,404
July 2008 303,947,734

Growth in pop 10,292,330 3.505%

Seems to me like Obama was a big factor in voter turnout.

Source:
Population:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004986.html
There was no total for 2004 so my spreadsheet total numbers differ from the source totals… but you get the idea. Had I used the source totals, population growth would be slightly lower.

Voters:
Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Presidential_Elections

[Author]

Posts