I'll cut U.S. dependence on oil, pledges Bush

Here's a hint for you: Bold.

 

Abject fatuity, nothing more.
Let's revisit my question:
I didn't introduce any of those points, did I?

I didn't disagree with them at all. In fact, I have never once addressed them, have I?

Again, it's a yes/no question:
I never mentioned anything about the points you introduced, did I?

This is not only abject fatuity, this is intellectual dishonesty. I have never once addressed those points that you have introduced, and that is clear to even the most casual observer. For you to even make such an intellectually dishonest observation is, to quote Sean Hannity, "beyond the pale." If you can produce any quotes/comments I made concerning socialism, then by all means show them to me. Until you can, stop bearing false witness.

I did not "avoid" answering the questions. They are irrelevant until you answer my simple yes/no question.

I will repeat it, as I have reworded it for you:
I didn't introduce any of those points, did I?

Please stop this, and just answer the question. You're losing credibility......

BiR

 

What question? Do you mean your demand?

 

What question? Do you mean your demand? </font>[/QUOTE]No, I mean my question.

Since this is so challenging to you, I will repeat it yet again:

I wonder how many more replies will you offer without answering it.....

BiR

 

You're hung up on your demands. Here, BiR, is my original post about which you seem to be so upset. This must be the "abject fatuity" you keep writing about. Herein are the questions you can answer or not.

All you've done is reported the recent success of some of the major oil business! So what? Did these business provide goods and services that people wanted, needed, and were willing to pay for? What's wrong with that?

Is success in business - any legitimate business - a bad thing? Do you start a business to make the least you can or the most you can? It is implied that those who make lot's of money must have stolen it from others? Is it wrong to make money?

Why don't we all lobby for pay cuts of our salaries and profit caps on our little businesses? Why don't we sell what we make for the least possible amount?

Should profits be taken away from those who earn them and given to those who haven't so they too can be "profitable"?

What do you want - capitalism, socialism, or communism?

What do these business do with their earnings? Do they reinvest them? Do they generate the exchange or more goods and services? Do they pay out earnings to their owners who's investments provided the capital by which to make the profits?

What do you want? Do you want government or the market to control prices? Do you want opportunity to drive business investments or do you want government limits as to what are "fair" profits with all "excess" forfeited to the government to be redistributed to those "more deserving"?

 

That is because the answer to my question is obvious, a fact reinforced by your unwillingness to acknowledge it as fact.

More intellectual dishonesty, Dragoon68.
The abject fatuity was very clearly identified in the post, making reference to the comments exhibiting it. That too is obvious to even the most casual of observers.

So, you refuse to answer a question, yet expect me to answer yours? I would answer them if you would simply acknowledge the obvious.

 

No, BiR, I've decided not to answer your specific demands - orders as they are verses requests - because I don't like the tone in which you make them and I just don't feel compelled to oblige you which by so doing would grant you some authority you do not possess.

I think you've gotten yourself in a huff over my comments and questions none of which accused you of anything. You snapped back with a seemingly arrogant "Didn't I?" response to which you now demand I respond.

You've been rather loose with the "abject fatuity" and "intellectual dishonesty" terms but, in reality, there's nothing I've said that in this thread that fits those description. I've merely expressed my thoughts - and will continue to do so - and asked you about your positions which answers you've avoided completely.

I don't have any ill feelings towards you about this and I don't care much for tit for tat arguments like this but, on the other hand, I'm certainly not inclined to concede to your demands and for a little while I'm a bit humored by the discussion. I do, however, have some better things to do, no one else cares about this little exchange, and it is getting close to bed time.

 

Draggoon again you are living in a dark room and
are neglecting on keeping up with current news and reality...the oil companies get big subsidy
the last energy bill proved that..wake up! in there.

Again why do they need your libertarian dollars to drill for oil...or are you sucking up to them
because of hypocrisy.

Me thinks you are a fraud.

 

More of the same intellectual dishonesty, Dragoon68:
1. What “tone” did you not like? Bear in mind that this is cyberspace, where “tone” does not even exist. I used bold font to emphasize the point I was making, which was the obvious: I never mentioned any of those subjects. It was you who introduced them. You cannot even admit to this.
2. I have absolutely no idea what is meant by “authority.” This too is nothing I ever claimed, nor did I introduce the term “authority” into the discussion. This entire exchange involves reading claims written by you about my comments that I never introduced, and having to continually point that out to you. Please show me where I ever claimed any authority. I simply asked you (repeatedly) to answer a question. A question you never answered, by the way.

Again, this is intellectual dishonesty. You have never met me, and don’t know me. Arrogance is best defined by an unwillingness to admit that I never introduced any of those points into the discussion. It is also intellectually dishonest to say that you didn’t accuse me of anything, when you very clearly did – look at your comments from 10:07 PM tonight. You have totally pulled that last paragraph out of thin air.

This is not true either. In each case, I have shown where you have exhibited these. Your comments made in the last paragraph of your post at 10:07 PM tonight are a blatant example of abject fatuity. I never introduced these topics, and never commented on them. Yet despite these undisputable facts, you have somehow deduced that I hold to the opinion that you assigned to me. This is an anonymous forum, and I am pretty sure that you and I have never met. It is intellectually dishonest to make assertions about someone’s beliefs, especially when the person in question has not made any comments that would indicate them to be true.

That is not exactly true, is it? I simply wanted you to concede that I never introduced these topics into this discussion, nor did I state the opinions you attributed to me. That is a fact that does not require your acknowledgement to be valid.

Wow, that was pathetic. “Ill will” is yet another topic that you have introduced to the discussion. I find it appalling that you seemingly feel empowered to simply make statements about people you don’t know in this anonymous forum, only to continue with more of the same when you have been called on it.

But that’s okay: anyone who reads this exchange can see for themselves that I never introduced the topics you referenced, I never stated the beliefs you assigned to me, and that you have willingly refused to admit these truths. That by itself communicates the point much more effectively that anything else I could offer. How fortunate for you that this is an anonymous forum……………………….

As for your questions:

No. As a matter of fact, I never offered this as an option. The first mention I have seen of it was by you.

No. As a matter of fact, I never offered this as an option either. This too is the first I have seen this mentioned.

No. This too is nothing that I offered as an option. Your post is the first I have seen this mentioned.

Capitalism with government oversight.

 

How about all three combined, capitalism, socialism, and communism? We could call it commonism or maybe even globalism.

 

Wow!  You really are hot about this BiR!  Calm down before you pop a fuse!  Be careful that you're not doing exactly that which you accuse me.

Please read my original post again.  I asked rhetorical questions for the purpose of the discussion.  You took those as personal accusations by your own choice.  No such implication was made by me.

I still believe that you came across as demanding certain responses - like an attorney to a witness on the stand - and that's why I did not want to oblige you accordingly.

No. As a matter of fact, I never offered this as an option. The first mention I have seen of it was by you.

No. As a matter of fact, I never offered this as an option either. This too is the first I have seen this mentioned.

No. This too is nothing that I offered as an option. Your post is the first I have seen this mentioned.

Capitalism with government oversight. </font>[/QUOTE]It is good to know how you feel about some of the issues I mentioned.  I appreciate the answers you have finally provided.

 

It's so nice to know you think I'm a fraud! In what way? Why do you think that, ASLANSPAL?

The oil industry - like many others - receives various assistance as well as controls from our government for the purpose of the fostering our nation's energy policies. It is the will of the people through our Congress that these types of programs are in place and have been for many generations. It's the case in a wide variety of industries including agriculture and transportation which are probably the oldest. It's a big difference to claim the oil industry is "stealing from the people" verses pointing out what the "people" have decided to do to support the industry from their own best interests.

In general, I don't agree with industry subsidies and, in fact, prefer the government not meddle in these things with tax money. I think they create artificial support that mask the true cost of goods and services and ultimately do more harm than good. I believe doing things through government always adds handling fees and tends towards politically based verses technologically and economically based decisions.

But, again, the public has demanded and gotten a lot of meddling. Some are asking for more now. I think the true price of gasoline would be higher if some of these programs were terminated. Then people would really be screaming! On the other hand, removing other restrictions might drive the prices lower. Either way, eventually, the marketplace would work things out and, so long as antitrust laws were enforced to prohibit monopolist practices, we'd end up where we need to be.

I'm sure there's lobbying that goes on in the industry for benefits. Capitalism is at work even in the halls of Congress! Serious lobbying takes place for increased environmental regulations by those who peddle environmental control equipment. That's the case for every group. I don't like this but it's a fact of our system.

It's my understanding that some of it for the oil industry funding - the parts for research and development - are being greatly reduced. I know that's happened to some funding for natural gas transportation. I'm okay with doing that.

The oil industry still makes its money by investing the capital its owners provide, by taking risks for hopefully good returns, and by proving goods and services to consumers who want them and are willing to pay for them in a supply and demand marketplace. There's nothing wrong with this!

 

That - "commonism" - is an interesting word!

 

Just another word for globalism. Which is pretty much the combination of capitalism socialism and communism.

 

My goodness Dragoon you just admitted then out of another corner of your mouth you deny .

So Subsidizing is okay in you Libertarian world??

in other words you are saying accept the subsidy because it is good for us...that is sooooo hypocritical.

Which is it or being an apple polisher for big oil...makes their subsidy alright??

me still thinks you are not a Libertarian but a
fraud.

The corners of your mouth must be getting wore out...you basically said in your post that it is
okay to subsidize big oil and still have the gall to say they use their money to take risks..
yeah their money and the taxpayers.

 

The two biggest subsidies our government provide are the frauds called Social Security and Medicare, which together eat up 42% of the proposed 2007 budget. All other subsidies pale in comparison.

 

You didn't correctly understand what I wrote! Please read it again.

In brief summary, I said subsidies are a reality that the American public has demanded and made law through their Congress but I, personally, don't like that approach and believe the free market of supply and demand should, generally, rule the price of goods and services.

Please explain what you mean by fraud? That's a serious sounding word to me!

 

Oh, I am not mad, simply growing weary of your refusal to answer a simple yes/no question.
First you answered my question with questions.
Then you claimed I am using a "tone" you don't like.
Then we have already visited all of the things you have done with respect to the terms and phrases you have reproduced.

If you can show where I have, then by all means share it with me. Otherwise, this is merely speculation over something that has not occurred.

&lt;sigh&gt;
Alas, more intellectual dishonesty....

In this post, there is only one question, which is asking me to confirm or deny the assertions about my opinion that you have fabricated. As I have noted several times, it is blatantly obvious that I never once made any comments that would indicate that your fallacious assumptions are even remotely close to my true opinions on these subjects. Yet, another day of exchanges, and you still have not answered my simple yes/no question.

I can only assume that you are not going to answer my simple yes/no question because you refuse to admit the obvious. How fortunate for you....

That's funny: I made that very clear on more than one occasion, yet you persisted in the accusation, didn't you? It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now. Yet you continually claim this.

I find your "I did not want to oblige you accordingly" quite revealing. So admitting that I am right would "oblige me." Wow: I am embarrassed for you, Dragoon68.

................and yet, you cannot answer my simple yes/no question. Even with this post, you still haven't done it.

Like I said, I'm embarrassed for you.
BiR

 

These circular arguments are going nowheres.

 

Okay, BiR, I'm tired of your comments and arguments now! Don't be embarrassed for me - be embrrassed for yourself! I'm sorry that what I wrote offended you even though I truly believe it's your own fault that you got your nose bent out of shape over it. I am responsible for what I write but I can not be responsible for what you read. I hope you'll get over it soon. If my postings trouble you so much just ignore them and move on to those you find more interesting. There's no need for us to trade endless tit for tat over this in public. No one else cares about this and I'm sure everyone is getting tired of it. Besides it just brings out the worst in us all. I'm sinful enough already without adding to it right here on a Christian forum. I don't need the temptation of anger and spite. It's time for me to move on before I pop a fuse.