73 replies to this topic

[normblitch]

IMHO Dept.:  Greenpeace is more concerned with promoting a leftist, anti-Capitalist agenda than it is about protecting the environment.

Yet another secret "agenda". I know there is a "gay agenda" or the vast "right wing conspiracy agenda", but not the "leftist anti-capitalist and screw the environment" agenda.

That info is usually found buried in a very shallow spot on the Right-side of the Brain....



Norm

[Basslet]

[
I have fixed the link above and have reposted it here again...

Forbes Article

Thanks for fixing that link. You know, all I had to do was read the first paragragh to realize that all you have to do is change "Greenpeace" to "Bush Adminstration" and voila: You have the same story. Go figure.
Actually, though, it was a very interesting article. Like I said, I haven't paid too much attention to Greenpeace lately nor donated to it. I do remember it from when it was a bunch of hippies in boats protecting whales. Too bad it has changed so, pardon the expression, "radically."

Edited by Fairybasslet, 04 November 2005 - 09:01 AM.

[Basslet]

Well, Greenpeace's agenda is pretty open. It's fairly hard to find anything on their websites where they say anything positive about any large corporation, any democratic government or any mainstream activity focused on the environment. I don't support them because I think there are other organizations that are more effective and do it in a more open, consensus building manner. They have their own vision and it's not completely wrong, but economics drives most human activities and I think it's more effective to work with forces that are effective. For example, I hope gas prices stay high. I think we need more federal taxes on gasoline. Reduce, reuse, recycle--economics not carping makes these things happen. Same way with the Nature Conservancy--buy land on the open market, protect it for future generations.

I agree about the Nature Conservancy. However, keeping gas prices high only hurts the working class. Think about paying another $900 a year or more to heat your house with a budget that doesn't get any bigger because raises for working slobs are almost non-existant. A more effective measure would be to stop things like tax breaks for using SUVs as a company cars, enforcing better gas milage standards, etc. But {gasp}, that might be construed as a leftest, anti-business agenda.

[drdiver]

I agree about the Nature Conservancy. However, keeping gas prices high only hurts the working class. Think about paying another $900 a year or more to heat your house with a budget that doesn't get any bigger because raises for working slobs are almost non-existant. A more effective measure would be to stop things like tax breaks for using SUVs as a company cars, enforcing better gas milage standards, etc. But {gasp}, that might be construed as a leftest, anti-business agenda.

Well, gasoline prices are different than heating oil or natural gas. You could raise taxes for gasoline and not affect heating oil or methane at all. And a lot of those working class people drives SUVs and pickups.

Agree on the tax breaks, etc. but that only affects new cars. With the average gas guzzler on the road for 10 years or more, conservation methods are needed now.

An interesting note, many cars in the US can now run on alcohol if it were available. Federal law mandated that a certain % of all cars and trucks be made to be alcohol compatible. The new energy bill requires this for all federally purchased vehicles.
It would be relatively simple to mandate that all new cars and trucks run on alcohol as well as gasoline.

[ScubaHawk]

Yet another secret "agenda". I know there is a "gay agenda" or the vast "right wing conspiracy agenda", but not the "leftist anti-capitalist and screw the environment"  agenda. 

He never said anything about a "secret" agenda nor " screw the environment" your attempt to ridicule his statement is the only place that these phrases turn up.
Many gay groups have a gay agenda, Greenpeace has an agenda, right wing groups have an agenda, I have an agenda, SD has an agenda. agenda means: items to be discussed or acted upon, often listed in an order that facilitates the work of a group or committee. It doesn't mean anything secret or evil.

I hope gas prices stay high. I think we need more federal taxes on gasoline.

I agree with you there drdiver, I am all for a tax on gas to promote conservation and alternative energy sources. I the gas prices are high because we are getting screwed by the oil company monopolies, or the taxes we pay are just getting shoveled back into those companies- we're not any better off. The taxes have to go for renewable energy production.

[Basslet]

He never said anything about a "secret" agenda nor " screw the environment" your attempt to ridicule his statement is the only place that these phrases turn up.

I hope gas prices stay high. I think we need more federal taxes on gasoline.

I agree with you there drdiver, I am all for a tax on gas to promote conservation and alternative energy sources. I the gas prices are high because we are getting screwed by the oil company monopolies, or the taxes we pay are just getting shoveled back into those companies- we're not any better off. The taxes have to go for renewable energy production.

His exact words: MHO Dept.: Greenpeace is more concerned with promoting a leftist, anti-Capitalist agenda than it is about protecting the environment.

What makes you think that any additional taxes on gas we are going to pay will go to the intended purpose of "energy conservation" or developing renewable resources? It will probably go right back to tax breaks for the oil companies. What did I read in Business Week recently? Tax breaks to the oil companies were 4 billion? In the mean time, those who can least afford it, (and I'm not talking about the mythical "working class" dude who could even afford an SUV, I'm talking about the people who can barely afford the clunker they are driving) pay more and more of their disposible income for necessities.

[ScubaHawk]

What makes you think that any additional taxes on gas we are going to pay will go to the intended purpose of "energy conservation" or developing renewable resources?

I don't

The taxes have to go for renewable energy production.

Just my little pipe dream.

[drdiver]

A tax on gasoline would hurt the oil companies, because it would promote conservation. Reduce demand, reduce consumption, the price per gallon would actually fall. One reason gas prices have fallen in the past few weeks is consumption fell. The refineries that are out of service from the storms haven't been back on long enough to make a difference. The Europeans have used this strategy for years. Those $4.00 or $5.00 per gallon prices in Europe are mostly taxes. They use the tax to regulate price at the pump.

[ScubaHawk]

A tax on gasoline would hurt the oil companies, because it would promote conservation. Reduce demand, reduce consumption, the price per gallon would actually fall. One reason gas prices have fallen in the past few weeks is consumption fell. The refineries that are out of service from the storms haven't been back on long enough to make a difference. The Europeans have used this strategy for years. Those $4.00 or $5.00 per gallon prices in Europe are mostly taxes. They use the tax to regulate price at the pump.

In America I can see raising $30 Billion in Gas Taxes, the giving $40 Billion to the oil companys for "Research"

[drdiver]

QUOTE (drdiver @ Nov 4 2005, 10:07 AM)
A tax on gasoline would hurt the oil companies, because it would promote conservation. Reduce demand, reduce consumption, the price per gallon would actually fall. One reason gas prices have fallen in the past few weeks is consumption fell. The refineries that are out of service from the storms haven't been back on long enough to make a difference. The Europeans have used this strategy for years. Those $4.00 or $5.00 per gallon prices in Europe are mostly taxes. They use the tax to regulate price at the pump.

In America I can see raising $30 Billion in Gas Taxes, the giving $40 Billion to the oil companys for "Research"

How true!!!

[Basslet]

QUOTE (drdiver @ Nov 4 2005, 10:07 AM)
A tax on gasoline would hurt the oil companies, because it would promote conservation. Reduce demand, reduce consumption, the price per gallon would actually fall. One reason gas prices have fallen in the past few weeks is consumption fell. The refineries that are out of service from the storms haven't been back on long enough to make a difference. The Europeans have used this strategy for years. Those $4.00 or $5.00 per gallon prices in Europe are mostly taxes. They use the tax to regulate price at the pump.

In America I can see raising $30 Billion in Gas Taxes, the giving $40 Billion to the oil companys for "Research"

How true!!!

Politics as usual.

[cmt489]

And now, a mod moment...

Remember, we have to avoid politics here and we are definitely dancing on that line. Look down to the sand, note the line drawn in it and, please, be sure to avoid crossing it!

Back to posting!!

[ScubaHawk]

What? We're finally agreeing on something - a major breakthrough for this thread.
Now if some one would have said something like "Those damn **BLEEEEEP** giving Billions of dollars to the oil companies to research other energy sources is like letting the fox in the hen house to study how to protect chickens!" but luckily, nobody said anything like that. line? what line? oh the one back there.

P.S. ya know I love ya cmt.

And I love you Hawk, but you know I had to do it!! - M :mauswhip:

Edited by cmt489, 04 November 2005 - 12:19 PM.

[finGrabber]

don't make cmt use this: :mauswhip:

[Basslet]

don't make cmt use this: :mauswhip:

I think some of the guys might like it.