Lie to us Mr. President..

brianlux

Smellyman wrote:

Mariamaniatis wrote:

A giant fence is a brilliant allocation of tax dollars. Because no one can build a giant fucking.....ladder.

Really bad for Wildlife as well.

Yes! Thank you for posting this as I was typing!

WaveCameCrashin

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

WaveCameCrashin wrote:

LINK PLEASE.. you know I always have to laugh at people like you bcos you don't have damn clue how things work in the real world. You and peopl like you have been brainwashed into thinking that all corporations and capitalism are evil. And you have no problem when people like Obama puts in his activist judges as long as it supports your ideology .

simmer down.

to many people any corporate entitiy that makes billions or trillions of dollars in profits in unregulated markets and puts those profits over things like the environment, and the welfare of the people they employ, or the general welfare of the population is in itself evil. you know, the whole false gods thing...

i don't have a problem putting anyone into a judge postion because of their political views. like people like you had no problem with bush stacking the supreme court with far right picks. the nature of politics is you put in there who you think will represent your views. it has been that way since ancient times. i do see a problem with conflicts of interest, and judges must recuse themselves in that situation. i see a huge problem with judges with oil interests ruling on oil cases though. that is a conflict of interest in my opinion.

First off thanks for derailing the thread.. 2nd the oil industry is one of the most regulated if not the most regulated industries on the planet. And if it were up to some we should all be riding bicycles and using a hole in the ground for a bathroom.

As far as G.W. Bush stacking the supreme court I would hardly call two appointed judges stacked :roll:

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.

If that's stacked than it's definitely stacked in the lefts favor as are the rest of the courts.

gimmesometruth27

WaveCameCrashin wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

WaveCameCrashin wrote:

LINK PLEASE.. you know I always have to laugh at people like you bcos you don't have damn clue how things work in the real world. You and peopl like you have been brainwashed into thinking that all corporations and capitalism are evil. And you have no problem when people like Obama puts in his activist judges as long as it supports your ideology .

simmer down.

to many people any corporate entitiy that makes billions or trillions of dollars in profits in unregulated markets and puts those profits over things like the environment, and the welfare of the people they employ, or the general welfare of the population is in itself evil. you know, the whole false gods thing...

i don't have a problem putting anyone into a judge postion because of their political views. like people like you had no problem with bush stacking the supreme court with far right picks. the nature of politics is you put in there who you think will represent your views. it has been that way since ancient times. i do see a problem with conflicts of interest, and judges must recuse themselves in that situation. i see a huge problem with judges with oil interests ruling on oil cases though. that is a conflict of interest in my opinion.

First off thanks for derailing the thread.. 2nd the oil industry is one of the most regulated if not the most regulated industries on the planet. And if it were up to some we should all be riding bicycles and using a hole in the ground for a bathroom.

As far as G.W. Bush stacking the supreme court I would hardly call two appointed judges stacked :roll:

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.

If that's stacked than it's definitely stacked in the lefts favor as are the rest of the courts.

:? how is a 5-4 republican majority stacked in the left's favor?? :?

but back on topic. regardless of oil regulations, the MARKET is unregulated. the industry could be much more regulated. i think you are viewing it as regulated in the sense that we can not drill in wildlife reserves and close to our coasts. those restrictions are put in place for a reason. mostly becauase drilling in wildlife reserves and just off of the coast is bad for the environment and is also just a stupid idea. personally i would rather have those restrictions in place, and i wish they actually went further. as for now, the oil industry and commodity markets are nothing but predatory capitalism, taking all the money it can from the consumer and laying waste to the environment in the process.

aerial

brianlux wrote:

As what could be considered an important aside here: I suppose the "Security Fence" is mostly a human issue but what about the wild life? What about the disruption to migratory patterns? Is it always just about humans? As Yvon Chouinard has pointed out, if the environment isn't taken care of, someday there will be no social issues to worry about either.

As for Obama- he's probably no more or less truthful than anybody you're going to see in that office- Personally don't get too ruffled about it. Yes he's powerful but he's just one man. I think we place too much focus on one man. I believe he's doing a better job than some we've had recently but in any case, our government is more than just one person.

Yes, humans come first. If a wolf was about to attack your kid who are you going to save? The fence will help save human lives. If the Pres. is not interested in Americans welfare then the people have to what they have to do for there own safety.

brianlux

aerial wrote:

brianlux wrote:

As what could be considered an important aside here: I suppose the "Security Fence" is mostly a human issue but what about the wild life? What about the disruption to migratory patterns? Is it always just about humans? As Yvon Chouinard has pointed out, if the environment isn't taken care of, someday there will be no social issues to worry about either.

As for Obama- he's probably no more or less truthful than anybody you're going to see in that office- Personally don't get too ruffled about it. Yes he's powerful but he's just one man. I think we place too much focus on one man. I believe he's doing a better job than some we've had recently but in any case, our government is more than just one person.

Yes, humans come first. If a wolf was about to attack your kid who are you going to save? The fence will help save human lives. If the Pres. is not interested in Americans welfare then the people have to what they have to do for there own safety.

The point Chounard makes, which I reiterate here, is that if the ecosystem collapses, you and I won't have kids to worry about getting eaten by wolves or anything else. Humans ignore the ecological greater whole (which is the interconnectedness of life) at their own peril. Yes, we should protect human life, of course. Protecting all life is the best way to do that. When we see ourselves as separate, we commit worldwide suicide. Putting up hundreds of miles of tall fence is wasteful and foolish. It only slows down illegal immigration and disrupts migratory patterns. Wouldn't it be more useful to help find the folks south of the border ways to live where they are such as there wouldn't be a need to cross over the border?

aerial

brianlux wrote:

aerial wrote:

brianlux wrote:

As what could be considered an important aside here: I suppose the "Security Fence" is mostly a human issue but what about the wild life? What about the disruption to migratory patterns? Is it always just about humans? As Yvon Chouinard has pointed out, if the environment isn't taken care of, someday there will be no social issues to worry about either.

As for Obama- he's probably no more or less truthful than anybody you're going to see in that office- Personally don't get too ruffled about it. Yes he's powerful but he's just one man. I think we place too much focus on one man. I believe he's doing a better job than some we've had recently but in any case, our government is more than just one person.

Yes, humans come first. If a wolf was about to attack your kid who are you going to save? The fence will help save human lives. If the Pres. is not interested in Americans welfare then the people have to what they have to do for there own safety.

The point Chounard makes, which I reiterate here, is that if the ecosystem collapses, you and I won't have kids to worry about getting eaten by wolves or anything else. Humans ignore the ecological greater whole (which is the interconnectedness of life) at their own peril. Yes, we should protect human life, of course. Protecting all life is the best way to do that. When we see ourselves as separate, we commit worldwide suicide. Putting up hundreds of miles of tall fence is wasteful and foolish. It only slows down illegal immigration and disrupts migratory patterns. Wouldn't it be more useful to help find the folks south of the border ways to live where they are such as there wouldn't be a need to cross over the border?

What about Americans?
Should Americans go in there and tell them how to live. I don't think that would go over to well.
Mexico needs to get it together on there own.

brianlux

I believe I suggested we help Mexico, not tell them what to do. We act the the world police enough as it is.