^Winstonfield_Pennypacker-
Are you really that dumb, misinformed, or are you playing devils advocate, hoping that someone will point out the ridiculousness of your "arguments" (like Colbert does)?
Let's take your main points, first, wilderness is "moonscape tundra" that nobody "sees, wants, or uses". Nothing could be farther from the truth. These lands are not tundra, there is no tundra in Utah, scrub land and tundra have little in common. Many people use and enjoy these public lands for many reasons, and even if they didn't, preserving the diversity of habitat is more important today than ever. As just one tiny example of the shortsightedness of destroying ecosystems you don't come close to understanding (and therefore don't value), when drought comes, where do you think the drought resistant genes that will be spliced into food crops will come from, rainforests? Not likely, they'll be found in deserts and scrub land. (of course, you'r post leads me to believe you would support rain forest removal too, in the interest of cheap wood and meat, after all, who needs oxygen anyway? There's plenty of oxygen in CO2.)
More importantly, it is not possible to drill our way to energy independence. If we tapped every reserve we have possible access to, it wouldn't produce for us for 10+ years (and that assumes a "pro-oil" administration cutting red tape to make drilling and distribution possible)and the amount wouldn't supply us for long (<2 years?) at current rates. That's certainly not worth the contamination of some of the last "pristine" (I use the word lightly) land available. There is no energy independence possible with oil, NONE, EVER, NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU DRILL OR WHERE. If only the Moron Majority could get that fact through their heads they could help be productive instead of trying their best to slow progress (sorry, drill baby drill isn't progress, it's regress.) On a lighter note, who are you to define beauty for all? I certainly didn't vote for you as my aesthetics leader. I think Residue made the point well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Let's say I find your mind ugly, can we drill there first? After all, no one goes there, wants it, or uses it (apparently) ;-}. If you find oil rigs and pipeline beautiful, I'm certain you can move next door to one cheaply, but I'm also certain you won't.
I can hope you were only playing devils advocate here, it pains me to think that there are many Americans who truly believe what you've said, but that's the consequence of being near last in math and science among developed nations, most people in our country today can't do the math and don't understand the science, so they can be suckered into believing the most incredible BS (like your post).

>> ^rychan:
Downvoted for the abuse of statistics, etc, as Krupo and MaxWilder already pointed out. If you pay a woman less for the same performance at the same job with the same experience, then yes, that's asinine.
But just because women on a national scale are paid less than men doesn't men there's any discrimination. It means they choose to work part time and put families first, choose to avoid high paying high-tech fields, choose to avoid working on oil rigs, etc...


I really wish a course in statistics were required at the highschool level. Given the amount of random statistics thrown at us each day, I think highschools could afford to teach something that will actually be useful in everyday life (unlike, for example, PE, which was a complete waste of time... at least for me).

Downvoted for the abuse of statistics, etc, as Krupo and MaxWilder already pointed out. If you pay a woman less for the same performance at the same job with the same experience, then yes, that's asinine.

But just because women on a national scale are paid less than men doesn't men there's any discrimination. It means they choose to work part time and put families first, choose to avoid high paying high-tech fields, choose to avoid working on oil rigs, etc...

This looks like an oil rig, not a construction site.

>> ^Sagemind:
Is this even real...???
What's with the can at the end???


This is shot from a ROV at an oil rig I would assume that the can is part of what ever they are working on.

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:


'Rights' and laws are guaranteed by a group of individuals, otherwise they're just ideas in one person's head. Even the right to life! Genocide, slavery, ritual human sacrifice,... even disparity in healthcare based on your wealth... these are all community decisions that place limits on the comparative 'right to life' of individuals.

So, by my thinking, individual rights are always subordinate to the community that chooses to guarantee or not guarantee specific individual rights. By extension the modified free market capitalism we have in place was a group choice, and is subordinate to any plans the group feels like putting into place in the future.

So we both agree that by definition rights must involve two people, or a "community". So a few questions to help me understand your viewpoint better
1. What process do individuals use enter into certain communities
2. Can you define the fundamental "community right" which is analogous to the fundamental "individual right" that I provided. So far I have inferred this to be "that everyone must do what is in the interest of the majority" but I am not sure if that is correct.

There are different markets that a group can choose to operate under, including the polar opposite of a 'free market', where leaders make all trade and barter decision for the community. Now, the point I'm making is that we have a modified form of the free market concept precisely because communities, especially enormous ones, in guaranteeing rights and laws will always run into situations where guaranteeing those rights and laws requires not only doling out punishment but developing and encouraging activities in the community's interest. That last sentence may again be a point where you disagree, which is fine, but recognize I'm referring to problems that not only effect the individual, but the group of individuals forming the community... health, education, defense, etc..


It sounds that like me, you do not want the polar opposite of what I am providing--i.e. dictatorship. Rather, you want a sort of "compromise" aka something in the middle.
3. What services or benefits are available in a mixed system that are not available in a free market?
4. If a dictatorship is bad, why would moving in the opposite direction be undesirable?


I'm not sure I follow you; my interpretation of what you disliked in the first place was Bill Clinton wanting to spend our community money to selectively subsidize some private companies but not others, and develop laws that would make it harder for some companies to operate. So now I'm lost as to where you didn't like the original clip.

I do not agree that one person (even the government) has the right to initiate force on another, and I believe Bill Clinton, as he proposed it in the video, would be initiating force on another. He is funding his incentives from the taxpayer--that is, he is removing their choice to on whether to fund solar energy. Here is an example: A worker has a family of three and can barely make ends meet. His entire livelihood depends on his job at a local oil rig. It would be bad enough that he will eventually lose his job when the oil rig shuts down in competition from a solar manufacturer--but to make matters worse the government is going to force him to invest, in effect, to increasing the likelihood of him losing his job.

Its fine that many people would like to invest in the solar industry, and its fine that the solar industry, through the the market, drives other companies out of business- However, I cannot endorse forcing people to invest in an industry that they would otherwise not invest in.

Different shot of this:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Burningman-2007-Oil-Rig-Platform-explosion

http://www.videosift.com/video/Oil-rig-disaster-in-Atlantic-sea

Definitely fake. You mean to tell me that thing crashed down on them and they found that video camera at the bottom of the ocean?

Bear with me as I'm not sure how to accomplish the whole "so and so wrote blah blah blah" in italics to make things look pretty.

Ok.MINK and MG this is for both of you. Mink I have to start with you first, only because you were ranting about the legality of the Constitution and what it grants people.

- MINK, you said "
Law is an argument, it is in a state of constant flux. If you oppose the opposition, you're basically in line with Hitler and Stalin, telling everyone to STFU. That's not constitutional"

What I gather from telling people to STFU. My question for you is, do you mean the Government? Or people? because if it is the latter of the two, thats exactly what the constitution is for. I may not like what you have to say, but i will to the death, defend your right to say it. (yes i jacked that from somewhere, but it is how i feel) Now I, as a person, not a soldier, wish this guy would just STFU, but that is my given right as an American.

Now this next part is for the both of you. You are talking about WMDs. I'm going to choose my words carefully here... WMDs..... hmm. Well, before this shit kicked off, there was a report and inventory of these WMDs... (which was a term coined for the media. WMDs also included conventional ordnance. ) by the UN. The same UN everyone here seem to be talking about the US not having the sanction of to enter Iraq. So unless the is a different UN I'm not familiar with, we can all safely assume that this is the same UN. Well so theres this 500 page report from the UN that this shit was there. Now, the UN did send Hans Blix over with US troops to do inspections, and was repeatedly denied access to certain areas. Well after a while, ,these "WMDs" could not be found. People then took this into a new light and said "hey, bush was wrong! theres no WMDs!" What they forgot was "OH SHIT! What happened to these WMDs?" Hmmm. They were there, now there not.

Ok.. So now onto the oil thing. As much as i don't believe it was about oil, heres why some people (who think things through instead of just trying to come up with something) might say. Well, Bush has Oil interests in the States. Ok, but some of the oil we use if from the middle east. So if we invade the middle east, then that will cause the price of oil to go up, because rigs are shut down over there, embargoes tariffs and what have you are imposed, so more domestic oil will be sold. Therefore Bush make money. Like i said, i don't think that is a reason at all. Maybe its because Bush might not be 'edumacated' enough to scheme something like this up on his own, or maybe its because he might have had a difficult time trying to convince congress "Hey, would you mind sending us to war and spending billions overseas, so i can make a couple Gs?" Yeah I don't think that happened.

Ok so last part is for MINK. (I'm sorry MINK, but you try to justify your points and back them up, so it makes for a good intellectual conversation, unlike most people who just say what comes to mind)

MINK said - "The war is over who sets the price and takes the profit."
Well, i don't think war is necessary to raise the price of a gallon of gas. Seems like the Government is doing a fine job of that already - http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/margins/index.html
Yeah most of it goes to fees and taxes. And then on top of that, I haven't seen any oil rigs with "PROPERTY OF U.S." stamped on the side. EXXON, MOBILE, CHEVRON maybe, so it looks like the oil company's are setting the price. And i can pretty much guarantee you that Saddam was going to take what he could from anything anyway. So to say this war is about who sets the price, then yeah its a pointless war. because if the us wanted to set a low price they failed. If they wanted to set a high price, they would have anyway, so i fail to see your point. And fact is, the majority of oil rigs over there were civilian owned anyway. Even if Saddam wanted get money from it, he would have, and I'm sure he did.

Oh yeah, Up vote only for the Michal Moore-esque talents in creating such a fine piece of propaganda.

Performance is so terrible now

Everything feels like it's the oil rig in maneuverability.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

It looks like another one of those oil rig camera vids. Definitely a weird fish.