AFRICA - The NEXT PLANTATION

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sun Jul 07, 2013 5:34 am

I really don't understand the mentality of progressives (liberals) who are so bent on egalitarianism. Those folk are so determined they insist others aspire to a lowest common denominator to accomplish that dream.

Obama's Chicago Home

Obama: 'Planet Will Boil Over' If Young Africans Are Allowed Cars, Air-Conditioning, Big Houses

(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama said at a town hall event in Johannesburg, South Africa, on Saturday that unless we find new way of producing energy "the planet will boil over" if people in Africa are allowed to attain air conditioning, automobiles and big houses.

“Ultimately, if you think about all the youth that everybody has mentioned here in Africa, if everybody is raising living standards to the point where everybody has got a car and everybody has got air conditioning, and everybody has got a big house, well, the planet will boil over -- unless we find new ways of producing energy.

CNS News

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun Jul 07, 2013 6:40 am

I really don't understand your mentality most of the time, why you are so bitter, why you say 'progressive' as if it were a curse, even why you posted Obama's home. It's not a mansion, what's your point?

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Sun Jul 07, 2013 7:26 am

He's not suggesting Africans cant have what he has. He's suggesting that if they do we have to find the means to power it. Makes sense to me

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Jul 07, 2013 8:03 am

I don't understand why tude dog is so against egalitarianism don't you believe you are as good as the next man (I assume you a are male).

It's a simple reality that if we don't find alternative means of producing power we are in deep ****. Global warning is not a conspiracy theory designed to damage the economy it's a reality we need to face up to. Africa should be able to make the most of solar energy for starters. They already use clockwork radios and computers. As to air conditioning why can't they do what we do where I live - open the window:sneaky:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

Are you really saying you find that most iconic statement of liberal values and beliefs to be offensive? Must admit i cant imagine why anyone would find it objectionable although I realise many religious people reject it outright on the grounds of it being against their creed but I kind of think that's their problem.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Jul 07, 2013 8:42 am

e·gal·i·tar·i·an (-gl-tÃ¢r-n)

adj.

Affirming, promoting, or characterized by belief in equal political, economic, social, and civil rights for all people.

You disagree with that concept?

egalitarianism - definition of egalitarianism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Sun Jul 07, 2013 8:46 am

Well Tude if you stop and think about it Africa is up and coming, there is also a LOT of people there. Look at what has happened to the price of gasoline since Chinese people started driving more cars? What was the price of a gallon of gas in 1995? Gas at $7 a gallon is not far in the future for you and me along with the corresponding price rises for the transportation of the consumer goods we rely on in our daily lives. These goods don't just materialize on the shelf in our Walmarts and Wincos. I think Obamas concerns are quite correct.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Jul 07, 2013 9:49 am

tude dog;1431168 wrote: I really don't understand the mentality of progressives (liberals) who are so bent on egalitarianism. Those folk are so determined they insist others aspire to a lowest common denominator to accomplish that dream.AnneBoleyn;1431169 wrote: I really don't understand your mentality most of the time, why you are so bitter, why you say 'progressive' as if it were a curse, even why you posted Obama's home. It's not a mansion, what's your point?A good contrast in the use of "I really don't understand...".

tude dog;1431168 wrote: Obama: 'Planet Will Boil Over' If Young Africans Are Allowed Cars, Air-Conditioning, Big Houses

(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama said at a town hall event in Johannesburg, South Africa, on Saturday that unless we find new way of producing energy "the planet will boil over" if people in Africa are allowed to attain air conditioning, automobiles and big houses.

“Ultimately, if you think about all the youth that everybody has mentioned here in Africa, if everybody is raising living standards to the point where everybody has got a car and everybody has got air conditioning, and everybody has got a big house, well, the planet will boil over -- unless we find new ways of producing energy.

CNS NewsI noticed the right-winged news agency cited needed to rearrange the wording before the actual quote in order to get its message across to the suckers who would buy into such drivel?

tude dog;1431168 wrote: Which one appears to have more long term concerns for the planet and its inhabitants? A few might call that "hot air" while many others call it trying to negotiate a compromise between interests. Though that may be something one might prequalify with "I really don't understand the mentality of..." in a non passive/aggressive fashion.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sun Jul 07, 2013 11:21 am

AnneBoleyn;1431169 wrote: I really don't understand your mentality most of the time, why you are so bitter,

Not bitter at all. I believe you mistake bitter for my extreme dislike of President Obama.

AnneBoleyn;1431169 wrote: why you say 'progressive' as if it were a curse,

Just calling it like I see it.

AnneBoleyn;1431169 wrote: even why you posted Obama's home. It's not a mansion, what's your point?

OK, not a mansion. I would say it is a big house, something he would deny young Africans.

Bedrooms:Contact for details

Bathrooms:7 baths

Single Family:6,199 sq ft

Lot:10,500 sq ft

Year Built:Contact for details

Last Sold:Jun 2005 for $1,650,000

Heating Type:Contact for details

Zillow

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sun Jul 07, 2013 11:42 am

Snowfire;1431172 wrote: He's not suggesting Africans cant have what he has. He's suggesting that if they do we have to find the means to power it. Makes sense to me

Not exactly.

we find new way of producing energy

I don't know where he got the we, but anyway.

There is lots of energy available, if we could only get President Obama and his fellow travelers to out of the way.

I think we've had enough of his corruption, like that that Solyndra deal. Solyndra Report:

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:10 pm

gmc;1431175 wrote: I don't understand why tude dog is so against egalitarianism don't you believe you are as good as the next man (I assume you a are male).

I am a male. Think of myself as a man. Been called plenty of other names. I look in the mirror and see an old man. Not young anymore. Not rich, like some. Doing well enough. No complaints.

gmc;1431175 wrote: It's a simple reality that if we don't find alternative means of producing power we are in deep ****. Global warning is not a conspiracy theory designed to damage the economy it's a reality we need to face up to. Africa should be able to make the most of solar energy for starters. They already use clockwork radios and computers. As to air conditioning why can't they do what we do where I live - open the window:sneaky:

It takes quite a bit of hubris to think we can control the weather.

I am not opening the windows today. Just to darn hot outside and I feel just fine with the air conditioner on.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

gmc;1431175 wrote: Are you really saying you find that most iconic statement of liberal values and beliefs to be offensive? Must admit i cant imagine why anyone would find it objectionable although I realise many religious people reject it outright on the grounds of it being against their creed but I kind of think that's their problem.

I can't speak for religious, or anybody else who objects to the opening line of the Declaration of Independence.

Don't know about it representing liberal values. New to me.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:29 pm

Scrat;1431180 wrote: Well Tude if you stop and think about it Africa is up and coming, there is also a LOT of people there. Look at what has happened to the price of gasoline since Chinese people started driving more cars? What was the price of a gallon of gas in 1995? Gas at $7 a gallon is not far in the future for you and me along with the corresponding price rises for the transportation of the consumer goods we rely on in our daily lives. These goods don't just materialize on the shelf in our Walmarts and Wincos. I think Obamas concerns are quite correct.

Keep them people down so they don't raise the price of gas for the rest of us. Meanwhile hold down domestic power production, for our own good.

After all, Obama and his cronies know what is best for the rest of us.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:58 pm

posted by tude dog

It takes quite a bit of hubris to think we can control the weather.

I am not opening the windows today. Just to darn hot outside and I feel just fine with the air conditioner on.

No we can't control it but it seems it's only in the states that anyone disputes nowadays what we are doing is having a significant impact. Oil is a finite resource and just burning it all to fuel our cars and factories just doesn't make much sense - we need alternatives.

I can't speak for religious, or anybody else who objects to the opening line of the Declaration of Independence.

Don't know about it representing liberal values. New to me.

Never tghought that you did, just wonder why the hostility to liberalism. Liberty/ liberal the words have the same language root. The notion that if all are equal in god's eyes then why do we accept that some are born to rule and our place in society is preordained by god. set off a bonfire of ideas that has never stopped. The idea that you can find your own way to salvation and don't need the church to tell you how to live shattered the power of the catholic church. Dissent used to be heresy it's no coincidence that most of your early political leaders were dissenters when it came to religion. The US was founded on liberal principles and is a liberal democracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy

Liberal democracy is a form of government in which representative democracy operates under the principles of liberalism. It is characterized by fair, free, and competitive elections between multiple distinct political parties, a separation of powers into different branches of government, the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society, and the equal protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties, and political freedoms for all persons. To define the system in practice, liberal democracies often draw upon a constitution, either formally written or uncodified, to delineate the powers of government and enshrine the social contract. After a period of sustained expansion throughout the 20th century, liberal democracy became the predominant political system in the world.

A liberal democracy may take various constitutional forms: it may be a constitutional republic, such as France, Germany, India, Ireland, Italy, or the United States, or a constitutional monarchy, such as Japan, Spain, or the United Kingdom. It may have a presidential system (Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, the United States), a semi-presidential system (France and Taiwan), or a parliamentary system (Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, Poland, the United Kingdom).

OK I'll concede it's one of my favourite hobby horses but if someone tells you we should all obey god's laws they should also be adding -as interpreted by them - because that is usually what they are not saying.

Really hot today 17degrees centigrade supposedly 25 tomorrow. My car has air conditioning as it happens, never thought I would use such a thing unless I was abroad..

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Jul 07, 2013 1:48 pm

What I find ever so slightly funny, is the President of the most energy intensive country, talking about the least energy intensive continent's aspirations to the same level of wealth, while denying it the free market that would need to succeed.

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Sun Jul 07, 2013 1:56 pm

If the western world could go back in time, knowing what we know now, do you think they would choose to build their infrastructure using clean renewable energy sources or rely on a finite source that would spew toxins into the air? The western world can't do that, of course. Our reliance on the dirty and finite energy sources have given great political power to those who control them and who will resist any efforts to rectify the situation.

But isn't it our obligation to share what we have learned with developing nations, so they can avoid making the same mistakes?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Jul 07, 2013 2:43 pm

tude dog;1431191 wrote: Not bitter at all. I believe you mistake bitter for my extreme dislike of President Obama.

Which appears to be:

tude dog;1431191 wrote: Bedrooms:Contact for details

Bathrooms:7 baths

Single Family:6,199 sq ft

Lot:10,500 sq ft

Year Built:Contact for details

Last Sold:Jun 2005 for $1,650,000

Heating Type:Contact for details

ZillowIt's funny how Obama rubs some conservatives. What is it they dislike? By owning a 1.6 million dollar home, Obama has shown that he's a capitalist and not the socialist strawman they so much try to make out as. :wah:

And the funniest part is that the conservatives keep making that point so transparent as the OPer has throughout this thread.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Jul 07, 2013 3:14 pm

tude dog;1431198 wrote: Keep them people down so they don't raise the price of gas for the rest of us.What appears to really be misunderstood in this area is that Obama is the President of the US and is charged with representing the interests of the US - that's his job for Pete's sake. The interests of the African people are the responsibility of the representatives and leaders of Africa. Many of us get that. tude dog;1431198 wrote: Meanwhile hold down domestic power production, for our own good.Strawman argument!

tude dog;1431198 wrote: After all, Obama and his cronies know what is best for the rest of us.Like most other politicians, what Obama knows is that there are competitors in every industry including the energy industry, and that when any politician leans one way or the other which appears favorable to a particular side representatives of the others are going to moan and groan and mis-characterize positions. Some of us get that too.

The cronies you mention are capitalists in the energy industry. They just aren't on the side of the people you're parroting favor.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Jul 07, 2013 3:18 pm

Bruv;1431203 wrote: What I find ever so slightly funny, is the President of the most energy intensive country, talking about the least energy intensive continent's aspirations to the same level of wealth, while denying it the free market that would need to succeed.I'm not sure I understand this. How is Obama denying the free market to the inhabitants of any other country?

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Sun Jul 07, 2013 8:48 pm

Keep them people down so they don't raise the price of gas for the rest of us.

You mean keep them in the dirt? Keep a boot on their neck? Ummmm, that's not the American way. That's not why Perry sailed to Japan, that's not why men like Lincoln and Durant built the intercontinental railroad in the 19th century. It was to create opportunity. It's not why 4000 + US soldiers died in Iraq is it?

People everywhere aspire to get out of the gutter. They have a tendency to strike those who want to keep them there. I find your comment the product of a primitive mentality.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Jul 07, 2013 11:16 pm

Ahso!;1431212 wrote: I'm not sure I understand this. How is Obama denying the free market to the inhabitants of any other country?

I understand that America subsidise their own industries while creating barriers for the importation of cheaper foriegn products.

They monopolise certain major markets ie wheat and undermine overseas production of staples ie rice by flooding that market with subsidised USA wheat at a loss.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Mon Jul 08, 2013 5:19 am

Scrat;1431229 wrote: You mean keep them in the dirt? Keep a boot on their neck? Ummmm, that's not the American way. That's not why Perry sailed to Japan, that's not why men like Lincoln and Durant built the intercontinental railroad in the 19th century. It was to create opportunity. It's not why 4000 + US soldiers died in Iraq is it?

Hold on there buddy. I am not President Obama.

I guess next time I try the sarcasm thing I'll have to make it obvious. Sir you wrote

Well Tude if you stop and think about it Africa is up and coming, there is also a LOT of people there. Look at what has happened to the price of gasoline since Chinese people started driving more cars?

For me to be serious about keeping those people down would be totally inconsistent with my whole post. It is President Obama telling them to not aspire to a higher life style.

Scrat;1431229 wrote: People everywhere aspire to get out of the gutter. They have a tendency to strike those who want to keep them there.:yh_clap

Go back to my OP

I really don't understand the mentality of progressives (liberals) who are so bent on egalitarianism. Those folk are so determined they insist others aspire to a lowest common denominator to accomplish that dream.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Jul 08, 2013 5:25 am

tude dog;1431242 wrote: Go back to my OPWhy? It's just another strawman argument. It has no basis in fact and is only a wild insult hurled at anyone your masters disagree with.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Mon Jul 08, 2013 5:40 am

Bruv;1431233 wrote: I understand that America subsidise their own industries while creating barriers for the importation of cheaper foriegn products.

Uh, I don't think so. Go to a China-WalMart and find an American made product. Walmart is just the most obvious example, but foreign made products of all sorts are found everywhere.

Bruv;1431233 wrote: They monopolise certain major markets ie wheat and undermine overseas production of staples ie rice by flooding that market with subsidised USA wheat at a loss.

Agriculture subsidies are a relic of the Great Depression of the '30s and should be done away with. It only benefits the big agriculture companies. With all that said, noway does the USA monopolize wheat exports.

[url=http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/wh ... dqywPmko2V]USDA Economic Research Service]

johnmont · Post by **johnmont** » Mon Jul 08, 2013 6:59 am

AnneBoleyn;1431169 wrote: I really don't understand your mentality most of the time, why you are so bitter, why you say 'progressive' as if it were a curse, even why you posted Obama's home. It's not a mansion, what's your point?these people are bitter because a darkie has more than they will ever hope for. They believe that if a darkie has something it was taken from them in someway.

:(

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:08 am

I don't find the word 'darkie' to be humorous. I don't like it, but I do understand what you mean.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Mon Jul 08, 2013 10:05 am

johnmont;1431246 wrote: these people are bitter because a darkie has more than they will ever hope for. They believe that if a darkie has something it was taken from them in someway.

:(

these people

they

them

Real good johnmont

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Jul 08, 2013 10:25 am

tude dog;1431250 wrote: these people

they

them

Real good johnmontIt's really no different than your generalizations about liberals.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Jul 08, 2013 1:28 pm

Ahso!;1431251 wrote: It's really no different than your generalizations about liberals.

Ah So, Ahso! !!!!

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:10 pm

AnneBoleyn;1431260 wrote: Ah So, Ahso! !!!!

Try reading what I actually wrote,

ME wrote: I really don't understand the mentality of progressives (liberals) who are so bent on egalitarianism. Those folk are so determined they insist others aspire to a lowest common denominator to accomplish that dream.

It was not a generalization of progressives (liberals), though it wouldn't be far off the mark to identify a typical progressive (liberal) with the words of President Obama.

Oh and BTW, I don't think it unfair to point out I was just asking johnmont to clarify what kind Obama fan boy progressive / liberal he is.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:25 pm

I don't think it unfair

I don't think you are being unfair & johnmont was obviously speaking "tongue in cheek". Cheeky as our Brits say.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:00 pm

tude dog;1431262 wrote: Try reading what I actually wrote,

It was not a generalization of progressives (liberals), though it wouldn't be far off the mark to identify a typical progressive (liberal) with the words of President Obama.It's a generalization, though perhaps not as wide a one as you connote the term. But more so, your argument is a strawman unless you want to provide evidence of your claim that "...progressives (liberals) who are so bent on egalitarianism. Those folk are so determined they insist others aspire to a lowest common denominator to accomplish that dream." Who are you talking about in your sophomoric OP if you're not speaking in general terms? If you're speaking about one or two or even three individuals, why not simply type their names and attribute the accusation properly?

Tell us why you're not "bent" on egalitarianism. What's wrong with it?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Jul 08, 2013 5:34 pm

I see you've started a blog. That could be a good thing. Therapeutic, you know! Now learn to be fair minded and give all sides equal benefit. You might not get as many radicals mimicking you but it'll be good for your integrity, and..., you know..., the brain's a funny organ, it seems to respect and thrive on honesty. May be a hormonal thing!

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Mon Jul 08, 2013 6:26 pm

Sorry Tude, my bad. I really need to quit reading and writing so quickly.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Jul 09, 2013 5:59 am

tude dog;1431195 wrote: I look in the mirror and see an old man.How do you reconcile the difference between what's reflected in the mirror and what's reflected in your writing?

Post by **jones jones** » Tue Jul 09, 2013 12:02 pm

(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama said at a town hall event in Johannesburg, South Africa, on Saturday that unless we find new way of producing energy "the planet will boil over" if people in Africa are allowed to attain air conditioning, automobiles and big houses.

Excuse me ... I got a news flash for President Obama.

There are a hell of a lot of earthlings in Africa, gazillions in fact, who already have air conditioning, automobiles and very, very big houses.

In South Africa alone there were as at 2010 about 10 million registered motor vehicles on the road.

So I guess the planet must already be boiling over.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Jul 09, 2013 2:51 pm

So tude dog, if you are so against egalitarianism is it because you see yourself as one of the ruling class or because you see yourself as naturally subservient.

The definition of egalitarianism I favour is defined as a political doctrine that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights. Where some people have acquired wealth and power and use it to the detriment if those around them then there is a case to be made for curbing that wealth and power. Certainly when it comes to corporations there needs to be curbs on their ability to exploit or cause harm. If they don't pay taxes for instance or their activities destroy economies I see no reason why they should not he held to account. The day when I am going to doff my cap to someone because of who they are hasn't arrived yet and never will. But then I have an advantage in that I see myself as equal to anyone. Someone who is truly illiberal is on the wrong side of history and cannot hope to thrive.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:47 pm

gmc;1431347 wrote: So tude dog, if you are so against egalitarianism is it because you see yourself as one of the ruling class or because you see yourself as naturally subservient.

The definition of egalitarianism I favour is defined as a political doctrine that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights. Where some people have acquired wealth and power and use it to the detriment if those around them then there is a case to be made for curbing that wealth and power. Certainly when it comes to corporations there needs to be curbs on their ability to exploit or cause harm. If they don't pay taxes for instance or their activities destroy economies I see no reason why they should not he held to account. The day when I am going to doff my cap to someone because of who they are hasn't arrived yet and never will. But then I have an advantage in that I see myself as equal to anyone. Someone who is truly illiberal is on the wrong side of history and cannot hope to thrive.

:-4 :-6

Couldn't have said it better.

Really. I couldn't have.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Wed Jul 10, 2013 5:56 am

gmc;1431347 wrote: So tude dog, if you are so against egalitarianism is it because you see yourself as one of the ruling class or because you see yourself as naturally subservient.

Neither. I'll take door number three.

gmc;1431347 wrote: The definition of egalitarianism I favour is defined as a political doctrine that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights.

Hmm, in a broad sense I'll go with that.

gmc;1431347 wrote: Where some people have acquired wealth and power and use it to the detriment if those around them then there is a case to be made for curbing that wealth and power.

See, here is where we start to have problems. I don't know what it means to use wealth and power to the detriment to those around them. If we are talking violation of law, that I understand. We really need to define wealth and power you are talking about. Not to be silly, but sounds like it comes from a political stump speech.

gmc;1431347 wrote: Certainly when it comes to corporations there needs to be curbs on their ability to exploit or cause harm.

gmc;1431347 wrote: If they don't pay taxes for instance

In this country, tax laws are, to say the least confusing. This is a case where the our government should be held to account.

gmc;1431347 wrote: or their activities destroy economies I see no reason why they should not he held to account.

OK I dunno how you do that, but in theory sounds good.

gmc;1431347 wrote: The day when I am going to doff my cap to someone because of who they are hasn't arrived yet and never will. :yh_clap

gmc;1431347 wrote: But then I have an advantage in that I see myself as equal to anyone. Someone who is truly illiberal is on the wrong side of history and cannot hope to thrive.

Well, it is the fate for folk like me who were born on the wrong side of the tracks.

The egalitarianism I find fault with is one promoted by the likes of President Obama and his cohorts. Here is one example, use of race to correct some perceived social inequity.

Many, if not all colleges and universities have race quotas. Imagine, being denied an education because of race.

Jim Crow all over again.

And the beat goes on.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Jul 10, 2013 10:41 am

tude dog;1431364 wrote: Neither. I'll take door number three.Here's the problem with you, you never explain anything, It's like you're afraid someone will beat you up for expanding. What, FFS, is behind door number three? I asked this same question twice before now and your so called answer to GMC is just as much of a non-answer as you pretending to ignore my posts and not provide any information.

That'll do because too many questions at once seems to cause confusion for you.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 1:53 am

posted by tude dog

See, here is where we start to have problems. I don't know what it means to use wealth and power to the detriment to those around them. If we are talking violation of law, that I understand. We really need to define wealth and power you are talking about. Not to be silly, but sounds like it comes from a political stump speech.

Say for in stance a mining company wants to remove the top of a mountain to get at the coal underneath it or drill for oil using a controversial method that pollutes the ground water - who first of all owns the resources of a country and should benefit most from it's exploitation. If said activity ruins the lives for those who live there why shpuld they be allowed to do it? I am thinking of mountain top removal in Tennessee and fracking fior oil on the mid west. Some of the states allow fracking in what were national parks - where did the money go and who benefited? If a medieval warlord comes in and takes over claiming the right to land and all the resources and the people who live on them most would understand any objection people might have. If a big corporation does the same albeit not quite so overtly is there any real difference in principle and why should we accept they have the right to exploit resources just because they have the money to do so and the political clout to get their own way? A lot of these issues are happening here in the UK as well but we are less ready to accept the arguments that we should stand back and not object. I live in what was the original shale mining area in the UK if they start trying to mine here it will avffect me directly.

GasLand 2010 - YouTube

UBS: Lexington, Kentucky - YouTube

Well, it is the fate for folk like me who were born on the wrong side of the tracks.

The egalitarianism I find fault with is one promoted by the likes of President Obama and his cohorts. Here is one example, use of race to correct some perceived social inequity.

Many, if not all colleges and universities have race quotas. Imagine, being denied an education because of race.

So who told you you were on the wrong side of the tracks and then convinced you they had the right of it? Maybe door number three is marked this door for stroppy people.

The race issue I really can't comment on - it's a peculiarly american phenomenon.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 6:09 am

TD: "Many, if not all colleges and universities have race quotas. Imagine, being denied an education because of race.

Jim Crow all over again.

And the beat goes on."

How hysterically ridiculous of you. What white person was denied an education? Not everyone gets into the school of their first/second choice. Name me a white student who was denied a college education. If you are referring to the UofAustin Texas case before the Supreme Court, the young lady who filed it went to another college, graduated, & is doing well. You can't always get what you want............but if you try, you get what you need.

You are race baiting TD, & you have a habit of taking genuine slogans like "Never Again" & "Jim Crow" to try to make it fit into different, opposing, ideas. Stop being lazy & invent your own slogans, instead of stealing them from the original intent. Like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 6:12 am

TD: "Well, it is the fate for folk like me who were born on the wrong side of the tracks."

I've never heard a Jewish person say that in my entire life. Not an American one anyway. Were you born Jewish? You're a strange, but interesting man TD.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 10:36 am

You have a blog TD? How can I link up?

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 11:54 am

I found it.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 2:16 pm

gmc;1431501 wrote: posted by tude dog

Say for in stance a mining company wants to remove the top of a mountain to get at the coal underneath it or drill for oil using a controversial method that pollutes the ground water - who first of all owns the resources of a country and should benefit most from it's exploitation. If said activity ruins the lives for those who live there why shpuld they be allowed to do it? I am thinking of mountain top removal in Tennessee and fracking fior oil on the mid west. Some of the states allow fracking in what were national parks - where did the money go and who benefited?

Thank you, fair enough. These are issues which are being argued about. People taking stands on.

gmc;1431501 wrote: If a medieval warlord comes in and takes over claiming the right to land and all the resources and the people who live on them most would understand any objection people might have. If a big corporation does the same albeit not quite so overtly is there any real difference in principle and why should we accept they have the right to exploit resources just because they have the money to do so and the political clout to get their own way?

Simple answer, as you present it, no.

gmc;1431501 wrote: A lot of these issues are happening here in the UK as well but we are less ready to accept the arguments that we should stand back and not object. I live in what was the original shale mining area in the UK if they start trying to mine here it will avffect me directly.

I would never ever suggest people just roll over.

I didn't live there, but was born in the San Joaquin Valley of California. I now live in north central Kansas. So what's my point?

Farm country. One would think growing food would be all innocent, but it is not. Farming is a source of water pollution.

Question, how do we deal with it without attaching titles of blame?

I lived most my life in Los Angeles California. Talk about water.

Oh Gawd, water in California, big politics, history. Transportation, air pollution.

I am not opposed to a proper role of government.

gmc;1431501 wrote: So who told you you were on the wrong side of the tracks and then convinced you they had the right of it?

My mom, she's an Okie. Her and her six sisters never got over it. Like mom would say, the The Grapes of Wrath was not her story, but she could relate.

gmc;1431501 wrote: Maybe door number three is marked this door for stroppy people.

LOL

I had to look up "stroppy". I can understand where you may find me

strop·py [strop-ee] Show IPA

adjective, strop·pi·er, strop·pi·est. British Informal.

bad-tempered or hostile; quick to take offense.

I don't mean to be that way, just the way I sound.

Not to change the subject, but I frequent sites concerning guns/firearms. I'll tell you, there is nothing more boring than just agreeing with everything.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 2:11 am

posted by tude dog

LOL

I had to look up "stroppy". I can understand where you may find me

strop·py [strop-ee] Show IPA

adjective, strop·pi·er, strop·pi·est. British Informal.

bad-tempered or hostile; quick to take offense.

I don't mean to be that way, just the way I sound.

Not to change the subject, but I frequent sites concerning guns/firearms. I'll tell you, there is nothing more boring than just agreeing with everything.

It was actually meant as a compliment, I could have said bolshie but I thought that would travel even less well, how about bloody minded and of a rebellious disposition. I've always thought real freedom is vested in the individual prepared to turn round and ask the question who the ---- do you think you are.

It's more fun when you don't agree with entirely with someone's view points so long as you can keep talking about it rather than throw the dummy out the pram. Part of the confusion, I think, is we use the same words but they have different connotations on either side of the pond.

Woody Guthrie~ All You Fascists Bound To Lose - YouTube

Never really heard of him till fairly recently. The words change but the themes seem constant.