Coboble sends an email inquiry:
Is this supposed to be sarcasm, When I first saw this whole “My War for Oil” blogroll thing, I was expecting to find something related to the risk of the oil funding terrorism if we
didn’t make sure we had control of it. Instead all I saw was the typical greed stuff.
Anyone care to respond?
2004–2008
60 responses so far ↓
1
jt
// Jan 8, 2007 at 1:47 pm
I would care to respond if I cared, but I don’t, so I won’t…
2
fmragtops
// Jan 8, 2007 at 2:03 pm
How about this one:
No, it’s not sarcasm. All we heard was how Iraq was a war for oil. Well, we got the war, now we want the oil!
3
richj
// Jan 8, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Sarcasm? I didn’t know you did sarcasm. Actually a little sarcasm might be a welcome break from all that hatemongering.
Do you think if we boiled up Coboble, we could skim off the oil from the surface, and put it in my big ass SUV? My supply of hippy oil is running low, and I haven’t ran over any brown people lately.
4
fmragtops
// Jan 8, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Yeah, I like Richj’s. Even though he’s an indecisive prick.
5
richj
// Jan 8, 2007 at 2:37 pm
I really am quitting. I mean it this time, dammit. That’s my decision, and I’m stickin to it.
I wonder if “Indecisive Prick.com” url is available….
6
Eileen
// Jan 8, 2007 at 2:45 pm
richj,
And to think I was going to try to loose some of that extra fat I am carrying around.
One of my goals is to contribute as much as I consume (not that I have a clue as how to measure such a thing).
So if I were used for energy, at some point, that could help me accomplish my goal. Of course I am not certain I will much care after my body has been consumed to provide someone else with energy.
7
richj
// Jan 8, 2007 at 2:46 pm
8
richj
// Jan 8, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Well, that comment didn’t work.
Eileen, I am whole-heartedly in favor of alternative fuels such as bio-diesel. As a corpse, our bodies provide energy for the assorted critters that will consume us anyway(unless we are embalmed of course). Living humans should tap into that readily available alternative energy source. We produce plenty of dead bodies, just mix us in with the road kill, and we would have a plentiful source of bio fuels. Just want to do my part to keep the Earth green.
That reminds me, I haven’t watched Soilent Green in a very long time. Dinner anywone?
9
Eileen (aka Coboble)
// Jan 8, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Seriously, on the oil thing;
At this point, I believe we are fighting to control and minimize chaos, while we try to decide what our goal should be and how to reach it.
Of course the goal is stabilization, but to what degree we should force it versus trusting Iraq to do it for them selves is not agreed upon? While it seems the noble thing would be to not interfere with their own sovereignty; this makes the job of stabilization significantly more complicated than a complete take over would.
The potential for drastic effects on the world economy, which serious chaos in the area can cause, is high.
Face it, Oil is our main source of energy, and energy is critical to warfare and economic stability right now. Oil is still power.
So while I don’t care for waging a war to benefit big oil companies, the trickle down effect to the rest of us can be drastic.
Our nation having control of this oil is not likely to bring your cost down.
Right now they are considering legislation to give big oil companies contracts for 30 years, allowing them to keep up to 75% of the profits (it would go down over time).
The scary thing is that our Military doesn’t know how to stabilize Iraq. But we know it is a very high risk to ourselves to allow Chaos there.
Personally I don’t own a motor vehicle, nor do I plan to, and would prefer if gas was so expensive that more people rode mass transit, leading to improvements in mass transit.
But I recognize that many aspects of my life (including the level of economic stability which helps to keep me employed), are dependent on not having a major interruption in the world oil supply.
10
Tyler D
// Jan 8, 2007 at 3:38 pm
11
Tyler D
// Jan 8, 2007 at 3:40 pm
I like how that didn’t work…
Is this supposed to be sarcasm, When I first saw this whole “My War for Oil” blogroll thing, I was expecting to find something related to the risk of the oil funding terrorism if we
didn’t make sure we had control of it. Instead all I saw was the typical great stuff.
/sarcasm
12
FIAR
// Jan 8, 2007 at 4:14 pm
For those of us who don’t live in cities, Mass transit is entirely improbable and not practical… ever.
Arbitrarily raising the price of gas will accomplish nothing, except alienating the ability of the poor to get around.
As with most liberal solutions, those supposedly aided by socialism are always those most hurt. Do you think the wealthiest 1% care if gas costs $2/gallon or $8/gallon? Hint- the answer is “No.” But I guarantee you, for the person living in middle America, where the nearest gas station is at least 5 miles away, and there isn’t a bus stop to be found, it will mean a complete inability to ever go anywhere.
It will mean increased costs for small business. Large (Evil) corporations will easily foot the bill one way or another, but Mom and Pop will go out of business. Liberalism feels like a good idea, but when practiced in the real world, the consequences are disastrous.
13
Redneck
// Jan 8, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Here’s the typical Liberal bullcrap that gets sprayed out into the world and stinks up the air I breathe.
Let’s just forget economic stability for a moment. Let’s say that we were able to raise the price of oil without the world’s economies crashing into a horrible mass of rubble and [impalingspikes>©.
So let’s start with the oil. Sure, let’s raise the price of oil up to about $100 a barrel. Not only would gas go through the roof (about $5.00 a gallon, give or take), so would heating for poor families that use heating oil (about $4.00 a gallon, give or take). Also let’s not forget that raising the price of oil would raise the price of everything you friggin’ buy.
One thing Liberal idiots forget is that companies are not in the business of the lowest price possible. Companies - all companies - are in the business of making money. If the cost of gas doubled in price, the cost of milk, eggs, bread, soda (pop), and everything else you buy. You’re so worried about the war and what rhetoric you can spew, you don’t take the time to have a single coherent thought.
Then we see your own alterior motives for the rising cost in gas. Less people would drive (false) so more people would ride mass transit and improvements would be made in mass transit (also false). Your own selfishness shows in this very statement. Don’t you realize that the cost of mass transit would also go up? Duh, dummy.
So don’t try to be holier-than-thou with the Liberal crap you so desperately want us to buy. At least here, we’re honest. Your altruistic crap is just that - crap.
Seriously, I can’t believe Liberals are this stupid. How is it possible to walk and breathe at the same time?
Yes, I want it to be a war for oil. I want the US troops to actually take over Iraq and make it the 51st state. I want my gas to be $0.50 a gallon. If Liberals are going to spew forth that the war is for oil, then we should actually make it a war for oil.
Thus endeth my rant.
14
Redneck
// Jan 8, 2007 at 4:27 pm
um, “If the cost of gas doubled in price, the cost of milk, eggs, bread, soda (pop), and everything else you buy.”
should have ended with…
“will go up in price as well.”
Sheesh.
15
KC
// Jan 8, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd Redneck wins.
16
richj
// Jan 8, 2007 at 5:14 pm
So Redneck, was that sarcasm? Just checkin cause you almost got me confused there with all your nuances.
17
Redneck
// Jan 8, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Yeah, that was sarcasm.
/sarcasm
18
Hawk
// Jan 8, 2007 at 5:29 pm
I personally can’t WAIT for mass transit. When I reach my goal of living twenty miles away from my closest neighbor, mass transit will work WONDERS for me.
It’ll keep me able to go get bacon…
19
Hawk
// Jan 8, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Redneck? From one redneck to another, AMEN, BROTHER!
20
fmragtops
// Jan 8, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Heh, they’re talking about opening up an express rail line between Baton Rouge and New Orleans to allow commuters to use public transit. You know how much a roundtrip would cost? $26. There’s the practicality of liberal ideology.
21
Eileen (aka Coboble)
// Jan 8, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Red,
In case you didn’t catch it, I do get that an interruption of the oil supply will have a trickle down effect on the entire economy.
(I thought I mentioned that.)
And while I have a side motive for wanting gas to go up, I understand that if the flow is significantly interrupted it has a negative effect on my life as well.
Mass transit improvements will have a positive effect on my life, but if there is no oil to run it, it is going to get worse, not better.
So you don’t think I am being honest?
What dishonest statement did I make?
I was completely honest about my personal desire for mass transit improvement, and how raising fuel prices might lead to that.
At any rate,
I was curious if people were just being sarcastic when they stated all greedy selfish reasons for wanting our country to take over the Iraq oil; while neglecting to state the potential chaotic effects to the whole world economic structure, along with the potential of the oil money being used to fund a war against us.
Giving huge oil rights to US oil companies will increase their profit, but not necessarily bring down the price of your gasoline.
But I guess you can buy their stock, and then sell the stock to pay for your gasoline.
So you think I am a liberal? Interesting.
The girl who waits at the bus stop with me most mornings, is a Conservative to the core (the vote Republican all the time sort).
Neither of us can drive for various reasons.
So don’t confuse my selfish reason for wanting mass transit improvements with being holy in any way.
Now comes my judgemental liberal rant (or “crap” as you call it).
Part of me wants all the people who feel they have some right to consume more than their fair share of resources to stay in their motor vehicles and pay a really high gas tax to fund my mass transit.
(While my cost of the stuff I buy also goes up, it still effects me less than most).
Then I would just assume this sort did not crowd the buses and trains I ride either.
I like having a seat for my butt, and another for my feet, and one for my bag as well.
I read liberal sites where they can not believe conservatives are so stupid, and conservative sites which can not believe that liberals are so stupid. But there is a huge difference between blind bias and stupidity.
I do think this blog is mostly sarcasm, some of it very subtle and some not so subtle, and much of it somewhat humorous.
22
fmragtops
// Jan 8, 2007 at 6:21 pm
There’s a fundamental thought process that points out without a doubt that you are a liberal. “Their fair share…” There is no such thing. Your “fair share” is whatever share you can afford.
23
richj
// Jan 8, 2007 at 6:22 pm
This blog is sarcastic and humorous? I am really getting confused here folks.
24
Eileen (aka Coboble)
// Jan 8, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Fiar,
The capitalism model is great with two exceptions (maybe more but only two I can think of right now)
1) Limited natural resources
2) Externalities which are often not paid.
I am only a socialist when it comes to the distribution of natural resources.
When it comes to value added, I am a pure capitalist but believe externalities need to be paid for (and also am not so ignorant as to think they can even be completely measured).
I believe in some level of charity to those who can not provide for themselves, but think we give away too much of it as a country, and require too little in return.
So what is the solution to the limited resource of oil?
The Capitalism model would control it by letting the cost go up.
Socialism would ration it.
Is it capitalism when the government decides who gets the oil, and we all pay taxes to fight a war to secure it? Maybe this war should be fought with mercenaries and oil company money, then let that cost trickle down to the cost of fuel and every product which requires fuel to distribute or manufacture.
But if we can just go take as much as we need (at least for now) by force (at a cost to someone else we care less about than ourselves), why not just do that?
This is what humans have done for generations, so why not?
What has changed in the species?
Why didn’t we take over the world after WWII and just force Democracy on everyone?
Was that the first time in history when a country, instead of occupying the countries it had over taken, gave the countries back to the people and helped them form Democracies? Where is MacArthur when we need him?
I think the whole oil thing is way bigger than capitalistic greed, and the risks are far higher than just not having reasonably priced oil.
25
RT - Chief Mongress
// Jan 8, 2007 at 7:25 pm
The “improved transit” dream won’t happen unless the politicians in charge have friends that will benefit from such an improvement. Until that unlikely day, I have to drive 80 miles per day because I can’t afford to live where I work. Why? Taxes, high gas prices as a result of state fuel taxes, and inflated property values…because the liberal yeehaas in my state can’t get enough…you guessed it: TAXES!
May I have my lower priced, non-taxed oil, now? Thanks.
26
Eileen (aka Coboble)
// Jan 8, 2007 at 8:40 pm
One way mass transit benefits those who do not ride it, is that for each person on mass transit, that is about one less vehicle on the road. This leaves more space for your vehicle.
C = cost of gas where most people can afford a lot of it
Assume for each amount gas goes up, beyond C, more people choose to buy less gas and drive less.
If good mass transit exists the amount gas can go up, before people make this choice is lower than it is if mass transit is not convenient.
C+X = highest cost of gas where I can still afford (and see it as reasonable for me) to drive my personal vehicle to work and for most things I want to use it for.
I would want gas to cost exactly C+X, because that would leave the most room on the road for my vehicle.
So even if I was a greedy driver of a personal vehicle, I still wouldn’t want gas to be too cheap.
I get that here are way more factors in the real equation, such as road saturation, effect on the cost of everything else I buy etc etc etc …
27
FIAR
// Jan 8, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Here’s the problem with your logic. You seem to think that increased gas cost, presumably by raising taxes on gas will mean an increase in the number of people using mass transit, and that will then result in an improvement in the service of mass transit due to a greater need.
This is false. What will happen is that costs will increase, more people will require government subsidies, fewer people will be employed, and regardless of the new, artificial “Need” for mass transit, the quality of service will decline, and expense of it will increase, due to the need of unemployed people, and people who can no longer afford to drive requiring further government subsidy to use it.
No one begrudges you your desire to improve mass transit. Good for you. The actual formula for improving it is entirely different. The steps are about reverse of your logical formulation.
Step one, provide a service that people want to use, at a cost that is attractive. Then people will want to use mass transit because it is just better than driving. In addition to costing less and being more convenient, it would also reduce traffic pressures. I am, of course, assuming here that it really has become less costly, and more convenient than driving. The end result will be that mass transit is improved, and more people use it. They do so because it is better. It is the winner. It has competed and won out over personal transportation.
There is only one way for this model to work, and that is if mass transit is private commerce (capitalism) and not publicly funded and run. Otherwise, what you have is an attempt to socially engineer the behavior of people through negative reinforcement, rather than by allowing them to choose an alternative that’s just plain better.
This backward liberal logic also applies to virtually any and every area of business. They wish to punish businesses for being evil, and when the entirely predictable result of higher costs, and more layoffs ensues, the businesses are chastised as evil, for doing what is necessary to compensate.
28
RT - Chief Mongress
// Jan 8, 2007 at 9:21 pm
Oh, and sarcasm is a form of humor when it is done the right way, which if you read closely, it is done the right way on this site.
29
FIAR
// Jan 8, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Also, no one is “a greedy driver of a personal vehicle.” They are individuals choosing the best, most reliable, and cost efficient method of transportation. And no one is “people who feel they have some right to consume more than their fair share of resources to stay in their motor vehicles.” They are consumers who use what they pay for. What I pay for is my share. No matter how much I consume, I am paying for that quantity. There is no “Fair share.” Period.
30
Eileen (aka Coboble)
// Jan 8, 2007 at 10:16 pm
We will have to disagree on the “Fair Share” thing, as I will not be convinced that there is not a “Fair Share” when it is a limited natural resource.
When you say “the most cost efficient” what you mean is the most “cost efficient” to the specific individual not to society. Is this not a form of greed (and I don’t mean it is necessarily wrong).
You might be able to convince me that a pay-as-you-go mass transit system is a better model than the one we now have.
However, I would need to believe that people driving vehicles are really paying the full cost (including externalities to a reasonable degree).
If the gas is made cheap by the war, then perhaps the war should be funded by the oil companies.
Perhaps the government should not be involved in determining who gets the contracts, and the oil companies can have their own war to determine who gets the oil to sell.
I do consider our society greedy (myself included). In fact had it not been for the greed of my ancestors, I would probably not be as well of (at least materialistically) as I am.
What gives me the right to my land? I paid for it, what gave them the person I bought it from the right to it, they paid for it, and on and on until at some point someone just took it, and that was likely an act of greed (or maybe even survival).
And I do think the sarcasm on this site is usually funny, I actually like it (that is why I read it).
31
RT - Chief Mongress
// Jan 8, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Hmmm…do you feel you have your fair share of property? There are homeless people that have none.
32
Sssteve
// Jan 8, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Fitch, just checking in. And I for one will never feel guilty for driving my big E350 12 passenger van. I love it! and I pay the highest gas prices in the nation! 2.70 a gallon right now!
33
jimmyb
// Jan 8, 2007 at 11:43 pm
When are we going to run out of oil?
I’ve heard that since the 70’s.
They said it in the 80’s, and then the 90’s.
Let me guess; this time the REEEALLY mean it.
Heh.
Sarcasm rocks.
34
jimmyb
// Jan 8, 2007 at 11:44 pm
The should be THEY Reeally mean it, not the.
35
jimmyb
// Jan 8, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Plus, who cares about oil.
The bird flu is coming.
HOCKEY STICK! HOCKEY STICK!!!
36
Eileen (aka Coboble)
// Jan 9, 2007 at 12:15 am
Yes, I think I have about just the right share of land. I have not done any of the math, but it feels right.
I see it coming, people telling me they haven’t done any of the math, but feel they are consuming just about their fair share of oil. Or even someone telling me they have done the math and know they are consuming only their share. I am more willing to consider this argument than the idea that there is no such thing as a “fair share”.
As far as the homeless go, there is plenty of land for them, they don’t need mine.
37
FIAR
// Jan 9, 2007 at 12:21 am
Eileen, You do realize, of course,
There is no war for oil!
That’s the point!
I made the war for oil blogroll to demonstrate the complete, utter, insufferable, chronic stupidity of those who think Iraq is a war for oil, and not an important, strategic battle in a world war for our very survival.
http://radioactiveliberty.com/?p=550
http://radioactiveliberty.com/?p=546
http://radioactiveliberty.com/?p=548
http://www.nicedoggie.net/2006/?p=1058
http://radioactiveliberty.com/?p=611
Jimmy, We didn’t run out of oil yet because of this thing that the devil invented, called “Technology.” It allows us to drill for oil in places we couldn’t before. The Earth is chock full of oil, just like it’s chock full of magma. We are limited in our ability to obtain it with our Oil volcanoes, but the devil’s invention makes us keep getting better at doing just that.
38
FIAR
// Jan 9, 2007 at 12:26 am
If there is such a thing as a “fair share,” then I say I have come nowhere near achieving this arbitrarily determined quantity. I demand every person in America with more that my arbitrarily determined amount send me their excess so that I may finally have my fair share.
Call me crazy, but I think that’s quite a bit more greedy that a person who worked hard, and successfully waged risks to succeed and won keeping the fruits of their labor.
39
FIAR
// Jan 9, 2007 at 12:27 am
Sssteve, you need a car that big, just to fit your big, hairy, smelly, sasquatch ass in it.
40
fmragtops
// Jan 9, 2007 at 12:31 am
You keep saying oil is a finite resource. How much oil is there? That’s a rhetorical question. Nobody knows, yet scientists feel pretty comfortable espousing their belief that oil is a finite resource. They believe it is non-renewable. However, I have seen some research that indicates the conventional belief that oil is a fossil fuel is wrong.
Thomas Gold, who recently passed away, is a Cornell University astronomer. He has been stating for years that hydro-carbons are not produced by organic means. Recent NASA findings support this theory.
So, again I say, there is no such thing as someone’s “fair share”. This is the same fundamental flaw that is seen in liberal economic theory. Liberals believe there is a finite amount of wealth as well, where conservatives believe wealth is created by industry.
41
RT - Chief Mongress
// Jan 9, 2007 at 12:42 am
Amen, brother FM!
42
Sssteve
// Jan 9, 2007 at 12:48 am
My a$$ is not big! Smelly and hairy yes! Big? No!!
43
RT - Chief Mongress
// Jan 9, 2007 at 12:57 am
Skunk-like?
44
Eileen (aka Coboble)
// Jan 9, 2007 at 3:31 am
I suspected this whole War for Oil was sarcasm for the purpose of making the whole argument that the war was for oil look ridiculous. But I thought I would ask anyway.
Thank you for clarifying this.
Just think, you could have done that right away, but then I would have missed out on all the fun this discussion has been.
I am not certain the war is not for oil, but for a reason far more important than oil company profits or the ability to drive big gas guzzling vehicles. It really might be that we need the oil (or at least control over who does get it) to prevent it from being used to wage war against us. Maybe the government knows a lot more than they are telling us. Do any of us really know how much oil is left? When someone mentioned that there might be a lot more than we are being led to believe, it occurred to me, that maybe there may also be a lot less than we are being led to believe, and the government may know this. What about the ability to get it out? I understand that a certain amount comes out fast (the gush) and then it slows down to trickle. So even if there is loads of oil available, and more being created (which even if it is a fossil fuel it is at some rate greater than 0), is it where we can get it?
fmragtops
Some aspects of wealth are finite, and some are (at least in any practical sense) infinite. So to say Conservatives believe one and Liberals the other, seems over simplified. I could argue that there is a finite amount of matter and energy, but the number is so large that for all practical purposes it is considered infinite.
Land is finite (at least on this planet). Some natural resources are renewable at a rate much slower than we are consuming them, making them (for practical purposes) limited. Others are either so abundant, or can be renewed faster or as fast as we consume them, so these are (for practical purposes) infinite. Potential value added to existing resources is potentially infinite. This must be the industry creating wealth part.
Fiar
It is not anyone else’s responsibility to send you your fair share. My responsibility ends at my not taking more than my share, leaving your share there for you to take. Actually obtaining your share is a value added activity, therefore capitalism should apply. Good luck obtaining it.
45
jt
// Jan 9, 2007 at 9:14 am
I would care to respond if I cared, but I don’t, so I won’t…
Again.
46
von
// Jan 9, 2007 at 10:01 am
I don’t care.
47
jt
// Jan 9, 2007 at 11:32 am
Me either.
48
richj
// Jan 9, 2007 at 12:17 pm
I like pie.
49
jt
// Jan 9, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Me too.
50
FIAR
// Jan 9, 2007 at 4:05 pm
That’s why I did it that way. Didn’t you see the warning? “Objects in mirror are smarter than they appear.”
51
fmragtops
// Jan 9, 2007 at 5:51 pm
What about parfaits? Everybody likes parfaits.
52
FIAR
// Jan 9, 2007 at 6:07 pm
No war for Parfait!
53
RT - Chief Mongress
// Jan 9, 2007 at 10:18 pm
How about bacon wrapped everything instead of sweets? Just wondering.
54
Eileen (aka Coboble)
// Jan 10, 2007 at 2:37 am
I don’t like parfaits, and I am a subset of Everybody.
55
fmragtops
// Jan 10, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Don’t look at me, that’s Eddie Murphy’s theory, not mine.
56
Insolublog
// Jan 10, 2007 at 2:26 pm
We need the war for oil, because stuffing the blubber from an obese hippy into your SUV gas tank is too much work.
57
fmragtops
// Jan 10, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Good point, Insol. I also imagine all the THC diffused throughout the hippy fat might just cause a public health emergency.
58
RT - Chief Mongress
// Jan 10, 2007 at 8:31 pm
See, Insol always has the correct answers and sound judgment. I’d say he’s always right, but a certain megalomaniac might get upset with me.
59
fmragtops
// Jan 10, 2007 at 9:42 pm
SHHHHH, don’t anger him! He’ll never shut up!
60
fmragtops
// Jan 11, 2007 at 8:46 pm
I guess, I was wrong.
Leave a Comment or the Terrorists Win!
If you're wondering how to get an icon next to your name, go to gravatar.com and sign up for a free account.
Remember, only terrorist sympathizers don't have a gravatar.