% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Penn West Petroleum Ltd. Message Board

  • longtoearly longtoearly Aug 1, 2008 7:20 PM Flag

    Democrats will save the planet

    Nancy Pelosi, planet navigator, Citizen of the World and uber celebrity, Barack Obama, and Harry (oil makes you sick) Reid have adopted as Democratic policy to keep oil and gasoline prices high to save the earth from global warming. As Barack explained, the only thing that bothers him about high oil prices is the rate at which they rose, not the fact that they are high. The foolish Republicans want to drill for more oil where there is oil on the continental shelf and most Republicans want to drill in ANWR. Saint Green McCain wants to preserve 2000 acres of frozen tundra to prevent the 1,000,000 barrel/day ANWR will provide to the US, to save the planet. Thank goodness we have such fearless leaders, willing to continue the 700 billion dollars transfer of US wealth to the peace loving wahabi Saudis. Join the Democratic left wing green movement. Tax those big oil companies to h-ll, so they can't explore for more oil. Raise taxes to further slow the economy and decrease oil consumption. Together we can save the Planet, and the Germans and French and enlightened Americans can elect Obama World leader. All those silly people who think oil prices will drop; it's Nancy's, Harry's and Obama's plan to keep oil prices high to Save the Planet. Thank goodness we're safe under their leadership. BTW, all PWE longs should donate a large portion of our 14% distribution to fuel Obama's crusade to save the world and bring us together.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Pwepal- I am not backing away from strict interpretation of constitution. However, the general welfare clause in preamble allows the Federal government to establish laws and frameworks for citizens to enjoy their freedoms. The more liberal interpretation did not come into play until 160 years after constitution was written and wasn't grossly expanded until almost 180 years into the nation's history. The Federal government has trampled over the rights of the states to decide whether they want certain programs or not.

      Fascism is a governmental system that regiments social and business activity under the control of one strong central government. Understand that the "safety net" programs you mention quickly become the rule rather than the exception for entire segments of the population. This creates a vast pool of people beholden to the central government, allowing conscription, collection of taxes and invasion of citizens' individuals privacy and lives on a scale that kings and emperors never could have imagined.

      Bismarck recognized this. Why do you think Germany was one of the first countries to enact social pensions? It allowed the central government to grow in power, stifle dissent, draft armies and conduct colonial adventures abroad.

      I agree it sounds alot like Bush. It also sounds like Clinton, LBJ, JFK and FDR- as well as every other President since 1932.

      The problem is that many on the Left who demand these programs don't recognize that they are facilitating the very militarism that they supposedly abhor (forgetting of course WW2, Korea, Bay of Pigs, Vietnam Haiti and Serbia, which were all led by Democratic presidents.)

      Thus, when liberals scream for higher taxes, to pay for schools and healthcare, etc they forget that the money comes under the Federal government control the second it leaves private hands. At that point the money can be used for B-2's instead of senior care facilities.

      In my opinion, far better to scale back government, let everyone keep a bigger share of income and set up their own healthcare, pension, etc. THAT is freedom and that is what was intended by the founders of this nation.

    • Right. And the price of gasoline at the pump comes after taxes have been paid. Taxes on a corporation are merely an expense to be passed on to the consumer.

    • ANWR is a flat plain with no landscape and a lot of grass where the caribou calve in the summer right in front of a drilling platform. The only thing up there is the Caribou and the money making black collar workers who are making a mint working up there. If I had your email address I would send you some pictures of what the landscape looks like. I wouldn't go there to work or vacation. Like going to a wet desert.

    • Of additional interest is that today Jefferson (then a Republican) is considered to be a Democrat and Hamilton (then a Federalist) a Republican.

      Congress is granted authority under Article I, section 8 of the Constitution to “pay the debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” The meaning of this Taxing and Spending Clause provoked controversy as early as 1792. One interpretation is that it gives Congress broad power to legislate in the public interest. Such a view is inconsistent with the concept of a limited constitution, however. A second view, promoted by Alexander Hamilton, suggested that Congress's power to tax and spend for the general welfare was additional to its other powers. A third view, represented by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, argued that the phrase was simply a summary or general description of the specific powers and that it gave Congress no additional power.

      The Supreme Court had no opportunity to interpret this clause until 1936, in United States v. Butler. In striking down the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, Justice Owen *Roberts, writing for the majority, held with Hamilton's view, saying that the Taxing and Spending Clause was indeed a separate grant of power to Congress. Because the Court could determine for itself whether a particular tax or expenditure was in the general welfare of the country, however, Roberts read the clause as limiting Congress's reach to matters of “national, as distinguished from local welfare.” The limitation proposed by Butler remained hypothetical, however, since the Court struck down the statute in question on other grounds.

      In any event, the expansion of congressional power under the Commerce Clause has rendered the question almost moot since Congress's authority, in practical terms, now reaches most of the concerns that might come under the rubric of “general welfare”

      William Lasser

    • At least he would turn the country into a party for "all" of us while he bent us over. Hmmmmm.... I can see it now. The Obama/King ticket.
      "40 acres and a mule or your money back!" LMAO

    • long toe, what a great post! Every word true. Love that sarcasm! Some of the inbreds from the hills might think you are serious though and start a nancy pelosi fanclub. LOL

      I wonder with all the great solutions from both parties, if anyone actually thought of going over the activities of every commodities hedge fund with a fine tooth comb on a regular basis. Manipulation? Nahhhhhhh.......not in America. I say let Don King the boxing promoter be president. At least he will bend us over and tell us he is doing it!

    • <<<I believe it is in the public interest and "insures domestic Tranquility",to have "safety nets" in place so those at the bottom or at the fringes of society are afforded a way to fit in>>>

      I don't believe that the founders had the present social welfare system in mind, especially since none of these laws were enacted until 160+ years after the nation's founding.

      The present social welfare system is based upon Bismarck's plans which were devised to strengthen the central government and give to the government a large pool of able-bodied men beholden to the central government. Since the founders of this nation were diametrically opposed to a strong federal government, this system is merely a fascist scheme.

      Remember: A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.

    • When the Iraqs voted, was it when Saddam was in power or was it when the US liberated them so they could vote?

    • "You are as naive as I was when I voted for Perot"

      It is this kind of thinking that keeps the main two parties from losing power & any other party from making gains. Why is it that Iraq had more parties that ran & won elections than we do as the so-called pinnacle of democracy (I know, we're not a true democracy, but a representative republic).
      I did not say I would vote for either, but look at what they have to say. Do I feel they could win? No, but there could be enough backlash to change the whole system, eventually. If I feel that any other party has anything in mind to help turn the country, I may vote that way, because at least then I am voting, unlike 2/3 of this country's voting eligible people.
      Or, for that matter, we could all write-in Goofy with Donald Duck as his VP. It is our choice, not the 2 party leadership's.
      If you want, write-in Perot again. Just don't choose one of the 2 just because everyone says that your vote is wasted any other way.

    • x man - You Sir are absolutely correct! Thank you for cutting through the clutter. The USA vastly spends more on socialist programs than on those specifically authorized by the Constitution.

    • View More Messages
1.780.00(0.00%)10:50 AMEDT