The language of politics.
 

It is probably time to abandon the language of moderate and extreme. We all like to think our ideas are the central important ones. That conveniently makes our ideas the moderate ones. In this country moderates have supported slavery, kings, forced sterilizations, NA genocide, invasions, and thousands of insults large and small to minorities of race or belief.

Moderate, a wise man once said:

Label your ideas better. If you, like me, want all religion out of our government from the Congressional Chaplain to the pledge to the flag you are an extremist in this country. The language that places your idea central ends the conversation, it does not start it. This is coming from a guy who is also an extremist on freedom of speech.

Je Suis Charlie

I think in politics, the labeling of ideas is *crucial*.

I think it's so important that one's political opponents will strive to name your ideas for you, to your maximum detriment, of course.

Je Suis Charlie

Spot on. If you label your position accurately enough the other guy can't do it.

I have no ideas, only demands. :fuse:

Whacko moderates.



There's a fragrance that's here today, and they call it — Charlie!

May I label this "hate speech"...

Billy Graham Jr wrote on Facebook.

ETA: His post received 74,000+ "Likes"

Sure, label it anything you wish. I'll call it, pandering to the group from whom all blessings flow, as I almost always follow the money first. ;)

Right, there's a guy who knows which side his bread is buttered.

"... the Keystone jobs bill..."

I noticed that the Republican responseS omitted entirely the word "pipeline" in reference to this subject. They're trying to rebrand the Keystone Pipeline project, changing the association in people's minds between this project and oil, tar sands, environmental hazards, and global warming to one of "jobs". Ok, fifty jobs. 50 jobs is the number of jobs that the pipeline will require for its ongoing function. The construction of the pipeline will require more jobs, but those are temporary.

This is an example of the language of politics. It's not a pipeline, it's jobs. Why does President Obama hate America? [/sarcasm]

It's interesting this pipeline would move Canadian oil right into the refineries in Texas, which just happen to sit in a free trade zone. They can refine it and sell it on the world market without a penny going to the USA. No taxes, no fees, not even a thank you Ma'am.

I didn't realize that. I am not surprised by the.... Thoroughness of the legal and economic infrastructure that has been built up to retain the MAXIMUM POSSIBLE monies despite the obvious connection to the local, state, and national interests. Just, wow.

This article is just giving an example in Rep/Dem procedural tactics
of what goes around, comes around... or payback's a bitch

risk

well stated Spexxvet. that's exactly the crucial point. corporations have lots of attributes, humanity not being among them, but one of their core functions is to privatize rewards/profits and socialize risks/costs. let's face it, stuff is gonna happen. that stuff might be good, oil flows, money flows, etc. good stuff is channeled to the corporation. there might some good stuff that happens that will go to the public, though in this example I can't really think of anything. jobs don't count, a job is an expense the company incurs to make more money more easily. now I benefit from a job, but it's not just an objectively good thing. witness the lust for automation and self service that permeates, just saturates our culture; there are self service options everywhere, the grocery store, the gas station (when was the last time you had someone pump your gas for you? let me guess, when you were in New Jersey or in Oregon, right? me too.), even stupid Applebee's has a touch-screen-card-swiping-order-taking-payment-accepting tablet doodad right on the table? I digress. Jobs don't count as good things for everyone. corporations would get that task done without creating a job if they could find a way to do so. in most cases, having a person do the job is just the least costly way to get that done.

but the costs and risks are shunted away from the corporation to the greatest extent possible. cops patrol the streets keeping order around the refinery? but not paid with revenues by the entity enjoying that protection. cleanup crews kept on standby? not paid for by corporations. etc, etc.

we all understand this, and I'm ok with the basic structure. capitalism is good. but the importance of balance is often overlooked. when the balance is too far in either direction, it's bad for the ones holding the crappy end of the stick.

Public gets cheaper gas and cheaper petroleum byproducts which invigorates the economy by permitting the cheaper movement of people and goods and generally sends funds to state governments.

Is that the result of lower costs for the corporation, or competition? You could say lower costs to the corporation is what makes them competitive, but all corporations doing it makes that moot. It just become corporate profit at public risk.

Hmmm.... why are the negatives not included in this equation ?

This is the kind of stuff that the opposition to the Keystone pipeline is made of...

.

Yes Lamp... which is another reason I cannot stand nor support either of these parties. They are both full of shit and don't give a rats ass about "us"
Yes there are a few exceptions, but the overwhelming majority of them are power hungry assholes. My opinion - YMMV

Well yes, but the "party line" is dictated by the lobbyists, so that's where the fer or agin is discussed shouted.

Because that's what BigV was wondering about.

Both! If you want to decrease corporate profits, increase competition. If you want to lower costs, increase infrastructure. It's all good.

No, not both. Increasing infrastructure may increase profits, but certainly doesn't guarantee lower prices or competition.

Lower costs, not prices. And build infrastructure for all, without rules that benefit a select few.

Pipeline is required for increased demand. That says little to nothing about prices or profits other than no product to meet increased demand affects prices.

If Alberta Tar Sands are so bad for the environment, then we should be banning ethanol in the gasoline. That is many times worse for the environment and for the economy.

All this argument about jobs or prices is trivial. Or how spin confuses an issue. The oil must get to refineries.

Meanwhile we also have another extremists law that says US crude cannot be sold to foreign nations. That also makes sense only when extremists rhetoric replaces intelligence. The rhetoric and lies are what lobbyists exist to create. It works when a public only believes the first thing they are told. Ethanol is required in all American gasolines only because of extremist rhetoric invented by lobbyists - and also called lies. Same lies also deny American crude sold to other nations.