Jump to content

Junior

Members
  • Posts

    110
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Junior last won the day on October 3 2021

Junior had the most liked content!

Reputation

57 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. This is what happens when you listen to the lefties. We have one posting right on this forum. Is is bad enough when there are economic consequences, here is an article about the victims of crime due to them. Adam Zivo: In the U.S., champagne socialists pursue soft-on-crime policies at the expense of vulnerable communities Adam Zivo 22 hrs ago Being soft on crime is fashionable among champagne socialists. Within their circles, there are few easier ways to win social clout than to declare that the police ought to be literally abolished, or to rhapsodize that what criminals need, more than anything else, is more leniency and understanding. Conversely, the idea that policing might make communities safer, or that criminals bear some personal responsibility for their actions, is treated like blasphemy. %7B This softhearted approach, which in practice prioritizes the interests of criminals over victims, would be unobjectionable if it demonstrably led to better outcomes for vulnerable communities. However, when these beliefs are put into practice, they predictably result in more crime and violence — harms that low-income communities bear the brunt of. This was brutally illustrated in San Francisco last year. After the city redirected US$120 million ($151 million) away from its law-enforcement budget in 2020, it was swept by an unprecedented epidemic of violent crime. Crime became so unbearable that San Francisco Mayor London Breed, a Democrat, made a volte-face last month and launched a police crackdown. She acknowledged that aggressive law enforcement may “make a lot of people uncomfortable,” but that cops need to get tough on “all the bulls–t that has destroyed our city.” San Francisco’s experiences are mirrored by a number of other liberal cities in the United States, including New York and Baltimore, which recently have also pivoted away from defunding the police. If these cities had listened to low-income communities to begin with, this course-correction could have been avoided. A 2020 YouGov poll , conducted just weeks after the George Floyd protests erupted, found that a clear majority of low-income respondents (78 per cent) opposed abolishing the police, with 63 per cent of respondents preferring to reform existing systems. In contrast, those making over $100,000 were 50 per cent more likely to prefer abolition compared to lower income groups. Examining policing from a racial lens yields similar results. A 2020 Gallup poll found that 81 per cent of Black respondents did not want less policing in their neighbourhoods. Yet it turns out that when it comes to making the world a safer place for the marginalized, politicians prefer to listen to vocal, well-off activists who are alienated from the interests, beliefs and values of the very communities they’re ostensibly advocating for. It’s not hard to understand why marginalized communities consistently show high levels of pro-policing sentiments. Economic vulnerability begets vulnerability to crime. Those who have visceral concerns about being robbed, assaulted or raped are less prone to clasp hands with their would-be assailants and sing “Kumbaya.” The costs of bleeding-heart utopianism may not be felt on Twitter or in university seminar rooms, but they are nonetheless real. Nor is this pro-policing sentiment anything new. Former U.S. president Bill Clinton’s 1994 crime bill, which led to more punitive policing methods, is decried by contemporary progressive activists as an example of irredeemable racism. Yet the bill was largely supported by Black lawmakers at the time — including a coalition of African-American mayors who governed large cities such as Detroit, Atlanta and Cleveland. This shouldn’t imply that low-income and racialized communities are uncritical of the police. Distrust of the police remains high, because the country has a long history of racism that has eroded institutional credibility. Rather, support tends to conceptualize policing as a public service that is being inadequately provided and, as such, should be improved rather than eliminated. You would never guess any of this if you listened to a champagne socialist, though. Within their bubbles, it’s axiomatic that law enforcement is inherently unjust and should probably be abolished. But why does this belief persist, despite its unpopularity with the very constituencies it’s meant to help? Perhaps it’s because there is a kernel of truth to what they believe. Yes, there is injustice in law enforcement. And yes, to some extent, crime is symptomatic of structural inequities — people are shaped by the opportunities available to them, or lack thereof. Some sympathy ought to be given to those who were thrust into lives of crime by forces outside their control. Yet these are not the only factors at play. Sympathy for criminals must be balanced with sympathy for victims. To ignore the impacts of crime is to consign entire communities to violence and harassment. Champagne socialists ignore this because their privilege blinds them to the realities of crime. Cloistered in safe neighbourhoods, they rarely feel the costs of their own radical politics. Those costs are, conveniently, offloaded to the poor. Champagne socialists tend to be hyper-sensitive to privilege, so it’s fair to ask why they have this particular blind spot. Perhaps the answer lies in “ luxury beliefs .” Coined in 2019, the term refers to beliefs that upper-class individuals use to signify social status — the ideological equivalent of a fur coat. Being soft on crime has all the hallmarks of a good luxury belief. It imbues people with an air of moral righteousness and social benevolence, while imposing no real costs on their lives. It evokes the aesthetics of war and of resistance against occupation, which helps champagne socialists role play as the revolutionaries they so desperately want to be. Being soft on crime is a way for indolent champagne socialists to feel consequential and morally whole. The fact that the poor reject these politics is irrelevant — in the end, what matters is the navel-gazing vanity of well-off activists
  2. A riot it was. But the frauds call it terrorism.
  3. Inflation is such a worry because it harms so many. A good article on CNN about the differences in inflation between now and the ‘70’s and how the decrease in unions was so important to keeping it much lower than it was. It becomes a cycle. The high tech industry has been a model of good pay and non union labour. https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/11/economy/inflation-history/index.html
  4. The main reason for Venezuela’s decline has everything to do with socialism. The socialists like you hated the businesses that made profits and no doubt the same kind of people as we hear on this board from person un-named said how terrible they were. They chased them off and the foreign businesses went elsewhere. It is happening to a lesser extent here. Now the Venezuelans live in desperation.
  5. So yes de-icer, we know you want some of that money without earning it. So did all the same types in Venezuela that demonized the oil companies and their executives and their shareholders getting dividends. And look at where it got them. And you are the type that would have us follow in those footsteps. You can call me Junior.
  6. It always amazes me how people never learn a lesson. The same old tired stories about corporations like the oil companies making too much money. Here are the last group of people that bought into this fraud: How Venezuela Ruined Its Oil Industry But how can it be that the country with the world's largest proved oil reserves can't afford to feed its people? The current crisis can be traced to the historical management of the country's oil industry. Wasted Potential Look at the evolution of Venezuela's oil reserves and production since 1980: Venezuelan oil production versus proved reserves ROBERT RAPIER Venezuela's highest-ever oil production occurred in 1998 at 3.5 million barrels per day (BPD). That also happened to be the year that Hugo Chávez was elected president of Venezuela. During the Venezuelan general strike of 2002–2003, Chávez fired 19,000 employees of the state oil company Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA) and replaced them with employees loyal to his government. This eliminated a tremendous amount of experience from Venezuela's oil industry. Most of Venezuela's proved oil reserves consists of extra-heavy crude oil in the Orinoco Belt. The Orinoco contains an estimated 1.2 trillion barrels of oil resource. This oil is expensive to produce, but after oil prices climbed to $100/bbl, 235 billion barrels of this heavy oil were moved into the "proved reserves" category. This positioned Venezuela ahead of Saudi Arabia as the country with the world's largest proved oil reserves. Because this oil is particularly challenging to produce, Venezuela invited international oil companies into the country to participate in the development of these reserves. Companies like ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, Total and ConocoPhillips invested billions of dollars in technology and infrastructure to turn the extra-heavy oil into crude oil exports. What most people do not understand about the oil industry is that it is extremely capital intensive. When oil prices rise, oil companies may indeed reap billions of dollars in profits. But reaping that reward required billions of dollars in capital investments, and if oil prices decline it can quickly turn into billions of dollars of losses. This is the key to understanding what has gone wrong in Venezuela. The Government Gets Greedy In 2007 oil prices were on the rise, and the Chávez government sought more revenue as the investments made by the international oil companies began to pay off. Venezuela demanded changes to the agreements made by the international oil companies that would give PDVSA majority control of the projects. Total, Chevron, Statoil and BP agreed and retained minority interests in their Venezuelan projects. ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips refused, and as a result, their assets were expropriated. (A World Bank arbitration panel has ruled against Venezuela in both expropriation cases, but the country continues to appeal the decisions). So there are primarily two related causes that have resulted in the steep decline of Venezuela's oil production, despite the sharp increase in the country's proved reserves. The first is the removal of expertise required to develop the country's heavy oil. This started with the firing of PDVSA employees in 2003 and continued with pushing international expertise out of the country in 2007. Second, the Chávez government failed to appreciate the level of capital expenditures required to continue developing the country's oil. This was in no small part due to inexperience among the Chávez loyalists that were now running PDVSA, but it may not have mattered in any case. When oil prices were high, Chávez saw billions of dollars that could be siphoned to fund the country's social programs, and that's exactly what he did. But he failed to reinvest adequately in this capital-intensive industry. I explicitly warned about this in an article I wrote in 2007: That warning was prescient. Following the firing of the PDVSA employees in 2003, there was an initial steep decline in the country's oil production below 3 million BPD. Then Venezuela's oil production recovered back to the 3.3 million BPD level from 2004 to 2006. But since 2007 oil production there has been on a steep decline, despite oil prices that were regularly above $100/bbl. In 2015 Venezuela's oil production had fallen to 2.6 million BPD, a decrease of more than 20% below 2006 levels. By comparison, the U.S. has oil reserves of less than 20% of Venezuela's, yet U.S. oil production rose by 86% from 2006 to 2015. Note I am certainly not arguing against a country using its oil reserves to benefit its citizens. But Norway provides a case in point of how this can be done responsibly. The problem with Venezuela's approach was that it extracted too much from the industry, which sacrificed its ability to continue to grow its production. Conclusions Events in Venezuela continue to unfold, but it's hard to imagine that the oil industry there can recover without significant reinvestment. Venezuela is one of the OPEC members that has pushed the hardest for production cuts in recent years, as it desperately needs higher oil prices not only to fund further oil industry development but to use those revenues to pay for basic needs of the Venezuelan people. Venezuela remains one of the world's ten largest oil producers, but its position has slipped in recent years. Should the situation there continue to deteriorate, it will likely further negatively impact the country's oil production. Ironically, because of Venezuela's global importance as an oil exporter, further deterioration there could push world oil prices higher -- but that's a scenario the current Maduro government is desperately seeking to avoid.
  7. So hilarious. I came to this thread to post those exact words with it already copied on my computer: "At its heart wokeness is divisive, exclusionary, and hateful. It gives mean people a shield to be cruel." Oh well, we also have a new term to be used by us: Woke Mind Virus.
  8. And we all know the solution. Socialism. Worked so well in so many countries. However, I'm sure you can figure out a way to get more energy produced for little profit. Or vaccines, or food, etc. The sad thing is, each generation has to learn the hard way. Maybe if you decided to not profit any more from your work, give up your job and work full time as a volunteer, you would have credibility that you truly believe your statement. A job is a profit center. You do it for money. You could ratchet down your lifestyle and live like Ghandi. Not likely. You want profit and you want someone else's profit.
  9. I guess one might say to the devotees of such predictions:
  10. The kind of person hated by the left.
  11. Order the books now: Amazon.ca : apocalypse never Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom: Moore, Patrick: 9798568595502: Books - Amazon.ca
  12. Your fear is showing De-icer. The alarmists themselves are abandoning ship and revealing the scams that they can no longer participate in. It was obvious from the beginning that this was a total scam. I was right on this forum from - well - whenever I first started posting about it. Yet the Need to Feel Good fools march on. At least the Europeans will reveal the complete stupidity for all of us to learn a lesson from,(although anybody with a bit of common sense saw the obvious years ago). My prediction(you heard it here first): Germany will build new nuclear reactors within our lifetime. Germany powering down three nuclear plants in shift to renewables | TheHill Oh and by the way, I will bet 100 to 1 odds with anybody that AOC's prediction of the world ending in 12 years will not happen despite the carbon emissions increasing. Thousand dollar minimum bet. Frauds.
  13. This was entertaining to read about the typical alarmist fraud: " In 2007, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, using a public records request, published Gore’s Nashville home utility bill, showing it used almost 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006 — 20 times the national average household consumption. Gore’s people dismissed the revelation." Just like the frauds dismiss all the other hypocrisy that they do. Leonardo DiCaprio hops from helicopter to gas guzzling private jet in Saint Tropez | Daily Mail Online
  14. Thanks for the info: "Then president Clinton’s campaign to battle global warming became popular, this gave Al Gore yet another avenue to pursue income streams. He became a prolific author, writing books on the global warming trends and the dangers of carbon emissions. This was a great success for him and he not only participated in efforts to combat global warming, he also invested in companies which specialized in green technology." Nice to be able to have your buddies implement laws for you so your investments go way up. I guess it is only a bad thing to the frauds if they think Trump is doing that.
×
×
  • Create New...