digg

Join DiggAbout

Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!

House Democrats Call for Nationalization of Refineries !

foxnews.com — House Democrats responded to President's Bush's call for Congress to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling. Among other things, the Democrats called for the government to own refineries so it could better control the flow of the oil supply!! House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said the same.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • thoolou, on 06/18/2008, -13/+67Yeah, because they've done so well with Social Security, Medicare, and the TSA...
    Idiots.
    • sjl127, on 06/19/2008, -4/+17Confirmed: They're CRAZY and all should be 302'd.
    • allowners, on 06/19/2008, -10/+11You're just repeating nonsense you've heard, Social Security is probably the only government program running a surplus. Ain't propaganda wonderful? It has a whole mess of lackeys supping it up like it was honey.
    • provost, on 06/19/2008, -8/+6why dont, instead of sounding like a neocon rush limbaugh spewing nay sayer, you go through point by point and explain whats wrong with each so people have a chance to refute you. Or do you not have any facts? And by the way, the TSA is a republican made thing.

      So what exactly have the dems done wrong with social security and medicare so we can go through this
      • keymanjim2, on 06/19/2008, -1/+6I've got a better idea. Let's stick to the subject at hand: the socializing of American oil companies.
        • swrostmore, on 06/19/2008, -8/+5Republicans want the US tax payer to pay for new refineries, and then hand control of those refineries that we paid for to oil companies who have a proven history of depressing production to drive up prices. Hinchey, expressing his own opinion and not Democratic policy, remarks that if we are paying for it, we should own it, and be able to use the NEW refineries that WE paid for to increase production and drive down record prices.

          There were never any implications that Hinchley or anyone else advocated nationalizing (or "socializing") any existing refineries, only ones that are paid for by the public (which Republicans advocate).
        • keymanjim2, on 06/19/2008, -3/+3With all the hype and rhetoric being thrown around, I've never heard this one.
          I would like to see some proof on this one.
    • swrostmore, on 06/19/2008, -6/+4This is the ACTUAL statement by Rep. Hinchey. Of course, the red-baiting quote from Fox News takes Hinchey's comments out of context.

      Begin Transcript:
      "[The oil companies] don't want to produce more oil, because if they do, the price of gasoline and heating oil goes down. They don't want it to go down. They want to keep holding on to it, and gain as many leases as possible, until the price of oil goes up to $200 a barrel, $300 a barrel, so they can increase their record profits.

      Our Republican friends also talk about the need to set up ways in which the material can be refined, refineries. Well, do we own refineries? No! The oil companies own refineries. Should the people of the United States own refineries? Maybe so. Frankly I think that's a good idea. Then we could control how much of the product gets out on the market. Right now, the oil companies, that own all of these leases, that control the production of the material, that control the price at the pump, that control the price of home heating oil, they are the ones who control the refineries. If there is any seriousness of what we are hearing from our Republican colleagues in the House and elsewhere about improving the number of refineries, then maybe they would be willing to have these refineries owned publicly, owned by the people of the United States, so that the people of the United States can determine how much of the product is refined, and put out on the market. To me, that sounds like a very good idea."
      • Glynth, on 06/19/2008, -4/+4Oh yes, the long version of the statement totally changes the meaning of the statement. Oh wait, it doesn't. This is socialism, plain and simple. That is the path of the the tyrant Hugo Chavez - but he's not really a bad guy, now is he? No, not according to the Left's big players; what a nice guy, that dictator is!

        There is ZERO real evidence that the oil companies are holding off on production because they're being greedy. Democrats aren't even attempting to reasonably address all the many debunkings of their ridiculous theories.

        "Oil companies have all the land they need already!"
        "But Senator, there isn't actually any oil to get from much of that land."
        "USE IT OR LOOSE IT!"
        "But Senator, 'use it or lose it' is the way it works already. That land is LEASED. You know what a lease is, right?"
        "La la la, I can't hear you! USE IT OR LOOSE IT!!!!"
        • swrostmore, on 06/19/2008, -4/+2Excellent flame-bait right there. I'll skip straight to the only point you make, ignoring your shrill and irrelevant denounciation of Socialism, which is that you don't think oil companies are holding back production.

          Oil companies are only drilling on 25% of the land they lease. They could increase drilling by 75% under the leases they now control, but they refuse to do so. And it's not because there is no oil in the areas they are allowed to use - because if that where the case, why would they voluntarily pay for drilling rights there?

          What exactly is the motivation to lease them more? It will not result in increased drilling, because the facts prove that the amount of land available to them has nothing to do with how much they drill.
        • Glynth, on 06/20/2008, -0/+3Yes, the warning of socialism is "irrelevant," just like every other point you can't counter. And you played right into my point: You didn't even TRY to address the debunking of your "the oil companies aren't drilling on the places they already have!" nonsense. Instead, you make up a bunch of drivel that's completely unsupported by the facts.
        • swrostmore, on 06/20/2008, -2/+1Your "point" about socialism was the unsupported statement "this is socialism" and a non-sequitur about Hugo Chavez. Nothing whatsoever to debate there.

          Your "debunking" of oil companies failing to drill 75% of the land they lease for drilling consists of questioning whether the oil companies motive was greed or something else, implicitly agreeing that they are in fact refusing to drill.. So you kind of debunked yourself there.

          You also add some inane dialogue to make your one concrete point, which is the unsupported statement that "there isn't actually any" oil in the areas that oil companies are PAYING THE GOVERNMENT for drilling rights. My response, which you have ignored, and which I am now repeating for the second time, is:

          If there is no oil in the areas which all major oil companies are leasing from the government, why do they continue to pay for the right to drill for oil there?

          Go ahead, bring up some more non-sequiters, and please invent more childish, grammatically incorrect dialogue (its spelled "lose"). But please for the love of God don't actually try to support your own arguments with logic or facts.



        • Glynth, on 06/21/2008, -0/+2You are a fool if you don't see how this is socialism. Get a dictionary and then take a history class. Nationalizing a capitalist industry IS a push toward socialism by definition. What is so hard to understand? You are also a fool for completely ignoring the arguments made about the "undeveloped" oil land - much of which is currently being explored, thus it's a lie that it's being "sat on," and much of which CANNOT be developed. There is property with a much higher chance of providing a meaningful amount oil and companies have offered to EXCHANGE their current unprofitable leases for that new land, but the Democrats are against that because "they should use what they have." That is without equivocation a braindead argument. Do you even listen to the arguments of the other side, or do you just dismiss them outright? A rhetorical question, as we already know the answer. As usual, it is a waste of time "debating" with you, sworst.
  • life38, on 06/18/2008, -36/+10It is not the owning of refineries that should happen but the control over the oil supply first. The amount the government gets from the royalities is peanuts to the profits the oil companies make. The supply of energy resources is where the government should place restrictions.
    • eth3l, on 06/18/2008, -5/+26No. The government should not have their hand in any of it.
    • inboxnews, on 06/18/2008, -3/+24Wrong again. Oil companies make 4% profit on sales of oil/gas while the government makes close to 20% 'profit' from the sale of oil/gas in the form of tax.
    • foxfire1311, on 06/18/2008, -4/+20Wrong. ExxonMobil actually operates at a loss because of their high tax rates if you only include their domestic revenues.
      It's when you include their capital and financial acquisitions and international revenue that their profits move into the billions.

      And I can't believe people still believe some guy with a shirt and tie in an office in a building on the other side of the country knows better than YOU about how much YOU need....
      Without lecturing you about supply demand....I think you get the idea.
      • caramba420, on 06/19/2008, -3/+0"It's when you include their capital and financial acquisitions and international revenue that their profits move into the billions."

        That's because, like any global corporation, they incorporate many subsidiaries on foreign soil to take advantage of legal loopholes.

        "Without lecturing you about supply demand..."

        And yes, please spare us the lecture on supply and demand, because the price of gasoline has doubled in the last 4 years, but the supply was not cut in half, nor has demand doubled.
    • trocthree, on 06/19/2008, -5/+22Coca-Cola turned a larger profit than Exxon-Mobil......When u account expenditures they both turn slightly lower than 10% profit....Where is the windfall profit tax on Coke?????? The Gov't does so well running our schools, Social Insecurity, Medicare..ect..ect.... Let's give them oil too... Vote for Barrack MARX Obama in 08!!!!!
  • netfreehost, on 06/18/2008, -11/+38Once the idiots take control, you will never see any oil. Why take control of others business ? If government can run, just start another company and compete with current ones.
  • TRMarchesano, on 06/18/2008, -13/+48Life you are completely and utterly confused. Google and Microsoft make tons more in profit margins than oil do. And they're taxed to death! The government should control nothing, look at the social systems in place already and see what bad shape they are in.

    you mean to tell me Pelosi and her hacks Waters etc know one damn thing about the oil market?
    • Ridgeliner7, on 06/18/2008, -9/+9It isn't just a Democrat thing. Point is, they are spearheading it, but don't think there won't be plenty from the other side jumping on board to win points at home! Idiots all! Mad Cow is rampant! Denny Crane.
    • eth3l, on 06/18/2008, -1/+24Coke makes more profit than the Oil companies.
      • Ridgeliner7, on 06/18/2008, -4/+9No! We need to tax them too!

        LMAO!
  • Barbrady, on 06/18/2008, -12/+50As if we needed any more proof that Dems are socialist anti-business goons.
    • DiggLive, on 06/19/2008, -1/+10Obama wants to spend over 840 billion dollars in his worldwide War on Poverty also. It's scary how Socialist he is.
  • migtex1234, on 06/18/2008, -28/+29NEED MORE PROOF THAT THE LEFTEST WANT TO CONTROL EVERYTHING ! THEY HAVE SOLD THEIR SOUL FOR POWER, REGARDLESS OF WHAT IS GOOD FOR U.S. ANY ONE
    BELIEVE THAT GOV'T CAN DO ANYTHING BETTER, NEEDS THEIR HEAD EXAMINED.
    READ ARTICLE IN "AMERICAN THINKER" ABOUT THE DEMOCRATS SELLING U.S. FOR POWER! THIS LEFTIST GROUP, WANTS ALL YOUR MONEY AND ALL YOUR CHOICES
    FOR THIER MARXIST GOV'T. N. PELOSI STATED, "ONCE WE ARE IN POWER" WE WILL TAKE ALL SAVINGS FROM CITIZENS TO REDISTRIBUTED AS WE SEE FIT"...
    SCARY FOLKS, SELLING OUT U.S. JUST SO THEY CAN HAVE POWER! I AM VERY SCARE! SOUNDS MORE LIKE RUSSIA EVERY DAY.
    • inboxnews, on 06/18/2008, -2/+27CAPS off please. Thank you.
    • Troy64, on 06/19/2008, -1/+21You can ruin any point you are trying to make by using all caps.
      • johnnyfistfight, on 06/19/2008, -3/+7yeah grandpa turn off the caps.
      • DanThePainter, on 06/19/2008, -0/+5It is harder to read text in all caps.
    • jmkiii, on 06/19/2008, -0/+3Speak up, the freedom is ringing in my ears.
    • krellor, on 06/19/2008, -2/+2Here is the thing that people don't seem to get. Just because I don't agree with a politicians stance, I don't automatically think they are corrupt. They probably are trying to do good, at least in my optimistic view, they just have a different idea of how to go about it.

      I don't support nationalizing oil. I think that about 90% of the time it is better to let the market take care of things. The government is fairly inefficient. But I don't think they are evil, corrupt Marxists because they want to. They are trying to do good, just in a different way than I would like. Maybe a misguided way. Seriously, people really need to stop being so reactionary if we ever want real change. Real change will only come about with intelligent discourse, not name calling and accusations.
  • dtcarson, on 06/18/2008, -8/+37And ironically enough, from today's Common Sense email regarding the government-run Senate dining hall:
    "This year the (Senate dining) operation will run in the red to the tune of $2 million....
    In the House, though, the cafeterias have been privately run for decades. House staffers never flee to the Senate at lunchtime.
    Solution? Privatize the Senate restaurants as well. Senator Dianne Feinstein just pushed through legislation to do that. She doesn't think "taxpayers should be subsidizing something that doesn't need to be." She notes that current restaurant management never even bothers trying to break even, knowing their deficits will be covered.
    Feinstein has opponents. Another Democrat, Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, says it's hypocritical for his colleagues to condemn privatization of workers generally, but then "privatize the workers here in the Senate and leave them out on their own.""

    But nationalizing oil, somehow, will work.

    "The amount the government gets from the royalities is peanuts to the profits the oil companies make. "
    Exactly as it should be. I'd rather pay 5 bucks a gallon and have that money go to the producers, the workers, even the Evil Rich Guy who owns the company, than the leeching government who will waste it anyway and had little if anything to do with the product's creation other than making it as difficult as possible.

    How do these people get away with even saying this stuff.
    • eth3l, on 06/18/2008, -3/+22because the lemmings have it engrained in their heads that the government knows whats best for us. (they are called Oamaniacs)
    • TheInformer, on 06/19/2008, -1/+13How do they get away with it? Simple. They know their electorate was educated in the public (government) schools.
  • migtex1234, on 06/18/2008, -23/+24GUESS WHO TO BLAME FOR HIGHER OIL PRICES?? DEMOCRATS. ALWAYS BLOCKING ANY DRILLING, ANY UPDATING OF REFRINIES, BLOCKING ANYTHING THAT WOULD HELP CITIZENS. PELOSI INTRODUCED A BILL TO RAISE 18 BILLION AT THE PUMP & EXEMPTED CHAVEZ'S OIL CO. (CHAVEZ, THE DICTATOR, WHO WANTS TO DESTROY THE U.S.

    THESE FOLKS ARE UN AMERICAN, EGO CENTERED, CRAZY FOR POWER ETC. AND THEY DO NOT CARE WHO PAYS THE PRICE. ABSOLUTELY UNREAL.
    • Ridgeliner7, on 06/18/2008, -3/+2Parodist. Not even amusing.
    • Troy64, on 06/19/2008, -1/+15Honestly migtex, is your cap lock key broken.
    • siszam, on 06/19/2008, -9/+4Chavez was democratically elected multiple times. Read a book. Books are your friend.
      • Ridgeliner7, on 06/19/2008, -4/+12"Democratically elected", multiple times, in the same way Stalin was, yes.
      • DanThePainter, on 06/19/2008, -0/+6Read lots of books. But don't believe everything that you read.
  • eth3l, on 06/18/2008, -12/+37Just more proof that the Democrats wipe their ass with the Constition. In addition to protecting civil liberties, the Constition restricts government action. NO WHERE does it allow for the nationalization of ANYTHING.

    EVERYONE should be afraid of this. This is a HORRIBLE idea.

    Rather than loosen the restrictionso n building refineries they want to run them - ***** STOOOPID
  • KennyW, on 06/18/2008, -11/+37The Marxist answer to everything - have government take it over. Having the same bunch of morons who run the post office run refineries will somehow solve the oil price problem? How about this one - Why don't you Democrats allow drilling and exploration, and keep oil extracted in the US from being sold overseas and, build new nuke plants, and BUILD NEW REFINERIES, you nimrods.
  • mdwhite, on 06/18/2008, -10/+28What a sorry lot of simpletons. The Dems once again prove they don't care a fat rat's ass for the common good. All they're concerned with is the accumulation and maintenance of power and unbridled, unquestioned access to everybody's pocket. It's an election year and that's all they give a damn about...not you, me or anybody else who has to live with the stink that they routinely produce. Right about now, I'd like to plant a carbon footprint on Harry Reid's rear end. And they wonder why they've got single-digit approval ratings.
  • danogram, on 06/18/2008, -9/+21Great idea, Rep.Maurice (pinhead) Hinchey, just out of sequence... you haven't reversed the 2nd amendment yet.

    If you seriously want to seize a US industry, you'd better disarm us first!

    Who voted for this guy?
    • Ridgeliner7, on 06/18/2008, -0/+14Sorry to say, almost the entire leadership was standing up in front of the news media endorsing this!
    • Kythas, on 06/18/2008, -1/+18They're trying, danogram.

      H.R. 6257, the Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008, introduced on 6/12/08 not only expands the definition of assault rifle to include any single shot center fire rifle, but also makes any magazine or clip larger than 10 rounds illegal.
    • dlaws99, on 06/19/2008, -1/+12The day seems to be coming when we're forced to exercise the 2nd amendment option...
  • brothaslide, on 06/18/2008, -9/+30Didn't they try this type of thing in the Soviet Union? - It didn't work.
    • DerangedPenguin, on 06/19/2008, -3/+16Oh it was a flaming success in the Soviet Union... Leave it to Nancy Pelosi and company to go down that road.
    • LadyAmerica, on 06/19/2008, -1/+7Great success (HA)!
      After Stalin murdered millions to build his Marxist paradise!
    • allowners, on 06/19/2008, -7/+1@brothaslide: No, that would be Bush doing the Totalitarian Soviet thing.
      • Glynth, on 06/19/2008, -2/+4Cuz you say so, eh? Nationalizing a business - essentially stealing it from whoever's got it now - no, that's not the totalitarian Soviet thing. Bush is the one! Bush is eeeeeeeeevil!!111
        • allowners, on 06/19/2008, -2/+3No doubt, privatizing natural resources, essentially stealing it from whoever's got it now, the people, no that's not fascist. Eight years of failed policies: asleep at the wheel while terrorists attacked, war crimes, destruction of the constitution. The Liberals are doing it, they are unpatriotic. If you haven't got it by now, you're a total waste.
        • Glynth, on 06/20/2008, -0/+5Oh what's this? The same old rhetoric with the same old lack of substance? How surprising. /sarc

          Here's a clue: If you own a business and the government forcibly takes it from you, they stole it. That's "nationalization" for you. That's socialism. That's what many Dems are proposing. Where does it say "the people" have a mystical "right" to take oil from legitimate businesses for the purpose of letting the government taking control (and undoubtedly screwing it up, as they always do)?
  • Kythas, on 06/18/2008, -10/+33This is the first step to a socialist government. The Left has been trying to do this with baby steps for years. I'm surprised they came out in the open with this before the election. I guess McCain and Bush forced their hand.

    If anyone needs any further proof of their agenda, I don't know what to tell you. When the government starts proposing nationalizing private companies at the same time it introduces a new ban on assault weapons (H.R. 6257 introduced on 6/12/08, which not only expands the definition of assault rifle to include any single shot center fire rifle, but also makes any magazine or clip larger than 10 rounds illegal) then it's time We the People stand up and take notice.
    • jcm267, on 06/18/2008, -4/+15This is the first step towards handing the Republicans a majority in both chambers of Congress and the White House. Give THESE people power and the people of the United States will run... quick.
    • allowners, on 06/19/2008, -7/+2Yeah really, I like this fascist police state just fine, why go and mess it up?
  • Ridgeliner7, on 06/18/2008, -7/+16Let's all try shouting this, and see if the nuts will bury it.......
    • allowners, on 06/19/2008, -7/+3Thanks, buried by intelligent life.
  • Pitofdoom, on 06/18/2008, -11/+5We the little people don't own *****, why are any of you surprised ?
  • swordedge, on 06/18/2008, -10/+31Government owned Oil Refineries is socialism. I vote NO
    • sbark1, on 06/19/2008, -6/+7As if you'll have a say! It'd be funny if it weren't so sad.
  • Poovey, on 06/18/2008, -9/+22Nationalizing the refineries is not that bad of an idea if you really hate traffic jams and want to ride a bike to work.
  • alapoet, on 06/18/2008, -21/+9***** right-wing propaganda.

    The oil companies are making obscene profits, record for any corporations in history, and they are doing it in part on the blood of our young men and women.
    • trocthree, on 06/19/2008, -4/+17Coca-Cola turned a larger profit than Exxon-Mobil......When u account expenditures they both turn slightly lower than 10% profit....Where is the windfall profit tax on Coke?????? The Gov't does so well running our schools, Social Insecurity, Medicare..ect..ect.... Let's give them oil too... Vote for Barrack MARX Obama in 08!!!!!
    • Ridgeliner7, on 06/19/2008, -4/+16So, can you show me links to your posts or Diggs crying out about Google's "obscene" profits? No, I didn't think so. :P

      As for "blood".....what percentage of oil, imported to the United States, comes from the Middle east?
    • sbark1, on 06/19/2008, -4/+17You should take an economics course and instead of believing every idiotic thing you hear from the lunatic left do a little research. Yes, big oil made record profits, but the majority of that profit is reinvested in exploring for new sources of oil and research into alternative fuels since the U.S. has decided that it doesn't want to use the resources it already possesses. Apparently the delicate psyche of the left coast would be damaged by the mere sight (50 miles from shore) of an oil derrick. How exactly will cutting the profits of the companies that produce oil expand the supply of oil? How will nationalizing the oil refineries increase production? Find me one example in history where nationalization has increased output of anything!
    • sbark1, on 06/19/2008, -3/+10Better yet, what percentage of oil imported to the United States comes from Iraq or Afghanistan?
    • DerangedPenguin, on 06/19/2008, -3/+15Profits vs. Profit margins.
      Economics 101 used to be taught in High School. Starbuck's has more money come the years end than the oil companies. If you look at the profit margins, they are publicly traded companies and their records are available for all to see, big oil sits somewhere in the middle of the Fortune 500 below Coca Cola, Pepsi.

      Please enroll in a basic Economics class at your local junior college.

      Digging you up so others can see your ignorance.
    • IVillageIdiot, on 06/19/2008, -4/+15He's a "Poet", he doesn't have to reason or make any logical sense out of anything, just say it with enough emotion and it's good?!?!?!?

      I love his "argument"; it's from the right (whatever that is) ergo it's BS propaganda. Brilliant deductive reasoning from yet another branch of the brain trust.


      Of course he rides his bike to school and hasn't got a real job, so everyone else's problems are totally and completely irrelevant.

      "I'M AN ARTIST DAMN IT!!!!! I DON"T HAVE TIME FOR YOU SQUEEKING PEEONS!!!!"

      Spoken like a truly duped Marxist stooge....
  • DorkAlert, on 06/19/2008, -12/+23What does the Democratic party, Barack Hussien Obama, Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, the Kirchners, Silva, Ortega, Fidel Castro and Che Guevara have in common aside from all being in the Americas?

    Come on you leftists...If you can guess this one you get a cookie!!!

    Answer: Carl Marx

    If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck....it probably is a duck. Why doesn't the left read history...geez...
    • LadyAmerica, on 06/19/2008, -1/+9Absolutely correct! But don't forget to add Maxine Waters (D-CA) who threatened on 5/22/08 to "socialize" the oil companies...

      Video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUaY3LhJ-IQ

    • allowners, on 06/19/2008, -9/+4What do the Republican Party, the Bush administration and wing-nuts have in common besides claiming to be citizens of the US:

      Answer: Corporatism, or Fascism.
      • Glynth, on 06/19/2008, -1/+7You obviously don't know what fascism is.
        • allowners, on 06/19/2008, -5/+2Not your definition.
        • allowners, on 06/19/2008, -5/+2@Glynth, since you obviously haven't a clue, here is one for you:

          Fascism is a term used to describe authoritarian nationalist political ideologies or mass movements that are concerned with notions of cultural decline or decadence and seek to achieve a millenarian national rebirth by exalting the nation or race, and promoting cults of unity, strength and purity.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
      • LadyAmerica, on 06/19/2008, -2/+5Allowners...

        fascism: "any program for setting up a centralized autocratic national regime with severely nationalistic policies, exercising regimentation of industry, commerce, and finance, rigid censorship, and forcible suppression of opposition; any tendency toward or actual exercise of severe autocratic or dictatorial control (as over others within an organization) " (Webster's Unabridged)

        "centralized autocratic national regime"
        "regimentation of industry, commerce, and finance"
        "rigid censorship, and forcible suppression of opposition"
        "severe autocratic or dictatorial control"

        Yup, sounds just like what the Dems are pushing except for the "severely nationalistic policies" part of the definition.

        So, what do the Democratic Party, the Obama administration (if elected), and leftist lemmings have in common besides claiming to be citizens of the US?

        Answer: Fascism

        As to corporatism, Webster's Unabridged defines it as: "a system or principle in which a whole society is organized into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and controlling to a large extent the persons and activities within their jurisdiction with emphasis on labor-management cooperation "

        Sorry, doesn't fit either Dems or Repubs that I can see.
        • allowners, on 06/19/2008, -5/+1LadyAmerica

          "centralized autocratic national regime": The Decider

          "regimentation of industry, commerce and finance": Cheney's energy policy that drives war.

          "rigid censorship, and forcible suppression of opposition": not really necessay with corporate media, they're working on stopping the internet.

          "severe autocratic or dictatorial control": The Decider

          Fascism is a term used to describe authoritarian nationalist political ideologies or mass movements that are concerned with notions of cultural decline or decadence and seek to achieve a millenarian national rebirth by exalting the nation or race, and promoting cults of unity, strength and purity.

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

          I will grant you corporatists one thing, you are extremely efficient, it's amazing how much mileage y'all get out of the single brain cell you share amongst yourselves.

          Cheers!
        • Glynth, on 06/21/2008, -0/+4You didn't make a single valid point and then you wrapped it up in insults. Great. Digg would be a better place if they had the guts to ban vitriolic self-blinded hate-mongers like you, allowners. But that'd be hoping for far too much, judging by the owners' own actions in the past.
    • onyxcoltrane, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2Great spelling Dork
  • DorkAlert, on 06/19/2008, -10/+18Was that Carl with a "K"? I'm sooo not a socialist if I can't spell. I'll be the first one they march off to the Gulag...
  • Troy64, on 06/19/2008, -8/+26It looks like the change the Democrats are looking at the failed policies of the Soviet Union. I originally thought they were just looking at the failed policies of the Carter administration, but this goes way beyond that.

    All of my ambivalence about voting for McCain is now gone. The Democrats cannot have control of congress and the presidency.
    • slackin, on 06/19/2008, -2/+18Agreed. I can't stand McCain and I've always voted Republican. I was so ready to switch to the Libertarian party until now. I was ready to let the dems have this election to show this country just how bad they can ***** things up, but if they are taking it this far even before the election, I just couldn't live with the consequences. I'm truly scared now.
      • DerangedPenguin, on 06/19/2008, -3/+11I have to agree with you on that one, we can always take back the country by force and blood shed and return freedom. But I prefer that people just say gee we liberals really screwed things up and fire the whole band of Democrats
  • sbark1, on 06/19/2008, -7/+17Well comrades the nationalization of industry begins, it starts with EVIL Big Oil and then it's on to health care. Soon we'll have free speech laws to keep everyone from offending everybody else and Obama will give us all the change we can stand. I'd move to some other western nation that hasn't lost its mind, but I think it's rather too late.
  • SydBloom, on 06/19/2008, -9/+20These friggin pig stalinists have to be stopped! These liberal democrat socialists will kill us all..
  • DerangedPenguin, on 06/19/2008, -9/+19Oh the irony the left has been calling Bush and the conservatives Fascist, well guess what the Democrats are proving they are indeed the fascist. You think gasoline is expensive now... You ain't seen nothing yet, given the efficiency with which the Federal Government operates I can't wait to hear people start screaming about $10.00 per gallon gasoline.
    • Ridgeliner7, on 06/19/2008, -1/+10Now, now.....you know, being the little cowards members of Congress are, they will keep the price of gas down around $2.00. Or less. Of course they will subsidize it like they do everything else, robbing the money from our other pocket, but the illusion will seem nice!
    • Fangsinmybeard, on 06/19/2008, -1/+2If oil doesn't go under $100 a barrel, then we will see $10.00 a gallon for gas.
  • Yobotz, on 06/19/2008, -4/+15Who is John Galt?
    • Ridgeliner7, on 06/19/2008, -0/+8John Galt is one of the main characters in Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged. An engineer by trade, Galt is the male hero of the story.
      • Churchee, on 06/19/2008, -0/+8Ridgeliner...
        Yobotz obviously knows who John Galt is. That's part of the story...
        "Who is John Galt?" is the rallying cry for all the capitalists whose companies are undergoing nationaliztion.

        Yobotz...I logged in when I saw this story just to post what you had. You beat me to it.
      • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 06/19/2008, -1/+3Who is Andrew Ryan?
    • slackin, on 06/19/2008, -0/+6There are a lot of eerie similarities with that novel going on here. We should have seen this coming since this is how it always starts. They pass as many laws as they can to obstruct the markets. Then when things go south say "Look! Markets don't work. The government must step in and save you from the evil corporations." They disarm you to "protect you." They take away freedom of speech so no one is offended. You can fill in the rest...
  • cheeseysynapse, on 06/19/2008, -8/+9Pull up a chart of WNR, TSO, or VLO. Now, contrast that with charts of DVN, ESV, MXC, or PTEN.............which industry would you want to be in? Leave it to dems to pick the worst one.
  • scottked, on 06/19/2008, -9/+19Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.
    Ronald Reagan
    • onyxcoltrane, on 06/19/2008, -3/+1How can you talk about freedom after Bush has trampled on the Constitution?
  • Ridgeliner7, on 06/19/2008, -8/+16See, to run a successful business, one has to have the ability to think clearly, without coloring. You have to be brutally honest with yourself, and most of the time, others. That alone precludes any politician who is constantly running for re-election every two years, as House members are, and dependent upon the kindness of strangers for the money to do so. All I can say is whenever a Member of Congress tells you they are here to help, run!
  • IVillageIdiot, on 06/19/2008, -10/+14What I'm trying to figure out is, why isn't Maxine Waters being brought up on a charge of Conspiracy to violate the Civil Rights of the shareholders of ANY Energy Company?

    If I own shares of a company, (ANY company really) and under the Color of Authority, an organized cabal of powerful brokers with the ability orchestrate the theft of that company of which I am part owner, calls for it to be “Nationalized” (IE stolen) and then attempts to cajole and organize an effort (IE encouraging other brokers in that organization) to help in that theft, exactly HOW is that maternally any different than the City GVT passing laws that disallowed me from riding in the front of the bus, or from being able to own a home, or being able to hold any property?

    Essentially, Rep. Waters was calling on her friends to help her steal my share of an Energy Company using her powers in a way not granted by the Constitution! It’s a grotesque violation of my rights and an ATTACK ON MY SOCIETY!

    What about this, if the DOJ hasn’t the nads to protect us, and they don’t I assure you. What about a Class Action suit aimed at those of the cabal that is attempting to deny me the enjoyment of my shares and rights as property owner???

    I think everyone who owns shares of an Energy Company either in 401k, Roth IRA, or any other vehicle ought to sue Waters and anyone else that is attempting to "Nationalize" my property using/misusing the Authority granted them by the Constitution.

    Anyone know a good lawyer that would like to take Waters and her clique, the Democrat party, to court?

    1) We need to gain standing as a class. IE anyone that owns stock in that industry.
    2) We'll need to acquire "Finding" so we can go through their stuff and see what they've been planning.
    3) We know they have the ability to try this act, so it's not a hollow threat.
    4) We take them for every stinking penny they have!

    WE HAVE GOT TO STOP LETTING THEM GET AWAY WITH THIS CRAP!

    Unfortunately, she wasn't kidding. She is totally stupid enough to say aloud what Obama, Clinton, Schummer, and Kennedy would never openly admit, but who I believe agree with every word!

    We have to make THEM PAY!
    • Ridgeliner7, on 06/19/2008, -3/+6Maxine is a nice lady. However she is an old-style demagogue, and a darn good one, lol. Insofar as nationalization goes, I have a high degree of confidence that should the Congressional idiots attempt to Nationalize anything, we will have one of those rare unanimous, or nearly so, SCOTUS rulings. Even Ginsberg wouldn't allow that to happen.
      • epublicus, on 06/20/2008, -0/+3Are you kidding? They already have precedent: Habeas Corpus for enemy combatants; Eminent Domain for private developers; McCain-Finegold no violation of the first amendment; All fruit from the poisonous tree of Marbury v. Madison, the first and worst bad decision.

        Don't count on SCOTUS, as presently constituted, to defend anything other than MORE collective power for them (Gov'ment) LESS freedom for you.

        May the Gods be merciful.
  • Doofy, on 06/19/2008, -11/+24Stalin would be so proud.
  • kingygk, on 06/19/2008, -10/+19I think the democrats are watching too many Hugo Chavez videos!!!
  • siszam, on 06/19/2008, -12/+9Great idea. Hugo Chavez could teach the U.S. about controlling resources in a responsible way that benefits citizens. He's a great mean. Maybe we could finally catch up to the civilized world and get health care too. Maybe we could get free higher education so the hick commenters above me could cure their ignorance.
    • Ridgeliner7, on 06/19/2008, -6/+12Speaking as, I guess, one of the hicks above you, would you like a free ticket to the Workers Paradise that is Venezuela?

      Have you ever been there, or know anything about it that you haven't read on the Kos or HuffPo? You show you are massively ignorant of the conditions people live in there, given your post above and others extolling the "virtues" of Chavez. He is a despot, a mean and tyrannical cocaine addicted thug.

      You calling people names has all the hallmarks of a true Daily Kos devotee.
    • Talastan, on 06/19/2008, -6/+9No offense idiot!! But....did you recall that recently that "Great Man" tried to make himself president for life? His goals were so ambitious that college students and citizens of Venezuela protested for days. Not to mention were beaten and killed at the hands of Chavez's chosen men. Wake your ignorant liberal @ss up and learn what our fore fathers had in mind for this country. Then if you don't like it, go to one of these many paradises that people like you would enjoy. China, N. Korea, Venezuela, Libya, Iran, etc. Any of these I sure would welcome you, and then kick your head in for trying to have an independent thought the moment you spoke up about how bad their system really is!
      • sherrife, on 06/20/2008, -2/+3No he didn't. He merely tried to eliminate the rule which disallows running for parliament more than twice. That law never existed here in Australia, in most of Europe, and most of the world really... It's got nothing to do with dictatorial powers.

        Stop believing the MSM, Idiot.
    • LadyAmerica, on 06/19/2008, -4/+5Not only did Chavez try to make himself life-president, as Talastan said, but he then (just recently) tried to force citizens to inform on each other to the Venezuelan "secret service." Shades of Hitler & Stalin!!!

      Geez, Siszam, get an education on these Marxist thugs! (NOT from Kos, HuffPo, MoveOn, MediaMatters, etc - they are just shills for the Marxist Dems.)
    • firejack007, on 06/19/2008, -1/+6Dumbass we are the at the top. You want to pull us down to a Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, or N. Korea. These are responsible governments? Now I know why you guys didn't want us in Iraq. You didn't want one of your great societies beaten and stopped.
    • DorkAlert, on 06/20/2008, -0/+0Wow!! I guess the food shortages in Venezuela must be happening because Chavez is managing his resources so well. Not to mention his awesome inflation and massive crime wave. But I guess when you subsidize gasoline by robbing the poor to cost 14 cents a gallon he must be doing something right. Right?!??? I I would recommend you visit Maracaibo and then report back here and tell us all about that workers paradise.
  • exgop, on 06/19/2008, -10/+13Our government is about to wage war against its own citizens. There are way too many idiot Democrat voter that believe that government control is the answer. What sucks is that the republicans suck, I have a hard time voting for them. But we can not let a single elected democrat be reelected. They are turning into the Communist Party of America.
  • giveupsin, on 06/19/2008, -8/+11Even if the price becomes artificial for gasoline, simply knowing the government is controlling this is enough for me to say no thanks. I want cheaper prices, but I don't want to lose freedom for it. Freedom is worth more than cheap gasoline.
  • exgop, on 06/19/2008, -9/+9The commies are out digging freedom loving people down.
    • DreKor, on 06/19/2008, -2/+2yeah, silly communists
      • exgop, on 06/19/2008, -0/+4They have only been responsible for the murder of 150 million people whose only crime is that they disagreed with communist ideology. The only good commie is a dead commie.
  • mikeb01, on 06/19/2008, -9/+11The Tree Hugging Demo-o-Rats put us on the path to the end of capitalism and freedom of the individual. These Marxist/Socialist need to be hanged out of the windows of the capital rotunda dome! If we start drilling now and increase shale oil,etc., it will drive down the cost of oil ove the same period of time. It will take use decades to get viable alternative fuels and vehicles available as well as the distribution of the alternative fuels, again decades! Wake up Congress and pull your head out of the sand and pull the hands of the tree huggers out of your back pocket. Just follow the Constitution and get out of the citizens way! You sicken everyone the hears the word "Congress"!!!
  • Talastan, on 06/19/2008, -9/+13Here it starts....the war against the majority. Congress wants to control health care, energy, religion (or lack thereof), and soon guns. This is the type of mentality that will lead to a second civil war if it keeps going. America stand up!!! You have the power with your vote. Stop sitting around and saying that someone else will voice what you have to say. It's obvious that the people that are voicing their opinions currently aren't voicing the opinions of their constituency. If Obama wins in November, we at least need to get control of the Senate or House to balance out power. Otherwise kiss our liberties goodbye..If national health care comes into play prepare for additional prohibition on tobacco, alcohol. Prepare to be forced to go into debt as the spending and wealth redistribution takes your hard earned money and gives it to the less fortunate, the special interests, and eviro-nuts while not expecting anything in return from them. Use your vote this November people!!!
  • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 06/19/2008, -9/+11Ohhhh, so THAT'S the type of change we are supposed to believe in.
  • truck87bp, on 06/19/2008, -6/+1Who put out the email to only buy American Gasoline? The Hedge Hogs?
    ???
  • franklymister, on 06/19/2008, -6/+9Nationalizing oil refineries would be idiotic. Actually proposing this in a bill would cost the Democrats the White House, and possibly Congress for the next decade.

    This headline is misleading, if not a lie, however. One moron suggested it in what sounds like an offhand remark. There's little context, and no followup. The headline should read "Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) suggests nationalization of refineries."

    I know it's not as sensational or inflammatory, but it would have the value of actually being true.
    • LadyAmerica, on 06/19/2008, -5/+5Maxine Waters (D-CA) on 5/22/08 also called for nationalizing the oil industry, except she slipped up and called it "socialzing":

      "And guess what this liberal would be all about. This liberal will be about socializing … uh, um. … [pause] ...Would be about, basically, taking over, and the government running all of your companies. …" VIDEO at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUaY3LhJ-IQ

      And, by the way, what do you think the proposed government take-over (nationalization) of our health care system is? It's MARXISM!
    • epublicus, on 06/20/2008, -1/+3Any serious suggestion of "Nationalizing" any PRIVATE business from ANY Constitutional Officer that has sworn an oath to Protect and Uphold the Constitution for the United States, should be grounds for immediate impeachment and removal from office.

      Das Kapital, all.
      • DorkAlert, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1They sound pretty serious to me. Just wait and see...
      • franklymister, on 06/20/2008, -1/+1Get over yourself. There's nothing in the Constitution about private vs. public property. Dumb ideas aren't prohibited by the Constitution.

        Suggesting that we should be impeaching officials for thought crimes is downright Orwellian. Let's try to remain Americans, shall we?
    • QuadZeroRoute, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Maxine Waters threatens to nationalize U.S. oil industries
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUaY3LhJ-IQ

      You can watch it yourself.
  • LadyAmerica, on 06/19/2008, -9/+7Contact Congress.
    Tell the Dems we do NOT want "nationalization" or any of their other MARXIST "solutions".
    Tell the Repubs to fight the Dems tooth and nail to preserve our freedoms!

    DEMS:
    Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).....1-202-225-4965 (Speaker of the House)
    Rep. Stenny Hoyer (D-MD).....1-202-225-3130 (House Majority Leader)
    Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV).......1-202-224-3542 (Senate Majority Leader)
    Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL)...1-202-224-2152 (Asst. Senate Majority Leader)

    REPUBS:
    Pres. George W. Bush.........1-202-456-1111 (at Whitehouse)
    Rep. John Boehner (R-OH).....1-202-225-4000 (House Minority Leader)
    Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)..1-202-224-2541 (Senate Minority Leader)

    COULD BE EITHER:
    Your 2 US Senators: Senate switchboard.....1-202-224-3121
    http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/ ...

    Your US Representative: House switchboard..1-202-225-3121
    https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml
    • exgop, on 06/19/2008, -0/+3Like they will listen?
      • LadyAmerica, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2Gotta try! Can't complain if we just sit back and let it happen, can we?
    • allowners, on 06/19/2008, -2/+1Whine like you've never whined before, funny as hell.
  • greendalek, on 06/19/2008, -9/+6Leapin' Lenin! So after this solves the oil problem, will we be working the factories or the fields?

    VERY much want to know where the Presidential candidates stand on THIS little idea, although I think I can make a reasonably good guess...
  • Arcesius, on 06/19/2008, -8/+14Holy *****, you people need to have an independent thought for once. "Leninist... Marxist... liberals... socialists..." You folks really see things that way? You realize you're whole ***** concept of the "USA" is just an idea that you've been brainwashed with? It's ***** land, and just because some people claim it as a country doesn't change reality. You're all tools for buying into the whole left/right, liberal/conservative, republican/democrat *****, also.
    • DorkAlert, on 06/20/2008, -2/+1Well unless you would like to rewrite the dictionary and call all theses ideologies by different names we'll just keep using the current lingo as that is how language works. These ideologies, "sides", exist whether you acknowledge them or not.

      "concept of the "USA" is just an idea that you've been brainwashed with?"

      Wow...do believe in conspiracies?

      "....and just because some people claim it as a country doesn't change reality."

      What? Hmm.. less Play Station for you and more books. You forgot to state what your perception of reality is.
      • Arcesius, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1As to your first point: you really see nothing else out there than just "theses ideologies"? Every thought/idea/concept you have has to fall under a predefined category?

        Your second thing: How is perceiving the USA as a concept a conspiracy? Please elaborate on that.

        Last thing: Sorry, I don't play Play Station. And you can read all the books you want, but it doesn't mean you're any more knowledgeable. You might very well just end up parroting "facts" to people. Plus, I don't see the correlation between Play Station/books and stating my perception of reality. But, since you're interested, it seems pretty evident to me that there's no substantial reality to the United States other than in people's mind. In other words, if people stopped believing in the US and stopped calling this stretch of land the US, does it even exist anymore? Of course not. You give this idea anything more than just a cursory glance and it will make sense.
    • LEL2007, on 06/20/2008, -1/+2Forgot your meds huh........
      • Arcesius, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Yay, that was a totally useful reply. Just try and antagonize me some... that'll help a lot...
  • swrostmore, on 06/19/2008, -4/+14Does anyone know of an actual transcript of these statements, rather than a single out of context line posted on Fox News?
    • swrostmore, on 06/19/2008, -3/+5This is the ACTUAL statement by Rep. Hinchey. Of course, the red-baiting quote from Fox News takes Hinchey's comments out of context.

      Begin Transcript:
      "[The oil companies] don't want to produce more oil, because if they do, the price of gasoline and heating oil goes down. They don't want it to go down. They want to keep holding on to it, and gain as many leases as possible, until the price of oil goes up to $200 a barrel, $300 a barrel, so they can increase their record profits.

      Our Republican friends also talk about the need to set up ways in which the material can be refined, refineries. Well, do we own refineries? No! The oil companies own refineries. Should the people of the United States own refineries? Maybe so. Frankly I think that's a good idea. Then we could control how much of the product gets out on the market. Right now, the oil companies, that own all of these leases, that control the production of the material, that control the price at the pump, that control the price of home heating oil, they are the ones who control the refineries. If there is any seriousness of what we are hearing from our Republican colleagues in the House and elsewhere about improving the number of refineries, then maybe they would be willing to have these refineries owned publicly, owned by the people of the United States, so that the people of the United States can determine how much of the product is refined, and put out on the market. To me, that sounds like a very good idea."
    • firejack007, on 06/19/2008, -3/+6Oh it's ok for the left leaning CBS,CNN and NBC to do one liners out of context. But when Fox says something, OMG. How's it taste, liberals?
      • nblsavage, on 06/19/2008, -3/+3Sport, there is no such thing as a major news organization being left-leaning. Take a look at who owns them.
        • swrostmore, on 06/19/2008, -3/+4At least he recognizes that this story is out of context and reflects a biased right-wing agenda. Acceptance is the first step to recovery.
        • Ridgeliner7, on 06/19/2008, -4/+3"To me, that sounds like a very good idea." [public ownership of refineries]

          Sounds like that story had all the context correct. Coupled with Maxine Waters' statement weeks earlier, I detect a pattern of trial balloons. They are just running crap up the flagpole and trying to see what sticks with the public.
        • nblsavage, on 06/19/2008, -3/+3In context Ridgeliner, he is saying if we're footing the bill, we should call the shots. Are you in favor of corporate welfare?
        • swrostmore, on 06/19/2008, -4/+4Public ownership of NEW refineries THAT THE PUBLIC PAYS FOR, (as advocated by REPUBLICANS). THAT is the context that you and Fox News intentionally omit to push your partisan agenda.
        • Ridgeliner7, on 06/19/2008, -1/+2nblsavage, you know I am a Democrat and Obama supporter....of course I am not in "favor" of "corporate welfare", and you damn well know it. Please stop with the Red Herrings. Are you in favor of "corporate welfare"? How about the welfare we give farmers? Is having enough to eat for everyone enough of an incentive to provide subsidies to farmers?

          And could someone, anyone, please answer my previous question?

          "Why are you guys in here spinning what was said, when the people who stated and agreed about nationalization, quite publicly, not running away from what they said?"

          Why are you spinning what they said when they haven't asked you to, and as of today, are standing by and expanding on what they said?
        • nblsavage, on 06/19/2008, -2/+1ridgeliner, I'm sorry but I guess we will have to disagree with the context.
      • allowners, on 06/19/2008, -1/+2Left-leaning, what a joke, it's corporate media. FUX news, they decide, so thoughts flow magically into your head. I think they're talking to you now, best you pick up.
    • DorkAlert, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1
      Seems to me he thinks nationalizing the oil refineries is a good idea. Last time I checked that's socialism.

      "Well, do we own refineries? No! The oil companies own refineries. Should the people of the United States own refineries? Maybe so. Frankly I think that's a good idea."

      Not that I would defend Fox News but it isn't really taken out of context. Either way you need to hear Water's remarks about nationalization. You can find it on Youtube
  • ileen4justice, on 06/19/2008, -9/+12I'll comment more later but if fox news is your source then you've been neo CONNED
    • Ridgeliner7, on 06/19/2008, -1/+4You mean the Fox News owned by Rupert Murdock, the same Murdock who was recently courted by Barack Obama? The same Rupert Murdock who said he liked what he was hearing from Obama? The same Rupert Murdock who said he could support him?

      Do you mean THAT Rupert Murdock? The one who owns Fox News?
    • DorkAlert, on 06/20/2008, -1/+2Ouch! Once again a liberal that doesn't do his due diligence.
  • ozymandias2012, on 06/19/2008, -8/+7"Shut up, be happy. Obey all orders without question. The comfort you demanded is now mandatory. Be happy. At last everything is done for you."
  • nblsavage, on 06/19/2008, -12/+9Until I get it from another source. Buried.
  • OffPiste, on 06/19/2008, -8/+7It's going to be a rough 4 years under an Obama administration. Hopefully what's left of the Republican party in the House/Senate will be be able to attenuate Obama's disastrous proposals.
    • allowners, on 06/19/2008, -2/+3Yeah, like it could ever live up to almost eight years of hell we've lived through under neocon rule.
  • ironhide, on 06/19/2008, -7/+5Very amusing to see the trained dogs start yapping at the sound of their master's (FOX) voice.
    Idiots.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 60 of 60 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.