Just because somebody profits from an investment does not mean that they don't also believe they are doing the right thing.
What they have convinced themselves to believe is not the point. The point is that their greed is as apparent as is their disregard for people and the environment.
If Steyer is invested in energy companies he believes in (and why wouldn't he be?) does that automatically invalidate his position?
Why the "If", Derec? He's your boogeyman, you should know a bit about him. If he stood to profit, I can guarantee that the dirty frackers would not have failed to inform you of that fact. On the other hand, we know exactly about the motives of Big Oil, which is profit above all else. Show that Steyer stands to profit monetarily from his advocacy, and then we can discuss whether or not that impacts his motivation.
George RR Martin is an author of fantasy fiction, what he has to say about his own fictional characters has little to do with anything in the real world.
Quite the contrary! Fiction is the mirror to the real world, even fantasy fiction.
No. Fiction is quite literally making shit up. It doesn't have to mirror anything about reality.
I really don't care if the dirty frackers think that heroism is encapsulated by unbridled greed. They are causing real harm to people and the environment just so they can make a buck, in my book, that makes them villains.
In your book perhaps. In my book they are doing a lot of good producing energy we need, reducing our reliance on coal and foreign oil and also creating jobs. That countries like Russia and KSA are hurting with $44/bbl oil prices is an added bonus.
We can reduce our reliance on coal and foreign oil without harming people and destroying the environment in the way that fracking does. It would cost a bit more, but that is the price you pay for being a responsible steward of our natural resources.
What any of them believes does not matter. Their actions show what they are. I don't remember you showing much respect for the beliefs of the Lakota, so why so much deference to the beliefs of the dirty fracking Koch suckers?
I believe both groups act in accordance with their beliefs.
Yes, I think that is quite accurate. Too bad that one group only believes in profit.
The reason I am showing no respect to Lakotas' beliefs is because they are ridiculous.
As ridiculous as their beliefs may seem to an atheist, like myself, at least their beliefs are not causing further harm to people and the environment. Quite the opposite of the other group that only believes in profit, people and the environment be damned.
The belief that pipelines are safest way to transport oil on the other hand is based in fact. As is the belief that we can produce oil in the US in an environmentally responsible fashion.
Perhaps we can, but the way to do it certainly is not fracking. In this thread you have been unable to mount any defense of fracking as being environmentally responsible. The only thing you have been able to present in favor of fracking is saving money at the pump, increasing profits for Big Oil, and the possibility of this causing pain to the economies of Russia and Saudi Arabia. None of that has anything to do with environmental responsibility.
You fracking brought him up!
To show that your side is spending big bucks against oil and against pipelines. Spending a lot of money to affect politics is not the sole domain of big oil.
I never said it was. Motivation is the key. That is what you are failing to grasp here.
I don't even know who the frack he is.
Then I am glad I could educate you.
Well, I think you have failed miserably in tying that educational activity to something that supports your argument.
You obviously think it is important to the discussion, or you would never have mentioned Tom Steyer in the first place. Now show that he is only in it for the money, like the Kochs, or shut the frack up.
He is obviously important to the discussion because he spent millions to kill the Keystone XL pipeline.
So? You haven't shown he stood to profit from his activism. It seems to me that he spent that money out of concern for the environment. Show that I am wrong if you think mentioning Steyer supports your argument.
Also, where do you get the idea Kochs are only in it for the money? You do not think they have actual opinions about things?
I think they have opinions on things. I think those opinions are informed by unbridled greed, providing the motivation to avoid entertaining any opinion that does not involve additional profit. You have not provided any reason for me to believe otherwise.
