Comments by "" (@Green__one) on "John Stossel" channel.

What was missed in this whole discussion, was the fact that leaving the oil in the ground in one country just causes it to be taken out of the ground in another country. Which is better having it taken out of the ground in a country with high ethical and environmental standards, or in a country with none of either? Because that's the real choice. Not drilling here means giving our money to tyrants and dictators and those people have no problem completely destroying the environment to get it. Western countries should be generating as much oil as they possibly can so that more of the oil in the world comes from responsible sources.
432
The only people I ever support canceling, are those calling for the cancellation of others. If someone supports cancel culture, I have no problem at all canceling them.
13
@jason200912 what good do those do you if you never exploit them?
11
@letstalk.2020 you can't drill just anywhere to get oil, but there are many different places in the world that you can. Oil extracted from Russia can power your car just as well as oil extracted from Texas or Canada. The latter two of those have environmental and ethical standards, the former does not. Which would you rather your oil comes from?
4
I've been saying for the last 4 years, that you would have to be insane to become a landlord these days. Once it became illegal to evict someone who wasn't paying rent, while remaining illegal for you not to pay your mortgage, the utilities, the property taxes, I couldn't see why anyone would ever want to be a landlord. Growing up, my father was a landlord, we barely had enough money to make ends meet, and the laws of the time were extremely anti-landlord. He got out about a decade ago, but he's said many times he can't even imagine how anyone could do it today. Things have shifted so far that there's just no way someone could survive as a landlord.
4
And you'll note how much Canadian prosperity has suffered too. Government revenues way down, unemployment way up, wages down, Government debt completely off the charts, cost of living skyrocketing. But I can almost guarantee he'll be back in after the election, likely with a majority. Not one media outlet is even allowing the official opposition leader any airtime at all, all you see is Trudeau. In fact I've seen many references by the media to the NDP leader as "the opposition" when in fact it's the conservatives who are the official opposition, and the NDP are third place (and honestly they're just Trudeau's lap dogs)
3
Wait, are you telling me that intentionally hiring worse candidates while also spending time virtue signalling instead of growing your business does not lead to more profits? Wow, I'm sure no one could have predicted this!
3
@Barskor1 It's hard to say that you need no government at all though. how do you enforce agreements between individuals or corporations? Should each corporation have its own army to attack it's rivals? Who prevents the person with the most guns from just taking everything from their neighbours? A feudal system isn't better either. I think I'd rather have some form of government for that sort of thing. A government I think is essential, it's the scope that's the issue. And yes, it requires constant vigilance to keep in in check, but that's the price for a civilized society. There is a difference between libertarianism and anarchism, and the left loves to pretend there isn't to scare people, our own side needs to avoid making the same mistake.
2
@Bannockburn111 Did you miss the part of the video that included an all out civil war? It can be done, but it sure isn't easy!
2
@Barskor1 so you are not at all libertarian, you are in fact an anarchist. Libertarianism has been shown to work in many places. Anarchy has never been shown to work, take a look at most of the continent of Africa for prime examples. Those are very much examples of anarchy, when there is no government at all, whoever has the most might wins, we see it all the time, it's never worked. Government is a necessary evil, evil yes, but necessary.
1
@Barskor1 I sure hope that you're not trying to pretend that life was objectively better in any way whatsoever several hundred years ago than it is today. That's just wrong on every single measure you can come up.
1
@Barskor1 well this video showed how that worked in Georgia, all out civil war. That's also how it has worked every other place that has ever tried it in all of human history.
1
@Barskor1 it's you advocating for civil war and massive death tolls, not me! That's what no government ALWAYS means.
1
The problem in the US isn't the presence of guns. There are many countries in the world with large numbers of guns per capita. The problem in the US is some of the culture around them. And no amount of gun laws, "gun free zones", gun buybacks, confiscations, etc, will change that culture. This is a much harder problem than either side is pretending. Adding more guns is no more the answer than trying to take them away. Neither gets to the root of the problem. Unfortunately I don't think addressing the real problem is possible in any timeframe short of several generations, and I don't see anyone trying to even start the process.
1
Good video, but you can completely missed one of the biggest factors. Inflation. UBI increases the amount of money in the system, it does not increase the amount of goods in the system. As a result goods cost more. In fact if a UBI were truly universal the cost of everything would immediately go up by the exact amount to cover the UBI. Everyone would be back at exactly the same place they were before UBI was introduced. They're simply no other way it can be, people who propose such things as UBI obviously do not understand the whole concept of what money is. Money in itself has no value whatsoever, money is only valuable in its ability to facilitate trade, it's the underlying trade that has the value, increasing the amount of money that's nothing to help that underlying trade.
1
How the world has changed, the sentiments that he uses right now that label him as a conservative activist, just a few short years ago would have been taken for granted as normal for everyone.
1
I wish we'd quit calling it diversity when we get a bunch of people with identical opinions together but who just happen to have different skin pigmentation or genitalia. That's not diversity. Can I call it diversity if I get a bunch of people with different eye colours together? If you want true diversity you'd get diversity of thought, that would be far more valuable than skin colours and genders, but then you'd have to let conservatives in, and we all know that's not allowed.
1
As was pointed out in this video, it's gotten to the point where such a high proportion of companies are doing it, that you can't just avoid it by going somewhere else. Especially if you're in a specialized role with limited employers.
1
@jason200912 I think you missed the fact that pipelines, tanker ships, trains, trucks all exist. If we don't develop our oil reserves, russia, and the middle east will happily continue to exploit theirs. Theirs are far more polluting, and go directly to fund human rights abuses, wars, and terrorist Acts. But the oil will be developed one way or another, and it will be consumed. Stopping the development does not change that any at all.
1
@letstalk.2020 apparently the problem here is your basic understanding of how the oil industry works, or put more simply, you actually have no idea at all how it works. There is not now, nor has there ever been, any form of shortage in oil reserves. There are massive reserves under multiple different continents. Sure we can leave all the stuff in the ground here and it will stay there completely unused, but there will be oil to get out of the ground in the middle East and russia. So the oil here will sit completely unused, meanwhile we will continue to spend billions of dollars funding the Russian military and human rights abuses in the middle east. People will still drive, plastics will still be made, airplanes will still fly. If you completely stopped all oil production in the Western world tomorrow, none of that would change. The amount of oil consumption would remain the same, the only change would be where it comes from. If environmental nut jobs like yourself had their way, all oil would come only from the most polluting, most unethical sources. We already give millions of dollars every week to the Russian military, not to mention all the stuff in the middle east. Giving them more money will not help our cause any.
1
@cn2673 that's far from a sure thing. Quebec loves him, and they get to decide a huge portion of the election.
1
@cn2673 PPC got a total of zero seats last election, and that was with a charismatic leader who managed to get into the leaders debates and got lots of media coverage. This time the media is ignoring them completely and not inviting them to anything. As much as I want to see them succeed, I'm highly doubtful they'll fare better this time around.
1