Posted on 01/22/2007 6:13:06 AM PST by GQuagmire
All those who claim the poor should not heat their homes with discounted Venezuelan oil or that I should not distribute it are setting a moral standard they don’t apply to themselves or to other countries sending oil to the United States.
If we consumed oil only from those whose morality we agree with, we’d come up with a very short list.
Critics say no to Venezuelan oil for the poor but yes to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and to so many other Middle East countries that rule with an iron fist. It’s easy to say yes if you’re a short-sighted moralist, but maybe not so easy if you’re concerned about how those societies treat women or alarmed at their hostile stance toward Israel.
If discounted fuel from Venezuela is somehow unfit for the needy, then full-price Venezuelan oil shouldn’t be good enough for the cars, boats, jets and furnaces of the wealthy.
More than 558 million barrels of Venezuelan oil made its way to the United States last year. Why just go after the small slice that helps senior citizens and struggling families? Why not take on those who make money off Venezuela as well - GM and Ford, who sold 300,000 cars there last year, and Shell, BP, Conoco Phillips and other oil interests who, unlike Venezuela and CITGO Petroleum, spurned our requests for assisting the poor?
If objections to Venezuelan oil are about democracy, then critics should look at the December elections won by President Hugo Chavez with nearly 70 percent of the vote. Venezuelans have now spoken four times in his favor.
I’m not going to defend or demonize Chavez for his moves toward socialism, but it does seem like we favor selective socialism here in the United States for big corporations that get to socialize risks and privatize profits.
As for nationalizations in Venezuela, it’s hard for Americans to argue with turning private utilities into public ones. America’s investor-owned utilities charge more for power than companies owned by the people.
Why doesn’t our own federal government collect a fair share of royalties from energy companies taking resources from public lands and use some of the revenues, along with windfall taxes from oil and gas interests, to help the poor?
Or why don’t our lawmakers in Washington fully fund federal fuel assistance, which has been cut by a third in spite of the fact that heating oil prices have doubled over the last couple of years?
I won’t defend everything Hugo Chavez says or does, but neither will I accept a system of socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor that turns its back on those in need.
Red Herring. No one has said that the oil itself is "unfit".
Some folks have said that actions should have consequences.
Not that a Kennedy from Boston would understand that concept.
All one needs to do is catch the byline on the article to know what's coming. Ol' Joe, his namesake, was a fan of Hitler after all. The entire clan is corrupt beyond reckoning and has been for well over 100 years.
If this don't beat all. A Kennedy supporting and promoting a national socialist government and eschewing capitalism. His uncle John must be turning over in his grave.
Joe has trouble with concepts unconnected to a good buzz.
Kennedy makes a bigbig six figure income off this "charity".
Wish I could get a job like that..
'Why doesn’t our own federal government collect a fair share of royalties from energy companies taking resources from public lands and use some of the revenues, along with windfall taxes from oil and gas interests, to help the poor? '
Who determines 'fair share' - Hugo, you, me ? - and on what basis? I hope I get elected to determine fair share - this would be nice.
Oh - and oil companies simply take resources from public lands for free ... yeah riiiight! They all operate with no restrictions and free from taxation.
And because you need something it is 'ok' to ignore any questions of morality. A get out of jail free card!! I think I need everything - so I guess I need no moaral compass - convenient! Let's nationalize everything.
I agree with him -- if Venezuela is giving us oil cheaper, I've got no problem with it.
We should still boycott their oil altogether. But if we aren't going to stop ALL use, I'd rather boycott their full-price oil while letting them sell us cheaper oil -- less money for the dictator.
And Joseph should be held to task NOT for selling the oil, but for not denouncing Chavez at every public event where they talk about the cheap oil. It's not getting cheap oil that's the problem, it's americans giving Chavez free good publicity that's the problem.
I will walk before I buy Citgo gasoline.
Poor Citgo.
They used to be the primary distributor of Iraqi oil, now it's Venezuelan oil.
Who runs that company anyway? They seem to have a propensity for getting their supplies from pariah oil nations.
Kennedy and Chavez. Lovers and supporters of socialist values.
Hugo Chavez got 70% of the vote? That's nothing, Khruschev, Saddam, Castro, et al. routinely got 98-99%. And that, to Kennedy, is Democracy.
Venezuelan democracy, thanks in part to Jimmy Carter, is dead. Chavez is now the sole dictator and there is no rule of law. Venezuela is being looted and its economy destroyed, at least until the next revolution.
Inbreeding rears its ugly head.
that guy makes me ill every time I hear his tout the virtues of "our friends from venezuela" whilst he makes millions undercutting our countries foreign policies.
how many of his customers would buy if they knew about Chavez? how many would sell their country out for cheap oil?
If Joey K wants to bring cheap energy to 'the people,' let him turn the family Compound on Cape Cod into a wind farm, and help his neighbors. Then he can be everyone's hero. Until that shining day, I wish the spoiled trust-fund brat would shut the hell up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.