Eyas wrote:I wouldn't care if the oil company profit margin was 90%.  The profit is theirs.  It is EARNED.

Some people were quite proud of Republicans for pointing out that capping profits didn't work when tried under the Carter Administration (I was astounded to learn that the American People ALLOWED this to be tried before).

I am even more disgusted by Republicans because NO ONE made the following argument:

For Congress to even consider taking ANY industry's profits is Unconstitutional, Un-American, and flat out Communism.

I share your concern.  Every time I mention that something is or may be "unconstitutional" I get blank stares at best.  Most people have no idea what the constitution says or means.  What is "right" is what matters and what is "right" is determined by mush-filled brains that have atrophied under the tutelage of leftist educrats.  

Some of the idiocy I see advocated here demonstrates that far too many people can neither comprehend the logic within a post much less follow the logic of arguments between a series of posts.  It is frightening.  How many people have any understanding of Ultracon's signature and its importance to logic and rational discourse?

paleocon wrote:  How many people have any understanding of Ultracon's signature and its importance to logic and rational discourse?

His sig line is now gone.  I'm a little rusty on those logic symbols, but I think it was something similar to Socrates statement (I'm loosely paraphrasing here): One cannot simultaneously believe both P and NOT P, or, a proposition can't simultaneously be both true and untrue.  Something like that.

My Logic & Semantics class was actually one of two reasons I decided to abandon my Philosophy major and switch to the equally useless Environmental Studies program.

The other reason was that I failed a paper in another Philosophy class because my conclusion was (and I quote myself) "Rene DesCartes was a colossal bulls**t artist."

It's my signature.

It was Aristotle that first recognized the most primary rule of all logic - which has come to be referred to as the 'Law of Non-Contradiction'.  

Stated as an equation:  (P) can not equal both (P) and Non (P) at the same time and in the same relationship.

All logic and meaningful discourse depends on this simple principle.  Rational thought demands it.  Until the last century, every thinking person considered this a self evident truth.

It is unbelievable how many educated people have discounted this principle in recent years.  In institutions of higher learning across our country, young people are being taught that all truth is relative and that there is no absolute truth.  They are being taught that (P) can, indeed, be both (P) and non (P) at the same time and in the same relationship.

With the majority of academics embracing all truth as being relative, you would think it would take a 'giant' intellect to refute.

This is how easy it is to refute.  Just ask a relativist this question:  "Do you believe that all truth is relative and that there is no absolute truth?"

By acknowledging that there is no absolute truth, they are actually making an absolute statement.  So, their logic is not only weak, but it is actually self refuting!!

This is why it is difficult to debate a liberal.  You can not 'pin them down' on absolutes.  

To maintain this preposterous position, they end up 'cheating' everyday.  Why should they stop at a stop sign?  Why should they they take medications based on lab reports?  Why should they pay their bills?

Cognitive dissonance is a major problem, or at least it should be, for leftists.  The only problem is they never seem to realize they are accepting two, or more, mutually exclusive beliefs.  

Anything may be true and accepted as long as they want it to be true.  Nothing should be rejected because it contradicts any other belief they hold, even if the two beliefs are obviously mutually contradictory to a sane person.  It is true because leftists want it to be true regardless of any amount of empirical data demonstrating a given idea is false.  

Maintaining conflicting principles (e.g. logically incompatible beliefs) or rejecting reasonable behavior to avoid conflict can be increasingly maladaptive (non-beneficial) as the gap being bridged widens, and popular usage of the term "cognitive dissonance" tends to stress the maladaptive aspect. It is often associated with the tendency for people to resist information that they don't want to think about, because if they did it would create such dissonance, and perhaps require them to act in ways that depart from their comfortable habits. They usually have at least partial awareness of the information, without having moved to full acceptance of it, and are thus in a state of denial about it. This "irrational inability to incorporate rational information" is perhaps the most common perception of cognitive dissonance, and this or another example of extreme maladaption would appear to be underlying many conceptions of the term in popular usage.

That's a good quote/definition of cognitive dissonance.  It describes the mental illness that is Liberalism quite well.

Where'd it come from?

Sorry, I usually provide a link to such quotes.  This one is from Wikipedia and is found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance.

I think everyone here has pretty much stated what I think already.

Plain and simple, you can't cap someone's profits. Dems need to get their stinking, greedy hands out of people's pockets. You can see them salivating over oil profits, they think they can take it away and use it somewhere else. The profits that oil companies are making are due to US driving vehicles that we WANT to drive. If WE weren't buying, they wouldn't be selling and there would be no record profits.

Where were all these libs when oil was $18 dollars a barrel and thousands of men were put out of work, oil companies were capping wells because they were more expensive to keep in operation than they could sell the oil. I live in Texas and I saw towns practically dry up when oil prices went south. Jobs couldn't be found. Where were they when company after company had to shut their doors because oil was so cheap?

I believe someone already posted about your own bank is making a higher percentage of profit than the "big" bad oil companies. Jewelry markup is about 400%, furniture markup is approx 200% or more. Are they in their pockets wanting their profits? Maybe they should nationalize furniture sales or cosmetics. I wonder what the plastic surgeons are getting these days for all the botox, facelifts and liposuctions. Maybe Hollywood doctors need a windfall profit tax put on them. If no one wanted the services, the services wouldn't be there and neither would the profits.

The Left's absolute hatred of "Big Oil" is nothing short of a mental pathology.  Many corporations make greater profits.  I wonder why the left has this intense loathing for "Big Oil?"  Do they understand they need oil to drive their limos and fly their private jets?  Well, probably not.  

But, if congress can cap profits at one company then they can do it for all.  I hope other companies realize that and help do something to turn these Marxist idiots out of office before the wreck the entire economy.

I think the focus on Big Oil for the Communist DNC goes beyond grabbing the profits.  The higher the energy costs the more we the people complain. The more we the people complain the easier it is for them to convince we the people they need to take over Big Oil so they can control the price. That it is in our best interests, of course.  If they take over Big Oil then they now can control we the people with the energy. Ration energy out at first, then they start to dictate when we can have the energy and then who can have the energy and finally what we can use that energy for. Total control. The same thing goes for healthcare. Combine that with the tax increases in capitol gains, AMT, dropping the Bush tax breaks, raising Social Security Tax. That is for the sole purpose to remove wealth from a group of people that would be able to provide funds to wage a war, whether it is a verbal one or (hate to even say it) a physical one against any type of (dare I say it) Communist take over. How hard would it be to start demanding a cut of every business, over and above taxes?  Protection money. That is how gangs and mobs work and it works very well. Communism is nothing more than a gang and this gang just doesn’t hide in the shadows or in back alleys. They have parades down Main Street.

Think about it.

I also think they didn't expect the hue and cry to be so large and so loud so quick.  They were hoping to have the Closet Communist Obama in office first.

When do we get congressional hearings on capping government's tax profits?