Reply With Quote
I hate when people overuse the term "owned"
George Will was a pussy for not saying you are wrong directly, rather than putting into a question form. no ownage there, just a correction made by him.
First, he actually criticizes the Won! Then, goes about justifying his criticism of both political parties (vis-a-vis energy policy) by making the outlandish claim Brazil has been "off oil" for 30 years.
Bill Maher Gets Owned By George Will
And, before you start your usual "Jon Stewartesque" defense that Maher is just a comedian, tell it to ABC, they're the ones that put him in a serious round table discussion of political events, not me.
Just recently...
Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling
Doesn't sound much like Brazil's "off oil" to me.The U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars to Brazil's state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil's Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro. Brazil's planning minister confirmed that White House National Security Adviser James Jones met this month with Brazilian officials to talk about the loan.
I hate when people overuse the term "owned"
George Will was a pussy for not saying you are wrong directly, rather than putting into a question form. no ownage there, just a correction made by him.
In fairness to Will, it wasn't him that used the term "owned." But, it wasn't a correction so much as it was Will pointing out Maher didn't know what the he was talking about.
I'm not a huge fan of Maher. Jon Stewart does journalism as well as comedy... he actually compares claims made by public officials with facts or previous claims. Maher seems to opine much more than do research.
we feel the same way about beck, hannity and limbaugh..
That was a waste of a few minutes. I was hoping for a nice beat down. Mahr is cool but he does go way to far to the left the past 2 years. Atleast he admits he is a far left guy unlike our president.
Maher is closer to the truth than George.
The combination of conservation and subs ution, along with the expansion of domestic production, reduced the country's dependence on imported crude oil, from around 80 percent in the late 1970s to 45.6 percent in 1990. Domestic output of crude oil increased from an average 165,000 barrels a day in 1975 to some 800,100 barrels a day by 1996. By the end of 1995, Brazil's proven reserves had reached 4.8 billion barrels and potential reserves were at 8.8 billion barrels. About 64 percent of Brazil's domestic oil comes from the continental shelf in the Campos Basin, which accounts for 83 percent of proven reserves.
Didn't you just site a bunch of data that refutes what Maher said?
Look, I don't know if Brazil is "off oil" or not, though I doubt it. I do, however know that what you cited isn't necessarily indicative of Brazil being "on oil." A country can produce a product without having any use for said product. This is especially adventageous if the product is energy since this is a very in demand product and this country is able to profit off of 100% of the production rather than using a portion.
If we invented the technology and every home in america had a Mr. Fusion installed to power the cars as well as the home, and for whatever reason we didn't sell the tech outside of the country, we could take all oil, coal, and natural gas produced within our borders and make a ton of cash.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrole...ion_statistics, Brazil was the 7th largest consumer of fossil fuels in 2008.
Definitely not an "own," perhaps a "son, stop and think wtf you are saying before you say it"...certainly had potential to be pwned if George Will had more substance to his reaction than "I think." Nice to see someone call out Maher tho, he didn't really know where to go once he got the mic pointed back at him.
PS: And just cuz the US is giving Brazil money for oil exploration doesn't mean Brazil plans to use it for themselves. Why couldn't they just find oil and turn a profit from it? That'd be pretty smart.
@ Brazil being "off oil"
The sharp edits in this clip reek of desperation.
Brazil has the world's only sustainable biofuel economy. They now consume about 40% of the world's ethanol fuel. In fact, nearly ever car in Brazil uses a mixture of ethanol fuel and gasoline, so they certainly aren't "off gasoline" but they're not slaves to as like we are, which is what I think Maher's real point was.
What the heck do you mean? His show is a roundtable discussion. His guests, which are often republicans, always get to respond to him.
What he said x 10000000000
Maher is an uninformed asshole . . .
the world would be a better place if someone took this piece of out
The guy is pure entertainment. Love the sig BR! Makes my balls do an irish jig in my pants!
Aren't they clear-cutting another environmentalist sacred cow, rain forests, in order to achieve that 40%?
Yes and no. Brazil's oil usage has gone down considerably the past 40 years. Furthermore, their use of imported petroleum has also gone down considerably.
So yes, they aren't off oil completely, but their dependence of foreign oil is greatly reduced and manageable. America however is not. We haven't made any real attempt to rid ourselves of foreign oil. Even when we had the shortage and the rationing in the 70's, we made no steps. That I believe was his point.
I thought I was clear when I said that my point was closer to truth for Maher, and not completely one-sided.
Now that's a different story. At least they are using their own resources though....
But, they're not "off oil."
And, also, Brazil doesn't have any of these idiots to worry about.
Brazil does not import much oil, as it has a rather solid and extensive ethanol industry based on fairly efficient sugarcane. Read the wiki article for more.
Brazil import data, ranked 18th among other oil importers as of 2009 at roughly 5% of what the US imports yearly.
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?c=br&v=93
Maher was incorrect. Maher is generally pretty well informed, and certainly articulate about his opinions.
Not sure if that counts as some "usual defense" though.
Well, RG, the United States wouldn't import much oil if the envirowhackos would allow us to recover our own resources and build nuclear power plants.
And, I found Maher to be as informed as I usually find him to be...by rhetoric.
Factually, provably wrong.
Let's start with your first bit of Kool Aid.
How much oil exactly are the "envirowhackos" keeping us from "recovering"?
Flesh this out for me, or withdraw the statement as erroneous.
Secondly, Yoni, are you calling people who depend on fishing for a living "envirowhackos"?
Are the people who own coastal real estate "envirowhackos" too?
Are the people working for the tourist industries in coastal states "envirowhackos"?
Seems like your own statement seems to be informed as many who listen to Fox are... by rhetoric.
Or can we be grown ups and both agree that the statement "envirowhackos are keeping us from drilling oil offshore" was an erroneously simplified statement?
That does not mean they are off oil.
So yes, they aren't off oil completely, but their dependence of foreign oil is greatly reduced and manageable.
So they still consume oil, albeit domestically extracted oil.
That might have been his point . . . but what he said was stupid. Brazil is not off oil. Yes, they have a thriving ethanol industry, but they still consume a lot of oil.America however is not. We haven't made any real attempt to rid ourselves of foreign oil. Even when we had the shortage and the rationing in the 70's, we made no steps. That I believe was his point.
huh?I thought I was clear when I said that my point was closer to truth for Maher, and not completely one-sided.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
