The tortured history of Standard Oil, the main entity of which later becomes Exxon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil Further anecdotal evidence from Google search: http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/econ101/corporations.html http://www.wealth4freedom.com/Elkhorn2.html
Boy you really told him Mr. Ultimatum. Its bull**** attitudes like yours that make this forum hardly tolerable. You were the one making the claim so you should be the one to back it up. Thats why the mods make people provide links for threads that are created. Anyone could make all kinds of ridiculous statements and tell everyone to refute it.
Given the phoniness of the SOTU, I was half expecting Bush to all of a sudden declare himself the leader of the movement to stop global warming. I guess he will save that for the next SOTU. Particularly phoney and painful was to hear him prattling on about concern for those without health insurance. Specifically Medical Saving Accounts, which only work for wealthy and/ or healthy, frequently young folks. Furthermore by withdrawing these folks from the insurance pool, the MSA's make policies more expensive for the rest of us who remain in the pool and do absolutely nothing for the uninsured. If they could pay the $5,000 or $10,000 deductibles requitred by these plans, they would just purchase health insurance.
Oh...My...God... Those are the silliest forms of "proof" I have ever seen. PLEASE LOOK AT HIS LINKS, PEOPLE! They are hysterical. Top one - History on Standard Oil and its monopoly... In the 1900's! Middle - Exxon Valdez disaster (Boo! Hiss! Exxon Bad!) Bottom - an "Opinion" column comparing Exxon to Naziism. The only thing you proved is that you're an idiot. I totally understand why you wouldn't want to provide "proof" any longer.
In the interest of civility, I will take out the op-ed portion. As for "ridiculous statements." I backed up my claim. Where are the refutations? The "thanks in advance" and "prove it" tactic is tiresome. You know it. I know it. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous at best. But I'm sure posters of that ilk appreciate you speaking up for them.
I'm sorry to have presumed you (and whoever else jumped in after you -- all starting to sound like echoes to me) can keep up. Here's the CliffsNotes to the links. First link, Standard Oil became Exxon. Second link, GM, Standard Oil, Firestone conspiracy to dismantle public transit (the no. 1 offense, not no. 2). Third link, not a "comparison" to Nazis or "opinion." It's a narrative of people, places and events with respect to Exxon's ties with the Nazis. It either did happen or did not happen. It's now your turn to prove them wrong. You want to try again? You want to bring your own marbles to the game? Thanks in advance.
Ok here's your exxon proof. Exxon publically announced they WILL NOT invest new earnings in renewable energy despite massive new profits. http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2005-10-27-oil-invest-usat_x.htm
You did read their reasoning, didn't you? Or the feast or famine profits in the industry. Actually, did you read this article, at all?
I've read the argument but I dont agree with it. If that was indeed true, then it makes no sense why every other oil company but exxonmobil is boosting investments in renewable energy. I can understand them keeping some of the money, but the idea of not investing at all seems incredibly strange. No other oil company has come close to advocating such a position. As pointed out earlier, Exxon's strategy has only been about oil production and has done less than the others in terms of investing in renewables. I'm not going to say Exxon is the devil or that they've done nothing. Rather, Exxon has done less than others in terms of developing renewable sources of energy and that should at least be slightly troubling.
but it completely disproves the notion that exxon is actually investing in alternative energies and cares. thats the point.
There was an article in the Journal on June 14 of last year(Exxon's Cold Calcuation on Global Warming). It costs $2.95 to view. It makes a good case for Exxon's decisions. As I said before, when Lee Raymond took over as CEO, at that time Exxon had invested more than any other major in alternative energy. ExxonMobil, Lee Raymond, Rex Tillerson, and shareholders are in the business of making money, not losing money. Continued investment in renewables wasnt the best way for Exxon to deploy its capital then and it isnt now. The article also states Exxon's case against global warming. I dont personally agree with them 100%, but they present a much better case than the Nazi website linked to above.
I believe this is the article you were referencing http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05165/521398.stm Not a bad article and does a good job of highlighting Exxon's perspective on the issue.
