Obama gets it! Oil is FINITE, regardless of current price.
Enough Already
Minutes interview:
[quote]
(CBS) Kroft: When the price of oil was at $147 a barrel, there were a
lot of spirited and profitable discussions that were held on energy
independence. Now you've got the price of oil under $60.
Mr. Obama: Right.
Kroft: Does doing something about energy is it less important now
than…
Mr. Obama: It's more important. It may be a little harder politically,
but it's more important.
Kroft: Why?
Mr. Obama: Well, because this has been our pattern. We go from shock
to trance. You know, oil prices go up, gas prices at the pump go up,
everybody goes into a flurry of activity. And then the prices go back
down and suddenly we act like it's not important, and we start, you
know filling up our SUVs again.
And, as a consequence, we never make any progress. It’s part of the
addiction, all right. That has to be broken. Now is the time to break
it.
[end quote]
Most Republicans in recent memory would use this TEMPORARY recession-
based oil price drop to claim there's "plenty of oil" and vindicate
gratuitous V-8 engines in ego trucks. Our remaining oil (which will
rise in price sooner or later, since it's finite), should be saved for
workers who truly need big horsepower & torque. There will come a day
when "I need 300HP to tow my ego-boat" or cart around 5 fat kids won't
be a valid excuse. Living too large is the problem in the first place.
Restraint and frugality must replace mindless gluttony.
Hopefully, Obama will keep reminding the average greediot about the
inherent scarcity of a resource we've been consuming at the rate of
7.6 billion barrels a year. Coastal drilling and ANWR combined might
yield 30 billion barrels in best-case scenarios, which is about 4
years worth for the U.S. After that, the extremely costly, land-
wrecking spectre of shale is America's biggest cache. Canadian tar
sands will never fill enough of the void, and that process is already
ruining large swaths of their wilderness.
A temporary slowing of consumption doesn't render Peak Oil null, but
many people are dumb enough to believe that. Oil from all sources is
FINITE and we need a President who'll stay on that point instead of
letting the ignorant follow price whims. Nobody was born with the
right to waste energy just because they can "afford the gas" this
week. It gets physically scarcer each second no matter what price is
decided on.
E.A.
http://enough_already.tripod.com/
Government efficiency, or lack thereof, mirrors the habits of the
citizenry.
zzbu...@netscape.net
> It was inspiring to hear President-elect Obama say this during a 60
> Minutes interview:
Well, many of us knew. that long ago.
But it was still us that desgned and built Electronic Fuel
Injection, Disk Brakes,
Fiber optics, Cyber Space, Post AT&T Optics, Post Ford Batteries,
Post GM Robotics,
C++, Holograms, lasers, masers, Optical Computers, RISC Computers,
Elibraries,
On-Line-Banking, All-In-One Printers, On-Line-Publishing, Adpative
Pv Cells, Thermocouples,
and Piezo, HDTV, CD, DVD, HTML, USB, GPS, Cell Phones, Cruise
Missiles, laser-guided bombs,
AEGIS, Phalanx, Drones, AAVs, AUVs, Neo Solar Energy, Neo Wind
Energy,
and Biodiesel rather than wanks llike Obama,
None4You
<zzbu...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:ed50a8e7-d3e9-4047...@s9g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
I don't see any Americans wasting energy . I see a lot of business and the
government wasting oil. And you confuse necessary with ego boosting. You
cant tow a boat with a car of any kind. You cant catch fish without the
boat. And cant haul a wife and 5 kids around on a Vespa.
Oh wait, Yes you can . Here's how it works.
http://www.clevelandscooters.com/index.html Scroll to the bottom.
That how you want to live . Send us back to the caveman era.
You cant do construction in a Ford Focus.
If you use less oil doing nothing. With no family and no fat kids. Or wife.
Great. Good for you. Kinda makes you a loser though.
The world doesn't decide what we need . Verses what we want. We buy things
to feed our ego to justify working for a living. The government created
this mess and decided we should buy everything from overseas and support the
world. The US is a more efficient user of oil then China or India. We are
5% of the population using 25% of the world oil . Producing 26% of the
worlds needs. It has nothing to do with pickup trucks with V8s. Or how much
the whole country uses.
How about building some factories here and stop using all the oil to ship
rubber dog shit from China . How about shipping our food down the road to
the stores . Within a few hundred miles or less. Instead of shipping it from
China in gas hog cargo ships. Then driving it half way across the country
anyways. How about the US balance the budget , and quit devaluing the
dollar. And supporting the world. Before we end up eating grass.
Rule one of the country . Spend more at home building factories. Instead of
abroad, buying rubber dog shit. Or you go bankrupt . And eat grass. Worry
about oil later. There will be plenty when we cant buy any.
Better yet mind your own business. Get in your piece of crap hybrid and go
spend 5 bucks on a Starbucks coffee. Why I do some real work and make a big
fat roll with my big fat V8 truck. Then feed my ego doing your wife in your
bed.
Tony
the money at that if you're holding any of them the only thing to change
color will be the back of your underwear as most have dropped over 50
percent since that wanker windup won the presidency. The only thing green
will be the hork from the back of my throat as i spit on anyone who gives
me that line of shit about green.
Enough Already wrote:
--
The Grandmaster of the CyberFROG
Come get your ticket to CyberFROG city
Nay, Art thou decideth playeth ye simpleton games. *Some* of us know
proper manners
Very few. I used to take calls from *rank* noobs,
Hamster isn't a newsreader it's a mistake!
El-Gonzo Jackson FROGS both me and Chuckcar
Using my technical prowess and computer abilities to answer questions
beyond the realm of understandability
Regards Tony... Making usenet better for everyone everyday
tin cup
> It was inspiring to hear President-elect Obama say this during a 60
> Minutes interview:
>
> [quote]
>
> (CBS) Kroft: When the price of oil was at $147 a barrel, there were a
> lot of spirited and profitable discussions that were held on energy
> independence. Now you've got the price of oil under $60.
>
> Mr. Obama: Right.
>
Total manipulation by the Oil Swindlers.
Tank our economy with higher taxes and or price of fuel, so the meddlers
can try to get their mass transport for people living 50 miles from work
etc.
A reliable and economical fuel supply was one of the key ingredients of
our national wealth.
Now that that has been exported by the globalist creeps I guess it don't
matter if we spend half our income to get to work.
Lou
news:c0f4cb45-bea7-42bb...@d10g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> Most Republicans in recent memory would use this TEMPORARY recession-
> based oil price drop to claim there's "plenty of oil" and vindicate
> gratuitous V-8 engines in ego trucks.
You seem to be under the impression that only Republicans drive large
vehicles. You're wrong.
Bay Area Holdout
based oil price drop to claim there's "plenty of oil" and vindicate
gratuitous V-8 engines in ego trucks.
Why is it Republicans equal big SUV's??
Here in Liberal Land (aka S.F Bay Area) as I drive around in my
"conservative" 4 cyl Toyota Truck with cruise control set to 65 mph, I am
passed by endless SUV's, Mercedes, Range Rovers, etc going 10mph or more
over the limit(and wasting even more fuel) and usually with one passenger
and many of these have their Obama 08 stickers, like they haven't figured
out the election is over yet!
So contrary to your opinion, political party doesn't equal fuel wasters,
it's more of a mindset.
Michael Coburn
You seem to be very confused. We may or may not export some fuel;
especially refined stuff. But we IMPORT many millions of barrels a day
and it has nothing to do with nothing other than we do not have enough
oil to run our economy as we have been doing.
The manipulation of oil prices tanked the entire world economy and not
just ours. But the manipulation could not have occurred without the
reality of peak oil behind it. The wall was reached at $100 a barrel.
At $140 it was breached and the implosion sallied forth. The recovery
will take a while and it will not be a return to the good old days.
We in the USA must find alternatives or we will not remain as the land of
plenty that we have been for the last 100 years. I am sorry that you
feel mass transit is some sort of Liberal incursion on your Danial Boone
existence.
Seerialmom
After Obama was elected I have a feeling many applied the stickers
"post election" as a form of in your face "neener neener neener". No,
SUV's (pick your flavor) are the preferred mode of transportation for
families or people paranoid about being demolished by an 18 wheeler.
And for some people it's a "status" symbol, especially if they buy the
Yukon Denali or Escalade. I agree it's not a republican thing to
drive big cars. Even one of my tree hugging extreme left friends
drives a Toyota SUV (forget the version) because they go hiking,
camping and skiing a lot.
Jeff
> On Nov 17, 5:10 pm, "Bay Area Holdout" <Linea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Most Republicans in recent memory would use this TEMPORARY recession-
>> based oil price drop to claim there's "plenty of oil" and vindicate
>> gratuitous V-8 engines in ego trucks.
>>
>> Why is it Republicans equal big SUV's??
>> Here in Liberal Land (aka S.F Bay Area) as I drive around in my
>> "conservative" 4 cyl Toyota Truck with cruise control set to 65 mph, I am
>> passed by endless SUV's, Mercedes, Range Rovers, etc going 10mph or more
>> over the limit(and wasting even more fuel) and usually with one passenger
>> and many of these have their Obama 08 stickers, like they haven't figured
>> out the election is over yet!
>>
>> So contrary to your opinion, political party doesn't equal fuel wasters,
>> it's more of a mindset.
>
> After Obama was elected I have a feeling many applied the stickers
> "post election" as a form of in your face "neener neener neener". No,
> SUV's (pick your flavor) are the preferred mode of transportation for
> families or people paranoid about being demolished by an 18 wheeler.
> And for some people it's a "status" symbol, especially if they buy the
> Yukon Denali or Escalade.
Where I live (urban area) I see a lot of those. I also saw a lot of
"W" stickers on them and it wasn't until last year that those stickers
started to come off. That would have been 3 years after the last time
Bush ran.
I can't say that I've ever seen an Obama sticker on a Hummer or
Denali or Escalade, I have seen them on some of the other SUVs.
Irregardless, McCain never caught on with the high consumption set like
George W Bush. He truly was the hero of conspicuous waste.
Jeff
Jeff
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:32:35 -0500, tin cup wrote:
>
>> Enough Already wrote:
>>> It was inspiring to hear President-elect Obama say this during a 60
>>> Minutes interview:
>>>
>>> [quote]
>>>
>>> (CBS) Kroft: When the price of oil was at $147 a barrel, there were a
>>> lot of spirited and profitable discussions that were held on energy
>>> independence. Now you've got the price of oil under $60.
>>>
>>> Mr. Obama: Right.
>>>
>> snipped in a fit of rage
>>
>> Total manipulation by the Oil Swindlers. Tank our economy with higher
>> taxes and or price of fuel, so the meddlers can try to get their mass
>> transport for people living 50 miles from work etc.
>> A reliable and economical fuel supply was one of the key ingredients of
>> our national wealth.
>> Now that that has been exported by the globalist creeps I guess it don't
>> matter if we spend half our income to get to work.
>
> You seem to be very confused. We may or may not export some fuel;
> especially refined stuff. But we IMPORT many millions of barrels a day
> and it has nothing to do with nothing other than we do not have enough
> oil to run our economy as we have been doing.
>
> The manipulation of oil prices tanked the entire world economy and not
> just ours.
I'm not so sure that high oil prices tanked the world economy,
although we can see that now that the speculators are on the sidelines
what happened to the price.
What this is though is the greatest leverage we will have to deal
with the Iranians. They are not so high and mighty without the high
price of oil that they had come to depend on:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-oil-iran20-2008oct20,0,4744003.story
Iran has reason to worry. Not only is its budget heavily dependent on
revenue from oil exports, but international sanctions have exacerbated
the economy's weaknesses. And to top it off, the crisis comes as Iran is
trying to reclaim its status as a regional superpower, which it lost 30
years ago after the Islamic Revolution and the start of the war with Iraq.
Oil is the centerpiece of that ambition.
Oil revenue funds Iran's nuclear technology program, a point of great
friction with the West. It also finances a state-heavy economy that
keeps the social peace by providing jobs, subsidies and entitlements.
"Less oil revenue means less capital reserves, more shutting down of
factories, less importation of consumer goods, less welfare, more
joblessness, more discontent among people," said Reza Kaviani, an
economist in Tehran.
The other point I'd like to make about oil is why do we feel the
necessity of consuming all our resources? Some day in the not too
distant future we'll need that oil for making petrochemicals and it will
all be in foreign lands. I suppose that not many realize that the US
for many years was a world supplier of oil. Much of the allied effort in
WWII ran on our oil and the Japanese attacked after we decided not to
sell them oil. Once your commodity is spent, you not only lose your
leverage but someone else has the leverage.
Jeff
zzbu...@netscape.net
> <zzbun...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>
> news:ed50a8e7-d3e9-4047...@s9g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 17, 11:40 am, Enough Already <enough_alre...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> > Minutes interview:
>
> Well, many of us knew. that long ago.
> But it was still us that desgned and built Electronic Fuel
> Injection, Disk Brakes,
> Fiber optics, Cyber Space, Post AT&T Optics, Post Ford Batteries,
> Post GM Robotics,
> C++, Holograms, lasers, masers, Optical Computers, RISC Computers,
> Elibraries,
> On-Line-Banking, All-In-One Printers, On-Line-Publishing, Adpative
> Pv Cells, Thermocouples,
> and Piezo, HDTV, CD, DVD, HTML, USB, GPS, Cell Phones, Cruise
> Missiles, laser-guided bombs,
> AEGIS, Phalanx, Drones, AAVs, AUVs, Neo Solar Energy, Neo Wind
> Energy,
> and Biodiesel rather than wanks llikeObama,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > [quote]
>
> > (CBS) Kroft: When the price of oil was at $147 a barrel, there were a
> > lot of spirited and profitable discussions that were held on energy
> > independence. Now you've got the price of oil under $60.
>
>
> > Kroft: Does doing something about energy is it less important now
> > than…
>
> > but it's more important.
>
> > Kroft: Why?
>
> > to trance. You know, oil prices go up, gas prices at the pump go up,
> > everybody goes into a flurry of activity. And then the prices go back
> > down and suddenly we act like it's not important, and we start, you
> > know filling up our SUVs again.
>
> > And, as a consequence, we never make any progress. It’s part of the
> > addiction, all right. That has to be broken. Now is the time to break
> > it.
>
> > [end quote]
>
> > Most Republicans in recent memory would use this TEMPORARY recession-
> > based oil price drop to claim there's "plenty of oil" and vindicate
> > gratuitous V-8 engines in ego trucks. Our remaining oil (which will
> > rise in price sooner or later, since it's finite), should be saved for
> > workers who truly need big horsepower & torque. There will come a day
> > when "I need 300HP to tow my ego-boat" or cart around 5 fat kids won't
> > be a valid excuse. Living too large is the problem in the first place.
> > Restraint and frugality must replace mindless gluttony.
>
> > inherent scarcity of a resource we've been consuming at the rate of
> > 7.6 billion barrels a year. Coastal drilling and ANWR combined might
> > yield 30 billion barrels in best-case scenarios, which is about 4
> > years worth for the U.S. After that, the extremely costly, land-
> > wrecking spectre of shale is America's biggest cache. Canadian tar
> > sands will never fill enough of the void, and that process is already
> > ruining large swaths of their wilderness.
>
> > A temporary slowing of consumption doesn't render Peak Oil null, but
> > many people are dumb enough to believe that. Oil from all sources is
> > FINITE and we need a President who'll stay on that point instead of
> > letting the ignorant follow price whims. Nobody was born with the
> > right to waste energy just because they can "afford the gas" this
> > week. It gets physically scarcer each second no matter what price is
> > decided on.
>
> > E.A.
>
> >http://enough_already.tripod.com/
>
> > Government efficiency, or lack thereof, mirrors the habits of the
> > citizenry.
>
> I don't see any Americans wasting energy . I see a lot of business and the
> government wasting oil. And you confuse necessary with ego boosting.
Well, that's mostly because, like most of us in engineering, just
keep telling the cranks in economics:
You confuse oil with with energy,
You confuse math with science,
You confuse science with lasers,
You confuse cars with transportation,
You confuse buisness with IBM.
You
> cant tow a boat with a car of any kind. You cant catch fish without the
> boat. And cant haul a wife and 5 kids around on a Vespa.
> Oh wait, Yes you can . Here's how it works.http://www.clevelandscooters.com/index.html Scroll to the bottom.
>
> That how you want to live . Send us back to the caveman era.
>
> You cant do construction in a Ford Focus.
>
> If you use less oil doing nothing. With no family and no fat kids. Or wife.
> Great. Good for you. Kinda makes you a loser though.
>
> The world doesn't decide what we need . Verses what we want. We buy things
> to feed our ego to justify working for a living. The government created
> this mess and decided we should buy everything from overseas and support the
> world. The US is a more efficient user of oil then China or India. We are
> 5% of the population using 25% of the world oil . Producing 26% of the
> worlds needs. It has nothing to do with pickup trucks with V8s. Or how much
> the whole country uses.
> How about building some factories here and stop using all the oil to ship
> rubber dog shit from China . How about shipping our food down the road to
> the stores . Within a few hundred miles or less. Instead of shipping it from
> China in gas hog cargo ships. Then driving it half way across the country
> anyways. How about the US balance the budget , and quit devaluing the
> dollar. And supporting the world. Before we end up eating grass.
>
> Rule one of the country . Spend more at home building factories. Instead of
> abroad, buying rubber dog shit. Or you go bankrupt . And eat grass. Worry
> about oil later. There will be plenty when we cant buy any.
>
> Better yet mind your own business. Get in your piece of crap hybrid and go
> spend 5 bucks on a Starbucks coffee. Why I do some real work and make a big
> fat roll with my big fat V8 truck. Then feed my ego doing your wife in your
> bed.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Rod Speed
Corse it didnt.
> although we can see that now that the speculators are on the sidelines what happened to the price.
> What this is though is the greatest leverage we will have to deal with the Iranians. They are not so high and mighty
> without the high price of oil that they had come to depend on:
They can still develop nukes and there is fuck all anyone can do about that.
> http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-oil-iran20-2008oct20,0,4744003.story
> Iran has reason to worry.
Nope. The most the might happen is that the low price of oil delays when they have nukes.
> Not only is its budget heavily dependent on revenue from oil exports, but international sanctions have exacerbated the
> economy's weaknesses.
Not by anything like as much as other economys have tanked.
> And to top it off, the crisis comes as Iran is trying to reclaim its status as a regional superpower, which it lost 30
> years ago after the Islamic Revolution and the start of the war with Iraq.
It was never a regional superpower. There never were any superpowers in that region in modern times.
> Oil is the centerpiece of that ambition.
Nope.
> Oil revenue funds Iran's nuclear technology program, a point of great
> friction with the West. It also finances a state-heavy economy that
> keeps the social peace by providing jobs, subsidies and entitlements.
And even with the drop in the price of oil, they are STILL in a
hell of a lot better economic situation than places like Egypt etc.
> "Less oil revenue means less capital reserves, more shutting down of factories, less importation of consumer goods,
> less welfare, more joblessness, more discontent among people," said Reza Kaviani, an economist in Tehran.
Duh. But that is happening even with economys that dont export oil.
> The other point I'd like to make about oil is why do we feel the necessity of consuming all our resources?
We dont.
> Some day in the not too distant future we'll need that oil for making petrochemicals and it will all be in foreign
> lands.
Wrong, most obviously with shale oil and oil sands.
> I suppose that not many realize that the US for many years was a world supplier of oil.
Sure, but thats the result of the abysmal US education system.
> Much of the allied effort in WWII ran on our oil and the Japanese attacked after we decided not to sell them oil.
Yes.
> Once your commodity is spent, you not only lose your leverage but someone else has the leverage.
Nope, essentially because that particular commodity wont be spent for the US.
Even when the shale oil and oil sands are gone, coal is still a perfectly
viable starting material for the petrochemical industry. Its just more
sensible to use crude oil while its available and reasonably priced.
Dennis
wrote:
>in <c0f4cb45-bea7-42bb...@d10g2000pra.googlegroups.com> (Mon, 17 Nov 2008 08:40:05 -0800 (PST)), Enough Already wrote:
>| It was inspiring to hear President-elect Obama say this during a 60
>| Minutes interview:
>
>feh.
>
>we have known about peak oil since the 1970s, and our government basically
>ignored it and decided to pass the buck forward for future generations to
>deal with.
>
>We The People are to blame because we took our eye off the ball and have
>failed to keep our government in check.
Close. We The People are to blame because we delegated planning and
responsibility to telegenic but inept politicians while we went off to
play ball.
Dennis (evil)
--
An inherent weakness of a pure democracy is that half
the voters are below average intelligence.
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
> Minutes interview:
>
> [quote]
>
> (CBS) Kroft: When the price of oil was at $147 a barrel, there were a
> lot of spirited and profitable discussions that were held on energy
> independence. Now you've got the price of oil under $60.
>
> Mr. Obama: Right.
Uh, wrong. O'bama didn't get the price under $60 per barrel.
Jeff
Such answers make the right seem more brain dead than you actually are.
If you read what you snipped then you'll see that no such implication
was made:
Kroft: Does doing something about energy is it less important now
than…
Mr. Obama: It's more important. It may be a little harder politically,
but it's more important.
Kroft: Why?
Mr. Obama: Well, because this has been our pattern. We go from shock
to trance. You know, oil prices go up, gas prices at the pump go up,
everybody goes into a flurry of activity. And then the prices go back
down and suddenly we act like it's not important, and we start, you
know filling up our SUVs again.
And, as a consequence, we never make any progress. It’s part of the
addiction, all right. That has to be broken. Now is the time to break
it.
[end quote]
Jeff
Michael Coburn
Yes. We get a second shot at this and lets not blow it. We need a
carbon tax with all of the funds simply refunded in the form of a
stimulus like the recent stimulus. Or even refunded as a VOTER'S
dividend (each voter gets an equal amount). That is an excise tax and
perfectly constitutional and economically stimulating.
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
> hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Nov 17, 11:40 am, Enough Already <enough_alre...@lycos.com> wrote:
> >> It was inspiring to hear President-elect Obama say this during a 60
> >> Minutes interview:
>
> >> [quote]
>
> >> (CBS) Kroft: When the price of oil was at $147 a barrel, there were a
> >> lot of spirited and profitable discussions that were held on energy
> >> independence. Now you've got the price of oil under $60.
>
> >> Mr. Obama: Right.
>
> > Uh, wrong. O'bama didn't get the price under $60 per barrel.
>
> Such answers make the right seem more brain dead than you actually are.
That you accept blatant lies makes you seem exactly as brain dead as
you actually are.
> If you read what you snipped then you'll see that no such implication
> was made:
Correct. The implication was made where I identified it previously.
> Kroft: Does doing something about energy is it less important now
> than…
>
> Mr. Obama: It's more important. It may be a little harder politically,
> but it's more important.
>
> Kroft: Why?
>
> Mr. Obama: Well, because this has been our pattern. We go from shock
> to trance. You know, oil prices go up, gas prices at the pump go up,
> everybody goes into a flurry of activity. And then the prices go back
> down and suddenly we act like it's not important, and we start, you
> know filling up our SUVs again.
>
> And, as a consequence, we never make any progress. It’s part of the
> addiction, all right. That has to be broken. Now is the time to break
> it.
>
> [end quote]
>
> Jeff
You mean when Bush said we were addicted to oil it meant nothing.
When O'bama says we are addicted to oil it means something.
I understand where you are coming from.
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
> "Enough Already" <enough_alre...@lycos.com> wrote in message
But its important to keep up the myth. Republicans are bad regardless
of what they do.
Michael Coburn
> You mean when Bush said we were addicted to oil it meant nothing. When
> O'bama says we are addicted to oil it means something.
I think you have busted the code here....
The proclamation is essentially correct. When someone intelligent tells
you something it has a much larger influence then when a moron says it.
Jeff
> On Nov 19, 12:48 am, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>> hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Nov 17, 11:40 am, Enough Already <enough_alre...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>> It was inspiring to hear President-elect Obama say this during a 60
>>>> Minutes interview:
>>>> [quote]
>>>> (CBS) Kroft: When the price of oil was at $147 a barrel, there were a
>>>> lot of spirited and profitable discussions that were held on energy
>>>> independence. Now you've got the price of oil under $60.
>>>> Mr. Obama: Right.
>>> Uh, wrong. O'bama didn't get the price under $60 per barrel.
>> Such answers make the right seem more brain dead than you actually are.
>
> That you accept blatant lies makes you seem exactly as brain dead as
> you actually are.
Your mind is closed. Of course Obama had nothing to do with the fall in
oil prices. Bush is both the reason for the extraordinary rise and then
the subsequent collapse of oil. The first was conscious, the second an
unintended consequence of Bush economics.
No small matter that Obama won the vote of those making more than
$100,000.
>
>> If you read what you snipped then you'll see that no such implication
>> was made:
>
<snip>
>> Kroft: Why?
>>
>> Mr. Obama: Well, because this has been our pattern. We go from shock
>> to trance. You know, oil prices go up, gas prices at the pump go up,
>> everybody goes into a flurry of activity. And then the prices go back
>> down and suddenly we act like it's not important, and we start, you
>> know filling up our SUVs again.
>>
This is absolutely accurate.
>> And, as a consequence, we never make any progress. It’s part of the
>> addiction, all right. That has to be broken. Now is the time to break
>> it.
>>
>> [end quote]
>>
>> Jeff
>
> You mean when Bush said we were addicted to oil it meant nothing.
> When O'bama says we are addicted to oil it means something.
Nothing Bush says means anything.
Name one thing W said that was more than just words being spoken.
Was it the ownership society?
Was that we would get binLaden?
Was it that the economy is strong?
Was it, heckuva job Brownie.
Never has a president of any party been such a poor steward of the
government.
If you look at the picks that Obama has made you will see that he is
going for competence, a nice change from W's Texas buds.
>
> I understand where you are coming from.
You understand nothing beyond your preconceived notions.
Jeff
A
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
> hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Nov 19, 12:48 am, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
> >> hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Nov 17, 11:40 am, Enough Already <enough_alre...@lycos.com> wrote:
> >>>> It was inspiring to hear President-elect Obama say this during a 60
> >>>> Minutes interview:
> >>>> [quote]
> >>>> (CBS) Kroft: When the price of oil was at $147 a barrel, there were a
> >>>> lot of spirited and profitable discussions that were held on energy
> >>>> independence. Now you've got the price of oil under $60.
> >>>> Mr. Obama: Right.
> >>> Uh, wrong. O'bama didn't get the price under $60 per barrel.
> >> Such answers make the right seem more brain dead than you actually are.
>
> > That you accept blatant lies makes you seem exactly as brain dead as
> > you actually are.
>
> Your mind is closed.
My mind is open. I read. I comprehend. I comment.
> Of course Obama had nothing to do with the fall in
> oil prices.
Absolutely nothing to do with it.
Yet Kroft, talking to O'bama says, "Now you've got the price of oil
under $60," which is a blatant lie.
Then O'bama replies, "Right," another blatant lie.
You tell me I'm brain dead after you've accepted two blatant lies, so
that is a lie.
I reject Kroft's lie. I reject O'bama's lie, and I reject your lie.
> Bush is both the reason for the extraordinary rise and then
> the subsequent collapse of oil. The first was conscious, the second an
> unintended consequence of Bush economics.
Why does Kroft think that O'bama has the price of oil under $60, and
why does O'bama agree?
> No small matter that Obama won the vote of those making more than
> $100,000.
Are you now changing the subject? Squirrelly Curmudgeon classifies a
subject change as a lie by diversion, but I don't.
> >> If you read what you snipped then you'll see that no such implication
> >> was made:
>
> <snip>
> >> Kroft: Why?
>
> >> Mr. Obama: Well, because this has been our pattern. We go from shock
> >> to trance. You know, oil prices go up, gas prices at the pump go up,
> >> everybody goes into a flurry of activity. And then the prices go back
> >> down and suddenly we act like it's not important, and we start, you
> >> know filling up our SUVs again.
>
> This is absolutely accurate.
Actually, I was always able to fill up my truck except that my debit/
credit card shuts off at $75.00. It still shuts off at $75.00, but my
tank is full before doing so.
> >> And, as a consequence, we never make any progress. It’s part of the
> >> addiction, all right. That has to be broken. Now is the time to break
> >> it.
>
> >> [end quote]
>
> >> Jeff
>
> > You mean when Bush said we were addicted to oil it meant nothing.
> > When O'bama says we are addicted to oil it means something.
>
> Nothing Bush says means anything.
I'll chalk that up as your opinion. Squirrelly Curmudgeon would say
it was a lie, but I won't try anything underhanded like that.
> Name one thing W said that was more than just words being spoken.
He said the war on terror would be a long war. He repeatedly said
it. And it was so long that everyone forgot he said it.
> Was it the ownership society?
> Was that we would get binLaden?
> Was it that the economy is strong?
> Was it, heckuva job Brownie.
>
> Never has a president of any party been such a poor steward of the
> government.
In your opinion. Squirrelly Curmudgeon would say it was a lie, but I
won't try anything underhanded like that.
I recall the hyper-inflation of Jimmy Carter and the lack of jobs back
then. Do you?
> If you look at the picks that Obama has made you will see that he is
> going for competence, a nice change from W's Texas buds.
He's picked Bill's buds. Do you think they will stab O'bama in the
back for Hillary's gain?
> > I understand where you are coming from.
> You understand nothing beyond your preconceived notions.
>
> Jeff
I understand you for the most part. Had I been Squirrelly Curmudgeon,
your lie tally would be five, but I can't honestly categorize your
misguided opinions as lies.
Ken Lay
Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
> Name one thing W said that was more than just words being spoken.
You misunderestimate our Great Leader. He's smarter than Dan Quayle.
--
Everybody lies. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney just suck at it.
Jeff
> On Nov 19, 7:31 pm, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>> hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Nov 19, 12:48 am, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>>>> hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 17, 11:40 am, Enough Already <enough_alre...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>>>> It was inspiring to hear President-elect Obama say this during a 60
>>>>>> Minutes interview:
>>>>>> [quote]
>>>>>> (CBS) Kroft: When the price of oil was at $147 a barrel, there were a
>>>>>> lot of spirited and profitable discussions that were held on energy
>>>>>> independence. Now you've got the price of oil under $60.
>>>>>> Mr. Obama: Right.
>>>>> Uh, wrong. O'bama didn't get the price under $60 per barrel.
>>>> Such answers make the right seem more brain dead than you actually are.
>>> That you accept blatant lies makes you seem exactly as brain dead as
>>> you actually are.
>> Your mind is closed.
>
> My mind is open. I read. I comprehend. I comment.
>
>> Of course Obama had nothing to do with the fall in
>> oil prices.
>
> Absolutely nothing to do with it.
>
> Yet Kroft, talking to O'bama says, "Now you've got the price of oil
> under $60," which is a blatant lie.
Boy, you are reading a lot into that line. Did it *not* occur to you
that "you have" did not refer to Obama but rather in a more general
collective sense? Are you right wingers that suspicious?
>
> Then O'bama replies, "Right," another blatant lie.
I guess not because you keep bringing that up.
You really need some conversational English skills. Or loosen up a bit.
>
> You tell me I'm brain dead after you've accepted two blatant lies, so
> that is a lie.
>
> I reject Kroft's lie. I reject O'bama's lie, and I reject your lie.
You reject a straw man argument that lives only in your mind.
>
>> Bush is both the reason for the extraordinary rise and then
>> the subsequent collapse of oil. The first was conscious, the second an
>> unintended consequence of Bush economics.
>
> Why does Kroft think that O'bama has the price of oil under $60, and
> why does O'bama agree?
>
>> No small matter that Obama won the vote of those making more than
>> $100,000.
>
> Are you now changing the subject? Squirrelly Curmudgeon classifies a
> subject change as a lie by diversion, but I don't.
>
>>>> If you read what you snipped then you'll see that no such implication
>>>> was made:
>> <snip>
>>>> Kroft: Why?
>>>> Mr. Obama: Well, because this has been our pattern. We go from shock
>>>> to trance. You know, oil prices go up, gas prices at the pump go up,
>>>> everybody goes into a flurry of activity. And then the prices go back
>>>> down and suddenly we act like it's not important, and we start, you
>>>> know filling up our SUVs again.
>> This is absolutely accurate.
>
> Actually, I was always able to fill up my truck except that my debit/
> credit card shuts off at $75.00. It still shuts off at $75.00, but my
> tank is full before doing so.
Take a look at the resale value of a large SUV. For that matter look at
their sales figures, Ford SUV sales are off 54%. Now consider what
happened after the Arab Oil Embargo. Fuel Efficiency and lower
consumption reigned for a while. By the time of Reagan it was all in the
past.
>
>>>> And, as a consequence, we never make any progress. It’s part of the
>>>> addiction, all right. That has to be broken. Now is the time to break
>>>> it.
>>>> [end quote]
>>>> Jeff
>>> You mean when Bush said we were addicted to oil it meant nothing.
>>> When O'bama says we are addicted to oil it means something.
>> Nothing Bush says means anything.
>
> I'll chalk that up as your opinion. Squirrelly Curmudgeon would say
> it was a lie, but I won't try anything underhanded like that.
>
>> Name one thing W said that was more than just words being spoken.
>
> He said the war on terror would be a long war. He repeatedly said
> it. And it was so long that everyone forgot he said it.
Actually he said it last, long after it was obvious to everyone else:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_War_(21st_century)
Care to try again?
>
>> Was it the ownership society?
>> Was that we would get binLaden?
>> Was it that the economy is strong?
>> Was it, heckuva job Brownie.
>>
>> Never has a president of any party been such a poor steward of the
>> government.
>
> In your opinion. Squirrelly Curmudgeon would say it was a lie, but I
> won't try anything underhanded like that.
>
> I recall the hyper-inflation of Jimmy Carter and the lack of jobs back
> then. Do you?
Now, I find it amusing that you have to go back 30 years to Carter.
But let me say a few words about what Carter was able to do that Bush
has failed completely at.
He brought peace between the nations of the Middle East. Specifically
Israel and Egypt had fought a long series of wars every 6 years or so.
Today Egypt and Israel remain at peace.
Back then a large portion (1/3 +) of electric power was generated
from petroleum, Carter changed that.
I don't believe Bush has anything positive in his legacy to match.
Even Nixon has some positives in his record.
>> If you look at the picks that Obama has made you will see that he is
>> going for competence, a nice change from W's Texas buds.
>
> He's picked Bill's buds. Do you think they will stab O'bama in the
> back for Hillary's gain?
Stop falling for every conspiracy theory you hear of. They are not
all Clinton people but they are all people that have deep experience in
government and specifically in the fields they are nominated for. Where
else would you mine for experienced Democrats but in the Clinton WH?
Most of the experienced people W had came from his Dads staff and many
of those came out of Ford. Of course the neocons W took on were called
"the crazies" back then by the rest of the WH staff.
Most of government has been rudderless for the last year. The top
levels of many many departments are empty. The business of government,
vastly more bloated under W, has virtually ground to a halt. What Obama
has chosen is people with a track record to get the government working
again. What you don't realize is *that* his most important short term
goal, and he will be very pragmatic (not a word I can associate with
Republicans) in achieving that.
Jeff
Michael Coburn
And you and I an others also have the price of oil under $60. There is
no implication that we _caused_ it. But we HAVE it.
> Then O'bama replies, "Right," another blatant lie.
You are an idiot.
> You tell me I'm brain dead after you've accepted two blatant lies, so
> that is a lie.
>
> I reject Kroft's lie. I reject O'bama's lie, and I reject your lie.
Sounds like a religious problem.
>> Bush is both the reason for the extraordinary rise and then the
>> subsequent collapse of oil. The first was conscious, the second an
>> unintended consequence of Bush economics.
>
> Why does Kroft think that O'bama has the price of oil under $60, and why
> does O'bama agree?
You are an idiot.
>> No small matter that Obama won the vote of those making more than
>> $100,000.
>
> Are you now changing the subject? Squirrelly Curmudgeon classifies a
> subject change as a lie by diversion, but I don't.
Obama won the vote of just about all segments.
>> >> If you read what you snipped then you'll see that no such
>> >> implication
>> >> was made:
>>
>> <snip>
>> >> Kroft: Why?
>>
>> >> Mr. Obama: Well, because this has been our pattern. We go from shock
>> >> to trance. You know, oil prices go up, gas prices at the pump go up,
>> >> everybody goes into a flurry of activity. And then the prices go
>> >> back down and suddenly we act like it's not important, and we start,
>> >> you know filling up our SUVs again.
>>
>> This is absolutely accurate.
>
> Actually, I was always able to fill up my truck except that my debit/
> credit card shuts off at $75.00. It still shuts off at $75.00, but my
> tank is full before doing so.
My debit card shuts off at $500. But I usually pay cash for the gas.
And the need for alternative fuels is more important that the soaring and
plunging price of gasoline.
>> >> And, as a consequence, we never make any progress. It’s part of the
>> >> addiction, all right. That has to be broken. Now is the time to
>> >> break it.
>>
>> >> [end quote]
>>
>> >> Jeff
>>
>> > You mean when Bush said we were addicted to oil it meant nothing.
>> > When O'bama says we are addicted to oil it means something.
>>
>> Nothing Bush says means anything.
>
> I'll chalk that up as your opinion. Squirrelly Curmudgeon would say it
> was a lie, but I won't try anything underhanded like that.
George Bush can tell 2 contradictory lies in the same breath and believe
both of them.
>> Name one thing W said that was more than just words being spoken.
>
> He said the war on terror would be a long war. He repeatedly said it.
> And it was so long that everyone forgot he said it.
Good point. It would be long because Bush and the Republicans need it to
be long.
>> Was it the ownership society?
>> Was that we would get binLaden?
>> Was it that the economy is strong?
>> Was it, heckuva job Brownie.
>>
>> Never has a president of any party been such a poor steward of the
>> government.
>
> In your opinion. Squirrelly Curmudgeon would say it was a lie, but I
> won't try anything underhanded like that.
>
> I recall the hyper-inflation of Jimmy Carter and the lack of jobs back
> then. Do you?
I remember those days and I did very well, thank you. Wages were
actually rising and people bought homes and 5 years later the payments
were a very small part of their living expenses. But the Republicans
managed to convince all persons that inflation was THE problem.
>> If you look at the picks that Obama has made you will see that he
>> is
>> going for competence, a nice change from W's Texas buds.
>
> He's picked Bill's buds. Do you think they will stab O'bama in the back
> for Hillary's gain?
No.
>> > I understand where you are coming from.
>
>> You understand nothing beyond your preconceived notions.
>>
>> Jeff
>
> I understand you for the most part. Had I been Squirrelly Curmudgeon,
> your lie tally would be five, but I can't honestly categorize your
> misguided opinions as lies.
I don't categorize yours as lies either. Where does that leave you.
Other news groups have their problems we have you at $60.
zzbu...@netscape.net
But that's ALWAYs going to be the way with wank Ford, no matter
WHAT
the price of gasoline. Which is also why Post Ford Batteries, Solar
Energy,
Holograms, lasers, masers, RISC, Optical Computers, Fiber Optics,
Pv Cells, Satellites, GPS, Wind Energy, Biodiesel, Autonomous
Vehciles,
HDTV, CD, DVD, and On-Line-Publishling were invented
Since Ford lives on *Wal-Mart*, rather than science, logic,
engineering, medicine,
gasoline, energy, or SUVs.
> > misguided opinions as lies.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Curly Surmudgeon
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:52:18 -0800, hot-ham-and-cheese wrote:
>
>> On Nov 19, 7:31Â pm, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>>> hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> > On Nov 19, 12:48 am, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>>> >> hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> >>> On Nov 17, 11:40 am, Enough Already <enough_alre...@lycos.com>
>>> >>> wrote:
>>> >>>> It was inspiring to hear President-elect Obama say this during a
>>> >>>> 60 Minutes interview:
>>> >>>> [quote]
>>> >>>> (CBS) Kroft: When the price of oil was at $147 a barrel, there
>>> >>>> were a lot of spirited and profitable discussions that were held
>>> >>>> on energy independence. Now you've got the price of oil under
>>> >>>> $60. Mr. Obama: Right.
>>> >>> Uh, wrong. Â O'bama didn't get the price under $60 per barrel.
>>> >> Â Such answers make the right seem more brain dead than you Â
>>> >> actually are.
>>>
>>> > That you accept blatant lies makes you seem exactly as brain dead as
>>> > you actually are.
>>>
>>> Your mind is closed.
>>
>> My mind is open. I read. I comprehend. I comment.
>>
>>> Of course Obama had nothing to do with the fall in oil prices.
>>
>> Absolutely nothing to do with it.
>>
>> Yet Kroft, talking to O'bama says, "Now you've got the price of oil
>> under $60," which is a blatant lie.
>
> And you and I an others also have the price of oil under $60. There is
> no implication that we _caused_ it. But we HAVE it.
>
>> Then O'bama replies, "Right," another blatant lie.
>
> You are an idiot.
>
>> You tell me I'm brain dead after you've accepted two blatant lies, so
>> that is a lie.
>>
>> I reject Kroft's lie. I reject O'bama's lie, and I reject your lie.
>
> Sounds like a religious problem.
>
>>> Bush is both the reason for the extraordinary rise and then the
>>> subsequent collapse of oil. The first was conscious, the second an
>>> unintended consequence of Bush economics.
>>
>> Why does Kroft think that O'bama has the price of oil under $60, and
>> why does O'bama agree?
>
> You are an idiot.
>
>>> Â Â No small matter that Obama won the vote of those making more than
>>> $100,000.
>>
>> Are you now changing the subject? Squirrelly Curmudgeon classifies a
>> subject change as a lie by diversion, but I don't.
>
> Obama won the vote of just about all segments.
>
>>> >> Â Â If you read what you snipped then you'll see that no such Â
>>> >> implication
>>> >> was made:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>> >> Kroft: Why?
>>>
>>> >> Mr. Obama: Well, because this has been our pattern. We go from
>>> >> shock to trance. You know, oil prices go up, gas prices at the pump
>>> >> go up, everybody goes into a flurry of activity. And then the
>>> >> prices go back down and suddenly we act like it's not important,
>>> >> and we start, you know filling up our SUVs again.
>>>
>>> This is absolutely accurate.
>>
>> Actually, I was always able to fill up my truck except that my debit/
>> credit card shuts off at $75.00. It still shuts off at $75.00, but my
>> tank is full before doing so.
>
> My debit card shuts off at $500. But I usually pay cash for the gas.
> And the need for alternative fuels is more important that the soaring
> and plunging price of gasoline.
>
>>> >> And, as a consequence, we never make any progress. It’s part of
>>> >> the addiction, all right. That has to be broken. Now is the time to
>>> >> break it.
>>>
>>> >> [end quote]
>>>
>>> >> Â Â Jeff
>>>
>>> > You mean when Bush said we were addicted to oil it meant nothing.
>>> > When O'bama says we are addicted to oil it means something.
>>>
>>> Nothing Bush says means anything.
>>
>> I'll chalk that up as your opinion. Squirrelly Curmudgeon would say it
>> was a lie, but I won't try anything underhanded like that.
>
> George Bush can tell 2 contradictory lies in the same breath and believe
> both of them.
>
>>> Name one thing W said that was more than just words being spoken.
>>
>> He said the war on terror would be a long war. He repeatedly said it.
>> And it was so long that everyone forgot he said it.
>
> Good point. It would be long because Bush and the Republicans need it
> to be long.
>
>>> Was it the ownership society?
>>> Was that we would get binLaden?
>>> Was it that the economy is strong?
>>> Was it, heckuva job Brownie.
>>>
>>> Â Never has a president of any party been such a poor steward of the
>>> government.
>>
>> In your opinion. Squirrelly Curmudgeon would say it was a lie, but I
>> won't try anything underhanded like that.
>>
>> I recall the hyper-inflation of Jimmy Carter and the lack of jobs back
>> then. Do you?
>
> I remember those days and I did very well, thank you. Wages were
> actually rising and people bought homes and 5 years later the payments
> were a very small part of their living expenses. But the Republicans
> managed to convince all persons that inflation was THE problem.
>
>>> Â Â If you look at the picks that Obama has made you will see that he
>>> Â is
>>> going for competence, a nice change from W's Texas buds.
>>
>> He's picked Bill's buds. Do you think they will stab O'bama in the
>> back for Hillary's gain?
>
> No.
>
>>> > I understand where you are coming from.
>>
>>> Â You understand nothing beyond your preconceived notions.
>>>
>>> Â Â Jeff
>>
>> I understand you for the most part. Had I been Squirrelly Curmudgeon,
>> your lie tally would be five, but I can't honestly categorize your
>> misguided opinions as lies.
>
> I don't categorize yours as lies either. Where does that leave you.
> Other news groups have their problems we have you at $60.
Perhaps you are forgetting who you are speaking to or his history of
lying. Lying even when there is no need to lie, making shit up, twisting
your words, taking words out of context, and fabricating houses of cards.
You were speaking to the Liar of misc.survivalism. Does the following
passage not describe his behavior to a 'T'?
Profile of the Sociopath
This website summarizes some of the common features of descriptions of the
behavior of sociopaths.
* Glibness and Superficial Charm
* Manipulative and Conning
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving
behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are
covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an
instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their
victims.
* Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."
* Pathological Lying
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible
for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get
caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities.
Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.
* Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their
core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets
and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and
accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the
means and they let nothing stand in their way.
* Shallow Emotions
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it
is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive.
Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by
what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine,
neither are their promises.
* Incapacity for Love
* Need for Stimulation
Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are
normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.
* Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only
contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking
advantage of them.
* Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and
approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well
as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are
all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of
personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.
* Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet
"gets by" by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends;
aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing,
etc.
* Irresponsibility/Unreliability
Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or
indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame
themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously
committed.
* Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity
Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all
sorts.
* Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for
the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively.
* Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life
story readily.
http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html
Don't get sucked into the cockroach's fantasies.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bible: Slavery Good, Gays Bad, Snakes Talk
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
................................................................
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
>>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-
Curly Surmudgeon
It's another sign of a sociopath, the world revolves around them so third
person references morph into accusations.
>> Then O'bama replies, "Right," another blatant lie.
>
> I guess not because you keep bringing that up.
>
> You really need some conversational English skills. Or loosen up a bit.
In the world of the sociopath the boundary between fact and fiction, lies
and truth, doesn't exist. Whatever fantasy justifies their current
thought becomes truth, past, future, and present, events which conflict
become lies.
It's a comfortable world, that of the sociopath, because there are no
moral grey areas. Black and White are the rule making it simple to
villify anyone/thing that violates their fantastical world.
>> You tell me I'm brain dead after you've accepted two blatant lies, so
>> that is a lie.
>>
>> I reject Kroft's lie. I reject O'bama's lie, and I reject your lie.
>
> You reject a straw man argument that lives only in your mind.
Thankfully. In a position of power the sociopath is dangerous.
>>> Bush is both the reason for the extraordinary rise and then the
>>> subsequent collapse of oil. The first was conscious, the second an
>>> unintended consequence of Bush economics.
>>
>> Why does Kroft think that O'bama has the price of oil under $60, and why
>> does O'bama agree?
>>
>>> No small matter that Obama won the vote of those making more than
>>> $100,000.
>>
>> Are you now changing the subject? Squirrelly Curmudgeon classifies a
>> subject change as a lie by diversion, but I don't.
Stop twisting my words, cockroach. When _you_ change the subject it's
invariably a lie by diversion. When non-sociopaths bring other evidence
to bear it's usually for a rational reason.
Your paranoia is showing.
Bush lied us into invading Iraq based on filtered intelligence,
assumptions, innuendo, and falsehoods. He did not, as you rightfully
point out, say this was to be a long war, his administration, all of them,
said this would be a "cakewalk" in various phrasings. "Days or weeks,
certainly not months" was another variation.
It was all lies, just as HH&C continues the attempt to rewrite history.
>>> Was it the ownership society?
>>> Was that we would get binLaden?
>>> Was it that the economy is strong?
>>> Was it, heckuva job Brownie.
>>>
>>> Never has a president of any party been such a poor steward of the
>>> government.
>>
>> In your opinion. Squirrelly Curmudgeon would say it was a lie, but I
>> won't try anything underhanded like that.
>>
>> I recall the hyper-inflation of Jimmy Carter and the lack of jobs back
>> then. Do you?
>
> Now, I find it amusing that you have to go back 30 years to Carter.
>
> But let me say a few words about what Carter was able to do that Bush
> has failed completely at.
>
> He brought peace between the nations of the Middle East. Specifically
> Israel and Egypt had fought a long series of wars every 6 years or so.
> Today Egypt and Israel remain at peace.
>
> Back then a large portion (1/3 +) of electric power was generated
> from petroleum, Carter changed that.
>
> I don't believe Bush has anything positive in his legacy to match.
> Even Nixon has some positives in his record.
Bush's legacy will take patience to fully comprehend, the shoes are still
dropping. From shredding the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to massive
Federal corruption, to plundering the treasury, to violating the church -
state separation, to lying to Congress and "We, The People," to treason,
Bush's legacy will require time to understand.
>>> If you look at the picks that Obama has made you will see that he
>>> is
>>> going for competence, a nice change from W's Texas buds.
>>
>> He's picked Bill's buds. Do you think they will stab O'bama in the
>> back for Hillary's gain?
>
> Stop falling for every conspiracy theory you hear of. They are not
> all Clinton people but they are all people that have deep experience in
> government and specifically in the fields they are nominated for. Where
> else would you mine for experienced Democrats but in the Clinton WH?
> Most of the experienced people W had came from his Dads staff and many
> of those came out of Ford. Of course the neocons W took on were called
> "the crazies" back then by the rest of the WH staff.
That is the point I made in another topic, the Executive Branch is
designed and controlled by the President, not the various Secretaries nor
appointees. At least in a normal presidency, Bush was so inept that the
neocons directed most every move. Obama, even though I didn't vote for
him, has shown laudable management skills in selecting knowledgeable
people to help him push his own agenda. That will allow him to make
progress rapidly and without the changes in direction that plagued the
Bush administration.
Consistancy is critical in the Excutive office.
> Most of government has been rudderless for the last year. The top
> levels of many many departments are empty. The business of government,
> vastly more bloated under W, has virtually ground to a halt. What Obama
> has chosen is people with a track record to get the government working
> again. What you don't realize is *that* his most important short term
> goal, and he will be very pragmatic (not a word I can associate with
> Republicans) in achieving that.
True, and I wish Obama well. We must give Obama the same slack we gave
Bush during his formulative period. If/when Obama errs then it's time to
castigate him, not now when he's not even in office.
I distinctly remember HH&C telling us that he supported the President as
an excuse for not speaking a bad word about Bush. Apparently that is
another lie for he's not giving Obama the same slack.
> Jeff
>
>
>>>> I understand where you are coming from.
>>
>>> You understand nothing beyond your preconceived notions.
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>
>> I understand you for the most part. Had I been Squirrelly Curmudgeon,
>> your lie tally would be five, but I can't honestly categorize your
>> misguided opinions as lies.
You can't "honestly" speak. Not for yourself, let alone others. Cease
misrepresenting the words of others and only lie for your self. We've
come to accept that you lie for yourself is your pattern, lying about the
words of others is unacceptable.
Do not paraphrase others, misrepresent, modify, or misstate our words. Lie
only for yourself.
Curly Surmudgeon
> In article <xaKdndIXlcNyMrnU...@earthlink.com>,
> Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>
>> Name one thing W said that was more than just words being spoken.
>
> You misunderestimate our Great Leader. He's smarter than Dan Quayle.
You think? Don't equate success in election fraud with intelligence.
By the way, I've always wondered if Ken Lay were really dead or living on
a carribbean island after facial reconstruction surgery with new passports...
Your presence here lends credence to the fantasy. How'd you get your
bucks out unnoticed?
Curly Surmudgeon
Ha! <standing applause>
/s/influence/credibility
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
Both stated the obvious, yet you waited for your media hero to come
along and restate the obvious before you believed it.
That puts you at a gross intellectual disadvantage.
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Stop stalking me, stinkbug. And stop lying, too.
Curly Surmudgeon
>>>> I understand you for the most part. Had I been Squirrelly
>>>> Curmudgeon, your lie tally would be five, but I can't honestly
>>>> categorize your misguided opinions as lies.
>>
>> You can't "honestly" speak. Not for yourself, let alone others. Cease
>> misrepresenting the words of others and only lie for your self. We've
>> come to accept that you lie for yourself is your pattern, lying about
>> the words of others is unacceptable.
>>
>> Do not paraphrase others, misrepresent, modify, or misstate our words.
>> Lie only for yourself.
>
> Stop stalking me, stinkbug. And stop lying, too.
You're lying again, cockroach.
Stop it.
Curly Surmudgeon
You're lying again.
Stop it, cockroach.
Jeff
Oddly it took Bush until the 2006 State of the Union to mention it.
The same speech where it dawned on him that this was going to be a long
war. So, what tangible results do we have from his: Advanced Energy
Initiative? Not much that I can find. But that seems to be the normal
state of affairs for any Bush initiative. How's that trip to Mars coming
along?
>
> That puts you at a gross intellectual disadvantage.
You have a lot of opinions that you can't substantiate. These things
can happen listening to wingnut radio where they only give you the
synopsis of what to believe and never the background info to prove it.
Essentially we've had an entire presidency that never cared half as
much about policy as it did politics. W's first Treasury Secretary, Paul
O Neal, said that he kept waiting for the policy discussions that he'd
seen in previous administrations, and they never happened. The decisions
had already been made by the political wing.
Jeff
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
> hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Nov 19, 2:03 pm, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 03:42:13 -0800, hot-ham-and-cheese wrote:
> >>> You mean when Bush said we were addicted to oil it meant nothing. When
> >>> O'bama says we are addicted to oil it means something.
> >> I think you have busted the code here....
>
> >> The proclamation is essentially correct. When someone intelligent tells
> >> you something it has a much larger influence then when a moron says it.
>
> > Both stated the obvious, yet you waited for your media hero to come
> > along and restate the obvious before you believed it.
>
> Oddly it took Bush until the 2006 State of the Union to mention it.
That was 2.5 years ahead of your media hero.
> The same speech where it dawned on him that this was going to be a long
> war.
You are mistaken. Bush said it would be a long war from the very
beginning.
> So, what tangible results do we have from his: Advanced Energy
> Initiative?
> Not much that I can find. But that seems to be the normal
> state of affairs for any Bush initiative. How's that trip to Mars coming
> along?
Do you mean, "If we start drilling today we won't get the oil for 10
years?" Selfish people tend to want things instantly.
> > That puts you at a gross intellectual disadvantage.
>
> You have a lot of opinions that you can't substantiate. These things
> can happen listening to wingnut radio where they only give you the
> synopsis of what to believe and never the background info to prove it.
That you choose to ignore truth because one person says it, and not
your media hero, puts you at an intellectual disadvantage, doesn't
it? Some would call it ignorance.
> Essentially we've had an entire presidency that never cared half as
> much about policy as it did politics. W's first Treasury Secretary, Paul
> O Neal, said that he kept waiting for the policy discussions that he'd
> seen in previous administrations, and they never happened. The decisions
> had already been made by the political wing.
>
> Jeff
So what did the political wing tell O'Neil?
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
I didn't do very well.
> Wages were
> actually rising and people bought homes and 5 years later the payments
> were a very small part of their living expenses.
You're funny. My older sister and her husband bought a house and paid
14% mortgage interest.
> But the Republicans
> managed to convince all persons that inflation was THE problem.
It was a bad economy manifested by high unemployment, lask of jobs and
high inflation.
"It's the Economy, Stupid" and "It's theWorst Economy Ever!"
That is what sunk the first Bush. And they were lies.
And your memory is faulty.
> >> If you look at the picks that Obama has made you will see that he
> >> is
> >> going for competence, a nice change from W's Texas buds.
>
> > He's picked Bill's buds. Do you think they will stab O'bama in the back
> > for Hillary's gain?
>
> No.
Their handler told them not to do that.
Change my ass. We're going to get 8 more years of the Clinton
administration.
> >> > I understand where you are coming from.
>
> >> You understand nothing beyond your preconceived notions.
>
> >> Jeff
>
> > I understand you for the most part. Had I been Squirrelly Curmudgeon,
> > your lie tally would be five, but I can't honestly categorize your
> > misguided opinions as lies.
>
> I don't categorize yours as lies either.
Squirrelly Curmudgeon does.
> Where does that leave you.
> Other news groups have their problems we have you at $60.
Thank you. We also have Squirrelly Curmudgeon who doesn't engage in
honest dialog, and Brock who will go against his core beliefs just to
have an argument with me.
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Squirrelly, why do you always go to the ad homs? Is it that you have
nothing left in your intellect tool bag? Best of Luck.
Jeff
> On Nov 21, 2:10 am, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>> hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Nov 19, 2:03 pm, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 03:42:13 -0800, hot-ham-and-cheese wrote:
>>>>> You mean when Bush said we were addicted to oil it meant nothing. When
>>>>> O'bama says we are addicted to oil it means something.
>>>> I think you have busted the code here....
>>>> The proclamation is essentially correct. When someone intelligent tells
>>>> you something it has a much larger influence then when a moron says it.
>>> Both stated the obvious, yet you waited for your media hero to come
>>> along and restate the obvious before you believed it.
>> Oddly it took Bush until the 2006 State of the Union to mention it.
>
> That was 2.5 years ahead of your media hero.
It's been obvious to everyone but George W Bush, and apparently
yourself for years.
The president has the largest public megaphone and he is years behind
the curve on this, just as he has been on everything else.
>> The same speech where it dawned on him that this was going to be a long
>> war.
>
> You are mistaken. Bush said it would be a long war from the very
> beginning.
Cite. Remember that Rummy et all were claiming a short war. And don't
forget "Mission Accomplished", which btw, was wholly orchestrated by the
WH.
>
>> So, what tangible results do we have from his: Advanced Energy
>> Initiative?
>
>> Not much that I can find. But that seems to be the normal
>> state of affairs for any Bush initiative. How's that trip to Mars coming
>> along?
>
> Do you mean, "If we start drilling today we won't get the oil for 10
> years?" Selfish people tend to want things instantly.
You can't domestically drill out of this, there isn't enough oil. And,
of course, that would be lost to the future, just like all the other
large domestic fields are now dry holes.
That initiative he promised was more than "drill baby drill", but
like everything else W has done, it has come up a dry hole. As a matter
of fact it had little to do with drilling for oil.
>
>>> That puts you at a gross intellectual disadvantage.
>> You have a lot of opinions that you can't substantiate. These things
>> can happen listening to wingnut radio where they only give you the
>> synopsis of what to believe and never the background info to prove it.
>
> That you choose to ignore truth because one person says it, and not
> your media hero, puts you at an intellectual disadvantage, doesn't
> it? Some would call it ignorance.
>
>> Essentially we've had an entire presidency that never cared half as
>> much about policy as it did politics. W's first Treasury Secretary, Paul
>> O Neal, said that he kept waiting for the policy discussions that he'd
>> seen in previous administrations, and they never happened. The decisions
>> had already been made by the political wing.
>>
>> Jeff
>
> So what did the political wing tell O'Neil?
Read his book, or for that matter any other Republican who worked
inside the WH. Like George Tenet or Richard Clarke. Or listen to what
Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, Powell's chief of staff, have said.
All of them came to the surprising conclusion that policy was already
fixed. There was no discussion, it was a fait accompli. All of them had
worked in previous administrations.
I think we can see the sad consequences of this now, all we have to
show for it is a long series of broken promises.
And you can't see that, being so consumed by hatred. The Republicans
of Karl Rove have depended on people such as yourself.
For Cheney's part in this:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/cheney/chapters/leaving_no_tracks/
Jeff
Jeff
>>> That puts you at a gross intellectual disadvantage.
>> You have a lot of opinions that you can't substantiate. These things
>> can happen listening to wingnut radio where they only give you the
>> synopsis of what to believe and never the background info to prove it.
>
> That you choose to ignore truth because one person says it, and not
> your media hero, puts you at an intellectual disadvantage, doesn't
> it? Some would call it ignorance.
I missed this first time out.
No, it is not truth if it is unsubstantiated. You see that you are
confusing opinion programs with news programs. There is no journalistic
standard for your opinion talk shows. They can say whatever they want
and there is no recourse for when they are wrong. In fact you never even
know it.
If a journalist is wrong, he risks being fired (ex. Dan Rather). If
Rush errs, it is just another day on the air. He serves only to please
his gullible audience not the truth.
The fact is that you see the whole world through your colored
glasses. You see Obama as "media hero" becuse you wholly bought into
that McCain commercial. In fact you can't see beyond that. He is a man
of real substance and he is putting together a very competent staff to
actually run government, something that clearly isn't being done now.
BTW, I read the republican pundits, just not the opinion meisters
that you apparently follow. Hell, I even watch the news segment of the
700 Club, they have some standards.
>
Jeff
Curly Surmudgeon
> hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Nov 19, 2:03 pm, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 03:42:13 -0800, hot-ham-and-cheese wrote:
>>>> You mean when Bush said we were addicted to oil it meant nothing. When
>>>> O'bama says we are addicted to oil it means something.
>>> I think you have busted the code here....
>>>
>>> The proclamation is essentially correct. When someone intelligent tells
>>> you something it has a much larger influence then when a moron says it.
>>
>> Both stated the obvious, yet you waited for your media hero to come
>> along and restate the obvious before you believed it.
>
>
> Oddly it took Bush until the 2006 State of the Union to mention it.
> The same speech where it dawned on him that this was going to be a long
> war. So, what tangible results do we have from his: Advanced Energy
> Initiative? Not much that I can find. But that seems to be the normal
> state of affairs for any Bush initiative. How's that trip to Mars coming
> along?
>
>
>>
>> That puts you at a gross intellectual disadvantage.
>
> You have a lot of opinions that you can't substantiate.
That's a common character trait of sociopaths.
"How do you make sure you don't get fooled when you're hiring someone to
baby-sit your child or for any other job? Hire based on reputation and not
image, says Willson. Check references thoroughly. Psychopaths tend to give
vague and inconsistent replies. Of course the best way to solve this
problem would be to cure psychopaths of their 'illness.' But there's no
recipe for treating them, say psychiatrists. Today's traditional methods
of psychotherapy (psychoanalysis, group and one-on-one therapy) and drug
treatments have failed. Therapy is more likely to work when an individual
admits there's a problem and wants to change. The common problem with
psychopaths, says Sets, "Is they don't see a problem with their behavior.""
http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html
> These things can happen listening to wingnut radio where they only
> give you the synopsis of what to believe and never the background info
> to prove it.
That's because there is not logic behind their beliefs. How many times
have you heard the ditto-heads ranting at trumped up claims only to be
proven false yet nary an apology. It serves their purpose well to keep
listeners pissed off and ready to snap. Ditto-heads are ready for the
next morsel of bullshit.
> Essentially we've had an entire presidency that never cared half as
> much about policy as it did politics. W's first Treasury Secretary, Paul
> O Neal, said that he kept waiting for the policy discussions that he'd
> seen in previous administrations, and they never happened. The decisions
> had already been made by the political wing.
Wasn't it also Paul O'Neal who revealed the discussion about Iraq wasn't
whether Saddam had WMD's but how to sell the war to the public?
> Jeff
Jeff
>
>> Essentially we've had an entire presidency that never cared half as
>> much about policy as it did politics. W's first Treasury Secretary, Paul
>> O Neal, said that he kept waiting for the policy discussions that he'd
>> seen in previous administrations, and they never happened. The decisions
>> had already been made by the political wing.
>
> Wasn't it also Paul O'Neal who revealed the discussion about Iraq wasn't
> whether Saddam had WMD's but how to sell the war to the public?
I missed the 60 minutes interview where he said it was planned 8
months before 9/11. That would be in the first days of the "W" WH.
I have heard him say that his first greeting from one of the WH
neocons (name escapes me) was about Saddam. They weren't wasting time.
O'Neal thought that was odd because he was, after all, the Treasury
Secretary. It looks like an obsession.
I've also heard it that what has been released from Cheney's Energy
meeting in the early days, is full of maps of Iraqi oil fields.
I just found this from CBS on that:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml
I'd trim this, but the whole interview is fascinating.
(CBS) A year ago, Paul O'Neill was fired from his job as George Bush's
Treasury Secretary for disagreeing too many times with the president's
policy on tax cuts.
Now, O'Neill - who is known for speaking his mind - talks for the first
time about his two years inside the Bush administration. His story is
the centerpiece of a new book being published this week about the way
the Bush White House is run.
Entitled "The Price of Loyalty," the book by a former Wall Street
Journal reporter draws on interviews with high-level officials who gave
the author their personal accounts of meetings with the president, their
notes and documents. [Simon and Schuster, the book's publisher, and
CBSNews.com, are both units of Viacom.]
But the main source of the book was Paul O'Neill. Correspondent Lesley
Stahl reports. Paul O'Neill says he is going public because he thinks
the Bush Administration has been too secretive about how decisions have
been made.
Will this be seen as a “kiss-and-tell" book?
“I've come to believe that people will say damn near anything, so I'm
sure somebody will say all of that and more,” says O’Neill, who was
George Bush's top economic policy official.
In the book, O’Neill says that the president did not make decisions in a
methodical way: there was no free-flow of ideas or open debate.
At cabinet meetings, he says the president was "like a blind man in a
roomful of deaf people. There is no discernible connection," forcing top
officials to act "on little more than hunches about what the president
might think."
This is what O'Neill says happened at his first hour-long, one-on-one
meeting with Mr. Bush: “I went in with a long list of things to talk
about, and I thought to engage on and as the book says, I was surprised
that it turned out me talking, and the president just listening … As I
recall, it was mostly a monologue.”
He also says that President Bush was disengaged, at least on domestic
issues, and that disturbed him. And he says that wasn't his experience
when he worked as a top official under Presidents Nixon and Ford, or the
way he ran things when he was chairman of Alcoa.
O'Neill readily agreed to tell his story to the book's author Ron
Suskind – and he adds that he's taking no money for his part in the book.
Suskind says he interviewed hundreds of people for the book – including
several cabinet members.
O'Neill is the only one who spoke on the record, but Suskind says that
someone high up in the administration – Donald Rumsfeld - warned O’Neill
not to do this book.
Was it a warning, or a threat?
“I don't think so. I think it was the White House concerned,” says
Suskind. “Understandably, because O'Neill has spent extraordinary
amounts of time with the president. They said, ‘This could really be the
one moment where things are revealed.’"Not only did O'Neill give Suskind
his time, he gave him 19,000 internal documents.
“Everything's there: Memoranda to the President, handwritten "thank you"
notes, 100-page documents. Stuff that's sensitive,” says Suskind, adding
that in some cases, it included transcripts of private, high-level
National Security Council meetings. “You don’t get higher than that.”
And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security
Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations.
“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein
was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that
going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight
months before Sept. 11.
“From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we
can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were
laid and sealed.”
As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National
Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting
that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The
president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill. “For me,
the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do
whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”
And that came up at this first meeting, says O’Neill, who adds that the
discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council
meeting two days later.
He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. “There are memos. One
of them marked, secret, says, ‘Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,’" adds
Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January
and February of 2001. Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several
other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning
envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying
up Iraq's oil wealth.
He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled
"Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of
potential areas for exploration.
“It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40
countries. And which ones have what intentions,” says Suskind. “On oil
in Iraq.”
During the campaign, candidate Bush had criticized the Clinton-Gore
Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don't stop
extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions,
then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm
going to prevent that."
“The thing that's most surprising, I think, is how emphatically, from
the very first, the administration had said ‘X’ during the campaign, but
from the first day was often doing ‘Y,’” says Suskind. “Not just saying
‘Y,’ but actively moving toward the opposite of what they had said
during the election.”
The president had promised to cut taxes, and he did. Within six months
of taking office, he pushed a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts through
Congress.
But O'Neill thought it should have been the end. After 9/11 and the war
in Afghanistan, the budget deficit was growing. So at a meeting with the
vice president after the mid-term elections in 2002, Suskind writes that
O'Neill argued against a second round of tax cuts.
“Cheney, at this moment, shows his hand,” says Suskind. “He says, ‘You
know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the
mid-term elections, this is our due.’ … O'Neill is speechless.”
”It was not just about not wanting the tax cut. It was about how to use
the nation's resources to improve the condition of our society,” says
O’Neill. “And I thought the weight of working on Social Security and
fundamental tax reform was a lot more important than a tax reduction.”
Did he think it was irresponsible? “Well, it's for sure not what I would
have done,” says O’Neill.
The former treasury secretary accuses Vice President Dick Cheney of not
being an honest broker, but, with a handful of others, part of "a
praetorian guard that encircled the president" to block out contrary
views. "This is the way Dick likes it," says O’Neill. Meanwhile, the
White House was losing patience with O'Neill. He was becoming known for
a series of off-the-cuff remarks his critics called gaffes. One of them
sent the dollar into a nosedive and required major damage control.
Twice during stock market meltdowns, O'Neill was not available to the
president: He was out of the country - one time on a trip to Africa with
the Irish rock star Bono.
“Africa made an enormous splash. It was like a road show,” says Suskind.
“He comes back and the president says to him at a meeting, ‘You know,
you're getting quite a cult following.’ And it clearly was not a joke.
And it was not said in jest.”
Suskind writes that the relationship grew tenser and that the president
even took a jab at O'Neill in public, at an economic forum in Texas.
The two men were never close. And O'Neill was not amused when Mr. Bush
began calling him "The Big O." He thought the president's habit of
giving people nicknames was a form of bullying. Everything came to a
head for O'Neill at a November 2002 meeting at the White House of the
economic team.
“It's a huge meeting. You got Dick Cheney from the, you know, secure
location on the video. The President is there,” says Suskind, who was
given a nearly verbatim transcript by someone who attended the meeting.
He says everyone expected Mr. Bush to rubber stamp the plan under
discussion: a big new tax cut. But, according to Suskind, the president
was perhaps having second thoughts about cutting taxes again, and was
uncharacteristically engaged.
“He asks, ‘Haven't we already given money to rich people? This second
tax cut's gonna do it again,’” says Suskind.
“He says, ‘Didn’t we already, why are we doing it again?’ Now, his
advisers, they say, ‘Well Mr. President, the upper class, they're the
entrepreneurs. That's the standard response.’ And the president kind of
goes, ‘OK.’ That's their response. And then, he comes back to it again.
‘Well, shouldn't we be giving money to the middle, won't people be able
to say, ‘You did it once, and then you did it twice, and what was it
good for?’"
But according to the transcript, White House political advisor Karl Rove
jumped in.
“Karl Rove is saying to the president, a kind of mantra. ‘Stick to
principle. Stick to principle.’ He says it over and over again,” says
Suskind. “Don’t waver.”
In the end, the president didn't. And nine days after that meeting in
which O'Neill made it clear he could not publicly support another tax
cut, the vice president called and asked him to resign.
With the deficit now climbing towards $400 billion, O'Neill maintains he
was in the right.
But look at the economy today.
“Yes, well, in the last quarter the growth rate was 8.2 percent. It was
terrific,” says O’Neill. “I think the tax cut made a difference. But
without the tax cut, we would have had 6 percent real growth, and the
prospect of dealing with transformation of Social Security and
fundamentally fixing the tax system. And to me, those were compelling
competitors for, against more tax cuts.” While in the book O'Neill comes
off as constantly appalled at Mr. Bush, he was surprised when Stahl told
him she found his portrait of the president unflattering.
“Hmmm, you really think so,” asks O’Neill, who says he isn’t joking.
“Well, I’ll be darned.”
“You're giving me the impression that you're just going to be stunned if
they attack you for this book,” says Stahl to O’Neill. “And they're
going to say, I predict, you know, it's sour grapes. He's getting back
because he was fired.”
“I will be really disappointed if they react that way because I think
they'll be hard put to,” says O’Neill.
Is he prepared for it?
“Well, I don't think I need to be because I can't imagine that I'm going
to be attacked for telling the truth,” says O’Neill. “Why would I be
attacked for telling the truth?”
White House spokesman Scott McClellan was asked about the book on Friday
and said "The president is someone that leads and acts decisively on our
biggest priorities and that is exactly what he'll continue to do."
Jeff
>
>> Jeff
>
Curly Surmudgeon
> At cabinet meetings, he says the president was "like a blind man in a
> roomful of deaf people. There is no discernible connection," forcing top
> officials to act "on little more than hunches about what the president
> might think."
Thanks, that is my recollection but didn't remember the fine points.
Can you say, "Pirates of the Economy"?
Jeff
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 14:18:45 -0500, Jeff wrote:
>
>> At cabinet meetings, he says the president was "like a blind man in a
>> roomful of deaf people. There is no discernible connection," forcing top
>> officials to act "on little more than hunches about what the president
>> might think."
>
> Thanks, that is my recollection but didn't remember the fine points.
>
> Can you say, "Pirates of the Economy"?
That pretty much sums it up.
Jeff
>
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
> <snip>
>
> >>> That puts you at a gross intellectual disadvantage.
> >> You have a lot of opinions that you can't substantiate. These things
> >> can happen listening to wingnut radio where they only give you the
> >> synopsis of what to believe and never the background info to prove it.
>
> > That you choose to ignore truth because one person says it, and not
> > your media hero, puts you at an intellectual disadvantage, doesn't
> > it? Some would call it ignorance.
>
> I missed this first time out.
Why am I not surprised?
> No, it is not truth if it is unsubstantiated.
Do you lie to yourself often?
> You see that you are
> confusing opinion programs with news programs.
Actually, I'm not.
> There is no journalistic
> standard for your opinion talk shows. They can say whatever they want
> and there is no recourse for when they are wrong. In fact you never even
> know it.
You may not.
> If a journalist is wrong, he risks being fired (ex. Dan Rather).
Dan was fired? I thought I saw him retire?
That bitch handler of his should have been fired.
> If
> Rush errs, it is just another day on the air. He serves only to please
> his gullible audience not the truth.
And the mainstream media is gullible whenever Barack or Hillary start
moving their lips.
"The first thing Barack has to do is to win over the media." I almost
pissed myself laughing over that one.
> The fact is that you see the whole world through your colored
> glasses.
Actually, my lens have no tint and I'm color blind.
> You see Obama as "media hero" becuse you wholly bought into
> that McCain commercial. In fact you can't see beyond that. He is a man
> of real substance and he is putting together a very competent staff to
> actually run government, something that clearly isn't being done now.
Barack has no substance. Like Joe Biden said...
> BTW, I read the republican pundits, just not the opinion meisters
> that you apparently follow. Hell, I even watch the news segment of the
> 700 Club, they have some standards.
You are so learned and wise. I am not worthy. Ha ha ha ha ha. That
was fun.
> Jeff
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:13:28 -0800, hot-ham-and-cheese wrote:
> >>>> I understand you for the most part. Had I been Squirrelly
> >>>> Curmudgeon, your lie tally would be five, but I can't honestly
> >>>> categorize your misguided opinions as lies.
>
> >> You can't "honestly" speak. Not for yourself, let alone others. Cease
> >> misrepresenting the words of others and only lie for your self. We've
> >> come to accept that you lie for yourself is your pattern, lying about
> >> the words of others is unacceptable.
>
> >> Do not paraphrase others, misrepresent, modify, or misstate our words.
> >> Lie only for yourself.
>
> > Stop stalking me, stinkbug. And stop lying, too.
>
> You're lying again, cockroach.
>
> Stop it.
>
> --
> Regards, Curly
You're stalking again, little stinkbug. Stop it.
Jeff
You are real nasty piece of work. Curly is right about your being a
psychopath.
Jeff
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
Heh, heh. She set him up, but I think he went willingly. Plausible
deniability and all that.
Ken Lay
Curly Surmudgeon <curlysu...@live.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 21:22:27 -0600, Ken Lay wrote:
>
> > In article <xaKdndIXlcNyMrnU...@earthlink.com>,
> > Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Name one thing W said that was more than just words being spoken.
> >
> > You misunderestimate our Great Leader. He's smarter than Dan Quayle.
>
> You think? Don't equate success in election fraud with intelligence.
>
> By the way, I've always wondered if Ken Lay were really dead or living on
> a carribbean island after facial reconstruction surgery with new passports...
>
> Your presence here lends credence to the fantasy. How'd you get your
> bucks out unnoticed?
I had a lot of help from friends in High Places. Also a lot of documents
waiting to be unleashed if I don't get the help I need.
--
Everybody lies. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney just suck at it.
Michael Coburn
Were you part of the work force at that time? I'm 63.
>> Wages were
>> actually rising and people bought homes and 5 years later the payments
>> were a very small part of their living expenses.
>
> You're funny. My older sister and her husband bought a house and paid
> 14% mortgage interest.
That was 79 0r 80 as Volcker applied the screws to the economy, and more
than likely it was 1980.
http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/data/Newyeilds._html_2aaf0d1c.jpg
>> But the Republicans
>> managed to convince all persons that inflation was THE problem.
>
> It was a bad economy manifested by high unemployment, lask of jobs and
> high inflation.
High inflation yes.
http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/data/tax-inf-int-53_html_4022842d.jpg
And the unemployment spike was caused by the troops coming home from
Vietnam. The impact from Iraq homecoming will be significantly less.
http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/data/unemployment_rate.html
> "It's the Economy, Stupid" and "It's theWorst Economy Ever!"
The 70's were very good think you.
> That is what sunk the first Bush. And they were lies.
>
> And your memory is faulty.
I do not just count on my memory. I have the data also. Maybe you
should take another look at that unemployment data.
>> >> If you look at the picks that Obama has made you will see that
>> >> he is
>> >> going for competence, a nice change from W's Texas buds.
>>
>> > He's picked Bill's buds. Do you think they will stab O'bama in the
>> > back for Hillary's gain?
>>
>> No.
>
> Their handler told them not to do that.
>
> Change my ass. We're going to get 8 more years of the Clinton
> administration.
Very, very unlikely. But it would be a vast improvement over the BUSH
years.
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
Yes.
> >> Wages were
> >> actually rising and people bought homes and 5 years later the payments
> >> were a very small part of their living expenses.
>
> > You're funny. My older sister and her husband bought a house and paid
> > 14% mortgage interest.
>
> That was 79 0r 80 as Volcker applied the screws to the economy, and more
> than likely it was 1980.http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/data/Newyeilds._html_2aaf0d1c.jpg
Jimmy Carter came to visit me in Korea and they made us keep our M16s
locked in the armory. Years later the first Bush came to visit me in
Somalia and we were all armed to the teeth. Some presidents like the
military and trusted us. Others didn't.
> >> But the Republicans
> >> managed to convince all persons that inflation was THE problem.
>
> > It was a bad economy manifested by high unemployment, lask of jobs and
> > high inflation.
>
> High inflation yes.
>
> http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/data/tax-inf-int-53_html_4022842d.jpg
>
> And the unemployment spike was caused by the troops coming home from
> Vietnam. The impact from Iraq homecoming will be significantly less.
>
> http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/data/unemployment_rate.html
I had an impossible time finding employment in Ohio after my first
enlistment.
> > "It's the Economy, Stupid" and "It's theWorst Economy Ever!"
>
> The 70's were very good think you.
I don't think that. It would be like me saying 2008 was a good year.
> > That is what sunk the first Bush. And they were lies.
>
> > And your memory is faulty.
>
> I do not just count on my memory. I have the data also. Maybe you
> should take another look at that unemployment data.
My personal experience is enough. It's like when Brock tells me I
didn't pay what I say I paid for just filling up my tank of gas.
Anyway, I went back to school and got a degree. By then the economy
was improved, but it was a rough go pulling out of the Carter
recession.
> >> >> If you look at the picks that Obama has made you will see that
> >> >> he is
> >> >> going for competence, a nice change from W's Texas buds.
>
> >> > He's picked Bill's buds. Do you think they will stab O'bama in the
> >> > back for Hillary's gain?
>
> >> No.
>
> > Their handler told them not to do that.
>
> > Change my ass. We're going to get 8 more years of the Clinton
> > administration.
>
> Very, very unlikely.
Barack isn't installing all the familiar faces in his cabinet?
> But it would be a vast improvement over the BUSH
> years.
Economically? Probably.
> >> >> > I understand where you are coming from.
>
> >> >> You understand nothing beyond your preconceived notions.
>
> >> >> Jeff
>
> >> > I understand you for the most part. Had I been Squirrelly
> >> > Curmudgeon, your lie tally would be five, but I can't honestly
> >> > categorize your misguided opinions as lies.
>
> >> I don't categorize yours as lies either.
>
> > Squirrelly Curmudgeon does.
>
> >> Where does that leave you.
> >> Other news groups have their problems we have you at $60.
>
> > Thank you. We also have Squirrelly Curmudgeon who doesn't engage in
> > honest dialog, and Brock who will go against his core beliefs just to
> > have an argument with me.- Hide quoted text -