What's up with that????
alway...@myway.com
Unprotected US troops fighting urban battles in Iraq.
Bin Laden walking free while Bush holds hands -literally- with 9/11
Saudi terrorists.
Politicians messing with the constitution.
Illegals coming across our borders and W calls the Minutemen
'vigilantes'.
What's up with that????
Buckaroo Banzai
I'll do you the favor of educating you on the first one.
<alway...@myway.com> wrote in message
news:1114602674.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Gas prices through the roof.
Gas prices are through the roof because we don't have enough oil refineries
in the U.S. we have about half as many as we did about 20 years ago, and a
new one hasn't been built since the 70's. And the reason for that are all
the environmental nuts. It's got nothing to do with Bush and his 'oil
buddies'.
HTH!
alway...@myway.com
In typical dittohead fashion you've passed the buck on the first issue.
Only four more to go!
Owamanga
>In typical dittohead fashion you've passed the buck on the first issue.
>
>Only four more to go!
No, he explained what the situation is. If you believe Bush has been
the President for the last twenty years, and that Bush is an
omni-powerful god that can set the oil prices then okay - keep
squealing.
The reality is that he's just a man who heads up a government that
governs less than 5% of the world's population for a period that
usually lasts less than 10 years, 5 so far in his case.
--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Owamanga
>Gas prices through the roof.
Drive a motorbike.
>Unprotected US troops fighting urban battles in Iraq.
Bwwwah. Are you suggesting the Iraqi insurgents are *better* protected
than US troops? Get real.
>Bin Laden walking free while Bush holds hands -literally- with 9/11
>Saudi terrorists.
Unless he keeps one in a bottle from the remains of WTC1&2 I don't see
how this is possible.
>Politicians messing with the constitution.
Actually, they wrote it.
>Illegals coming across our borders and W calls the Minutemen
>'vigilantes'.
They *are* vigilantes. I don't disagree with the point they are
making, but would much prefer to see the job done properly with US
troops/government officials.
>What's up with that????
Nothing much.... Carry on.
--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
lab~rat
<black...@yahoo.com> puked:
>Okay, I don't have the patience to address all of your idiotic concerns, but
>I'll do you the favor of educating you on the first one.
>
><alway...@myway.com> wrote in message
>news:1114602674.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> Gas prices through the roof.
>
>Gas prices are through the roof because we don't have enough oil refineries
>in the U.S. we have about half as many as we did about 20 years ago, and a
>new one hasn't been built since the 70's. And the reason for that are all
>the environmental nuts. It's got nothing to do with Bush and his 'oil
>buddies'.
>
But how does that reconcile with the fact that the cost of oil has
doubled?
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
Buckaroo Banzai
"lab~rat" <ch...@cheese.net> wrote in message
news:2s9v6157svacerc8n...@4ax.com...
Supply and demand.
Buckaroo Banzai
"Owamanga" <owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:so4v61tkrna6e5qeu...@4ax.com...
> On 27 Apr 2005 04:51:14 -0700, alway...@myway.com wrote:
>
>>Gas prices through the roof.
>
> Drive a motorbike.
>
>>Unprotected US troops fighting urban battles in Iraq.
>
> Bwwwah. Are you suggesting the Iraqi insurgents are *better* protected
> than US troops? Get real.
>
>>Bin Laden walking free while Bush holds hands -literally- with 9/11
>>Saudi terrorists.
>
> Unless he keeps one in a bottle from the remains of WTC1&2 I don't see
> how this is possible.
>
>>Politicians messing with the constitution.
>
> Actually, they wrote it.
>
>>Illegals coming across our borders and W calls the Minutemen
>>'vigilantes'.
>
> They *are* vigilantes. I don't disagree with the point they are
> making, but would much prefer to see the job done properly with US
> troops/government officials.
No, they're not vigilantes, they're 'undocumented' border patrol agents.
;-)
Owamanga
The suggestion here would be that as the number of US based refineries
approach zero, the cost of oil approaches infinity. The relationship
is inverse reciprocal.
The reality to why anything costs as much as it does is because that's
what the market is willing to pay for it. The blame lies with *you*,
the consumer.
--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
blazing laser
>Gas prices are through the roof because we don't have enough oil refineries
>in the U.S. we have about half as many as we did about 20 years ago, and a
>new one hasn't been built since the 70's. And the reason for that are all
>the environmental nuts. It's got nothing to do with Bush and his 'oil
>buddies'.
While it's true we haven't built new refineries, existing refineries
have nearly doubled their capacity in the last 20 years.
Why didn't you take the standard GOP line and say gas prices are up
because we haven't drilled in ANWR and offshore California? 8^)
blazing laser
<owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 27 Apr 2005 04:51:14 -0700, alway...@myway.com wrote:
>
>>Gas prices through the roof.
>
>Drive a motorbike.
Actually, I do!
>>Unprotected US troops fighting urban battles in Iraq.
>
>Bwwwah. Are you suggesting the Iraqi insurgents are *better* protected
>than US troops? Get real.
What does that have to do with the price of lettuce? We had a 40-1
kill ratio in Vietnam and we still lost.
>>Bin Laden walking free while Bush holds hands -literally- with 9/11
>>Saudi terrorists.
>Unless he keeps one in a bottle from the remains of WTC1&2 I don't see
>how this is possible.
The Bush family has had close ties to the House of Saud for years and
years. The Saudi royal family is losing it big-time in SA. They're
heading towards an Iran-style revolution. Surely the admin must see
this coming but they are powerless to do anything about it without
cheesing off their pals so they just deny it.
>>Politicians messing with the constitution.
>Actually, they wrote it.
No, political parties didn't exist when the Const. was written and our
founding fathers didn't approve of them. If not for the 12th
amendment (I think it was the 12th, I could be wrong on the number)
the president and vice president would still be of opposing parties.
>>Illegals coming across our borders and W calls the Minutemen
>>'vigilantes'.
>
>They *are* vigilantes. I don't disagree with the point they are
>making, but would much prefer to see the job done properly with US
>troops/government officials.
Yes, I have to agree with you on that one. A 'vigilante' is one who
takes the law into his own hands. Which they certainly do. Also
it's illegal.
KK
>>Politicians messing with the constitution.
>
> Actually, they wrote it.
Actually, bite your tongue. Today's politicians are nothing like the
Framers, and aren't fit to say the word 'constitution'. They wipe their
asses with it.
KK
>> But how does that reconcile with the fact that the cost of oil has
>> doubled?
>
> Supply and demand.
It's partially that, and about equally the result of a weak dollar.
Europeans have seen a much milder increase in the price of oil.
Salad
There is no "willing" You either buy it or you don't work. It's funny
how gas could rise 100% under 4 years of bush running the show.
>
> --
> Owamanga!
> http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Salad
>>>Unprotected US troops fighting urban battles in Iraq.
>>
>>Bwwwah. Are you suggesting the Iraqi insurgents are *better* protected
>>than US troops? Get real.
>
>
> What does that have to do with the price of lettuce? We had a 40-1
> kill ratio in Vietnam and we still lost.
The US killed 2,000,000 Vietnamese? No wonder I call Kissinger Dr Death.
The US is heading to kill that many Iraqis. Years from now Muslims will
take pilgramige treks to the shrines where other Muslims fought and held
off the Americans in Iraq.
Winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqis, one dead one at at time.
It's amazing how much the GOP likes to kill people. You'd think they'd
be Christian or some such religion the way they fart morals.
Buckaroo Banzai
"Salad" <o...@vinegar.com> wrote in message
news:zfRbe.141$HL2...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Especially considering that whole 'blood for oil' war that was waged in
order to get cheap gas, right?
Buckaroo Banzai
"KK" <_K...@furburger.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.04.27....@furburger.net...
They weren't the 'Framers' or whatever PC tag line being used by the looney
left. They were the Founding Fathers.
Plankton
of the hype, and they've all turned out to be bullshit.
Owamanga
wrote:
>Pick a reason: cheap gas, WMDs, 9/11 connections... They were all part
>of the hype, and they've all turned out to be bullshit.
You forgot to include Nazi mind controllers and David Icke's lizards.
--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Plankton
shit. Just like GWB.
Owamanga
>On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 13:23:31 GMT, Owamanga
><owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 27 Apr 2005 04:51:14 -0700, alway...@myway.com wrote:
>>
>>>Gas prices through the roof.
>>
>>Drive a motorbike.
>
>Actually, I do!
Then quit moaning.
>>>Unprotected US troops fighting urban battles in Iraq.
>>
>>Bwwwah. Are you suggesting the Iraqi insurgents are *better* protected
>>than US troops? Get real.
>
>What does that have to do with the price of lettuce? We had a 40-1
>kill ratio in Vietnam and we still lost.
What's unprotected US troops got to do with winning? The troops have
tanks and armored vehicles, not enough maybe, but more are on their
way. Unprotected? they are *not* unprotected.
>>>Bin Laden walking free while Bush holds hands -literally- with 9/11
>>>Saudi terrorists.
>
>>Unless he keeps one in a bottle from the remains of WTC1&2 I don't see
>>how this is possible.
>
>The Bush family has had close ties to the House of Saud for years and
>years. The Saudi royal family is losing it big-time in SA. They're
>heading towards an Iran-style revolution. Surely the admin must see
>this coming but they are powerless to do anything about it without
>cheesing off their pals so they just deny it.
Heresay - relevance?
>>>Politicians messing with the constitution.
>
>>Actually, they wrote it.
>
>No, political parties didn't exist when the Const. was written and our
>founding fathers didn't approve of them.
Suddenly you need to belong to a 21st century political party to be a
politician? What's the Mayor of Miami party called then? Give me a
break. Anybody who sits around deciding what the population can and
can't do is a politician. Politicians are people who try to get votes.
Successful ones get "elected".
In particular some of these names may ring a bell:
George Mason:
"In 1759, was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses....
...Turned down a U.S. Senate seat from the Virginia legislature"
Elbridge Gerry:
"Elected to the Massachusetts Legislature in 1773"
Edmund Randolph:
"Elected Governor of Virginia in 1786"
Thomas Jefferson:
"serving diplomatic duty at the time, later elected to become
President"
John Adams:
"elected vice president 1789"
I could go on. These guys were not hairdressers.
--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Ragnar
>
>>>Politicians messing with the constitution.
>
>
>>Actually, they wrote it.
>
>
> No, political parties didn't exist when the Const. was written and our
> founding fathers didn't approve of them. If not for the 12th
> amendment (I think it was the 12th, I could be wrong on the number)
> the president and vice president would still be of opposing parties.
If political parties didn't exist when the Constitution was written, how
could the Pres and Vice Pres be of opposing parties?
Your logic is flawed.
And, yes, there were political parties when the Constitution was
written. Jefferson and Hamilton represented differing wings.
>>>Illegals coming across our borders and W calls the Minutemen
>>>'vigilantes'.
>>
>>They *are* vigilantes. I don't disagree with the point they are
>>making, but would much prefer to see the job done properly with US
>>troops/government officials.
>
>
> Yes, I have to agree with you on that one. A 'vigilante' is one who
> takes the law into his own hands. Which they certainly do. Also
> it's illegal.
So which law are they taking into their own hands? All they are doing
is reporting crime in progress, which is a citizen's duty. Which law
are they violating?
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
blazing laser
>The US killed 2,000,000 Vietnamese? No wonder I call Kissinger Dr Death.
It depends on whose numbers you believe. 2 million sounds about
right. Also, by the CIA's own accounting, we killed 700,000
Cambodians. The numbers on Laos were harder to find.
>The US is heading to kill that many Iraqis. Years from now Muslims will
>take pilgramige treks to the shrines where other Muslims fought and held
>off the Americans in Iraq.
>
>Winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqis, one dead one at at time.
America--love us or die!
>It's amazing how much the GOP likes to kill people. You'd think they'd
>be Christian or some such religion the way they fart morals.
It's a good thing Jesus didn't have nukes, isn't it? 8^)
blazing laser
<owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>Drive a motorbike.
>>
>>Actually, I do!
>
>Then quit moaning.
Who's moaning?
>What's unprotected US troops got to do with winning? The troops have
>tanks and armored vehicles, not enough maybe, but more are on their
>way. Unprotected? they are *not* unprotected.
Rumsfeld wanted to fight the war on the cheap. Obviously he wasn't
prepared for this much of an insurgency. Look at it this way, when
soldiers have to buy their own body armor, you know the govt. isn't
taking the care of them they should.
But as for -winning-, well it will take more than just armoring and
equipping soldiers to win. I think we've already lost. But it will
take years before Bush (or his successor) decided to give it up, pull
out, and then announce that we've won.
>>The Bush family has had close ties to the House of Saud for years and
>>years. The Saudi royal family is losing it big-time in SA. They're
>>heading towards an Iran-style revolution. Surely the admin must see
>>this coming but they are powerless to do anything about it without
>>cheesing off their pals so they just deny it.
>Heresay - relevance?
1. Not heresay,a matter of public record.
2. Relevance. Well, Bush has always held that the purpose of the war
in Iraq was to fight terrorism. Not only is that clearly a shameless
lie, but I'm showing you how he is failing to do what he could to
really fight terrorism.
>>No, political parties didn't exist when the Const. was written and our
>>founding fathers didn't approve of them.
>Suddenly you need to belong to a 21st century political party to be a
>politician? What's the Mayor of Miami party called then? Give me a
>break. Anybody who sits around deciding what the population can and
>can't do is a politician. Politicians are people who try to get votes.
>Successful ones get "elected".
You are arguing a different argument than I was.
>In particular some of these names may ring a bell:
>
>George Mason:
>"In 1759, was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses....
>...Turned down a U.S. Senate seat from the Virginia legislature"
>
>Elbridge Gerry:
>"Elected to the Massachusetts Legislature in 1773"
>
>Edmund Randolph:
>"Elected Governor of Virginia in 1786"
>
>Thomas Jefferson:
>"serving diplomatic duty at the time, later elected to become
>President"
>
>John Adams:
>"elected vice president 1789"
>
>I could go on. These guys were not hairdressers.
Relevance? 8^)
blazing laser
I said:
>> No, political parties didn't exist when the Const. was written and our
>> founding fathers didn't approve of them. If not for the 12th
>> amendment (I think it was the 12th, I could be wrong on the number)
>> the president and vice president would still be of opposing parties.
Ragnar <rwo...@comsouth.net> wrote:
>If political parties didn't exist when the Constitution was written, how
>could the Pres and Vice Pres be of opposing parties?
>
>Your logic is flawed.
No, but my sentence structure could have been a bit clearer. Any high
school student (at least when I was in high school) could tell you
that the Const. orignally had the runner-up in the presidential
election becoming the vice president. That had to be changed later
because it meant the president and vice-president would be of
different parties.
>And, yes, there were political parties when the Constitution was
>written. Jefferson and Hamilton represented differing wings.
Different wings. Not different parties. There were federalists which
later became Whigs and there were 'republicans', which later became
'Democratic Republicans', which later became the Democratic party.
But the founders didn't like the idea of parties, and today you can
see why.
>>>>Illegals coming across our borders and W calls the Minutemen
>>>>'vigilantes'.
>>>They *are* vigilantes. I don't disagree with the point they are
>>>making, but would much prefer to see the job done properly with US
>>>troops/government officials.
>> Yes, I have to agree with you on that one. A 'vigilante' is one who
>> takes the law into his own hands. Which they certainly do. Also
>> it's illegal.
>So which law are they taking into their own hands? All they are doing
>is reporting crime in progress, which is a citizen's duty. Which law
>are they violating?
The word 'vigilante' comes from 'vigilance committees' in the old
South. I suppose they began just as you say, seeking to discover
crimes and report them, but they degenerated into lynch mobs. The
KKK described itself (and I think it still does) as a vigilante
organization.
If these guys are doing nothing more than observing and reporting
illegal aliens crossing the border, then they are probably not
breaking any laws. But already they've been caught harassing,
detaining, etc., which is against the law.
But also consider that these people are not volunteering to be
deputized as part of a legitimate law enforcement operation. They
don't trust the legally constituted authorities whose job it is to
enforce the law. So by definition I think we can agree they are
''taking the law into their own hands'.
Scream Machine
> what the market is willing to pay for it. The blame lies with *you*,
> the consumer.
Except in socialist countries, where your logic falls flat on its face.
"Owamanga" <owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ckbv619im45sm9f2t...@4ax.com...
Owamanga
>On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 20:12:38 GMT, Owamanga
><owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>Drive a motorbike.
>>>
>>>Actually, I do!
>>
>>Then quit moaning.
>
>Who's moaning?
Everyone who drives an SUV, plus all the liberals it seems.
>>What's unprotected US troops got to do with winning? The troops have
>>tanks and armored vehicles, not enough maybe, but more are on their
>>way. Unprotected? they are *not* unprotected.
>
>Rumsfeld wanted to fight the war on the cheap. Obviously he wasn't
>prepared for this much of an insurgency. Look at it this way, when
>soldiers have to buy their own body armor, you know the govt. isn't
>taking the care of them they should.
Agreed, but calling them 'unprotected' is absurd. Soldiers buying
their own armor or weapons (and believe me, they buy more weapons
privately than they do armor) isn't new. Even the UK's elite S.A.S.
had to do it before the first gulf war.
>But as for -winning-, well it will take more than just armoring and
>equipping soldiers to win. I think we've already lost.
You are in the minority. It's far too early to tell. By making a call
now, by definition, you have to be wrong. You probably thought we lost
the cold war when the Russians flew supersonic passenger jets before
the UK did and put people into space before the US did. I think we won
that though. At least... I didn't die.
> But it will
>take years before Bush (or his successor) decided to give it up, pull
>out, and then announce that we've won.
Agreed, so it's premature to make a statement like 'we won, we lost'.
Far far far too early to tell.
>>>The Bush family has had close ties to the House of Saud for years and
>>>years. The Saudi royal family is losing it big-time in SA. They're
>>>heading towards an Iran-style revolution. Surely the admin must see
>>>this coming but they are powerless to do anything about it without
>>>cheesing off their pals so they just deny it.
>
>>Heresay - relevance?
>
>1. Not heresay,a matter of public record.
It's public record that Saudi's are definitely going to have an
Iran-style revolution? Really? Library of congress have this down in
their books do they?
Bollox.
It's the future you are talking about. Stop making it up. Wait and
see, that's the only way to be sure.
>2. Relevance. Well, Bush has always held that the purpose of the war
>in Iraq was to fight terrorism. Not only is that clearly a shameless
>lie,
Sometimes the truth is too scary. *If* it is a shameless lie, what was
the real reason for the war? And don't say gas prices because it
obviously wasn't. I think Bush will go down in history like Reagan.
You may not like this, but it doesn't change the facts.... Hard crappy
decisions were made - Middle East reform to Social Security reform.
Both are politically nasty hard decisions that he could have easily
avoided, but he didn't. He's getting stuff done that needs to be
done. People hate change, but stuff like this *must* be changed.
Somebody has to do it, and when you are the President of the United
States, the only person that can... is *you*.
>but I'm showing you how he is failing to do what he could to
>really fight terrorism.
How are you showing me? - Eg, what *should* he be doing? Not shaking
hands with Saudis? I bet that'll make the world of difference. Get
real. In this situation, he's *IRRELEVANT*. It's *us*, the people that
matter. We buy the damn oil, we burn it, we give money to the
terrorist nations every time we start our cars, every time we heat our
homes, cool our homes, or spend money in shops with electric lights.
That's the truth, and we can't handle the truth. We keep buying six
liter trucks and don't even consider the loss of American life that
purchase brings with it.
Is invading a country such as Iraq under the guise of terrorism
protection wise? Probably not. But it needed to be done. That region
is fucked, has been for a long time. You can do nothing or you can
bomb stuff. America has massive military power and can shit on
nations. It's a sad fact, but this needs to be demonstrated to be kept
fresh in peoples minds. If we tell someone to fuck off they better do
it or face destruction. Is this right? no, maybe not. But someone has
to be at the top and they have to whack countries to keep them in
line. History dictates this.
International law doesn't exist without an army to enforce it. America
realizes this and takes advantage when it needs to. Napoleon did, the
Roman Empire did, the British Empire did. Modern civilization changes,
a powerful media and the internet does nothing except to make people
like you think you have the power to change things or your opinion
makes a difference - American or not.
The only way you can change things in this situation isn't to tell
people what to do, it's to stop consuming the oil. Stop now. Do
whatever you need to do to not send a single cent their way and the
problem disappears. But you can't help yourself can you? Neither can
the 293 million other Americans.
We desperately need to find way to provide energy for the US, Europe,
Russia and all developing nations that doesn't involve oil. We should
have done this 50 years ago. Unfortunately, with the power that oil
companies have over our government, we'll never be the ones to invoke
serious research or effort into this. Maybe Europe will save us. An
extra dollar levied on every gallon will buy this solution within a
few years, but it won't happen here.
>>>No, political parties didn't exist when the Const. was written and our
>>>founding fathers didn't approve of them.
>
>>Suddenly you need to belong to a 21st century political party to be a
>>politician? What's the Mayor of Miami party called then? Give me a
>>break. Anybody who sits around deciding what the population can and
>>can't do is a politician. Politicians are people who try to get votes.
>>Successful ones get "elected".
>
>You are arguing a different argument than I was.
Then you invented an argument. I said it was politicians that wrote
the constitution, you seemed to take argument with that - by involving
parties. Irrelevant. My statement stands. Politicians wrote the
constitution. Politicians change it. Now or back then, makes no
difference - it was theirs all along.
>>In particular some of these names may ring a bell:
>>
>>George Mason:
>>"In 1759, was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses....
>>...Turned down a U.S. Senate seat from the Virginia legislature"
>>
>>Elbridge Gerry:
>>"Elected to the Massachusetts Legislature in 1773"
>>
>>Edmund Randolph:
>>"Elected Governor of Virginia in 1786"
>>
>>Thomas Jefferson:
>>"serving diplomatic duty at the time, later elected to become
>>President"
>>
>>John Adams:
>>"elected vice president 1789"
>>
>>I could go on. These guys were not hairdressers.
>
>Relevance? 8^)
Evidence that the people involved (immediately or otherwise) in the
crafting of the constitution *were* politicians.
--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
KK
> They weren't the 'Framers' or whatever PC tag line being used by the looney
> left. They were the Founding Fathers.
I see nothing negative about the word.
Buckaroo Banzai
"Scream Machine" <FuckMas...@snotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Ud1ce.1145864$Xk.976744@pd7tw3no...
>> The reality to why anything costs as much as it does is because that's
>> what the market is willing to pay for it. The blame lies with *you*,
>> the consumer.
>
> Except in socialist countries, where your logic falls flat on its face.
With the exception of the black market, which is ubiquitous in Socialist
countries.
Buckaroo Banzai
You should. Feminists have been quite successful at having the term
'Founding Fathers' stricken from our children's text books in favor of the
gender neutral term 'Framers'. It's just more PC nonsense.
Plankton
Constitution. Let me guess, you're one of those wackos who has a
problem with "Happy Holidays" too.
Buster
> Gas prices are through the roof because we don't have enough oil
> refineries in the U.S. we have about half as many as we did about 20
> years ago, and a new one hasn't been built since the 70's. And the
> reason for that are all the environmental nuts. It's got nothing to do
> with Bush and his 'oil buddies'.
Gee... I wonder where you got that timely oil refinery info from? LOL
And it has everything to do with Bush and the oil nazis. They weren't
interested in cultivating alternative forms of energy. They did their
best to lobby against them. Oil was cheap and supporting the
development of alternative forms of energy wouldn't make them any
profits in the short run, though in the long run it would have helped
the country.
The high gas prices are a direct result of big oil and Republican short
sightedness. And this short sightedness was for big profit. Why
Republicans? Because they are the party that big oil supports and they
are the ones who give big oil the breaks in the law while stopping
funding for alternative forms of energy .
Buster
> Especially considering that whole 'blood for oil' war that was waged in
> order to get cheap gas, right?
They were hoping for that little windfall... they just didn't count on
still fighting that war 2 years later.
KK
> With the exception of the black market, which is ubiquitous in Socialist
> countries.
It's ubiquitous in pretty much *all* countries. Here in the US, drug laws
have created our biggest black market - marijuana is our biggest cash crop
- and locally around here, $5/pack cigarette taxes have fueled a new one.
blazing laser
I said:
>>Who's moaning?
<owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Everyone who drives an SUV, plus all the liberals it seems.
Conservatives moan too when they don't get what they want. You're
doing a lot of moaning here yourself. And if I drove an SUV I'd be
pissed off too. But they should have known when they bought it that
gas prices would go up. I think they were already artificially high.
(But that's a different thread.)
>>Rumsfeld wanted to fight the war on the cheap. Obviously he wasn't
>>prepared for this much of an insurgency. Look at it this way, when
>>soldiers have to buy their own body armor, you know the govt. isn't
>>taking the care of them they should.
>Agreed, but calling them 'unprotected' is absurd. Soldiers buying
>their own armor or weapons (and believe me, they buy more weapons
>privately than they do armor) isn't new. Even the UK's elite S.A.S.
>had to do it before the first gulf war.
I can see how specialists might buy their own equipment. Not a tank
or an airplane, but maybe a gun. But if you take some guy in the NG
or reserves and shove him into an unjustified and unnecessary war
halfway around the world and don't let him leave when his committment
is up, the least you can do is give him what he needs to do his job.
>> I think we've already lost.
>You are in the minority. It's far too early to tell. By making a call
>now, by definition, you have to be wrong.
I'm making a prediction. I think we've already lost. I don't see any
way out from here. Bush didn't have an exit strategy.
> You probably thought we lost
>the cold war when the Russians flew supersonic passenger jets before
>the UK did and put people into space before the US did. I think we won
>that though. At least... I didn't die.
Well I'm glad you didn't die. Supersonic jets and space shots really
had not a lot to do with the cold war, that was a different war, a war
of technology. I think we were always ahead in that war because our
system worked better, and also because we had a great head start in
technology. In retrospect we can see that the USSR was never quite as
strong, never quite as threatening as our leaders wanted us to think.
The CIA's job was to support this overestimation of the threat, which
is why they were apparently completely surprised when it collapsed.
When I was a kid everyone seemed to think a nuclear war between the US
and USSR was inevitable. I'm glad that never happened, but looking
back you can see it wasn't anywhere nearly as inevitable as
red-baiters in our govt. wanted us to think.
>> But it will
>>take years before Bush (or his successor) decided to give it up, pull
>>out, and then announce that we've won.
>
>Agreed, so it's premature to make a statement like 'we won, we lost'.
>Far far far too early to tell.
I'm just making a prediction. Most Americans realized the Viet Nam
war was lost in 1968, but the war dragged on four or five more years.
The parallels between that war and this one grow more obvious every
day.
>>>>The Bush family has had close ties to the House of Saud for years and
>>>>years. The Saudi royal family is losing it big-time in SA. They're
>>>>heading towards an Iran-style revolution. Surely the admin must see
>>>>this coming but they are powerless to do anything about it without
>>>>cheesing off their pals so they just deny it.
>>
>>>Heresay - relevance?
>>
>>1. Not heresay,a matter of public record.
>
>It's public record that Saudi's are definitely going to have an
>Iran-style revolution? Really? Library of congress have this down in
>their books do they?
The relationship between the Bushes and the Sauds is public record,
silly. The coming revolution is another of my predictions. You can't
say they're baloney until they don't come true. 8^)
>It's the future you are talking about. Stop making it up. Wait and
>see, that's the only way to be sure.
Exactly. By 'prediction' I don't mean to say I have a crystal ball.
>>2. Relevance. Well, Bush has always held that the purpose of the war
>>in Iraq was to fight terrorism. Not only is that clearly a shameless
>>lie,
>
>Sometimes the truth is too scary. *If* it is a shameless lie, what was
>the real reason for the war? And don't say gas prices because it
>obviously wasn't.
No, gas prices was another pretext. The Bush admin. wants to control
that oil, but it is not oil for energy but oil for power. As the
world supply of oil dwindles the prices will go up and up and huge
profits will be made. They also want permanent bases in the middle
east to maintain control of Saudi oilfields after the coming
revolution there.
> I think Bush will go down in history like Reagan.
Perhaps. Reagan's image has lost a lot of luster since he was
president.
>You may not like this, but it doesn't change the facts.... Hard crappy
>decisions were made - Middle East reform to Social Security reform.
>Both are politically nasty hard decisions that he could have easily
>avoided, but he didn't. He's getting stuff done that needs to be
>done. People hate change, but stuff like this *must* be changed.
>Somebody has to do it, and when you are the President of the United
>States, the only person that can... is *you*.
Oh brother. Bush came into office with an agenda. Concentrate
wealth. Skew tax cuts towards the rich. Erode Social Security. Take
out Saddam. Every crisis that has popped up during his time in
office, he's used it as an excuse to do what he wanted to do in the
first place. For instance, his answer to -any- economic problem is
more tax cuts heavily slanted towards the rich. His answer to 9/11
was to take out Saddam, even though there was no connection. (You
can't deny it--Bush lied, people died.)
These were not hard tough decisions, they were what he wanted all
along. An example of a tough decision would be to reinstate CAFE
standards or to push for reform of ethics in Wall St.
>>but I'm showing you how he is failing to do what he could to
>>really fight terrorism.
>
>How are you showing me? - Eg, what *should* he be doing? Not shaking
>hands with Saudis? I bet that'll make the world of difference. Get
>real. In this situation, he's *IRRELEVANT*. It's *us*, the people that
>matter. We buy the damn oil, we burn it, we give money to the
>terrorist nations every time we start our cars, every time we heat our
>homes, cool our homes, or spend money in shops with electric lights.
>That's the truth, and we can't handle the truth. We keep buying six
>liter trucks and don't even consider the loss of American life that
>purchase brings with it.
Yes you make a good point. But the purpose of LEADERSHIP is to LEAD
us. Bush is now coming up with a new energy plan which, like the
first plan, will be designed mostly by the energy companies
themselves. Bush should be the one telling us that importing foreign
oil makes us weak, that it's immoral and even unamerican to drive
SUVs. He should be pushing for federal funding to develop solar and
wind power--actually we should have done this years ago. It was Jimmy
Carter who started us on that path and Reagan stopped it dead in its
tracks. He should use tax incentives to move people into hybrids,
the best short-term move since the technology is already available.
We use twice the energy per person in the US than any other developed
country, including a dozen or so that have higher standards of living.
There are dozens of good, prudent things he could do, but they aren't
in the interest of his buddies in the oil biz, so he won't do them.
It is not entirely by coincidence that the 30 or 40 most powerful
positions in his admin. are filled by ex-oil people.
>Is invading a country such as Iraq under the guise of terrorism
>protection wise? Probably not. But it needed to be done.
Why did it need to be done if it is unwise?
> That region
>is fucked, has been for a long time. You can do nothing or you can
>bomb stuff. America has massive military power and can shit on
>nations. It's a sad fact, but this needs to be demonstrated to be kept
>fresh in peoples minds. If we tell someone to fuck off they better do
>it or face destruction. Is this right? no, maybe not. But someone has
>to be at the top and they have to whack countries to keep them in
>line. History dictates this.
No, I think history dictates just the opposite. You know the old
saying: when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks
like a nail. Any problem that can be solved by aerial bombing we can
solve it in a minute. But this is not one of those problems.
We can't fight world terrorism without the serious cooperation of our
allies. It's not just OUR problem, it's a WORLD problem. By cheesing
off our allies Bush has only made the problem worse. Statistics show
that terrorism has not improved since the invasion of Iraq, it's
gotten worse.
>International law doesn't exist without an army to enforce it. America
>realizes this and takes advantage when it needs to.
We have no respect for international law when it applies to us. Why
should anyone else respect it if we don't?
> Napoleon did, the Roman Empire did, the British Empire did.
Yes, and what happened to them? 8^) The time of imperialism and
empire is over. You can't control the world by force today. Even
Rome and Britain couldn't do it for long because it was just too
expensive. But don't take my word for it, wait a couple of years and
you'll see.
> Modern civilization changes,
>a powerful media and the internet does nothing except to make people
>like you think you have the power to change things or your opinion
>makes a difference - American or not.
The Internet makes a wider range of views available. That's kind of a
first. All through history we've had 'freedom of the press for the
man who owns one'. Commercial media are worse now than any time in
our lifetimes. But minority and alternative views can be heard on the
Internet. You just have to seek them out. I think that's great.
Vietnam might not have dragged on for years and years if we'd had the
Internet then.
>The only way you can change things in this situation isn't to tell
>people what to do, it's to stop consuming the oil. Stop now. Do
>whatever you need to do to not send a single cent their way and the
>problem disappears. But you can't help yourself can you? Neither can
>the 293 million other Americans.
The reason Americans use so much energy is (1) they have been led to
believe that Americans simply DESERVE big cars and air conditioning
and (2) gas prices have been artificially low for decades, especially
when you consider the other costs associated with its use--air
pollution, highways to the suburbs, time lost in traffic, and a war in
the middle east every few years.
You act like there's no alternative. I ride a motorcycle. I have a
car but use it only when I need to move something big. My wife drives
a Prius (which actually gets better mileage than my bike). I'd like
to see a nationwide high-speed rail network. It's a disgusting waste
of fuel to be moving stuff thousands of miles by truck. Our whole
country has been laid out to waste gas. It's not just the way things
are, it's choices that have been made. But we are free to make
different choices. And we will when it gets painful enough.
>We desperately need to find way to provide energy for the US, Europe,
>Russia and all developing nations that doesn't involve oil. We should
>have done this 50 years ago. Unfortunately, with the power that oil
>companies have over our government, we'll never be the ones to invoke
>serious research or effort into this. Maybe Europe will save us. An
>extra dollar levied on every gallon will buy this solution within a
>few years, but it won't happen here.
I couldn't have said it better myself! But it's not as hopeless as
you seem to think. This is just the kind of problem we can solve.
It's about the same size as the Manhattan Project or putting a man on
the moon. The REAL problem is that our attention is being distracted
by a power structure beholden to Big Oil.
>>You are arguing a different argument than I was.
>
>Then you invented an argument. I said it was politicians that wrote
>the constitution, you seemed to take argument with that - by involving
>parties. Irrelevant. My statement stands. Politicians wrote the
>constitution. Politicians change it. Now or back then, makes no
>difference - it was theirs all along.
I agree they were politicians. What I said was:
(1) That PARTIES didn't exist when the Const. was written.
(2) That the framers didn't like the idea of parties and . . .
(3) That they didn't make accomodations for them in the original
Constitution.
Don't put stupid words in my mouth. I can do that myself, thank you
very much.
>Evidence that the people involved (immediately or otherwise) in the
>crafting of the constitution *were* politicians.
Yes, I sort of hate to call them politicians because it makes them
sound dishonest and petty and highly corrupt like the politicians of
today. If anyone deserves the title 'statesman' it was people like
Jefferson and Madison and Hamilton. These men were giants! They were
visionaries! They were long-term thinkers. But you are right to
make the point that they were also politicians.
Buckaroo Banzai
"Buster" <none> wrote in message
news:2005042810315722503%no...@news.giganews.com...
Gee... I wonder where you got *that* information from...
Buckaroo Banzai
"Buster" <none> wrote in message
What does that have to do with their plot? The U.S. is in control of the
oil, so what's the problem?
KK
> I have a father, thanks. Why is it that for the last 200 years they've been
> known as the Founding Fathers, and only in the last few that they've begun
> to be referred to as 'the framers'?
From 'constitutionfacts.com', which may or may not have its own agenda:
The term "framers" could be used to
specify those who helped "craft" the Constitution, and "founding fathers"
could be used in a broader sense to characterize those individuals who
contributed to the development of independence and nationhood. However,
the notion of a "framer" or a "founding father" is not something to be
narrowly defined in a technical or legal sense but may be a large mythic
and philosophical notion.