OT: educate yourselves about oil and why we wage war.

[BryanMichael]

Originally posted by Gristlefist The misqoute I was refering to was the one I quoted--here it is again: I hardly think a functioning public transit system is "utopian thinking that can't be maintained". You're just not tracking. No surprise there. But, obviously you're smarter than me.

Yes, and if you would read my post you will see that I addressed and explained that:

"Also, it was YOU who used my example of a publically funded rail service with the quote "The UK and many other countries have gone through a huge cycle of utopian thinking and government projects that no private investor would want and they're back to privatization." Implying that the rail line is such a project."

Keep trying, literacy is within your reach!

No Child Left Behind!

[FLYING V 83]

Originally posted by catalinbread It is not a matter of WHERE we get the oil it is a matter of who controls the faucett.

Lame.
So in other words, if the Dems were in charge you'd have no problem with the current situation?
I believe it was Carter who "controlled the faucett" back when there were gas lines & odd/even days. Oh yeah, he gave us 17% interest rates too. Thanks Jimmy!

Also, did you EVER stop to wonder why all the Commie countries are turning capitalist?
Maybe it's because socialism NEVER works and capitalism ALWAYS works!

[Gristlefist]

Originally posted by BryanMichael Yes, and if you would read my post you will see that I addressed and explained that:

Going even further off the rails! Funny as hell. You probably think you're independent and creative, too!

[Gristlefist]

Originally posted by goblinsolutions in england we have a bunch of socialists ,all claiing to be men of the people,working class salt of the earth The most notorious,deputy prime minister John prescott owns a turreted huge house.Despite losing most of his job responibolities for screwing his secretaty in a hotel paid for by tax dollars during working hours he still desperately hung on to thousands o pounds of freebie perks until public pressure got the better of him. He claims its all a media conspiracy. to summarise, He. 1.Screws an employee he manages(illegal) 2.Denies it then gets caught and still keeps his job 3.Wastes public money and he still keeps his job and claims to be "working class" this is pure "animal farm" behaviour all this from a pro bush english government sociaism and right wing fascism - same end result ,nose in trough greed.

 

Bizarre lapse of logic at the end there. Wikipedia:"He became an important figure in Tony Blair's "New Labour" movement, as the representative of "old Labour" interests" Looks like he's the hold out Socialist in Blair's dump-Socialism Labour Party. And he turns out to be a crook. Go figure. Look up Jesse Jackson.

 

Another example of being against the right things, but not looking in the right place to see the problem.

[The Great Waldo Pepper]

Originally posted by FLYING V 83 Lame. So in other words, if the Dems were in charge you'd have no problem with the current situation? I believe it was Carter who "controlled the faucett" back when there were gas lines & odd/even days. Oh yeah, he gave us 17% interest rates too. Thanks Jimmy! Also, did you EVER stop to wonder why all the Commie countries are turning capitalist? Maybe it's because socialism NEVER works and capitalism ALWAYS works!

Two parts of the oil situation I do not like. War (more properly called occupation now) and record profits for a heavily subsidized industry. The price of gasoline is fine by me, I remember paying 120 Yen or so per liter 10 years ago in Japan. I do believe that if there was a Democratic president in office in 2000 there would not have been a first strike war (at the least no obsurd occupational followup which only says ONE thing to the rest of the world, "empire")

Capitalism has worked you're right to a degree. Currently we are experiencing a very authoritarian form of capitalism that I am afraid will collapse under it's own weight just as all dictatorial doctrines of the past have, whatever you may call them. Capitalism must be maintained and stroked in order for it to maintain ballance, market forces inspite of the objectionist dogma will only result in more topdown centralization which makes freedom pretty difficult. Fortunately, it is early in the human game.

Do us both a favor when making points with me, drop the left right paradigm then we'll get someplace. AND you didn't address all the points in the last reply about the Court!

[BryanMichael]

Originally posted by Gristlefist Going even further off the rails! Funny as hell. You probably think you're independent and creative, too!

Once again, you have nothing but name calling left in you.
It's sad really.

Take a moment and un-{censored} yourself.

[Gristlefist]

Originally posted by BryanMichael Once again, you have nothing but name calling left in you. It's sad really. Take a moment and un-{censored} yourself.

 

Take a look at the other discussions in this thread, or other threads. Maybe you can learn how to do that, too. Work on those communication skills.

[FLYING V 83]

Originally posted by catalinbread Do us both a favor when making points with me, drop the left right paradigm then we'll get someplace. AND you didn't address all the points in the last reply about the Court!

 

 

Just because a Republican President appoints a liberal justice doesn't mean the justice is Republican, or is that just a convenient oversight on your part? Presidents bow to pressure when making appointments, and we conservatives aren't very happy with the libs on the court appointed by Reagan & Bush Sr.

 

And speaking of not addressing points made, where's your reply to the corruption I listed for the Dems? C'mon, you MUST have valid excuses (you'd call them reasons) to explain the cases I listed (and there's lots more). What about your defense of Carter's 17% inflation & gas lines? You didn't address that either.

Sorry, but your bulb will never be bright enough for me to see the light.

[Esperanto]

Originally posted by zachary vex the Dems don't have to do much but remain quiet until fall. the thugs have been falling all over themselves getting indicted, fracturing, and showing far too much support for the lowest-rated unimpeached sitting president in history. the fact that he hasn't been impeached yet is the best thing the Dems have going. he's poison.

 

 

you're 100% right..that's a great plan

 

and that would have been my exact advice to the Democrats about a month ago...sit back and let the Republicans kill themselves over immigration

 

Unfortunately.... I see something different happening now

 

I believe, The Democrats have created a monster that they can't control

 

The Bush hatred...is so frothing at the mouth ravenous...That the base of the Democrat party won't accept anything less than total opposition to conservative policies..This comes in direct conflict with the center-left of the party that needs to get new voters in order to win....and needs to recruit "on the fence" types

 

So they're screwed...If they tack left..they alienate new voters and lose...IF they go to the center..They lose their base

 

The Bush hatred...is now a monster..that will totally kill the Democrat party

 

The most ambitious Democrats..will start looking for a way out..and I think they will join with center-right Republicans by building a new party

 

There is also another factor to consider...

 

The gender mainstreaming propoganda..that has been pushed through the US public school system and university system since the 1960s...Teaches compromise...and consensus

 

The Right/Left paradigm...is a fight that never ends...a wound that never heals...

 

The Right/Left paradigm is in direct conflict to the gender mainstreaming of Consensus/Compromise propoganda that has been taught for the past half a century

 

TODAY...The average uneducated voter (the majority)...does not understand the true Ideaological differences between the Right/Left paradigm (ignorance, apathy, sloth)...TODAY...The average uneducated voter only understands that there is a whole lot of fighting in Washington that never seems to end

 

So I believe, that members of the Democrat party will merge with members of the Republican party and take advantage of the Consensus/Compromise ignoramus voting block...and form a brand new party with no ideaoligical platform other than Consensus/Compromise

 

The democrat party is Dead in terms of power...Yes it will continue to linger on with the ideaological left and probably carry 20-30% of the public...But it will lose it's national position and has NO chance of gaining a majority in the near future.

 

The Republican party's is in deep {censored} too...because the devisive immigration issue will destroy it's ability to maintain a majority...and it will certainly lose to a new 3rd party built on Consensus/Compromise

[FLYING V 83]

I believe it was Margaret Thatcher who said compromise is the inability to act decisively.

[Esperanto]

stalemate...our current system...doesn't allow for decisiveness either

The average uneducated barely motivated voter doesn't know the difference between a socialist or a capitalist..>They don't know or have any conception of a guiding ideaology of their own

The average ignorant voter looks at both parties as fighting for no reason..the look at both parties as corrupt...they don't see a genuine difference between either party.

So...if a new 3rd party comes along and their platform is that Republicans and Democrats fight too much...They win with the average ignorant...non-ideaological voter

A new 3rd party can be an opposition party...to the opposition in Washington

Perot ...kinda exploited this idea in 1992..But the difference was that Perot was relative no-name...with almost no national grassroots party machinery behind him

But if a new 3rd party would be made...with former members of BOTH the Republicans and Democrats..Then there would already be name recognition and there would already be machinery in place...ready-made donors...ready-made constituencies..etc.

Imagine Clinton, Bill Richardson, Schwarzenaegger, Guilianni and McCain, all in the same party...all spewing the same talking points..UNBEATABLE

It's so stupid...it will actually work...trust me

[Burningleaves]

Originally posted by zachary vex http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5267640865741878159&q=newman%27s 45 humorous enlightening minutes well spent, boys.

 

 

 

 

Wrong forum..although I am beginning to think you are working some kind of angle here.

[Gristlefist]

Originally posted by Esperanto The Bush hatred...is so frothing at the mouth ravenous...That the base of the Democrat party won't accept anything less than total opposition to conservative policies..This comes in direct conflict with the center-left of the party that needs to get new voters in order to win....and needs to recruit "on the fence" types

 

They're seething with rage and hatred to avoid confronting their utter bancruptcy of useful ideas and philosophy.

 

 

Originally posted by Esperanto The democrat party is Dead in terms of power...Yes it will continue to linger on with the ideaological left and probably carry 20-30% of the public...But it will lose it's national position and has NO chance of gaining a majority in the near future.

 

But it's fun to watch them try.

 

 

Originally posted by Esperanto The average uneducated barely motivated voter doesn't know the difference between a socialist or a capitalist..>They don't know or have any conception of a guiding ideaology of their own

 

They understand private property, taxes, keeping what you earn, and keeping your hands in your own pockets. They understand that the economies of the USSR and France suck (sucked) and that Jimmy Carter is/was a joke. They've got at least the basics.

 

 

Originally posted by Esperanto Imagine Clinton, Bill Richardson, Schwarzenaegger, Guilianni and McCain, all in the same party...all spewing the same talking points..UNBEATABLE It's so stupid...it will actually work...trust me

 

If you want to leave out the corruption, better leave out the Clintons. Try Lieberman instead.

[The Great Waldo Pepper]

Originally posted by FLYING V 83 Just because a Republican President appoints a liberal justice doesn't mean the justice is Republican, or is that just a convenient oversight on your part? Presidents bow to pressure when making appointments, and we conservatives aren't very happy with the libs on the court appointed by Reagan & Bush Sr. And speaking of not addressing points made, where's your reply to the corruption I listed for the Dems? C'mon, you MUST have valid excuses (you'd call them reasons) to explain the cases I listed (and there's lots more). What about your defense of Carter's 17% inflation & gas lines? You didn't address that either. Sorry, but your bulb will never be bright enough for me to see the light.

 

 

Man drop the left/right paradigm, cause with that smoke screen you and I are not communicating. I am not gonna blindly defend Democratic officials like Republicans do in order to be lock step.

 

I could care less about the Carter gasoline inflation. You're assuming a lot thus missing my point. Gasoline is about as cheap today as it was in 1950 adjusted for inflation. My REAL problem is how much profit is being made by these companies while still being on the public dole... That is not capitalism, that is corporate welfare.

[The Great Waldo Pepper]

Originally posted by FLYING V 83 I believe it was Margaret Thatcher who said compromise is the inability to act decisively.

 

 

Shooting from the hip is a very easy weakness to exploit.

[zachary vex]

Originally posted by Esperanto ...the Democrat party...

 

 

you mean Democratic party.

 

one would certainly never say Republic party.

[The Great Waldo Pepper]

Originally posted by zachary vex you mean Democratic party. one would certainly never say Republic party.

 

 

They got the Gingrich bastardization language mastery down. "democrat" sounds like "rat" "Democratic" sounds too appealing. Shortcuts to thinking, soundbytes and talking points. All on message political identity debate tactics that allow for folks to not have to think much and evade actual content of conversation.

[FLYING V 83]

Originally posted by catalinbread My REAL problem is how much profit is being made by these companies while still being on the public dole... That is not capitalism, that is corporate welfare.

 

 

Exxon makes 7 cents a gallon on gas in the USA.

Their profits lie mainly in world consumption, not at the pump here in America.

If you spend $55 to fill up, removing Exxon's profit would still leave you paying $50.

Who you gonna blame now?

If you honestly believe the oil companies themselves set the price of crude you are living in a media-driven fantasy world.

Ever heard of speculation and futures?

The government is the reason gas prices are so high. Same with cigarettes. Remove the taxes and gas would be $1/gallon & smokes would be $2/pack.

These taxes have been in place LONG before the Bush administration came to power.

 

As for oil companies being "on the public dole", last I heard they're all private organizations.

Don't recall seeing any US Government Gas signs anywhere in my lifetime.

[The Great Waldo Pepper]

How would a socialist system operate, and in what ways would it be an improvement over what we have now? San Francisco State lecturer Ann Robertson addresses these questions, and discusses strategic and philosophical differences between Karl Marx and the prominent anarchist Mikhail Bakunin.

Blurb from a radio program that could be useful.

http://kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=14451

[zachary vex]

Originally posted by FLYING V 83 ... As for oil companies being "on the public dole", last I heard they're all private organizations. Don't recall seeing any US Government Gas signs anywhere in my lifetime.

 

 

just because you haven't kept track of the energy-company-written energy policy we have with this administration, the oil companies are receiving massive (multi-billion-dollar) subsidies in the form of tax relief ever since bushco got in. it's completely unneccessary, since they're profiting 80 to 100 billion dollars per year, at least. that money could be shifted to alternative energy research and America could easily be racing ahead of everyone else on the planet in the quest to break oil addiction, which has to happen someday. even fearless leader said so.

[RoboPimp]

Originally posted by zachary vex just because you haven't kept track of the energy-company-written energy policy we have with this administration, the oil companies are receiving massive (multi-billion-dollar) subsidies in the form of tax relief ever since bushco got in. it's completely unneccessary, since they're profiting 80 to 100 billion dollars per year, at least. that money could be shifted to alternative energy research and America could easily be racing ahead of everyone else on the planet in the quest to break oil addiction, which has to happen someday. even fearless leader said so.

[FLYING V 83]

Originally posted by zachary vex just because you haven't kept track of the energy-company-written energy policy we have with this administration, the oil companies are receiving massive (multi-billion-dollar) subsidies in the form of tax relief ever since bushco got in. it's completely unneccessary, since they're profiting 80 to 100 billion dollars per year, at least. that money could be shifted to alternative energy research and America could easily be racing ahead of everyone else on the planet in the quest to break oil addiction, which has to happen someday. even fearless leader said so.

 

 

I do believe the phone companies and auto makers also benefit from tax breaks. As well as the computer industry, aerospace, and dozens of other private companies.

Where do you suggest we start elimination?

 

And if the oil companies were "writing" the energy policies for Bush, why haven't we built more refineries and drilled Anwar?

Should be easy, according to you.

 

Give up your cell phone, computer, car, and airline ticket for your vacation, then you might have a leg to stand on.

Also, did you cash your $300 tax rebate check from Bush or send it back?

'nuff said.

[Gristlefist]

Originally posted by catalinbread How would a socialist system operate, and in what ways would it be an improvement over what we have now? San Francisco State lecturer Ann Robertson addresses these questions, and discusses strategic and philosophical differences between Karl Marx and the prominent anarchist Mikhail Bakunin. Blurb from a radio program that could be useful. http://kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=14451

 

 

She says that Stalin's government was Socialist. True. And she says that, since it was centrally controlled, "that enabled a certain amount of rationality to be injected into their economy so that they were able to make enormous strides forward. THey raised the level of the population with respect to their standard of living tremendously . . ."

 

Does that include 20 million Ukranians deliberately starved to death in a famine planned in Moscow?

 

Sorry, I stopped listening there.

 

Free markets work better than any "planners" ever could.

[zachary vex]

Originally posted by FLYING V 83 ...And if the oil companies were "writing" the energy policies for Bush, why haven't we built more refineries and drilled Anwar?...

 

 

because less refineries means more profits. because more oil fields means less profits. do the math.

 

on edit: the article where i learned this:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/05/AR2005100502158.html

 

The United States has not built a refinery since 1976, and in a series of memos in the 1990s, major energy companies warned they needed to reduce the number of refineries to boost profits.

[zachary vex]

my, my, isn't this interesting? who cares about rove, if we can nail cheney for profiteering.

http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060607-023522-7802r


Army has to turn over Halliburton docs
WASHINGTON, June 7 (UPI) -- A U.S. district court judge has ordered the Army to release 14 documents, including six emails, dealing with the Halliburton oil contract in Iraq.

U.S. District Court Judge Ricardo M. Urbina also ordered the Army to give to the court an additional six documents for the court to review to make a further determination.

At issue is a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch, an anti-corruption public interest group. Judicial Watch believes the award of a multi-billion contract to Halliburton subsidiary KBR for the restoration of Iraq's oil fields may have been unduly influenced by Vice President Dick Cheney, who headed Halliburton for five years prior to joining President George. W. Bush's campaign.

The documents amount to 100 pages, according to Judicial Watch.

Three years ago Judicial Watch obtained and released an e-mail between the Army Corps of Engineers and another party that referenced the fact that the deal -- awarded in secret, without any competition, two weeks before the invasion of Iraq -- had been coordinated with the vice president's office.

The Army fought Judicial Watch's FOIA lawsuit, but failed to provide enough information to the court for it to make its decision. Therefore, the judge had to review the documents in person to determine whether they were exempt from FOIA requirements. Urbina was not happy.

"The court undertook an onerous in camera review of the defendant's documents in large part because of the defendant's failure to provide an accurate Vaughn index" listing the contents and relevance of each document.