I have read the rules and some of the posts on this site. I have decided that nobody really wants to debate anything. There is a bunch of postings, insults, and name calling.
I find it an offense that a person posts insults to, and about, someone else because they have a certain idea or belief.
Some seem, for an unknown reason, to like the term Neo or Neo-nazi. Probably only one in a million even really know what it means.
Where are the "moderators"? Where are the people that are supposed to make this an interesting place and not a degrading venue.
If I state an opinion or idea that " I " bellieve in is my right. It does not give anyone else a right to label me as a communist, neo-nazi, or any other name, because they do not share my ideas.
That, I feel compelled to remind some, is why we are America. There will be many that will attack our President elect because 1)-he is black. 2)- his religious beliefs. 3)- his ideas or plans.
PLEASE NOTE: If you vote or post here for or against Mr.Obama because of #1 or #2, without reasons, you might consider if you are a true American.
I can understand debates about his supposed religion and any national or world impact this might have. There are concerns with many christians that the U.S. will take a different view concerning Isreal.
Without proof that he has an agenda that will benefit black Americans over any other race then his race should not be important.
I am an indepenant. I have to be because "I" do NOT believe that one party can alway know and do what is best for me or my country. Others had this belief from the founding of our country. Parties merged, split, and changed. Leaders change parties also. A party such as the democrats or republicans have core beliefs yet some in politics wake up one morning and switch parties.
There are left wings, right wings, left of right, right of left, conservative, and many other names attached to people. If a republican believes in abortions he(or she) has a new label attached. This does not make them a Nazi nor less an American.
I, personally, do not believe in abortions. I DO NOT believe that a government should control all aspects of our lives. I do believe a woman(family) should not be forced to run their lives by anothers rules and wishes. I believe a woman, within reason, should have the right to decide. I DO NOT believe in partial birth abortions. I do believe there are cases where an abortion is necessary.
I, personally, DO NOT believe in the death penalty. Persoally I DO believe there are some reasons someone may not deserve to enjoy a life.
Here is a story and senario to prove this. With about a billion people in the world it could happen.
I was sitting in a truck stop and a young man was adament that abortions or the death penalty was wrong. A man asked him if he had kids and he replied 2 little girls. The man asked him if he could pass a senario by him and get his opinion and he agreed.
He began with this;
Suppose you(the young man) came home from work and after opening the front door found one of your daughters lying dead on the floor. As you ran through the house you found the other daughter also dead. You run into the bedroom and a man, escaped from a mental ward, is on top of your wife having his way with her. Do you run back outside and call 911? The young man said that was not fair and wouldnt happen. He was asked ---BUT---what if it did? He answered that he would do what he had to do to protect his wife. When asked what if he had to kill the man? He replied he would. The man stated so you do believe in the death penalty. The young man agreed that there might be a case when it was necessary. The old man then asked what would happen if he and his wife found out she was pregnant with the escaped mental patients child. He not only was deranged but had killed their two children. Would he try to force his wife to have the child? Maybe give the child up for adaption? He said he would not be against her having an abortion.
Sometimes things have a different meaning or we have a different outlook when it is personal.
If the government makes abortion illigal there will be no exceptions.
I DO NOT believe having all members of the same party in power is a good thing. Any one person that tries to give me reasons this is good I can give 10 why it isnt.
When all three branches of our government belong to the same party and are in bed together
there may not be a filibuster because they are going to do things the way they wish with no oversight. We have just went through several years of this and the country became weary.
I believe very strongly that we are a democratic country and enjoy being free. I believe our constitution is constant. There should never be an instance when it should be put on hold.
We now have a President that did just that. The patriot act is one example. Invading our private lives by monitoring phone calls, making it illigal to refuse to talk to a police officer, arresting someone without due process. This is a fundamental part of our constitution, The Bill of Rights. Because we were attacked we should suspend the Bill of Rights? Some argue that is is necessary but I feel it is communistic. Since 911 a police officer can go farther than the courts have ever decided was legal. A police officer can run an NCIC on a passing car. There is no legal basis for this. There does no have to be any probable cause. Since 911 the word probable cause changed. Now "suspicious" is the new probable cause. These are facts and should be a concern to our country, and is.
When a CEO does a bad job running a company you don't fire the floor sweeper. People are fed up with the way things are going and want a change. Within days of the election the price of fuel started dropping. Even after all reports told us to live with the high prices.
We might have our own opinions or ideas and that is what makes America great.
I find it an offense that a person posts insults to, and about, someone else because they have a certain idea or belief.
Some seem, for an unknown reason, to like the term Neo or Neo-nazi. Probably only one in a million even really know what it means.
Where are the "moderators"? Where are the people that are supposed to make this an interesting place and not a degrading venue.
If I state an opinion or idea that " I " bellieve in is my right. It does not give anyone else a right to label me as a communist, neo-nazi, or any other name, because they do not share my ideas.
That, I feel compelled to remind some, is why we are America. There will be many that will attack our President elect because 1)-he is black. 2)- his religious beliefs. 3)- his ideas or plans.
PLEASE NOTE: If you vote or post here for or against Mr.Obama because of #1 or #2, without reasons, you might consider if you are a true American.
I can understand debates about his supposed religion and any national or world impact this might have. There are concerns with many christians that the U.S. will take a different view concerning Isreal.
Without proof that he has an agenda that will benefit black Americans over any other race then his race should not be important.
I am an indepenant. I have to be because "I" do NOT believe that one party can alway know and do what is best for me or my country. Others had this belief from the founding of our country. Parties merged, split, and changed. Leaders change parties also. A party such as the democrats or republicans have core beliefs yet some in politics wake up one morning and switch parties.
There are left wings, right wings, left of right, right of left, conservative, and many other names attached to people. If a republican believes in abortions he(or she) has a new label attached. This does not make them a Nazi nor less an American.
I, personally, do not believe in abortions. I DO NOT believe that a government should control all aspects of our lives. I do believe a woman(family) should not be forced to run their lives by anothers rules and wishes. I believe a woman, within reason, should have the right to decide. I DO NOT believe in partial birth abortions. I do believe there are cases where an abortion is necessary.
I, personally, DO NOT believe in the death penalty. Persoally I DO believe there are some reasons someone may not deserve to enjoy a life.
Here is a story and senario to prove this. With about a billion people in the world it could happen.
I was sitting in a truck stop and a young man was adament that abortions or the death penalty was wrong. A man asked him if he had kids and he replied 2 little girls. The man asked him if he could pass a senario by him and get his opinion and he agreed.
He began with this;
Suppose you(the young man) came home from work and after opening the front door found one of your daughters lying dead on the floor. As you ran through the house you found the other daughter also dead. You run into the bedroom and a man, escaped from a mental ward, is on top of your wife having his way with her. Do you run back outside and call 911? The young man said that was not fair and wouldnt happen. He was asked ---BUT---what if it did? He answered that he would do what he had to do to protect his wife. When asked what if he had to kill the man? He replied he would. The man stated so you do believe in the death penalty. The young man agreed that there might be a case when it was necessary. The old man then asked what would happen if he and his wife found out she was pregnant with the escaped mental patients child. He not only was deranged but had killed their two children. Would he try to force his wife to have the child? Maybe give the child up for adaption? He said he would not be against her having an abortion.
Sometimes things have a different meaning or we have a different outlook when it is personal.
If the government makes abortion illigal there will be no exceptions.
I DO NOT believe having all members of the same party in power is a good thing. Any one person that tries to give me reasons this is good I can give 10 why it isnt.
When all three branches of our government belong to the same party and are in bed together
there may not be a filibuster because they are going to do things the way they wish with no oversight. We have just went through several years of this and the country became weary.
I believe very strongly that we are a democratic country and enjoy being free. I believe our constitution is constant. There should never be an instance when it should be put on hold.
We now have a President that did just that. The patriot act is one example. Invading our private lives by monitoring phone calls, making it illigal to refuse to talk to a police officer, arresting someone without due process. This is a fundamental part of our constitution, The Bill of Rights. Because we were attacked we should suspend the Bill of Rights? Some argue that is is necessary but I feel it is communistic. Since 911 a police officer can go farther than the courts have ever decided was legal. A police officer can run an NCIC on a passing car. There is no legal basis for this. There does no have to be any probable cause. Since 911 the word probable cause changed. Now "suspicious" is the new probable cause. These are facts and should be a concern to our country, and is.
When a CEO does a bad job running a company you don't fire the floor sweeper. People are fed up with the way things are going and want a change. Within days of the election the price of fuel started dropping. Even after all reports told us to live with the high prices.
We might have our own opinions or ideas and that is what makes America great.
"We now have a President that did just that. The patriot act is one example. Invading our private lives by monitoring phone calls, making it illigal to refuse to talk to a police officer, arresting someone without due process. This is a fundamental part of our constitution, The Bill of Rights. Because we were attacked we should suspend the Bill of Rights? Some argue that is is necessary but I feel it is communistic. Since 911 a police officer can go farther than the courts have ever decided was legal. A police officer can run an NCIC on a passing car. There is no legal basis for this. There does no have to be any probable cause. Since 911 the word probable cause changed. Now "suspicious" is the new probable cause. These are facts and should be a concern to our country, and is."
For one the patriot act did not allow the government to eavesdrop on just anyone. The Phone company had to release the information on certain people with regards to certain activities. IE: frequently calling the same number internationally. If after "eavesdropping" No activity relating to National Security was detected the monitoring stopped. Information uncovered in this process could not be used in any cases that did not involve national security.
Refusing to talk to a police officer has always been and still is your legal right. However just because you exercise your right does not mean there will not be consequences. It is now and always has been called interfering with an official investigation. The only difference is that it is being used more frequently now and is in the limelight more often since people raise a big stink when the Feds arrest them as opposed to a little stink when the local cops arrest them.
As for running an NCIC on a passing car. they always have. How do you think they find most stolen cars. When I was in Law enforcement we were encouraged to run license plates for no other reason than to see if the registered owner had outstanding warrants. It is not a violation to run the plates. the violation comes into play when the initiate the traffic stop. They need probable cause to do that. Probable cause for a traffic stop is as easy as not using your turn signal, your license plate light being out, seatbelts, your tire touched the center line and you weren't changing lanes. Etc:
"Within days of the election the price of fuel started dropping. Even after all reports told us to live with the high prices."
Fuel prices started dropping well before the election. They started dropping when congress agreed to lift the ban on offshore drilling. Obama being elected had nothing to do with it. However Obama, Pelosi, Reid and others (dem or rep)in the Government WILL have an impact on whether it continues to stay down or if it shoots back up. If they re-institute the ban watch as the price of a barrel of oil shoots back over $120 a barrel within a month after the re-institution.
For one the patriot act did not allow the government to eavesdrop on just anyone. The Phone company had to release the information on certain people with regards to certain activities. IE: frequently calling the same number internationally. If after "eavesdropping" No activity relating to National Security was detected the monitoring stopped. Information uncovered in this process could not be used in any cases that did not involve national security.
Refusing to talk to a police officer has always been and still is your legal right. However just because you exercise your right does not mean there will not be consequences. It is now and always has been called interfering with an official investigation. The only difference is that it is being used more frequently now and is in the limelight more often since people raise a big stink when the Feds arrest them as opposed to a little stink when the local cops arrest them.
As for running an NCIC on a passing car. they always have. How do you think they find most stolen cars. When I was in Law enforcement we were encouraged to run license plates for no other reason than to see if the registered owner had outstanding warrants. It is not a violation to run the plates. the violation comes into play when the initiate the traffic stop. They need probable cause to do that. Probable cause for a traffic stop is as easy as not using your turn signal, your license plate light being out, seatbelts, your tire touched the center line and you weren't changing lanes. Etc:
"Within days of the election the price of fuel started dropping. Even after all reports told us to live with the high prices."
Fuel prices started dropping well before the election. They started dropping when congress agreed to lift the ban on offshore drilling. Obama being elected had nothing to do with it. However Obama, Pelosi, Reid and others (dem or rep)in the Government WILL have an impact on whether it continues to stay down or if it shoots back up. If they re-institute the ban watch as the price of a barrel of oil shoots back over $120 a barrel within a month after the re-institution.
shy
"Fuel prices started dropping well before the election. They started dropping when congress agreed to lift the ban on offshore drilling."
<hr>
They started rising when bush took office and started dropping as his reign of idiocy started to wane. You are correct in that the prices were affected by Oil Pirates holding us hostage. Mexico was paying less than a 3rd of what we were during our spike in the cost of gas. It had nothing to do with the cost of oil on the world market. It had to do with the people importing for us trying to get a chunk of the reserves here. We were held hostage by capitalist fucking pigs that should be fuckin' executed.
-D-
<hr>
They started rising when bush took office and started dropping as his reign of idiocy started to wane. You are correct in that the prices were affected by Oil Pirates holding us hostage. Mexico was paying less than a 3rd of what we were during our spike in the cost of gas. It had nothing to do with the cost of oil on the world market. It had to do with the people importing for us trying to get a chunk of the reserves here. We were held hostage by capitalist fucking pigs that should be fuckin' executed.
-D-
" I don
topfree - "Once again the exit of Bush from the white house has nothing to do with oil. MARK MY WORDS, the DAY that Washington reinstates the ban on drilling and mining for our own sources the price will begin to rise and won't stop until gas is back to $4 a gallon. It has nothing to do with who is (or isn't) in the White House but what is done on Capitol Hill."
May I ask how you KNOW this with such certainty? Are you a Washington insider? Are you privy to knowledge that most don't have? I've been in Corporate "closed door meetings" (not oil related). If the workers and/or public were aware of what actually is said/implied/planned, they would often be shocked andothe choice adjectives.
Do you also know what the CIA and FBI are up to?
I'm not saying I have proof of my claim - I have no idea how one would PROVE what actually goes on. Not everything can be readily proven. Sometimes deductive reasoning is the best we have. I REASON that we won't be hit by a comet today because I BELIEVE that we have adequate eyes on the sky to detect such an occurrence. I am comfortable in that belief. I am also comfortable that what I have observed over the last eight years indicates OBSCENE profit-taking on the part of Big Oil and Iraq restoration companies (just for starters - who knows where it ends?).
Are you denying that Cowboy is in bed with Big Oil? Do you refute that Texas has been enjoying boom days? I didn't say that other businesses don't raise prices as a result of fuel prices. They certainly do - but not nearly as easily or quickly as the oil companies. Most businesses raise their prices grudgingly because their consumers obviously don't like it and are able to either not buy or look elsewhere for a better price.
A while back there was quite a bit of discussion on this topic. The defenders from the right kept spouting that the "Bigs" may be making record profits, but it was still ONLY 10%, or some crap to that effect. At the time, I stated that I don't think that 10% profit for a $250,000 company equated to obscene. Ten percent of a billion (or whatever) dollars is quite a different story - especially when the rest of the country is struggling to break even. Have you heard of any oil companies asking for a bailout?
May I ask how you KNOW this with such certainty? Are you a Washington insider? Are you privy to knowledge that most don't have? I've been in Corporate "closed door meetings" (not oil related). If the workers and/or public were aware of what actually is said/implied/planned, they would often be shocked andothe choice adjectives.
Do you also know what the CIA and FBI are up to?
I'm not saying I have proof of my claim - I have no idea how one would PROVE what actually goes on. Not everything can be readily proven. Sometimes deductive reasoning is the best we have. I REASON that we won't be hit by a comet today because I BELIEVE that we have adequate eyes on the sky to detect such an occurrence. I am comfortable in that belief. I am also comfortable that what I have observed over the last eight years indicates OBSCENE profit-taking on the part of Big Oil and Iraq restoration companies (just for starters - who knows where it ends?).
Are you denying that Cowboy is in bed with Big Oil? Do you refute that Texas has been enjoying boom days? I didn't say that other businesses don't raise prices as a result of fuel prices. They certainly do - but not nearly as easily or quickly as the oil companies. Most businesses raise their prices grudgingly because their consumers obviously don't like it and are able to either not buy or look elsewhere for a better price.
A while back there was quite a bit of discussion on this topic. The defenders from the right kept spouting that the "Bigs" may be making record profits, but it was still ONLY 10%, or some crap to that effect. At the time, I stated that I don't think that 10% profit for a $250,000 company equated to obscene. Ten percent of a billion (or whatever) dollars is quite a different story - especially when the rest of the country is struggling to break even. Have you heard of any oil companies asking for a bailout?
Bullshit. Bush is an Oil Man. Mexico (also OPEC dependent) was paying dirt cheap prices when we were paying $4.00. They were paying the same price we were. The truth is, we have a much larger demand than Mexico and Bush and his buddies were charging us excess. PROFITS PROVE WHERE THE MONEY WAS GOING. If the high prices were caused by inflation, no one would've been making record profits. Learn math. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the prices suddenly rise in 2001 and decline when he's leaving. I already posted the department of energy stats. I have much more proof supporting my theory than you do yours. Let's also remember that the Iraq War is responsible for a huge spike in the demand for oil.
-D-
-D-
Posted By: SHYSEXYSWINGER Posted on:
Dec 4, 2008 - 4:25 pm
I have read the rules and some of the posts on this site. I have decided that nobody really wants to debate anything. There is a bunch of postings, insults, and name calling.Where are the "moderators"? Where are the people that are supposed to make this an interesting place and not a degrading venue.
There will be many that will attack our President elect because 1)-he is black. 2)- his religious beliefs. 3)- his ideas or plans.
I, personally, do not believe in abortions. I DO NOT believe that a government should control all aspects of our lives. I do believe a woman(family) should not be forced to run their lives by anothers rules and wishes. I believe a woman, within reason, should have the right to decide. I DO NOT believe in partial birth abortions. I do believe there are cases where an abortion is necessary. I, personally, DO NOT believe in the death penalty. Persoally I DO believe there are some reasons someone may not deserve to enjoy a life.
==============================================================
AFAIK and have seen, this is an unmoderated section of the forum.
His religious beliefs are legit, IMO. When we have muslim service people having to clear with somebody in Saudi Arabia as to whether they should be deployed or not, it might have soured some on whether he will owe more loyalty to some other person or entity or us. Since he is in an important position, I fail to see what the question is inappropriate.
That would depend on whether the fetus is a child or not. That is what that argument hinges on. If he fetus is a blob of cells, play ball. If not, it is a different story. I use the exact same definitions that the ER would use to determine if you are alive or not. Perhaps it might be more accurate to say "I believe that under this or that circumstance the death penalty or abortion is appropriate." as opposed to saying I don't believe in it.
Dec 4, 2008 - 4:25 pm
I have read the rules and some of the posts on this site. I have decided that nobody really wants to debate anything. There is a bunch of postings, insults, and name calling.Where are the "moderators"? Where are the people that are supposed to make this an interesting place and not a degrading venue.
There will be many that will attack our President elect because 1)-he is black. 2)- his religious beliefs. 3)- his ideas or plans.
I, personally, do not believe in abortions. I DO NOT believe that a government should control all aspects of our lives. I do believe a woman(family) should not be forced to run their lives by anothers rules and wishes. I believe a woman, within reason, should have the right to decide. I DO NOT believe in partial birth abortions. I do believe there are cases where an abortion is necessary. I, personally, DO NOT believe in the death penalty. Persoally I DO believe there are some reasons someone may not deserve to enjoy a life.
==============================================================
AFAIK and have seen, this is an unmoderated section of the forum.
His religious beliefs are legit, IMO. When we have muslim service people having to clear with somebody in Saudi Arabia as to whether they should be deployed or not, it might have soured some on whether he will owe more loyalty to some other person or entity or us. Since he is in an important position, I fail to see what the question is inappropriate.
That would depend on whether the fetus is a child or not. That is what that argument hinges on. If he fetus is a blob of cells, play ball. If not, it is a different story. I use the exact same definitions that the ER would use to determine if you are alive or not. Perhaps it might be more accurate to say "I believe that under this or that circumstance the death penalty or abortion is appropriate." as opposed to saying I don't believe in it.
Posted By: TEQUILAROSE Reply posted on:
Dec 10, 2008 - 4:19 am
no one would've been making record profits. Learn math.
===============================================================
I keep hearing that phrase "record profits". Lets talk math if you want. They make a 10% profit. You said you run your own business. Can I ask what YOUR percentage of profit is?
Dec 10, 2008 - 4:19 am
no one would've been making record profits. Learn math.
===============================================================
I keep hearing that phrase "record profits". Lets talk math if you want. They make a 10% profit. You said you run your own business. Can I ask what YOUR percentage of profit is?
If a product you $100 total (w/overhead) and you wanna make 10% profit, you charge $110. Giving you $10 per 100 bones you spend. Now, if you are suddenly paying $400 for your product because of supply and demand. In order to keep making your $10 dollars per unit, do you fuck your customer and charge them charge them $440 (10%) per unit or do you charge them $410?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/02/BU6AUQMT9.DTL
All we need to do is look were the money is going and that's where the blame goes. We cap their profit per barrel and this would end the issue. The big boys get together and decide to pressure everyone in letting them exploit resources, they can charge whatever they like. The truth is, demand didn't suddenly raise 3-4X between 2001 and 2005 and then suddenly drop in 2008. Come on!!!
-D-
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/02/BU6AUQMT9.DTL
All we need to do is look were the money is going and that's where the blame goes. We cap their profit per barrel and this would end the issue. The big boys get together and decide to pressure everyone in letting them exploit resources, they can charge whatever they like. The truth is, demand didn't suddenly raise 3-4X between 2001 and 2005 and then suddenly drop in 2008. Come on!!!
-D-
Posted By: TEQUILAROSE Reply posted on:
Dec 10, 2008 - 2:57 pm
If a product you $100 total (w/overhead) and you wanna make 10% profit, you charge $110. Giving you $10 per 100 bones you spend. Now, if you are suddenly paying $400 for your product because of supply and demand. In order to keep making your $10 dollars per unit, do you fuck your customer and charge them charge them $440 (10%) per unit or do you charge them $410?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/02/BU6AUQMT9.DTL
We cap their profit per barrel and this would end the issue.
The big boys get together and decide to pressure everyone in letting them exploit resources, they can charge whatever they like. The truth is, demand didn't suddenly raise 3-4X between 2001 and 2005 and then suddenly drop in 2008. Come on!!!
===============================================================
So what you are saying is that percentage doesn't mater. It is the figure that matters. Using your equation, if my margin were down to 2.5% and I don't "fuck the customer" but "fuck the shareholders" instead (not sure why one group is more fuckable than the other but ok), why bother with the work of business? Why not just take the money and put it into a CD? Less risk, more rewards and I can work on my tan in the Bahamas?
Wasn't that tried in other countries with little success? I do business in Nam. I see that whenever the govt there lets the capitalist go free, money comes in. Whatever they cap profit on or control, they lose money. One year, they IMPORT rice when the govt controlled profits or didn't let them make profits. Govt lets them loose and the EXPORT rice and are the #3 EXPORTERS o shrimp. Coincidence? Maybe. However there are many more examples that I have come across there. China? See above. They even have their own millionaires there. But lets say you get your way and they cap the profits in the USA. What makes you think the companies will not move out and say "Screw you and your $X profit. I'll go somewhere else."? You really need the fuel more than they need to be here. Last summer, we gave up bagging animal feed here and sent it in 40ft bulk containers to asia for loading in bags. IF I can do that, what make you think the oil companies won't uproot? I worked for a "US Company" that was US in everything but the head office was in Switzerland. Why? Tax purposes.
Dec 10, 2008 - 2:57 pm
If a product you $100 total (w/overhead) and you wanna make 10% profit, you charge $110. Giving you $10 per 100 bones you spend. Now, if you are suddenly paying $400 for your product because of supply and demand. In order to keep making your $10 dollars per unit, do you fuck your customer and charge them charge them $440 (10%) per unit or do you charge them $410?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/02/BU6AUQMT9.DTL
We cap their profit per barrel and this would end the issue.
The big boys get together and decide to pressure everyone in letting them exploit resources, they can charge whatever they like. The truth is, demand didn't suddenly raise 3-4X between 2001 and 2005 and then suddenly drop in 2008. Come on!!!
===============================================================
So what you are saying is that percentage doesn't mater. It is the figure that matters. Using your equation, if my margin were down to 2.5% and I don't "fuck the customer" but "fuck the shareholders" instead (not sure why one group is more fuckable than the other but ok), why bother with the work of business? Why not just take the money and put it into a CD? Less risk, more rewards and I can work on my tan in the Bahamas?
Wasn't that tried in other countries with little success? I do business in Nam. I see that whenever the govt there lets the capitalist go free, money comes in. Whatever they cap profit on or control, they lose money. One year, they IMPORT rice when the govt controlled profits or didn't let them make profits. Govt lets them loose and the EXPORT rice and are the #3 EXPORTERS o shrimp. Coincidence? Maybe. However there are many more examples that I have come across there. China? See above. They even have their own millionaires there. But lets say you get your way and they cap the profits in the USA. What makes you think the companies will not move out and say "Screw you and your $X profit. I'll go somewhere else."? You really need the fuel more than they need to be here. Last summer, we gave up bagging animal feed here and sent it in 40ft bulk containers to asia for loading in bags. IF I can do that, what make you think the oil companies won't uproot? I worked for a "US Company" that was US in everything but the head office was in Switzerland. Why? Tax purposes.
No, my point is, like electricity, they should be capped on how much they can charge you. If you were making $10 on an barrel, then the cost of the barrel went up and you charge just enough to make $10 dollars on the barrel, you are not "fucking your shareholder". They're still making the same as before. You're not fucking anyone. Again, do the math. Show me how money is lost. Would love to see your figures.
-D-
-D-
Posted By: TEQUILAROSE Reply posted on:
Dec 10, 2008 - 9:32 pm
No, my point is, like electricity, they should be capped on how much they can charge you. If you were making $10 on an barrel, then the cost of the barrel went up and you charge just enough to make $10 dollars on the barrel, you are not "fucking your shareholder". They're still making the same as before. You're not fucking anyone. Again, do the math. Show me how money is lost. Would love to see your figures.
===============================================================
Price went up from $100 to $400. That is a $300 difference. You are asking me to put a higher stake. Why shouldn't I want more? Like I said, why don't I take that $300 and put it in a CD? Lower risk.
When you go to a casino, do you expect to win more per hand at the $5 ante table or the $100 ante table? Do you say that I should win $10 a hand whether it is at the $100 ante table or $5 ante table? You put a bigger stake at the $100 table. You risked more there. Should I pay the same whether you win at the $100 table or $5 table? Look at the slot machines. I risk more at the $1 machine than the penny machine. When I win 100 credits at the penny machine, I have $1. At the dollar machine I have $100. Bigger risk, bigger payout. IF YOU won 1000 credits at the dollar machine, are you going to take $10 since that is the payout from the penny machine? I would tell you that since I risked $1 a throw, why should I be paid at penny rates. What would YOU do?
Dec 10, 2008 - 9:32 pm
No, my point is, like electricity, they should be capped on how much they can charge you. If you were making $10 on an barrel, then the cost of the barrel went up and you charge just enough to make $10 dollars on the barrel, you are not "fucking your shareholder". They're still making the same as before. You're not fucking anyone. Again, do the math. Show me how money is lost. Would love to see your figures.
===============================================================
Price went up from $100 to $400. That is a $300 difference. You are asking me to put a higher stake. Why shouldn't I want more? Like I said, why don't I take that $300 and put it in a CD? Lower risk.
When you go to a casino, do you expect to win more per hand at the $5 ante table or the $100 ante table? Do you say that I should win $10 a hand whether it is at the $100 ante table or $5 ante table? You put a bigger stake at the $100 table. You risked more there. Should I pay the same whether you win at the $100 table or $5 table? Look at the slot machines. I risk more at the $1 machine than the penny machine. When I win 100 credits at the penny machine, I have $1. At the dollar machine I have $100. Bigger risk, bigger payout. IF YOU won 1000 credits at the dollar machine, are you going to take $10 since that is the payout from the penny machine? I would tell you that since I risked $1 a throw, why should I be paid at penny rates. What would YOU do?
In the fuel industry, everyone stake is the same. Your investment is less than the consumer. Fuel is a necessary thing. The majority of us do not have the ability to choose whether or not we consume fuel. If we apply this logic to any other business, I am all for free trade. If you are selling televisions and you mark them up 400%, I can choose to take my business to the guy that's more fair. I can say fuck you! Everyone can choose not to buy TV's. The same cannot be said for petrolium. Thank you for proving my point. 
Remember, when you buy $400 a barrel, <u>knowing</u> you'll still be making your $10, the "stake" is no higher. You can't apply the casino analogy, because the stake is no higher. The risk is no greater. Again, thanks for helping me prove my point again. Capping these morons is the answer. If they can't make the money after they're capped, as you allege, then perhaps that is the case for nationalization. Cut out the profiteering middle man assholes, we make sure no capitalist pigs can hold the economy hostage. Thanks for the help
-D-
Remember, when you buy $400 a barrel, <u>knowing</u> you'll still be making your $10, the "stake" is no higher. You can't apply the casino analogy, because the stake is no higher. The risk is no greater. Again, thanks for helping me prove my point again. Capping these morons is the answer. If they can't make the money after they're capped, as you allege, then perhaps that is the case for nationalization. Cut out the profiteering middle man assholes, we make sure no capitalist pigs can hold the economy hostage. Thanks for the help
-D-
Posted By: TEQUILAROSE Reply posted on:
Dec 11, 2008 - 11:11 am
If we apply this logic to any other business, I am all for free trade.
Remember, when you buy $400 a barrel, knowing you'll still be making your $10, the "stake" is no higher. You can't apply the casino analogy, because the stake is no higher. The risk is no greater.
Capping these morons is the answer. If they can't make the money after they're capped, as you allege,
then perhaps that is the case for nationalization. Cut out the profiteering middle man assholes, we make sure no capitalist pigs can hold the economy hostage. Thanks for the help
==============================================================
If you want to go down that road, are you also going to be for free trade in medicine? What about food? Clothing? There are a lot of industries that one can say is a must too.
How do you figure? I am tying up $300 per barrel more than if it was at $100 a barrel. I could put that $300 into something that will make money instead of tying it up in more expensive inventory.
Not that they can't make money but if they can't make as much money selling it here, why would they? Can they sell fuel in the rest of the world? Sure they can. Will they? Depends on how difficult you can make it for them to conduct business.
While that answer is great in theory, lets figure out who runs it. Will it be the same people that cannot even balance their checkbook? Or will it be the same group that stuffs all sorts of things into a good bill and send it to the President for signature, aka hostage situation? Or will it be from the other group that brought us Fannie and Freddie and now the necessary bailout? Perhaps you would prefer the group that told us the road tax on fuel is for road projects and spend 40 cents on the dollar on stuff that is NOT road related? What about the group that told us it was necessary to spend money on legal fees to get that "tobacco windfall" so they could help smokers quit? It's all good for you to sit back and say "We will enact some laws to prevent that". The reality of it is that you can make any idea fly on paper but execution is going to be difficult. Way more so with those clowns. Fact of the matter is the govt has done a piss poor job of what it is supposed to do. IOW, they cannot handle their current assignments. What makes you even dream that they can do better and handle more?
Dec 11, 2008 - 11:11 am
If we apply this logic to any other business, I am all for free trade.
Remember, when you buy $400 a barrel, knowing you'll still be making your $10, the "stake" is no higher. You can't apply the casino analogy, because the stake is no higher. The risk is no greater.
Capping these morons is the answer. If they can't make the money after they're capped, as you allege,
then perhaps that is the case for nationalization. Cut out the profiteering middle man assholes, we make sure no capitalist pigs can hold the economy hostage. Thanks for the help
==============================================================
If you want to go down that road, are you also going to be for free trade in medicine? What about food? Clothing? There are a lot of industries that one can say is a must too.
How do you figure? I am tying up $300 per barrel more than if it was at $100 a barrel. I could put that $300 into something that will make money instead of tying it up in more expensive inventory.
Not that they can't make money but if they can't make as much money selling it here, why would they? Can they sell fuel in the rest of the world? Sure they can. Will they? Depends on how difficult you can make it for them to conduct business.
While that answer is great in theory, lets figure out who runs it. Will it be the same people that cannot even balance their checkbook? Or will it be the same group that stuffs all sorts of things into a good bill and send it to the President for signature, aka hostage situation? Or will it be from the other group that brought us Fannie and Freddie and now the necessary bailout? Perhaps you would prefer the group that told us the road tax on fuel is for road projects and spend 40 cents on the dollar on stuff that is NOT road related? What about the group that told us it was necessary to spend money on legal fees to get that "tobacco windfall" so they could help smokers quit? It's all good for you to sit back and say "We will enact some laws to prevent that". The reality of it is that you can make any idea fly on paper but execution is going to be difficult. Way more so with those clowns. Fact of the matter is the govt has done a piss poor job of what it is supposed to do. IOW, they cannot handle their current assignments. What makes you even dream that they can do better and handle more?
More of an argument to cap it. Again, you can't win this one. Electric companies are capped as are natural gas companies. They're doing just fine. All you are doing is making a valid argument for nationalization. HAHA! It doesn't matter if the government had done piss poor. That just means we need to keep a closer watch on them and fix the issues, it doesn't mean we need to let capitalist pigs run free and do what they want. HAHA!
-D-
-D-
"Again, do the math. Show me how money is lost. Would love to see your figures"
Proven fact: When the price of something goes up, sales go down thus you need to increase your profit margin to make up the difference. Report just out yesterday as evidence. Fuel retail sales were down 14.7% for the month of NovemberSO by your math and reasoning a company that made $1000 profit last month on fuel saw their profits drop to $853. could you take a 14.7% decrease in pay without making cutbacks in your daily routine?
Proven fact: When the price of something goes up, sales go down thus you need to increase your profit margin to make up the difference. Report just out yesterday as evidence. Fuel retail sales were down 14.7% for the month of NovemberSO by your math and reasoning a company that made $1000 profit last month on fuel saw their profits drop to $853. could you take a 14.7% decrease in pay without making cutbacks in your daily routine?
That reasoning doesn't apply to fuel. There was no decrease in fuel consumption. To the contrary, there was an increase. The demand was up remember. Fuel will always be consumed. Fuel with always be sold. The demand will go up and up and up. The price should go up to maintain operating levels and profit. The demand didn't drop to justify the increase from a 1.50 to 4.50 + per gallon. In fact, the demand was through the roof. Again, DO THE MATH!
-D-
The price should go up to maintain operating levels and profit. The demand didn't drop to justify the increase from a 1.50 to 4.50 + per gallon. In fact, the demand was through the roof. Again, DO THE MATH!-D-
Posted By: TEQUILAROSE Reply posted on:
Dec 11, 2008 - 11:16 pm
It doesn't matter if the government had done piss poor. That just means we need to keep a closer watch on them and fix the issues,
it doesn't mean we need to let capitalist pigs run free and do what they want. HAHA!
==============================================================
No, of course not. Just because you have stolen from your last employer doesn't mean I shouldn't trust you, does it? Maybe you would like to give the keys to the pharmacy to the druggie while you are at it? What next? Have crawling infants do hurdle jumps? What are we sending to govt? Grade school kids where we have to keep chasing them to hand in their homework? Tell me, what do YOU do with your employees that are like that? Do you give them more responsibility and more ways to screw up things?
With you being so down on capitalism, why haven't you moved over to the motherland of communism? Could it be that they are switching, having realized the error of their ways?
Dec 11, 2008 - 11:16 pm
It doesn't matter if the government had done piss poor. That just means we need to keep a closer watch on them and fix the issues,
it doesn't mean we need to let capitalist pigs run free and do what they want. HAHA!
==============================================================
No, of course not. Just because you have stolen from your last employer doesn't mean I shouldn't trust you, does it? Maybe you would like to give the keys to the pharmacy to the druggie while you are at it? What next? Have crawling infants do hurdle jumps? What are we sending to govt? Grade school kids where we have to keep chasing them to hand in their homework? Tell me, what do YOU do with your employees that are like that? Do you give them more responsibility and more ways to screw up things?
With you being so down on capitalism, why haven't you moved over to the motherland of communism? Could it be that they are switching, having realized the error of their ways?
Posted By: TEQUILAROSE Reply posted on:
Dec 12, 2008 - 6:21 pm
That reasoning doesn't apply to fuel. There was no decrease in fuel consumption. To the contrary, there was an increase. The demand was up remember. Fuel will always be consumed. Fuel with always be sold. The demand will go up and up and up. The price should go up to maintain operating levels and profit. The demand didn't drop to justify the increase from a 1.50 to 4.50 + per gallon. In fact, the demand was through the roof. Again, DO THE MATH!
===============================================================
Are you sure about that? Pretty much every report I have read said that people have stopped traveling as much. My friends in the hospitality industry have told me that the vacancy rate has gone up with the higher price of fuel. Can I ask what report you are reading from since everything I have read is to the contrary.
Dec 12, 2008 - 6:21 pm
That reasoning doesn't apply to fuel. There was no decrease in fuel consumption. To the contrary, there was an increase. The demand was up remember. Fuel will always be consumed. Fuel with always be sold. The demand will go up and up and up. The price should go up to maintain operating levels and profit. The demand didn't drop to justify the increase from a 1.50 to 4.50 + per gallon. In fact, the demand was through the roof. Again, DO THE MATH!
===============================================================
Are you sure about that? Pretty much every report I have read said that people have stopped traveling as much. My friends in the hospitality industry have told me that the vacancy rate has gone up with the higher price of fuel. Can I ask what report you are reading from since everything I have read is to the contrary.
and yet fuel prices have plummeted. hmmmm. Also by allowing capitalist to charge as much as you want, you are "give the keys to the junkie". Thanks for the analogy.
-D-
-D-
The demand didn't drop to justify the increase from a 1.50 to 4.50 + per gallon. In fact, the demand was through the roof. Again, DO THE MATH!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No the demand didn't drop when the prices went up, OPEC's Output dropped when the prices went up. The United States decided to open up off shore exploration and drilling, causing OPEC to realize that if we did that we wouldn't need their oil so ( as they did in the 70's when we decided to drill for our own oil) they increased output and lowered the price per barrel across the globe. So in effect, the mere threat of a lower demand for their product has caused them to drop prices. As I said earlier in the post, IF/WHEN the Dems decide to re-instate the ban on off shore drilling watch how fast the price of a barrel of oil goes back up to around $100.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No the demand didn't drop when the prices went up, OPEC's Output dropped when the prices went up. The United States decided to open up off shore exploration and drilling, causing OPEC to realize that if we did that we wouldn't need their oil so ( as they did in the 70's when we decided to drill for our own oil) they increased output and lowered the price per barrel across the globe. So in effect, the mere threat of a lower demand for their product has caused them to drop prices. As I said earlier in the post, IF/WHEN the Dems decide to re-instate the ban on off shore drilling watch how fast the price of a barrel of oil goes back up to around $100.
HAHA you bought the bullshit. That's why Mexico was paying a fraction of what we were paying when it was through the roof. COME ON MAN! Mexico gets it from OPEC too. WAKE UP!!! Drilling won't even effect the market for 10+ years and it won't be enough to even come close to what the OPEC produces. That was bullshit to get us to drill. Believe it if you want, I'm not.
-D-
-D-
"HAHA you bought the bullshit. That's why Mexico was paying a fraction of what we were paying when it was through the roof. COME ON MAN! Mexico gets it from OPEC too. WAKE UP!!! Drilling won't even effect the market for 10+ years and it won't be enough to even come close to what the OPEC produces. That was bullshit to get us to drill. Believe it if you want, I'm not."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is the way it worked in the 70's. Mexico drills for their own as well and supplement with OPEC oil. OPEC Has stated they want the price of a barrel of Oil NO LOWER THAN $75 a barrel. It is still at under $50, watch and see what happens, of course you will come up with another excuse for it going up, probably something bush or McCain did before the end of the year behind closed doors.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is the way it worked in the 70's. Mexico drills for their own as well and supplement with OPEC oil. OPEC Has stated they want the price of a barrel of Oil NO LOWER THAN $75 a barrel. It is still at under $50, watch and see what happens, of course you will come up with another excuse for it going up, probably something bush or McCain did before the end of the year behind closed doors.
OUr efforts here won't even start for 10 years. You need to come up with something better. Oil started to rocket in 2001 and now is plummeted in 2008... Wow all 8 years of BUSH!!! WHERE'S MY FUCKIN SHOE!?
OUr efforts here won't even start for 10 years. You need to come up with something better. Oil started to rocket in 2001 and now is plummeted in 2008... Wow all 8 years of BUSH!!! WHERE'S MY FUCKIN SHOE!?
________________________________________________________________________
Partially correct. Prices went up on Bush, as they did on clinton, Carter, Reagan and so on soforth, due to inflation. As always they went up and down during every presidency. As always they went up more than down during middle easten or Global conflicts. As for skyrocketing, that didn't truly happen until Bush's 2nd term when the Republicans lost the majority and all these B.S. Green planet gas mileage requirements and outrageous restrictions were placed on the automakers. Everyone says that it works for the Europeans and we need to follow their lead, but those same people fail to inform the public that the europweans pay 3-5x the amount for gas than we do. When we were paying $4 a gallon some places in Europe were paying $12-$14 a gal. They think it is a good day when they pay $5 a gal. Gee wonder why the demand for oil dropped over the years in europe in comparison the the U.S.
________________________________________________________________________
Partially correct. Prices went up on Bush, as they did on clinton, Carter, Reagan and so on soforth, due to inflation. As always they went up and down during every presidency. As always they went up more than down during middle easten or Global conflicts. As for skyrocketing, that didn't truly happen until Bush's 2nd term when the Republicans lost the majority and all these B.S. Green planet gas mileage requirements and outrageous restrictions were placed on the automakers. Everyone says that it works for the Europeans and we need to follow their lead, but those same people fail to inform the public that the europweans pay 3-5x the amount for gas than we do. When we were paying $4 a gallon some places in Europe were paying $12-$14 a gal. They think it is a good day when they pay $5 a gal. Gee wonder why the demand for oil dropped over the years in europe in comparison the the U.S.
The prices were never 4 dollars with Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan or Carter. During Carter they only ever reached a 60% increase. Inflation is not the answer. The answer is Bush's interest in fuel. Just like Cheney's interest in Haliburton in Iraq. It's called profiteering. Wake up.
-D-
-D-
Posted By: TEQUILAROSE Posted on:
Dec 22, 2008 - 10:42 am
The prices were never 4 dollars with Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan or Carter. During Carter they only ever reached a 60% increase. Inflation is not the answer. The answer is Bush's interest in fuel. Just like Cheney's interest in Haliburton in Iraq. It's called profiteering. Wake up.
===============================================================
Was there as severe a worldwide recession? Yes, I have heard that theory about Bush's interest in fuel. Unfortunately, what I haven't seen is proof beyond reasonable doubt. Of course, we cannot do squat while he is in office but come Jan 20, I would think that anyone with proof can certainly take a whack at it. There is solid proof that can convict a man beyond reasonable doubt, right?
Dec 22, 2008 - 10:42 am
The prices were never 4 dollars with Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan or Carter. During Carter they only ever reached a 60% increase. Inflation is not the answer. The answer is Bush's interest in fuel. Just like Cheney's interest in Haliburton in Iraq. It's called profiteering. Wake up.
===============================================================
Was there as severe a worldwide recession? Yes, I have heard that theory about Bush's interest in fuel. Unfortunately, what I haven't seen is proof beyond reasonable doubt. Of course, we cannot do squat while he is in office but come Jan 20, I would think that anyone with proof can certainly take a whack at it. There is solid proof that can convict a man beyond reasonable doubt, right?
Yeah and there was no proof Saddam Hussein had WMD's and assisted 9-11 attackers and he invaded Iraq... haha... The proof Bush and Big Oil were the cause is there. There's just nothing we can do about it. We can't regulate them. The answer is to not observe their international alternate fuels and energy patents. We should implement ideas that make their products obsolete. It's time to move past fossil fuels. They're filthy and inefficient. That's the problem with these giants, is that they buy up patents and moth ball them to get rid of any potential competition. I say fuck that... It's just like those fucktards that think they can patent sections of the Human Genome. Fuck that! Fuck them. They hamper progress by doing that shit and they corner the market where people can't choose. I don't care if they have competition, it's better for the consumer... I could give a fuck about their margin.
I am for a more diverse market.
As far as evidence to convict is concerned, you are right. The mafia skates everday because of your mentality... So even if we can't convict him, the whole world knows what he's done. ahaha... Hence shoes being thrown. haha.. But hey that just makes people like me, keep our vote away from morons like him... You see how that works?
-D-
I am for a more diverse market.
As far as evidence to convict is concerned, you are right. The mafia skates everday because of your mentality... So even if we can't convict him, the whole world knows what he's done. ahaha... Hence shoes being thrown. haha.. But hey that just makes people like me, keep our vote away from morons like him... You see how that works?
-D-
Career and Public Service:
- Owner, oil and gas business
- Partner, Texas Rangers Baseball Team -
- Governor of Texas
- President of the United States
__________
The above was taken verbatim from the whitehouse webpage under W's biography.
Now, I'm not sure what all is entailed in "owner, oil and gas business", and I doubt that anyone can really say what the implications of the last eight years have done to his portfolio, the well-being of the pocketbooks of friends and family, etc., but having a relatively good feel for the character of the man, I would say he'll be doing that evil chuckle of his for the rest of his days.
- Owner, oil and gas business
- Partner, Texas Rangers Baseball Team -
- Governor of Texas
- President of the United States
__________
The above was taken verbatim from the whitehouse webpage under W's biography.
Now, I'm not sure what all is entailed in "owner, oil and gas business", and I doubt that anyone can really say what the implications of the last eight years have done to his portfolio, the well-being of the pocketbooks of friends and family, etc., but having a relatively good feel for the character of the man, I would say he'll be doing that evil chuckle of his for the rest of his days.
Posted By: TEQUILAROSE Posted on:
Dec 23, 2008 - 11:21 am
Yeah and there was no proof Saddam Hussein had WMD's and assisted 9-11 attackers and he invaded Iraq... haha... The proof Bush and Big Oil were the cause is there. There's just nothing we can do about it. We can't regulate them.
The answer is to not observe their international alternate fuels and energy patents. We should implement ideas that make their products obsolete.
As far as evidence to convict is concerned, you are right. The mafia skates everday because of your mentality...
So even if we can't convict him, the whole world knows what he's done. ahaha... Hence shoes being thrown.
=============================================================
AFAIK, there was proof that he HAD the WMD. There were international companies that submitted records of the components going into Iraq. That is unless we are to believe they were forced to doctor up some documents by someone like the CIA. Where is the proof? Besides circumstantial "evidence"? I have yet to see one Dem senator bring it up. So either it doesn't exist or it is extremely weak or the Dem party has been bought off. Which is it?
Brilliant idea. Too bad the other side isn't stupid. You don't observe their patents and they won't give a thought if their people steal yours. Now what was that about a lawless society that you seemed to think was a bad idea? Of course, as you would say, when it affects YOUR patents, you will sing a different tune.
Either people skate like you say or we can go back to the old English method of "Guilty Until Proven Innocent". But then of course, you will say that it is unfair on people. Which is it? I prefer 1 standard for all men. You seem to want to have different standards for different people.
Yes, the average Iraqi is highly focused on the Presidential doings of the USA on top of what is happening with him.
Dec 23, 2008 - 11:21 am
Yeah and there was no proof Saddam Hussein had WMD's and assisted 9-11 attackers and he invaded Iraq... haha... The proof Bush and Big Oil were the cause is there. There's just nothing we can do about it. We can't regulate them.
The answer is to not observe their international alternate fuels and energy patents. We should implement ideas that make their products obsolete.
As far as evidence to convict is concerned, you are right. The mafia skates everday because of your mentality...
So even if we can't convict him, the whole world knows what he's done. ahaha... Hence shoes being thrown.
=============================================================
AFAIK, there was proof that he HAD the WMD. There were international companies that submitted records of the components going into Iraq. That is unless we are to believe they were forced to doctor up some documents by someone like the CIA. Where is the proof? Besides circumstantial "evidence"? I have yet to see one Dem senator bring it up. So either it doesn't exist or it is extremely weak or the Dem party has been bought off. Which is it?
Brilliant idea. Too bad the other side isn't stupid. You don't observe their patents and they won't give a thought if their people steal yours. Now what was that about a lawless society that you seemed to think was a bad idea? Of course, as you would say, when it affects YOUR patents, you will sing a different tune.
Either people skate like you say or we can go back to the old English method of "Guilty Until Proven Innocent". But then of course, you will say that it is unfair on people. Which is it? I prefer 1 standard for all men. You seem to want to have different standards for different people.
Yes, the average Iraqi is highly focused on the Presidential doings of the USA on top of what is happening with him.
Posted By: CHRKE2 Posted on:
Dec 23, 2008 - 12:59 pm
Career and Public Service:
- Owner, oil and gas business
- Partner, Texas Rangers Baseball Team -
- Governor of Texas
- President of the United States
__________
The above was taken verbatim from the whitehouse webpage under W's biography.
Now, I'm not sure what all is entailed in "owner, oil and gas business", and I doubt that anyone can really say what the implications of the last eight years have done to his portfolio, the well-being of the pocketbooks of friends and family, etc., but having a relatively good feel for the character of the man, I would say he'll be doing that evil chuckle of his for the rest of his days.
==============================================================
Is he an owner at this time and can we prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did stuff to manipulate the market to his benefit?
Dec 23, 2008 - 12:59 pm
Career and Public Service:
- Owner, oil and gas business
- Partner, Texas Rangers Baseball Team -
- Governor of Texas
- President of the United States
__________
The above was taken verbatim from the whitehouse webpage under W's biography.
Now, I'm not sure what all is entailed in "owner, oil and gas business", and I doubt that anyone can really say what the implications of the last eight years have done to his portfolio, the well-being of the pocketbooks of friends and family, etc., but having a relatively good feel for the character of the man, I would say he'll be doing that evil chuckle of his for the rest of his days.
==============================================================
Is he an owner at this time and can we prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did stuff to manipulate the market to his benefit?
"AFAIK, there was proof that he HAD the WMD"
No there wasn't. They had no proof before going in. The only proof they found <b>years later</b> were old inert warheads that were overlooked. They proved that he did comply with the U.N. Try again.
Oh and ....
Saddam was removed to make it easier for a leaderless and war-torn country to have it's oil taken... Wake up man.
No there wasn't. They had no proof before going in. The only proof they found <b>years later</b> were old inert warheads that were overlooked. They proved that he did comply with the U.N. Try again.
Oh and ....
Saddam was removed to make it easier for a leaderless and war-torn country to have it's oil taken... Wake up man.
Posted By: TEQUILAROSE Posted on:
Dec 23, 2008 - 2:32 pm
"AFAIK, there was proof that he HAD the WMD"
No there wasn't. They had no proof before going in. The only proof they found years later were old inert warheads that were overlooked. They proved that he did comply with the U.N. Try again.
===============================================================
So your thesis is that the UN now lied to cover up for Bush? There was proof that the materials went in was there not? Even David Kay thought he would find something but when he didn't, he backpedaled. If there wasn't, how do you explain the 13 or so UN Resolutions? Now you may say he did comply with the destruction order but know would anybody know it with the shell games he played? Or do you consider "unfettered access" a fluid term? He was supposed to provide unfettered access to any and all inspections as part of the cease fire. Do you consider that he did that by kicking out the inspectors, forbidding them from certain areas and making them give advance notice in case the clean up crews had to be sent?
There were materials going in that he was supposed to account for or do you deny that? Since matter is neither created nor destroyed, as we know it, it has to be somewhere or converted to some form. Where it is now, nobody really knows. Of course, after 13 years, who knows what lies where? The man even had his jets flown to Iran for safekeeping so where they are today is anybody's guess. That the materials were there should not be in dispute. Either that or the world is faking documents. Try shipping even 1 40ft container international and there will be all sorts of paperwork to go with it. So unless everybody else was lying, how can you say that nothing went in?
Dec 23, 2008 - 2:32 pm
"AFAIK, there was proof that he HAD the WMD"
No there wasn't. They had no proof before going in. The only proof they found years later were old inert warheads that were overlooked. They proved that he did comply with the U.N. Try again.
===============================================================
So your thesis is that the UN now lied to cover up for Bush? There was proof that the materials went in was there not? Even David Kay thought he would find something but when he didn't, he backpedaled. If there wasn't, how do you explain the 13 or so UN Resolutions? Now you may say he did comply with the destruction order but know would anybody know it with the shell games he played? Or do you consider "unfettered access" a fluid term? He was supposed to provide unfettered access to any and all inspections as part of the cease fire. Do you consider that he did that by kicking out the inspectors, forbidding them from certain areas and making them give advance notice in case the clean up crews had to be sent?
There were materials going in that he was supposed to account for or do you deny that? Since matter is neither created nor destroyed, as we know it, it has to be somewhere or converted to some form. Where it is now, nobody really knows. Of course, after 13 years, who knows what lies where? The man even had his jets flown to Iran for safekeeping so where they are today is anybody's guess. That the materials were there should not be in dispute. Either that or the world is faking documents. Try shipping even 1 40ft container international and there will be all sorts of paperwork to go with it. So unless everybody else was lying, how can you say that nothing went in?
Sorry buddy... Even Bush was saying they weren't there. ahaha... You're a sheep till the end. hahaha.
aklim - "Is he an owner at this time and can we prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did stuff to manipulate the market to his benefit?"
Is this actually a serious question? Or are you simply interested in the last word? You are the epitome of self-centered - what would you have been doing, had you been him for the last eight years?
I smell dead fish. You may have the final word.
Is this actually a serious question? Or are you simply interested in the last word? You are the epitome of self-centered - what would you have been doing, had you been him for the last eight years?
I smell dead fish. You may have the final word.
Posted By: TEQUILAROSE Posted on:
Dec 23, 2008 - 3:48 pm
Sorry buddy... Even Bush was saying they weren't there. ahaha... You're a sheep till the end. hahaha.
==============================================================
So are you saying that the resolutions the UN had been writing were just something they did to pass the time? Yes, we know they ARE not there now. But to say there were never there is a different story. Which is it?
Dec 23, 2008 - 3:48 pm
Sorry buddy... Even Bush was saying they weren't there. ahaha... You're a sheep till the end. hahaha.
==============================================================
So are you saying that the resolutions the UN had been writing were just something they did to pass the time? Yes, we know they ARE not there now. But to say there were never there is a different story. Which is it?
Posted By: CHRKE2 Posted on:
Dec 23, 2008 - 4:09 pm
Is this actually a serious question? Or are you simply interested in the last word?
You are the epitome of self-centered - what would you have been doing, had you been him for the last eight years?
==============================================================
I'm serious. Is there any proof that he still owns those stock and that he purposely manipulated the markets to his favor? Wasn't he supposed to divest himself of any investments where he might have some influence over. Now if he didn't, the 2nd part of the question does come into play.
Yes I am and I make no bones about it. If I were him, I certainly would have complied with all the regulations that I had to just so that there can be no talk of "conflict of interest". The only thing I can see that comes remotely close is the Cheney has some 400000 stock options from Haliburton. AFAIK, he has been cleared by congress that stock options DO NOT constitute a financial interest. That an deferred salary. Both were said to be cleared by congress so is there anything else that says he and/or Bush have something that congress did not clear that is a conflict of interest?
Dec 23, 2008 - 4:09 pm
Is this actually a serious question? Or are you simply interested in the last word?
You are the epitome of self-centered - what would you have been doing, had you been him for the last eight years?
==============================================================
I'm serious. Is there any proof that he still owns those stock and that he purposely manipulated the markets to his favor? Wasn't he supposed to divest himself of any investments where he might have some influence over. Now if he didn't, the 2nd part of the question does come into play.
Yes I am and I make no bones about it. If I were him, I certainly would have complied with all the regulations that I had to just so that there can be no talk of "conflict of interest". The only thing I can see that comes remotely close is the Cheney has some 400000 stock options from Haliburton. AFAIK, he has been cleared by congress that stock options DO NOT constitute a financial interest. That an deferred salary. Both were said to be cleared by congress so is there anything else that says he and/or Bush have something that congress did not clear that is a conflict of interest?
"So are you saying that the resolutions the UN had been writing were just something they did to pass the time? Yes, we know they ARE not there now. But to say there were never there is a different story. Which is it?"
<hr>
Both, We know now and had no proof then. Saddam was less of a threat than many other leaders to include his neighbors and N. Korea. Please.
<hr>
Both, We know now and had no proof then. Saddam was less of a threat than many other leaders to include his neighbors and N. Korea. Please.
Posted By: TEQUILAROSE Posted on:
Dec 26, 2008 - 11:20 am
We know now
and had no proof then.
Saddam was less of a threat than many other leaders to include his neighbors and N. Korea. Please
=============================================================
We know now that they are not there. That does not imply that nothing was there ever. Ask the Kurds and they might have a different take on the existence of gas. IIRC, Iran also got a taste of those kinds of weapons. After 13 years of shell games, who knows what is where anymore?
So, if it is your contention that we had no proof that anything went in before, are you saying that the UN and all the other countries that claimed they supplied Saddam are lying? Lets even say that Bush lied and cooked up evidence. Are you saying that the other nations also cooked the books to prove that materials went in? It's not impossible but I would have to say that having that many nations together forging documents is a very difficult task.
Irrelevant to the question.
Dec 26, 2008 - 11:20 am
We know now
and had no proof then.
Saddam was less of a threat than many other leaders to include his neighbors and N. Korea. Please
=============================================================
We know now that they are not there. That does not imply that nothing was there ever. Ask the Kurds and they might have a different take on the existence of gas. IIRC, Iran also got a taste of those kinds of weapons. After 13 years of shell games, who knows what is where anymore?
So, if it is your contention that we had no proof that anything went in before, are you saying that the UN and all the other countries that claimed they supplied Saddam are lying? Lets even say that Bush lied and cooked up evidence. Are you saying that the other nations also cooked the books to prove that materials went in? It's not impossible but I would have to say that having that many nations together forging documents is a very difficult task.
Irrelevant to the question.
It doesn't matter what he did before... The point is.. he was complying with the U.N. because when we invaded and there wasn't <b>SHIT THERE!!!</b> Furthermore, there were far bigger threats than saddam hussein. Like Al Qaeda and the Taliban.. Did I mention North Korea, Pakistan and countless other countries that pose a bigger threat? *Yawn* I'm being bored..
Posted By: TEQUILAROSE Posted on:
Dec 28, 2008 - 7:52 pm
It doesn't matter what he did before...
The point is.. he was complying with the U.N. because when we invaded and there wasn't SHIT THERE!!!
Furthermore, there were far bigger threats than saddam hussein. Like Al Qaeda and the Taliban.. Did I mention North Korea, Pakistan and countless other countries that pose a bigger threat? *Yawn* I'm being bored..
=============================================================
Yes and no. If never used WMD before, you can make the argument that it was coined up. Fact is he had it BEFORE 1990 and used it. That is NOT in dispute is it?
How do you figure he was complying? How many resolutions were issued AFTER the first Gulf War? Each one to smack his hand for what he did the last time? OK. I get it. There was nothing there. What's your point? He was supposed to account for all the materials that went in previously as the agreements of the ceasefire dictated. Did he do that? IF matter went in and was not destroyed it has to be somewhere. Simply because it was not there does not mean he didn't have it. That is like saying that if there were 100 witnesses to me robbing a bank and they tracked me to my hideout but cannot find the money, I am innocent.
Perhaps so even at that time. However, there was no treaty with them that they broke, unlike with Hussien.
Dec 28, 2008 - 7:52 pm
It doesn't matter what he did before...
The point is.. he was complying with the U.N. because when we invaded and there wasn't SHIT THERE!!!
Furthermore, there were far bigger threats than saddam hussein. Like Al Qaeda and the Taliban.. Did I mention North Korea, Pakistan and countless other countries that pose a bigger threat? *Yawn* I'm being bored..
=============================================================
Yes and no. If never used WMD before, you can make the argument that it was coined up. Fact is he had it BEFORE 1990 and used it. That is NOT in dispute is it?
How do you figure he was complying? How many resolutions were issued AFTER the first Gulf War? Each one to smack his hand for what he did the last time? OK. I get it. There was nothing there. What's your point? He was supposed to account for all the materials that went in previously as the agreements of the ceasefire dictated. Did he do that? IF matter went in and was not destroyed it has to be somewhere. Simply because it was not there does not mean he didn't have it. That is like saying that if there were 100 witnesses to me robbing a bank and they tracked me to my hideout but cannot find the money, I am innocent.
Perhaps so even at that time. However, there was no treaty with them that they broke, unlike with Hussien.
Well then that makes us terrorists. Because we supplied him, we've used nukes and committed far more acts of "terrorism" by your definition.. Sorry buddy, you're argument is lame. He did comply. He rid his country of WMD's. Iraq wasn't even as bad a threat as Iran or Korea.. WE DIDN'T INVADE THEM! DID WE? Spare me the bullshit dude.
Posted By: TEQUILAROSE Posted on:
Dec 30, 2008 - 6:19 pm
Well then that makes us terrorists. Because we supplied him, we've used nukes and committed far more acts of "terrorism" by your definition.. Sorry buddy, you're argument is lame.
He did comply. He rid his country of WMD's.
Iraq wasn't even as bad a threat as Iran or Korea.. WE DIDN'T INVADE THEM! DID WE?
Spare me the bullshit dude.
===============================================================
So did the rest of the world. Of course there was no issue back then but what's your point?
Did he? I thought he was supposed to provide "unfettered access" to the inspectors. Why don't YOU tell us what YOU define as "unfettered access"? Would it include not allowing inspectors to certain sites until he has had some notice and is able to clean up? How about kicking the inspectors out? Now if he had open the country to the inspectors to snoop around LIKE HE WAS SUPPOSED TO and we had invaded, I'd agree you have a point.
On Dec 27, PA had a 3.4 magnitude earthquake. What has that or Iran and Korea got to do with the question? IOW, Relevance? Did Iran or N Korea invade Kuwait and got slapped and told that they had to be disarmed and with monitors to ensure they did and then after that break the ceasefire agreements?
Yes, that is kinda hard to do though. I'll work on it. Problem is that there is what you think is right and everything else and anyone else who disagrees is bullshit and wrong, in that order. Still, I'm sure you can find your usual group of sycophants that will simply agree with you, pat you on the back with the "right on, Don". Be happy with them.
Dec 30, 2008 - 6:19 pm
Well then that makes us terrorists. Because we supplied him, we've used nukes and committed far more acts of "terrorism" by your definition.. Sorry buddy, you're argument is lame.
He did comply. He rid his country of WMD's.
Iraq wasn't even as bad a threat as Iran or Korea.. WE DIDN'T INVADE THEM! DID WE?
Spare me the bullshit dude.
===============================================================
So did the rest of the world. Of course there was no issue back then but what's your point?
Did he? I thought he was supposed to provide "unfettered access" to the inspectors. Why don't YOU tell us what YOU define as "unfettered access"? Would it include not allowing inspectors to certain sites until he has had some notice and is able to clean up? How about kicking the inspectors out? Now if he had open the country to the inspectors to snoop around LIKE HE WAS SUPPOSED TO and we had invaded, I'd agree you have a point.
On Dec 27, PA had a 3.4 magnitude earthquake. What has that or Iran and Korea got to do with the question? IOW, Relevance? Did Iran or N Korea invade Kuwait and got slapped and told that they had to be disarmed and with monitors to ensure they did and then after that break the ceasefire agreements?
Yes, that is kinda hard to do though. I'll work on it. Problem is that there is what you think is right and everything else and anyone else who disagrees is bullshit and wrong, in that order. Still, I'm sure you can find your usual group of sycophants that will simply agree with you, pat you on the back with the "right on, Don". Be happy with them.
Speaking of sycophancy.. you're one of the few fucktards in the world that still buy Bush's bullshit to fit in with those that still hold your racist, fascist view of America.. RIGHT ON AKLIM. WAY TO GO YES MAN! haha.. Dude you're a fuckin hypocrite. *YAWN* Do me a favor and fly to Utah and I will be glad to remove my shoe and throw it in your fuckin face.
-D-
-D-
Posted By: TEQUILAROSE Posted on:
Dec 31, 2008 - 9:35 pm
Speaking of sycophancy.. you're one of the few fucktards in the world that still buy Bush's bullshit to fit in with those that still hold your racist, fascist view of America..
RIGHT ON AKLIM. WAY TO GO YES MAN! haha.. Dude you're a fuckin hypocrite. *YAWN*
Do me a favor and fly to Utah and I will be glad to remove my shoe and throw it in your fuckin face.
===============================================================
Sure. You don't like Bush so anyone who agrees with anything he does is a fucktard. I get it. Like I said, the only way to get ahead with you is to fully agree with whatever you say. Whatever you do, don't dispute the issue. Just go with your slogans, know you are right and chalk up yourself a win.
No, I don't agree with everything Bush does. Like I said before, my major beefs with him are his religious stance, abortion and stem cells to name a few. No, I don't work for him either so I am not sure why you think I suck up to him besides the fact that I might agree on a point.
You want to do that, YOU fly here.
Dec 31, 2008 - 9:35 pm
Speaking of sycophancy.. you're one of the few fucktards in the world that still buy Bush's bullshit to fit in with those that still hold your racist, fascist view of America..
RIGHT ON AKLIM. WAY TO GO YES MAN! haha.. Dude you're a fuckin hypocrite. *YAWN*
Do me a favor and fly to Utah and I will be glad to remove my shoe and throw it in your fuckin face.
===============================================================
Sure. You don't like Bush so anyone who agrees with anything he does is a fucktard. I get it. Like I said, the only way to get ahead with you is to fully agree with whatever you say. Whatever you do, don't dispute the issue. Just go with your slogans, know you are right and chalk up yourself a win.
No, I don't agree with everything Bush does. Like I said before, my major beefs with him are his religious stance, abortion and stem cells to name a few. No, I don't work for him either so I am not sure why you think I suck up to him besides the fact that I might agree on a point.
You want to do that, YOU fly here.
In the case of Bush... yeah you're correct. If you actually bought his bullshit like a rightwing nutjob sheep, I think you're a fucktard. haha
<script>document.write('<object width="450" height="370"><param name="movie" value="ht'+'tp://w'+'ww.liveleak.com/e/8f8_1221846224"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="ht'+'tp://ww'+'w.liveleak.com/e/8f8_1221846224" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="450" height="370"></embed></object>');</script>
<script>document.write('<object width="450" height="370"><param name="movie" value="ht'+'tp://w'+'ww.liveleak.com/e/8f8_1221846224"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="ht'+'tp://ww'+'w.liveleak.com/e/8f8_1221846224" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="450" height="370"></embed></object>');</script>
Posted By: TEQUILAROSE Posted on:
Jan 4, 2009 - 5:23 am
In the case of Bush... yeah you're correct. If you actually bought his bullshit like a rightwing nutjob sheep, I think you're a fucktard. haha
===============================================================
This from the man who is supposedly against prejudice. Impressive. Real impressive. Still with the same old saw. There is you way and the wrong way. I suppose I should try impress you more by agreeing with everything you do then? IF only that job could pay enough. But hey, feel free to skirt the question, make a couple of abusive statements and stamp you foot to impress. Someone might actually be in fear of you.
Jan 4, 2009 - 5:23 am
In the case of Bush... yeah you're correct. If you actually bought his bullshit like a rightwing nutjob sheep, I think you're a fucktard. haha
===============================================================
This from the man who is supposedly against prejudice. Impressive. Real impressive. Still with the same old saw. There is you way and the wrong way. I suppose I should try impress you more by agreeing with everything you do then? IF only that job could pay enough. But hey, feel free to skirt the question, make a couple of abusive statements and stamp you foot to impress. Someone might actually be in fear of you.
Come up with a valid argument and I won't consider you a moron. For not trying to impress me, you sure are eager to validate your stance to me. What a pathetic worm you are. haha.. Do you speak, roll over and fetch too? How about you go lay by your dish.
For not trying to impress me, you sure are eager to validate your stance to me. What a pathetic worm you are. haha.. Do you speak, roll over and fetch too? How about you go lay by your dish.Posted By: TEQUILAROSE Posted on:
Jan 4, 2009 - 2:19 pm
Come up with a valid argument and
I won't consider you a moron.
For not trying to impress me, you sure are eager to validate your stance to me.
What a pathetic worm you are. haha.. Do you speak, roll over and fetch too? How about you go lay by your dish.
=============================================================
I doubt any argument will be to your liking unless it echos what you have in mind. Like I said, any answer but yours is the wrong one. I asked you a simple question but yet you launch into a different tirade altogether. So, what is the point of asking me to make a valid argument? You just want me to go "YES, SIR!" to what you want to say or you launch into one of your abusive and acerbic tirades. I asked you one simple question when you said he was complying with UN regulations. What was your answer then? Go look back at your posts. To refresh your memory, here it is again "How do you figure he was complying? How many resolutions were issued AFTER the first Gulf War? Each one to smack his hand for what he did the last time? OK. I get it. There was nothing there. What's your point? He was supposed to account for all the materials that went in previously as the agreements of the ceasefire dictated. Did he do that? IF matter went in and was not destroyed it has to be somewhere. Simply because it was not there does not mean he didn't have it. That is like saying that if there were 100 witnesses to me robbing a bank and they tracked me to my hideout but cannot find the money, I am innocent.".
By all means, consider me a moron if you want. If you aren't writing me a check, it doesn't matter much, does it? Of course if I am wrong about your opinion carrying weight in my life, please don't hesitate to point it out.
I state my point to your argument. Again, when you show me that your opinion of me increases my worth in a quantifiable sense, I will pay attention. Other than that, you are simply amusement.
I'm so crushed by your eloquence. I think I will double my dose of prozac tonight. And if I did roll over, etc, etc, it certainly won't be for you.
Jan 4, 2009 - 2:19 pm
Come up with a valid argument and
I won't consider you a moron.
For not trying to impress me, you sure are eager to validate your stance to me.
What a pathetic worm you are. haha.. Do you speak, roll over and fetch too? How about you go lay by your dish.
=============================================================
I doubt any argument will be to your liking unless it echos what you have in mind. Like I said, any answer but yours is the wrong one. I asked you a simple question but yet you launch into a different tirade altogether. So, what is the point of asking me to make a valid argument? You just want me to go "YES, SIR!" to what you want to say or you launch into one of your abusive and acerbic tirades. I asked you one simple question when you said he was complying with UN regulations. What was your answer then? Go look back at your posts. To refresh your memory, here it is again "How do you figure he was complying? How many resolutions were issued AFTER the first Gulf War? Each one to smack his hand for what he did the last time? OK. I get it. There was nothing there. What's your point? He was supposed to account for all the materials that went in previously as the agreements of the ceasefire dictated. Did he do that? IF matter went in and was not destroyed it has to be somewhere. Simply because it was not there does not mean he didn't have it. That is like saying that if there were 100 witnesses to me robbing a bank and they tracked me to my hideout but cannot find the money, I am innocent.".
By all means, consider me a moron if you want. If you aren't writing me a check, it doesn't matter much, does it? Of course if I am wrong about your opinion carrying weight in my life, please don't hesitate to point it out.
I state my point to your argument. Again, when you show me that your opinion of me increases my worth in a quantifiable sense, I will pay attention. Other than that, you are simply amusement.
I'm so crushed by your eloquence. I think I will double my dose of prozac tonight. And if I did roll over, etc, etc, it certainly won't be for you.
Again have the last word... If it makes you feel like you've won the debate... I already chalked it up as my win.
<h2><b>HAVE THE LAST WORD</b></h2>
I tired of your stupidity.
<h2><b>HAVE THE LAST WORD</b></h2>
I tired of your stupidity.
Posted By: TEQUILAROSE Posted on:
Jan 5, 2009 - 3:44 pm
Again have the last word... If it makes you feel like you've won the debate...
I already chalked it up as my win.
==============================================================
I thought I'd give it the response it deserves via cut and paste:
Not really. Winning against a foulmouthed hooligan isn't a badge of honor. No thanx.
Too bad nobody else will otherwise it might mean something.
Jan 5, 2009 - 3:44 pm
Again have the last word... If it makes you feel like you've won the debate...
I already chalked it up as my win.
==============================================================
I thought I'd give it the response it deserves via cut and paste:
Not really. Winning against a foulmouthed hooligan isn't a badge of honor. No thanx.
Too bad nobody else will otherwise it might mean something.
Yeah this "foul-mouthed hooligan", just spanked your little ass in the debate. Now run along now.
Posted By: TEQUILAROSE Posted on:
Jan 5, 2009 - 4:07 pm
Yeah this "foul-mouthed hooligan", just spanked your little ass in the debate. Now run along now.
==============================================================
Did I miss the answer to the question below or did you just try to dance around a little and then say you "spanked my ass"? Sounds like your usual dance when you don't like the question. Talk about something else and then declare yourself a winner and hope the original question was forgotten.
"How do you figure he was complying? How many resolutions were issued AFTER the first Gulf War? Each one to smack his hand for what he did the last time? OK. I get it. There was nothing there. What's your point? He was supposed to account for all the materials that went in previously as the agreements of the ceasefire dictated. Did he do that? IF matter went in and was not destroyed it has to be somewhere. Simply because it was not there does not mean he didn't have it. That is like saying that if there were 100 witnesses to me robbing a bank and they tracked me to my hideout but cannot find the money, I am innocent.".
Jan 5, 2009 - 4:07 pm
Yeah this "foul-mouthed hooligan", just spanked your little ass in the debate. Now run along now.
==============================================================
Did I miss the answer to the question below or did you just try to dance around a little and then say you "spanked my ass"? Sounds like your usual dance when you don't like the question. Talk about something else and then declare yourself a winner and hope the original question was forgotten.
"How do you figure he was complying? How many resolutions were issued AFTER the first Gulf War? Each one to smack his hand for what he did the last time? OK. I get it. There was nothing there. What's your point? He was supposed to account for all the materials that went in previously as the agreements of the ceasefire dictated. Did he do that? IF matter went in and was not destroyed it has to be somewhere. Simply because it was not there does not mean he didn't have it. That is like saying that if there were 100 witnesses to me robbing a bank and they tracked me to my hideout but cannot find the money, I am innocent.".
blah blah blah blah... You still running your cock holster?
Posted By: TEQUILAROSE Posted on:
Jan 6, 2009 - 2:57 am
blah blah blah blah... You still running your cock holster?
==============================================================
Must be a morning of surprises. Your usual pattern to a question you don't want to answer because the answer will not suit you is to start with some abuse, talk about something else, repeat last step then declare that you have won the debate. What happened? Ran out of things to bring up that are unrelated to the question?
It couldn't be that you are scared of the question are you? Such a simple little question and you run. Why? What are you afraid of? Besides the answer that you would have to give, that is?
Jan 6, 2009 - 2:57 am
blah blah blah blah... You still running your cock holster?
==============================================================
Must be a morning of surprises. Your usual pattern to a question you don't want to answer because the answer will not suit you is to start with some abuse, talk about something else, repeat last step then declare that you have won the debate. What happened? Ran out of things to bring up that are unrelated to the question?
It couldn't be that you are scared of the question are you? Such a simple little question and you run. Why? What are you afraid of? Besides the answer that you would have to give, that is?
wah wah wah wah wah wah.... More bullshit.. Hot air... *YAWN*
Now, for the not so fucktarded... Compliance was proven when we invaded and found NOTHING! The fact that Bush had it in his mind to invade Iraq was clear during his first campaign, shows why we went to Iraq. It had nothing to do with WMD's or 9-11... Mongoloids like Aklim are comfortable with being Bush's sheep... I could give a fuck... I'm not buying it. You're in the minority Aklim.. Deal with it bitch.
The fact that Bush had it in his mind to invade Iraq was clear during his first campaign, shows why we went to Iraq. It had nothing to do with WMD's or 9-11... Mongoloids like Aklim are comfortable with being Bush's sheep... I could give a fuck... I'm not buying it. You're in the minority Aklim.. Deal with it bitch.Posted By: TEQUILAROSE Posted on:
Jan 6, 2009 - 6:12 pm
Now, for the not so fucktarded... Compliance was proven when we invaded and found NOTHING! The fact that Bush had it in his mind to invade Iraq was clear during his first campaign, shows why we went to Iraq. It had nothing to do with WMD's or 9-11... Mongoloids like Aklim are comfortable with being Bush's sheep... I could give a fuck... I'm not buying it. You're in the minority Aklim.. Deal with it bitch.
===============================================================
"How do you figure he was complying? How many resolutions were issued AFTER the first Gulf War? Each one to smack his hand for what he did the last time? OK. I get it. There was nothing there. What's your point? He was supposed to account for all the materials that went in previously as the agreements of the ceasefire dictated. Did he do that? IF matter went in and was not destroyed it has to be somewhere. Simply because it was not there does not mean he didn't have it. That is like saying that if there were 100 witnesses to me robbing a bank and they tracked me to my hideout but cannot find the money, I am innocent.".
So what is stopping you from answering that simple question?
Jan 6, 2009 - 6:12 pm
Now, for the not so fucktarded... Compliance was proven when we invaded and found NOTHING! The fact that Bush had it in his mind to invade Iraq was clear during his first campaign, shows why we went to Iraq. It had nothing to do with WMD's or 9-11... Mongoloids like Aklim are comfortable with being Bush's sheep... I could give a fuck... I'm not buying it. You're in the minority Aklim.. Deal with it bitch.
===============================================================
"How do you figure he was complying? How many resolutions were issued AFTER the first Gulf War? Each one to smack his hand for what he did the last time? OK. I get it. There was nothing there. What's your point? He was supposed to account for all the materials that went in previously as the agreements of the ceasefire dictated. Did he do that? IF matter went in and was not destroyed it has to be somewhere. Simply because it was not there does not mean he didn't have it. That is like saying that if there were 100 witnesses to me robbing a bank and they tracked me to my hideout but cannot find the money, I am innocent.".
So what is stopping you from answering that simple question?
Posted By: SURFRIDER619 Posted on:
Jan 7, 2009 - 5:53 am
AK,
Do I have to find the UN/IAEA report dated 3/07/03 which stated WMD's were not found at any site? Remember that report? It was two weeks before Bush invaded Iraq. I've published the link twice, and this just proves you and your kind will not read the facts. So, please stay in your little world and let the progressives clean the mess your boy "Shrub" and his cronies are leaving behind.
==============================================================
That is NOT in dispute. The question is whether Saddam was in compliance with his playing of shell games that he has been going on for years. He was supposed to provide full and unfettered access or are you saying that he did? I think with the games he played, nobody was really sure everything was gone and/or accounted for. I think even David Kay went in confident that he would find something but later backpedaled.
Yes, we know that Bush felt that Saddam was breaking the terms of the ceasefire by not providing unfettered access for a full inspection. I don't know what "my boy", as you put it, was thinking at the time. My point is that IF he hadn't been playing shell games and hindering inspectors, none of this would even be discussed. Maybe Bush didn't feel that Saddam could be trusted to comply. Maybe he was told by the local voodoo queen that he should get rid of Saddam. I don't know. Hell, I'll even go as far as to say that maybe there was some other reason that we don't know about that is nefarious. I don't know.
Maybe, just maybe this could all have been avoided if he hadn't been "crying wolf" since the end of the first Gulf War. You may argue that Bush jumped on any chance to claim that Saddam wasn't in compliance. I may even agree with you on that (actually, I do suspect that). Maybe with all of that in mind, wouldn't you agree that it is hard to be certain if everything was gone or accounted for? Again, you can argue that Bush was paranoid after 911 and wanted to make for certain by his own hand that Saddam was in total compliance with the terms of the ceasefire. I'll even go as far as to say Bush didn't trust that the inspection teams were doing a good job. It still begs the question of whether all of this would have happened if Saddam had just thrown the doors open and let the inspectors do their work in the beginning.
Yes, you are right that Saddam in essence, did destroy the WMD like he was supposed to. However, I suspect he was trying to give his neighbors the impression that he might have something up his sleeve by obfuscating the inspections and creating doubt. Unfortunately, the unintended party (Bush) bit on it and went on to launch this war. But like what I have been saying, because of the obfuscation, nobody could really be sure. Even David Kay was predicting all kinds of things. Most inspectors had their suspicions. IIRC, David had to resign in disgrace soon after the inspections found nothing.
With his obfuscation, can you honestly say he did comply with the terms of the ceasefire which was to provide unfettered access for verification and destruction of any and all WMD? Again, he DID destroy all of his WMD, but with the hindering of the inspection teams, he DID NOT provide the unfettered access he was supposed to do and thus became a part of this issue. I therefore submit to you that no small part of this mess was Saddam's fault. IF he DID comply fully, would Bush have been able to find any real fault and gone to war?
Jan 7, 2009 - 5:53 am
AK,
Do I have to find the UN/IAEA report dated 3/07/03 which stated WMD's were not found at any site? Remember that report? It was two weeks before Bush invaded Iraq. I've published the link twice, and this just proves you and your kind will not read the facts. So, please stay in your little world and let the progressives clean the mess your boy "Shrub" and his cronies are leaving behind.
==============================================================
That is NOT in dispute. The question is whether Saddam was in compliance with his playing of shell games that he has been going on for years. He was supposed to provide full and unfettered access or are you saying that he did? I think with the games he played, nobody was really sure everything was gone and/or accounted for. I think even David Kay went in confident that he would find something but later backpedaled.
Yes, we know that Bush felt that Saddam was breaking the terms of the ceasefire by not providing unfettered access for a full inspection. I don't know what "my boy", as you put it, was thinking at the time. My point is that IF he hadn't been playing shell games and hindering inspectors, none of this would even be discussed. Maybe Bush didn't feel that Saddam could be trusted to comply. Maybe he was told by the local voodoo queen that he should get rid of Saddam. I don't know. Hell, I'll even go as far as to say that maybe there was some other reason that we don't know about that is nefarious. I don't know.
Maybe, just maybe this could all have been avoided if he hadn't been "crying wolf" since the end of the first Gulf War. You may argue that Bush jumped on any chance to claim that Saddam wasn't in compliance. I may even agree with you on that (actually, I do suspect that). Maybe with all of that in mind, wouldn't you agree that it is hard to be certain if everything was gone or accounted for? Again, you can argue that Bush was paranoid after 911 and wanted to make for certain by his own hand that Saddam was in total compliance with the terms of the ceasefire. I'll even go as far as to say Bush didn't trust that the inspection teams were doing a good job. It still begs the question of whether all of this would have happened if Saddam had just thrown the doors open and let the inspectors do their work in the beginning.
Yes, you are right that Saddam in essence, did destroy the WMD like he was supposed to. However, I suspect he was trying to give his neighbors the impression that he might have something up his sleeve by obfuscating the inspections and creating doubt. Unfortunately, the unintended party (Bush) bit on it and went on to launch this war. But like what I have been saying, because of the obfuscation, nobody could really be sure. Even David Kay was predicting all kinds of things. Most inspectors had their suspicions. IIRC, David had to resign in disgrace soon after the inspections found nothing.
With his obfuscation, can you honestly say he did comply with the terms of the ceasefire which was to provide unfettered access for verification and destruction of any and all WMD? Again, he DID destroy all of his WMD, but with the hindering of the inspection teams, he DID NOT provide the unfettered access he was supposed to do and thus became a part of this issue. I therefore submit to you that no small part of this mess was Saddam's fault. IF he DID comply fully, would Bush have been able to find any real fault and gone to war?
Sorry, can't use the hundreds of witnesses analogy because the intelligence was bad. They had no credible intelligence. The "witnesses" in this case were false. Furthermore, we had no right to supercede the U.N.'s effort and stipulations and take matters into our own hands. They didn't want us to invade like MOST OF THE REST OF THE WORLD, including a good many of our own allies. France, Germany ring a bell? What question are you speaking of? How did he not comply? With respect to WMD's... HE DID! He was not a threat!!! BUSH KNEW IT! It was his job to know that he was a direct threat. That there was confirmation that he did have them.. There was also mention that he was going nuclear.. Also not true...
So answer me this.. Where was the credible intelligence that there were WMD's... The foundation to the whole arugment to invade.... We invaded and still found nothing... Why did we not leave? Why were we still trying to oust Saddam? Who are we to tell a country who they can have at the helm? Don't we have WMD's? Don't we invade other countries? Aren't we the only country that's ever nuked another country? Why are we not in Iran... A country that is nuclear capable.. Or Korea? BIGGER THREATS THAN IRAQ EVER WAS! Your argument is weak. Bush is a liar and a criminal!
P.S what question?
So answer me this.. Where was the credible intelligence that there were WMD's... The foundation to the whole arugment to invade.... We invaded and still found nothing... Why did we not leave? Why were we still trying to oust Saddam? Who are we to tell a country who they can have at the helm? Don't we have WMD's? Don't we invade other countries? Aren't we the only country that's ever nuked another country? Why are we not in Iran... A country that is nuclear capable.. Or Korea? BIGGER THREATS THAN IRAQ EVER WAS! Your argument is weak. Bush is a liar and a criminal!
P.S what question?
SURF, save your breath.. You're trying to talk a sheep out of grazing... Move on to those that actually think for themselves.
Posted By: TEQUILAROSE Posted on:
Jan 7, 2009 - 12:28 pm
Sorry, can't use the hundreds of witnesses analogy because the intelligence was bad. They had no credible intelligence. The "witnesses" in this case were false. Furthermore, we had no right to supercede the U.N.'s effort and stipulations and take matters into our own hands. They didn't want us to invade like MOST OF THE REST OF THE WORLD, including a good many of our own allies.
France, Germany ring a bell?
What question are you speaking of? How did he not comply? With respect to WMD's... HE DID! He was not a threat!!! BUSH KNEW IT! It was his job to know that he was a direct threat. That there was confirmation that he did have them.. There was also mention that he was going nuclear.. Also not true...
So answer me this.. Where was the credible intelligence that there were WMD's... The foundation to the whole arugment to invade.... We invaded and still found nothing... Why did we not leave? Why were we still trying to oust Saddam? Who are we to tell a country who they can have at the helm? Don't we have WMD's? Don't we invade other countries? Aren't we the only country that's ever nuked another country? Why are we not in Iran... A country that is nuclear capable.. Or Korea? BIGGER THREATS THAN IRAQ EVER WAS! Your argument is weak. Bush is a liar and a criminal!
P.S what question?
============================================================
If you want to argue whether a member of the UN is allowed to interpret "noncompliance" with the resolutions and take independent action, that is another story. I am not totally sure of the rules and bylaws of the organization so I am not sure one way or the other if we could or could not. There has been some suggestion that it is legal and some say it is not. Again, not having studied all the fine print of the UN Charter, I have to admit, I am not sure. If you want to argue that a bunch of our allies don't agree with it, fair enough.
As to France and Germany that you singled out and even Russia, didn't the first 2 have huge contracts with the Baath Party and didn't Russia hold a lot of Iraq's debt? All of which might be nullified with the passing of Saddam and hence the Baath Party. So since they all have some axe to grind and a huge one at that, I am not so sure I would cite them.
Again, if you want to say that there was flimsy evidence of him going nuclear, I will agree with you. It has been proven to be untrue. If you want to say he in fact did dispose of all the WMD, I also agree. What I don't see is how you can say he was in TOTAL compliance with the terms of the ceasefire. After passing the original resolution, they had 12 or 13 other resolutions concerning Iraq's failure to comply with inspections. In 1998, after the inspectors were kicked out, and Clinton decided that Saddam needed to go. Wasn't that missile operation dubbed "Monica's War" because some felt that he was using it as a distraction after Iraq formally states it will not cooperate with the inspectors? In 02, Saddam after 4 years agrees to have inspectors back again. Even Clinton would tell you that he didn't feel Saddam was in full compliance as far as unrestricted inspections which might explain why he was also trying to find ways to get rid of Saddam. Bush decided to push the issue after resolution 1441 and get rid of him one way or the other. In hindsight, I would have to say it wasn't necessary. Did he feel that it was necessary because of the 4 year lapse? I don't know.
What credible evidence of WMD do you want? According to our searches to date, none of that evidence was worth the paper it was written on. Unless some camel drags a nuke to one of our military posts tomorrow, I doubt anyone could claim that there are still WMD hanging around waiting to be discovered, not in Iraq, that is. Where there might be dispute is whether he did throw the doors open to the inspectors or not. As to us deciding to who a country has at the helm, you might also want to ask Clinton since he was the initiator of that idea. The only difference is that Bush did it openly and Clinton tried covert methods by pushing the Kurds, funding other ideas that might hurt Saddam, etc, etc.
The question is this: IF Saddam had not been kicking inspectors out, delaying inspections and cleaning the sites up with bleach, etc, etc and had just let the inspectors do their job since 1991, would we have this discussion today?
Jan 7, 2009 - 12:28 pm
Sorry, can't use the hundreds of witnesses analogy because the intelligence was bad. They had no credible intelligence. The "witnesses" in this case were false. Furthermore, we had no right to supercede the U.N.'s effort and stipulations and take matters into our own hands. They didn't want us to invade like MOST OF THE REST OF THE WORLD, including a good many of our own allies.
France, Germany ring a bell?
What question are you speaking of? How did he not comply? With respect to WMD's... HE DID! He was not a threat!!! BUSH KNEW IT! It was his job to know that he was a direct threat. That there was confirmation that he did have them.. There was also mention that he was going nuclear.. Also not true...
So answer me this.. Where was the credible intelligence that there were WMD's... The foundation to the whole arugment to invade.... We invaded and still found nothing... Why did we not leave? Why were we still trying to oust Saddam? Who are we to tell a country who they can have at the helm? Don't we have WMD's? Don't we invade other countries? Aren't we the only country that's ever nuked another country? Why are we not in Iran... A country that is nuclear capable.. Or Korea? BIGGER THREATS THAN IRAQ EVER WAS! Your argument is weak. Bush is a liar and a criminal!
P.S what question?
============================================================
If you want to argue whether a member of the UN is allowed to interpret "noncompliance" with the resolutions and take independent action, that is another story. I am not totally sure of the rules and bylaws of the organization so I am not sure one way or the other if we could or could not. There has been some suggestion that it is legal and some say it is not. Again, not having studied all the fine print of the UN Charter, I have to admit, I am not sure. If you want to argue that a bunch of our allies don't agree with it, fair enough.
As to France and Germany that you singled out and even Russia, didn't the first 2 have huge contracts with the Baath Party and didn't Russia hold a lot of Iraq's debt? All of which might be nullified with the passing of Saddam and hence the Baath Party. So since they all have some axe to grind and a huge one at that, I am not so sure I would cite them.
Again, if you want to say that there was flimsy evidence of him going nuclear, I will agree with you. It has been proven to be untrue. If you want to say he in fact did dispose of all the WMD, I also agree. What I don't see is how you can say he was in TOTAL compliance with the terms of the ceasefire. After passing the original resolution, they had 12 or 13 other resolutions concerning Iraq's failure to comply with inspections. In 1998, after the inspectors were kicked out, and Clinton decided that Saddam needed to go. Wasn't that missile operation dubbed "Monica's War" because some felt that he was using it as a distraction after Iraq formally states it will not cooperate with the inspectors? In 02, Saddam after 4 years agrees to have inspectors back again. Even Clinton would tell you that he didn't feel Saddam was in full compliance as far as unrestricted inspections which might explain why he was also trying to find ways to get rid of Saddam. Bush decided to push the issue after resolution 1441 and get rid of him one way or the other. In hindsight, I would have to say it wasn't necessary. Did he feel that it was necessary because of the 4 year lapse? I don't know.
What credible evidence of WMD do you want? According to our searches to date, none of that evidence was worth the paper it was written on. Unless some camel drags a nuke to one of our military posts tomorrow, I doubt anyone could claim that there are still WMD hanging around waiting to be discovered, not in Iraq, that is. Where there might be dispute is whether he did throw the doors open to the inspectors or not. As to us deciding to who a country has at the helm, you might also want to ask Clinton since he was the initiator of that idea. The only difference is that Bush did it openly and Clinton tried covert methods by pushing the Kurds, funding other ideas that might hurt Saddam, etc, etc.
The question is this: IF Saddam had not been kicking inspectors out, delaying inspections and cleaning the sites up with bleach, etc, etc and had just let the inspectors do their job since 1991, would we have this discussion today?
Posted By: SURFRIDER619 Posted on:
Jan 7, 2009 - 7:30 pm
AK,
Saddam was not playing the shell game. When he did, he was caught by the UN/IAEA team and stopped the practice. Also, Saddam was the first Intl. leader to offer help after 9/11.
=============================================================
So how do you explain the 13 other resolutions, the inspectors being kicked out, delayed, etc, etc?
He was supposed to allow inspectors to verify all the materials that went in and destroy them. The UN didn't just call him up and say "Hey, Saddam! Go destroy all the WMD.". They wanted to verify that every scrap of raw material that went in was either accounted for and every product destroyed. It was a 2 part deal not simply destruction. Point is he didn't comply with the "unfettered inspection" part. It was suspected that he wanted to be ambiguous to his neighbors but the wrong person, Bush, bit and we are where we are.
Jan 7, 2009 - 7:30 pm
AK,
Saddam was not playing the shell game. When he did, he was caught by the UN/IAEA team and stopped the practice. Also, Saddam was the first Intl. leader to offer help after 9/11.
=============================================================
So how do you explain the 13 other resolutions, the inspectors being kicked out, delayed, etc, etc?
He was supposed to allow inspectors to verify all the materials that went in and destroy them. The UN didn't just call him up and say "Hey, Saddam! Go destroy all the WMD.". They wanted to verify that every scrap of raw material that went in was either accounted for and every product destroyed. It was a 2 part deal not simply destruction. Point is he didn't comply with the "unfettered inspection" part. It was suspected that he wanted to be ambiguous to his neighbors but the wrong person, Bush, bit and we are where we are.
No the lack of evidence shows that he had been complying with the UN resolution by removing WMD's... Face it dummy, he had nothing. He wasn't a threat. Bush focused on Iraq for oil, instead of focusing on Al Qaeada and the Taliban proven threats. Pakistan, Iran and Korea were all bigger threats... Your argument doesn't hold... SORRY AGAIN! Learn to debate if you want to not be made fun of.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report
They did want to maintain their right to make them in the future if they so chose... But hey.. <b>SO DO WE!</b>
-D-
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report
They did want to maintain their right to make them in the future if they so chose... But hey.. <b>SO DO WE!</b>
-D-