Barack Obama is tearing this country apart.
- Thread starter fhl
- Start date
Quote from Scataphagos:
I hate to say this, but I used to think your were a smart guy... I don't know what the Hell happened to you... ??
Bush invaded Iraq for 2 reasons. (1) He wanted to run for re-election based upon "winning a war"..... "protecting the American people from (something... even if it was all a lie)".... always popular reasons (did not want to run for re-election against an anticipated weakening economy) .... and (2) spending on war efforts [deficit] always go virtually unopposed... and such spending always appears to support GDP to make the economy "look good". THAT'S IT! Besides Bush expanding [illegally] the powers of the executive, he was all about "getting re-elected at any cost"....
Asshole supreme, in my book.
Wow, mind reading!! You know what Bush was thinking. Our national secrets are at risk!!
Remember Bork, the Democrats, especially Kennedy, went ballistic, and the Clarence Thomas Circus where they got some schizo to say the he used to brag about the size of his dick and she claimed gender bias and what not.. she never said a thing while it was supposedly going on but the Congress and the entire nation had to listen to her bullshit story..... the Republicans should learn to just blow the walls out like the Democrats do.. it's not a political argument, it's about making the opposition suffer and wish they were never born, that's what happens every time a Democrat opens their mouth... Barbara Boxer can barely put a sentence together because she is concentrating on putting the knife right in the heart and twisting it.........
1 Secure the oil fields? Don't you mean put out the fires? lol Stopping the hussein holdovers from destroying the oilfields had nothing to do with securing the region, and giving them a chance to rebuild their society? Give me a break, dude. That's delusional nutjob talk.
2 Yeah, I'm falling into the trap of libtards vs right wing nutjobs. Meanwhile more mature people like you know it as Paul-kucinich vs the whores. (your quote) lol besides everything else, you're a hypocrite.
And I see you've gotten the approval of 82, who's also 'above the libtard vs whore immaturaty'.
Quote from fhl:
1 Secure the oil fields? Don't you mean put out the fires? lol Stopping the hussein holdovers from destroying the oilfields had nothing to do with securing the region, and giving them a chance to rebuild their society? Give me a break, dude. That's delusional nutjob talk.
2 Yeah, I'm falling into the trap of libtards vs right wing nutjobs. Meanwhile more mature people like you know it as Paul-kucinich vs the whores. (your quote) lol besides everything else, you're a hypocrite.
And I see you've gotten the approval of 82, who's also 'above the libtard vs whore immaturaty'.
Nah... oil had nothing to do with it. Our plunging economy as Scataphagos said had nothing to do with it... It was WMDs and then, later, "spreading democracy" yeah... that was it.
Apparently you're the type that thinks the guy you vote for is honest and the guy you don't vote for is telling all the lies.
Ever stop and think that maybe they're ALL telling lies?
If you're over 30 years old and think the way you do - well, I feel bad for you. If you're younger.. that I can understand.
Here's some reading material:
In a crucial report to President George W. Bush by the US Council on Foreign Relations in April 2001, the president was warned that: "As the 21st century opens, the energy sector is in a critical condition. A crisis could erupt at any time . . . Theworld is currently close to utilising all of its available global oil production capacity, raising the chances of an oil supply crisis with more substantial consequences than seen in three decades."
With US oil consumption in 2001 at an all-time high (19.7m b/d), import penetration at 53 per cent, and dependence on Arabian Gulf oil also at an all-time record (14.1 per cent of total US domestic and foreign supplies), the council stated that it was absolutely imperative that "political factors do not block the development of new oil fields in the Gulf" and that "the Department of State, together with the National Security Council" should "develop a strategic plan to encourage reopening to foreign investment in the important states of the Middle East".
But while the council argued that "there is no question that this investment is vitally important to US interests" it also acknowledged that "there is strong opposition to any such opening among key segments of the Saudi and Kuwaiti populations".
However, there was an alternative. In the words of ESA Inc (Boston), the US's leading energy security analysts: "One of the best things for our supply security would be liberate Iraq"; words echoed by William Kristol, the Republican party ideologist, in testimony to the House Subcommittee on the Middle East on May 22 2002 that as far as oil was concerned, "Iraq is more important than Saudi Arabia".
So when, according to the former head of ExxonMobil's Gulf operations, "Iraqi exiles approached us saying, you can have our oil if we can get back in there", the Bush administration decided to use its overwhelming military might to create a pliant - and dependable - oil protectorate in the Middle East and achieve that essential "opening" of the Gulf oilfields.
But in the words of another US oil company executive, "it all turned out a lot more complicated than anyone had expected". Instead of the anticipated post-invasion rapid expansion of Iraqi production (an expectation of an additional 2m b/d entering the world market by now), the continuing violence of the insurgency has prevented Iraqi exports from even recovering to pre-invasion levels.
In short, the US appears to have fought a war for oil in the Middle East, and lost it. The consequences of that defeat are now plain for all to see.
Source:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a0bb7970-aa25-11d9-aa38-00000e2511c8.html?nclick_check=1
I can understand the policy of "liberating Iraq to control oil." That's the grown-ups view of things. I have problems with how it was accomplished, the fact that we never really had a viable alternative energy policy... etc... That is the grown up discussion. You say oil had nothing to do with it? Next time you say that the average voter is clueless - please look in the mirror.
By the way, it's not your fault you are the way you are. I was the same way until I went abroad and started talking to people around the world. I also started reading news from around the world. It's eye opening. You can still be patriotic while questioning your government. Actually, thats what the founding fathers asked us to do. And never believe one party speaks the truth and the "other" party is the evil one. With the rise of lobbyists from under 100 in 1968 to over 36,000 today - yes, they're all whores. What do you think lobbysists do? Hand out candy and marketing doo-dads like stress balls to get what they want?
OK all you stupid dolts out there. - - - You are being Played. DemoRepublican, - - - its all the Same. The real battle isn't the one on the surface between the so-called Republicans and Democrats. The real battle is between those business interests (especially certain bankers) and politicians to whom you've turned over so much control over your lives and who pick your pockets; theyre battling you - - but most of you don't even know it. They feed off of you. They use their paid 'intelluctuals' in the form of lawyers, judges, professors, government scientists, etc to b.s. you into going along with the program. You think you 'vote', yet they own the media on which you base most of your opinions. (Head of GE told NBC - which they own - to lay off of Obama, because they wanted govt money for their energy interests, for example.) - - Hell, many of you are so easily manipulated that you went out and got 'tats' and 'man' earrings when you saw 'everyone else doing it' so that you could be 'different'. - - You go to government dominated schools taught by more 'intelluctuals' and are thoroughly brainwashed. They steal your money and use a little bit of it (after theyve taken their rake) to bribe you to elect them again. In the meantime, the very same expansion of government & even many of the same people move from one administration to another. One of the biggest sources of donations for Obamas campaign . . . was Goldman Sachs. 'Conservative' Bush spent like crazy and attacked basic freedoms in the name of a 'war' on a tactic, and cracked jokes about looking for the weapons of mass destruction under his desk in the Oval Office. You are a wage and/or tax slave. In the meantime your attention is diverted with the "Republican vs. Democrat" illusion, sports on t.v., and American Idol. Your money goes to bail out millionaire/billionaires controlling big banks, while their paid politicians write laws that don't allow you a break at all. You provided the banks with the money for nothing and they repay you with outrageous interest rates on junk that youre upside down on. (Good luck trying to find any details on the laws they write before theyre voted on - - - they don't even let members of Congress do that. Just shut up and pay for it like a good slave!)
The real battle is between those who would screw you over behind the Wizard of Oz curtain of 'the government' for their own personal benefit, - - and Liberty. This battle started from the very beginning. Jefferson believed that the role of government should be the protection of personal Liberty, private property (since you can't truly be free unless you can control the product of your own labor) and minding your own damned business. Hamiliton wanted to create a powerful central government that the 'elites' such as himself could use to contol the people, rake in personal fortunes, and establish a 'glorious' new American empire for their own ego gratification. He wanted the American president to serve for life, to be a defacto king. He wanted to tax business interests so their interests would be shackled to the politicians controlling the central government - the business interests would own the govt issued bonds, and would support whatever scheme needed to get paid back. He thought Americans were 'lazy' and needed to be taxed to get them to work (I kid you not). He wanted the same mercantilist system (control by those in govt in partnership with business interests granted special priviledges and exclusive licenses in a 'scatch-my- back-I'll-scratch yours/screw the citizenry set-up) This is what Americans battled the king of England to be free of. Of course, that system wasn't bad at all, if Hamiliton & his ilk were the ones pulling the strings and living off of the citizenry. Jefferson and Hamilton hated each other. Aaron Burr who shot & killed Hamilton in the famous duel, was the Vice Presient under Jefferson ! Unfortunately, Hamilton's nightmare vision won out and here we are today. - - And many of you just keep on cheering for 'your guy' whether 'Democrat' lawyer/liar or "Republican" lawyer/liar. - - - Do a little digging and you may very well be shocked, and your eyes may very well be opened. - - - *&^% fooled us & led us down the wrong path a long time ago, but it doesnt have to be that way.
The real battle is between those who would screw you over behind the Wizard of Oz curtain of 'the government' for their own personal benefit, - - and Liberty. This battle started from the very beginning. Jefferson believed that the role of government should be the protection of personal Liberty, private property (since you can't truly be free unless you can control the product of your own labor) and minding your own damned business. Hamiliton wanted to create a powerful central government that the 'elites' such as himself could use to contol the people, rake in personal fortunes, and establish a 'glorious' new American empire for their own ego gratification. He wanted the American president to serve for life, to be a defacto king. He wanted to tax business interests so their interests would be shackled to the politicians controlling the central government - the business interests would own the govt issued bonds, and would support whatever scheme needed to get paid back. He thought Americans were 'lazy' and needed to be taxed to get them to work (I kid you not). He wanted the same mercantilist system (control by those in govt in partnership with business interests granted special priviledges and exclusive licenses in a 'scatch-my- back-I'll-scratch yours/screw the citizenry set-up) This is what Americans battled the king of England to be free of. Of course, that system wasn't bad at all, if Hamiliton & his ilk were the ones pulling the strings and living off of the citizenry. Jefferson and Hamilton hated each other. Aaron Burr who shot & killed Hamilton in the famous duel, was the Vice Presient under Jefferson ! Unfortunately, Hamilton's nightmare vision won out and here we are today. - - And many of you just keep on cheering for 'your guy' whether 'Democrat' lawyer/liar or "Republican" lawyer/liar. - - - Do a little digging and you may very well be shocked, and your eyes may very well be opened. - - - *&^% fooled us & led us down the wrong path a long time ago, but it doesnt have to be that way.
There's so much conspiracy theory written in your comments that it just makes me laugh. I really don't know whether it's the ignorance or the arrogance of it all that bothers me more. lol
You do realize that the articles you've sited are all written by people that <i>may have motives</i>? Is that something you've considered? lol
You've stated that the politicians are all whores who've been bought off by the lobbyists. The only logical place to go from there is that oil companies are the money behind the lobbyists and are determined to open up iraq's oil and keep the free flow of oil moving to America. Am I correct so far? There wouldn't seem to be any other explanation to your theory, would there?
Well, if you could take off your conspiracy theorist hat for a moment and put on an economists hat, maybe you could see through the folly of what you're suggesting.
When there is more oil on the world markets, the price goes in the negative direction. Ok so far? That doesn't exactly help oil company profits. But they are supposedly greedy, secretive, and manipulative to the extreem, right?
Now what happens when the flow of oil is lessened? Can you remember what happened during the oil embargo of the seventies, or did you read about it, maybe? Did the oil companies have a tough time, or did they have <b>windfall profits taxes</b> slapped on them. Are you starting to get the picture? Is there a lightbulb going off right about now telling you in which circumstance the oil companies make out better?
So, for your conspiracy theory clipping that you've sited to be accurate, along with your own additional interpretations, there has to be a lot funny coincidences going on.
The oil companies are too stupid to know how to enlarge their profits, they stupidly hire lobbyists to do the wrong thing, the pols are idiots and take the money and act like whores.....
To sum, according to your theory, everybody is an idiot doing the wrong thing for themselves and the country, and then you tell me that i'm calling all the voters stupid and need to look in the mirror.
You know, it just might be that maintaining the free flow of oil is both good for the world economy and the average joe, and doesn't really make oil companies rich. Maybe these policies are designed to actually do some good, and not to enrich the greedy special interests through unethical lobbyists. In fact, if you want to see lobbyists in action to enrich someone, maybe you could take your magnifying glass to cap and trade, alternative energy and the like, and see if someone gets the benefit to the detriment of society. (Al Gore reportedly worth 100 million?)
That would be a very good place to start if you really were interested to see how lobbying enriches the few. Something tells me that spending time overseas and listening to what they have to say won't exactly persuade you to buy my argument, though.