awesome, oil jumped again
- Thread starter posol
- Start date
- Replies 35
- Views 2K
We may earn a small commission from affiliate links and paid advertisements. Terms
Sabz5150
FALCON PUNCH!!!
I reiterate... we're worrying about things like gay marriage why? With Iran just itching to get a nuke, our President and his Republican buddies are focusing on banning gay marriage so they can reclaim their base in time for November elections.
With all the mess going on right now, Iran is free to call every single bluff we throw at them. They know we are up to our necks in IraQuagmire, not to mention that the Iraqi representatives already told us they will not allow us to use Iraq as a point to mount an attack against Iran. Shoots that idea down real quick.
We went into Iraq on false pretenses and came out empty handed. Iran is telling us that they are making nukes and will strike, and we sit back and do nothing?! By Bush's war-o-meter, we should have long since ripped that place apart.
Seriously, we invaded Iraq and ousted Saddam for less. Makes ya think.
Becuase gay marriage, death tax, and any other BS that's being talked about all the time is trying to cover up the war and other bigger things.
its all a game =)
Capt. Orygun
Win the Day
Blammoing Bush for oil prices is like blaming Al Rocher for Katrina. This shit was going to happen regardless of foreign policy. If Bush made it happen sooner all the better. Now we'll get away from oil sooner and maybe the Day After Tomorrow will remian a movie...
Sabz5150
FALCON PUNCH!!!
Do you *really* think that Bush, whose family has so much invested in oil, wants us to stop using it? That's like a crack dealer wanting his users to stop smoking the rock.
Capt. Orygun
Win the Day
myopic as usual
you think the Ice Box company that invented the freezer gave a fuck about the Ice buisness? Big Oil is positioning itself to be the Big Whatever once oil goes away. As long as they sell engergy they win, and so does Bush
TommyTheCat
Gonzo Scientist
In fact they're(oil cumps) most likely going to receive 95% of the gov't handouts for "new energy" while locking down the market for themselves.
Capt. Orygun
Win the Day
Tommy's got the Idea
"Life Cycle of a Member's Lounge Thread"
1. Someone posts a geopolitical/economic thread
2. Someone yells "Bush's Fault"
3. Someone explains why actually it isn't
4. Eventually people stop posting on thread cause they can't rationally blame Bush anymore and logical debate is "boring"
5. Thread dies
6. Someone posts a geopolitical/economic thread
"Life Cycle of a Member's Lounge Thread"
1. Someone posts a geopolitical/economic thread
2. Someone yells "Bush's Fault"
3. Someone explains why actually it isn't
4. Eventually people stop posting on thread cause they can't rationally blame Bush anymore and logical debate is "boring"
5. Thread dies
6. Someone posts a geopolitical/economic thread
Sabz5150
FALCON PUNCH!!!
Missing the point as usual.
It's not that they don't want to sell (insert new energy here), they simply don't want to change. That costs... come on, you're smart... Money! Building new facilities or refitting old ones isn't done magically ya know. Transition periods lead to downtime. Downtime leads to profit drops. Profit drops lead to having one less Bentley in the fleet. Can't have that happen.
Oil sells. Oil sells nicely. Why change?
I don't think there's any part of this thread (and I checked) that blames Bush for anything. It all started because Iran yelled BOO! and oil jumped. That's between Ol Ayatolley and the Oil boys.
I can always expect cons to twist the actual truths (like this thread) to convince themselves that they made the right choice. Gettin kinda hard these days.
This post had nothing to do with bush.... just making a note that oil went up again.
Quoted post[/post]]
This post had nothing to do with bush.... just making a note that oil went up again.
Except for the fact that sabz started pulling the political card about gay marriage which is an obvious reference to Bush. He mentioned Bush's interest in oil, gay marriage, and religion. Congrats on this not being turned into a thread about Bush.
Sabz, you can play stupid...or just be stupid if you like. You don't need to mention someone's name, in order to talk about them.
Sabz5150
FALCON PUNCH!!!
Seems you don't need to play. Anywho, do you want to know why I brought that up? Because the main article on just about every single news site (Fox, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC) was about Bush and the Republicans push for a ban on gay marriage.
I want to know why in the fuck this is such a showstopper? We've got crazy people wanting nukes, we've got crazy people with nukes, we've got crazy people that deserve to be nuked. The single most powerful commodity is being disrupted because someone makes yet another threat they can't back up, the war in Iraq is still a mess...
And we are fighting over what again?
I think that we can all agree that we have much more important things to worry about than whether Dave and Stan across the street get hitched. Not sure if you noticed, but we're really close to yet another war, this time with someone who will use the WMDs they are clutching onto.
Yes, my comment was aimed STRAIGHT at the right field. Was I aiming at the big guy himself? Nope. He isn't the only person who can't keep their eyes out of others' bedrooms.
Watch a little skit called "Divertor" and maybe... that's a maybe now... you'll understand the joke.
$2.99 for 93 Premium.
No I will NOT mail you gasoline!
So for something thats not about Bush, Sabz, you sure are talking a lot about him.
Well shit...
1 + 1 ...
get it?
You, and only you, brought up Bush and pulled the "'cons are the devil" card.
Now bleeding hearts, and staunch republicans can't understand why the rest of the world isn't on the same level as them and why they're so hated. Take a look.
There was no reason to pull that card.
If you think you're above this, you aren't. You're an extremist or radical at best and just can't see that there's other sides to the story.
Be an independent and think for yourself, rather than along party lines.
Well shit...
1 + 1 ...
get it?
You, and only you, brought up Bush and pulled the "'cons are the devil" card.
Now bleeding hearts, and staunch republicans can't understand why the rest of the world isn't on the same level as them and why they're so hated. Take a look.
There was no reason to pull that card.
If you think you're above this, you aren't. You're an extremist or radical at best and just can't see that there's other sides to the story.
Be an independent and think for yourself, rather than along party lines.
Sabz5150
FALCON PUNCH!!!
Choice words. Radical? Extremist? Wow, fit the profile much there buddy?
You think I hate Bush with every fiber in my body... well, truthfully I don't like the guy much but believe it or not, I actually agree on him concerning specific things. Strangely enough, the National Anthem in Spanish was one of them.
I have no party lines. Like a good Republican, everything is black and white to you. If I don't agree with what Bush says or if I say something not so good about him and his base, I am labelled things like "bleeding heart", "Radical", and "Extremist".
Personally, I think trying to amend the Constitution to keep a certain group from marrying is both radical and extreme. It's Loving vs Virginia all over again! That court case, for all intensive purposes, protected the fundemental right to marry. And ya know what? The same people that were against the Lovings are against gay marriage and use the same old drawn out *RELIGION BASED* excuses. That's why I plucked the religion card, because who else is against this? There's only one place where homosexuality is deemed an "abomination".
Funny how "you shall not sow your field with mixed seed", which was meant to be taken literally, wasn't... even though most people against LvV took the rest of the Bible literally! Funny. However that is for another debate.
However, let's make you happy and turn the guns around 180. Hillary Clinton? I would *NEVER* vote for that woman. The instant she decided to go for "family values" and attack the videogame industry I was through with her. Kennedy? Shaddap already! Nobody's listening, stop making an ass of yourself! The Democrats have constantly disappointed me.
My views are that the Right gets it wrong and the Left doesn't get it at all. Can we have a good independant or a Libertarian take the hot seat?
Celerity
Well-Known Member
A third party candidate will NEVER make it through, this is the responsibity of the Electoral College.
The EC ensures that no matter how many votes someone like Howard Stern has, he can never be president.
The intrisic problem with third pary candidates is that they don't really stand for anything. Yeah, they have a schtick that they apply to the campaign, but when it comes down to it, there is nothing that will stop Nader from "changing his mind" on a few items. There is no reason for him to really follow anything once elected.
Whigs became like this, pro that yet anti that at the same time. So it came down to the impossibility of voting between Whig pro-europe/pro militia and Whig anti-europe/pro militia. It wound up not working.
You'll never see a Green or Libertarian in office. Won't happen. nor should it. Libertarian is a great example: There we have half the party being pro-choice and the other pro-life. There are no concrete guidelines.
So instead we go with moderate and extremes. Extreme is how we ended up with Kerry last time around and not Leiberman. People were foaming at the mouth so badly that they chose to go, guns drawn, with the heaviest "Not Bush" candidate they could find. And like I said, Electoral College would prevent some loony like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson from getting in.
The EC ensures that no matter how many votes someone like Howard Stern has, he can never be president.
The intrisic problem with third pary candidates is that they don't really stand for anything. Yeah, they have a schtick that they apply to the campaign, but when it comes down to it, there is nothing that will stop Nader from "changing his mind" on a few items. There is no reason for him to really follow anything once elected.
Whigs became like this, pro that yet anti that at the same time. So it came down to the impossibility of voting between Whig pro-europe/pro militia and Whig anti-europe/pro militia. It wound up not working.
You'll never see a Green or Libertarian in office. Won't happen. nor should it. Libertarian is a great example: There we have half the party being pro-choice and the other pro-life. There are no concrete guidelines.
So instead we go with moderate and extremes. Extreme is how we ended up with Kerry last time around and not Leiberman. People were foaming at the mouth so badly that they chose to go, guns drawn, with the heaviest "Not Bush" candidate they could find. And like I said, Electoral College would prevent some loony like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson from getting in.
Sabz5150
FALCON PUNCH!!!
And THAT is the problem we are faced with today. Why can't Howard Stern be president? I thought that the original idea was that an American, no matter who, had the same chances at taking the hot seat as anyone else. There should be no exclusion or preferential treatment of candidates, it defeats the purpose! That's part of the reason that our leader goes simply by the title "Mister President" because it shows no higher treatment of him over any other American citizen. Think if we called our president "Your Highness".
If the people speak, their voice should be heard. Bush got the votes in 2004, he's our prez, the people spoke. It was a close race but we've had closer. If the people's voice and vote are trumped by the EC, then we really don't have the free government we're trying so hard to defend, now do we?
Yes, the libertarians disagree amongst themselves about issues, but they were able to come together as a whole and focus themselves on their goal. They didn't let their differences tear the party apart as we are seeing with the big two that control it all.
The two main parties contradict themselves all the time. Republicans... fiscal responsibility? Let me stop laughing before I continue on. The party of smaller government? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Then we have the Democrats who have NO CLUE what to settle on. They're both a huge mess.
And Cel, you got it wrong... Kerry wasn't extreme. Dean, now that was a bit too far even for me. YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!! Although that is definitely the energy and drive we desire from a President, we aren't ready for The Scream just yet.