DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: fatman on September 28, 2008, 10:41:58 PM
-
Day of Reckoning
By Patrick J. Buchanan
How did the United States of America, the richest nation on earth, whose economy represents 30 percent of the Global Economy, arrive at the precipice of a financial panic and collapse?
The answer lies in the abject failure of both America’s financial elite and the political elite of both parties — the same elites now working together to determine how much of our wealth will be needed to bail the nation out of the crisis of their own creation.
Big Government is riding to the rescue — saddlebags full of our tax dollars — to save us from the consequences of the stupidity and folly of Big Government. New York and Washington, the twin cities responsible for the crisis, are now being hailed by the media as the 7th Cavalry, coming to rescue a beleaguered nation.
Had there not been a steady and constant infusion of easy money and credit into the U.S. economy by the Fed, for years on end, a housing bubble of the magnitude of the one that has just exploded could never have been created.
Had the politicians of both parties not coerced and pressured banks, S&Ls, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make all those sub-prime mortgages, then to tie this rotten paper to good paper, convert it into securities and sell to banks all over the world, there would have been no global financial crisis.
Had they seen this coming and acted sooner, the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury would not today, like Henny Penny, be crying, “The sky is falling!” and the end times are at hand, unless we give them 5 percent of our gross domestic product to buy up suspect securities backed by sub-prime mortgages.
Consider what the “Paulson Plan” of Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, against which Sen. Richard Shelby and the House Republicans rebelled, entails.
Since Americans save nothing and have to borrow from abroad to finance our trade and budget deficits, wars and foreign aid, what the secretary proposes is this: that Congress authorize the Treasury to spend $700 billion to buy up the toxic paper on the books not only of U.S. banks, but of foreign banks operating in the United States. According to The Washington Times, the Treasury would also be authorized to buy up securities backed by rotten auto loans, student loans and credit card debts.
Thus America would be borrowing from China, Japan and the Middle East to tidy up the balance sheets of the banks of China, Japan and the Middle East. And all the rotten paper will be offloaded onto U.S. taxpayers, who hopefully will be able to recoup some of their losses, because some of the paper will be good.
Why should we do this? Because otherwise there will be a financial panic, followed by a market collapse, wiping out pensions, 401Ks, portfolios and defined benefit plans of Middle America, forcing millions into bankruptcy and millions more to put off retirement and continue working until they drop.
In a democracy, it is said, you get the kind of government you deserve. But what did the American people do to deserve this? What did they do to deserve the quality of financial, corporate and political leadership that marched them into this mess — and that today postures as their rescuers?
Consider what this mess has already cost taxpayers: $29 billion to buy the rotten paper of Bear Stearns so J.P. Morgan would buy the investment bank; $85 billion for 80 percent of AIG to nationalize it; $150 billion in a stimulus package to flood the nation with cash; perhaps $300 billion to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; and now $700 billion to begin taking the toxic paper off the hands of America’s big banks.
And even if this is passed, say Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, there is no guarantee this will resolve the crisis. If the $700 billion is not provided and the toxic paper is not pulled off the books of the world’s banks by U.S. taxpayers, however, we face an almost certain collapse, surging bankruptcies, rising unemployment, a shrinkage of GDP and a recession, if not worse.
Yet, the fellows who tell us we face a financial mushroom cloud over every American city if we do not act at once to provide the $700 billion did not see this coming and can make no guarantee that this will succeed and end the crisis.
Nevertheless, it must be done, and done now, as collapse is imminent.
Looking at all the money being ladled out by the U.S. government to prevent a collapse, and the diminished revenue coming in, it is hard to see how America avoids future deficits that reach $1 trillion a year. These will imperil both the dollar itself and the ability of the United States, which saves nothing, to borrow from the rest of the world.
The downsizing of America is at hand.
Yes, indeed, we have arrived at the Day of Reckoning for Uncle Sam.
Buchanan Blog (http://buchanan.org/blog/2008/09/pjb-day-of-reckoning/)
-
>The downsizing of America is at hand.
Yes, indeed, we have arrived at the Day of Reckoning for Uncle Sam.<
This is very good news for the rest of the world and for US really but I bet Buchy doesnt think so.
-
I don't think that this is good for the rest of the world. It certainly is worse for the US.
-
I don't think that this is good for the rest of the world. It certainly is worse for the US.
Yes it is, XO. We are a lot less likely to attack or look down on them anymore.
-
This is very good news for the rest of the world and for US really but I bet Buchy doesnt think so.
Yes it is, XO. We are a lot less likely to attack or look down on them anymore.
What exactly do you think will happen if the US Dollar goes tits up due to surging inflation, and it defaults to its international creditors?
Are you prepared for that?
Perhaps you would be best served by coming up with an intelligent comment, retort, or reply. Whether Buchanan thinks that it is good for the rest of the world isn't the issue. The issue is what is good for this country, at least in regards to the financial crisis. Whether you are for the bailout or against it (and there are legitimate arguments on each side), trying to smear Buchanan really adds nothing to the debate.
But then again, that's par for the course.
-
I don't think smearing Buchanan is worth the trouble, but much of the world's economy runs on dollars. The Belgians buy oil from the Russians in dollars, for example. Future contracts are written in dollars, for another, and if the dollar bombs, it will cause a crisis that woill benefit very few.
If the Chinese, to whom the US owes a lot of money in dollars, is repaid in deflated dollars, that will cause a crisis.
-
much of the world's economy runs on dollars. The Belgians buy oil from the Russians in dollars, for example. Future contracts are written in dollars, for another, and if the dollar bombs, it will cause a crisis that woill benefit very few.
If the Chinese, to whom the US owes a lot of money in dollars, is repaid in deflated dollars, that will cause a crisis.
From my rather limited understanding of economics (I'm the guy who lost $3K on a WAMU gamble) that's how I see it.
-
much of the world's economy runs on dollars. The Belgians buy oil from the Russians in dollars, for example. Future contracts are written in dollars, for another, and if the dollar bombs, it will cause a crisis that woill benefit very few.
If the Chinese, to whom the US owes a lot of money in dollars, is repaid in deflated dollars, that will cause a crisis.
From my rather limited understanding of economics (I'm the guy who lost $3K on a WAMU gamble) that's how I see it.
Did you have $3k over $100 or stupidly buy a lot of their stock?
-
This is very good news for the rest of the world and for US really but I bet Buchy doesnt think so.
Yes it is, XO. We are a lot less likely to attack or look down on them anymore.
What exactly do you think will happen if the US Dollar goes tits up due to surging inflation, and it defaults to its international creditors?
Are you prepared for that?
Perhaps you would be best served by coming up with an intelligent comment, retort, or reply. Whether Buchanan thinks that it is good for the rest of the world isn't the issue. The issue is what is good for this country, at least in regards to the financial crisis. Whether you are for the bailout or against it (and there are legitimate arguments on each side), trying to smear Buchanan really adds nothing to the debate.
But then again, that's par for the course.
What I would like to happen and what the RW lunatics got US into are two different things.
I had no intention of smearing Buchy. In fact I think he is probly right this one tie. Try to get over your induced prejudices about me.
-
<<What exactly do you think will happen if the US Dollar goes tits up due to surging inflation . . . >>
The U.S. dollar was going tits up anyway.
Everything the Bush administration could do wrong, they did wrong. Doesn't matter that they were aided and abetted by Democrats, even the previous Democratic administration. The Republicans were in charge for eight years, this happened on their watch, they had the ability and the responsibility to stop the train wreck and they failed miserably.
The one absolutely fantastic benefit arising from all this is that the U.S. will not be able to engage in any more wars of unprovoked aggression for a very long time, and will soon be forced for economic reasons to scale back the ones it already began. All their tough talk is ringing increasingly hollow. They are becoming a joke.
What's incredible to me is that die-hards are still considering whether to reward the Party of Failure with another four years, especially considering the piss-poor quality of their two candidates.
-
The one absolutely fantastic benefit arising from all this is that the U.S. will not be able to engage in any more wars of unprovoked aggression for a very long time, and will soon be forced for economic reasons to scale back the ones it already began. All their tough talk is ringing increasingly hollow. They are becoming a joke.
Why not?
Are these wars not done for profit and controll?
If War is profitable it would seem as if we need a big one now.
-
Try to get over your induced prejudices about me.
Induced by whom? The only person who as induced prejudices within my mind regarding you, is you. You may wish to take the issue up with one of your personalities.
-
Try to get over your induced prejudices about me.
Induced by whom? The only person who as induced prejudices within my mind regarding you, is you. You may wish to take the issue up with one of your personalities.
Thank you Dr Freud . Try to heal thyself.
-
My last name is Cormac, not Freud. I am not a Dr., Herr Doktor, nor do I have a PhD. Once again your oblivousness is...stunning.
-
<<Are these wars not done for profit and controll?
<<If War is profitable it would seem as if we need a big one now.>>
Too late for ya now, your Treasury is empty. You can't afford to make war, you haven't even paid for the last two, and your credit is being assigned a new rating level: toxic.
-
If War is profitable it would seem as if we need a big one now.
________________________________________________________
War is profitable only for a few. The US is already involved in as big a war as could be fought with a volunteer army. Profits for the chosen few are augmented with mercenaries and private contractors to the max.
-
<<Are these wars not done for profit and controll?
<<If War is profitable it would seem as if we need a big one now.>>
Too late for ya now, your Treasury is empty. You can't afford to make war, you haven't even paid for the last two, and your credit is being assigned a new rating level: toxic.
So you no longer think that wars are for Oil or for profit?
-
Too late for ya now, your Treasury is empty. You can't afford to make war, you haven't even paid for the last two, and your credit is being assigned a new rating level: toxic.
A number of other countries are loaning the US government money to help with the bailout. One I remember specifically is Australia, they're ponying up $10B. Germany was in for like $30B, IIRC. There are a bunch of others.
-
<<So you no longer think that wars are for Oil or for profit?>>
Well, the Iraq War is obviously for oil, but I don't think they'll be able to wage any more wars like that. Iran, for example, which has the fourth largest proven reserves in the world, they are going to have to walk away from and leave all that oil in Iranian hands. The next big war will ruin them in the same way that WWI and WWII ruined the U.K. and France as dominant world powers, to the advantage of their creditors: the U.S.A. in their case, China in the U.S.A.'s case.
Incidentally another major consequence of the failure will be the growing influence of Iran in the region, both politically and militarily. These guys, in terms of human rights issues, are exponentially worse than the Americans, so I don't regard this as any major benefit. However, I do believe that the potential for improvement is much better in Iran than it is in the U.S.A. The U.S. is a prisoner of its own militarism and incipient fascism, which seem to have a solid bipartisan foundation, whereas Iran is in a state of flux and new ideas ("change") have a better chance of establishing themselves. I also don't count out the Tudeh, the former Communist Party of Iran, once very extensive and now underground, which I think (or hope) has infiltrated a lot of places, including the religious parties.
-
So you no longer think that wars are for Oil or for profit?
========================================
The war was obviously for profit, but there was no profit, because the conquest of Iraq was done in such an incompetent way that it provboed a Shia-Sunni Civil War. This was not part of the Rummy/Cheney Plan. Only now, with oil at five times what it was in 2003, are the Iraqis beginning to get paid for their oil. The amount of graft is immense. The runup in oil prices all the way to an unsustainable $145 a barrel was done by the oligarchy in league with OPEC in order to make Iraq capable of paying for SOM of the huge cost of stabilizing that country. The idea that most events are determined entirely by the markert or are random chance occurrences is largely bogus.
-
So you no longer think that wars are for Oil or for profit?
========================================
The war was obviously for profit, but there was no profit, because the conquest of Iraq was done in such an incompetent way that it provboed a Shia-Sunni Civil War. This was not part of the Rummy/Cheney Plan. Only now, with oil at five times what it was in 2003, are the Iraqis beginning to get paid for their oil. The amount of graft is immense. The runup in oil prices all the way to an unsustainable $145 a barrel was done by the oligarchy in league with OPEC in order to make Iraq capable of paying for SOM of the huge cost of stabilizing that country. The idea that most events are determined entirely by the markert or are random chance occurrences is largely bogus.
I think yuor cart wheels can't leave the ruts.
-
I think your cart wheels can't leave the ruts.
+++++++++++++++++
I suggest that this is not an adequate rebuttal to what I said.
-
I suggest that it was
-
I suggest that your response was even less worthwhile. Innocent electrons should not ever be called on to arrange themselves in such a moronic fashion.
-
I suggest a pot & kettle analogy is in order
-
I think your cart wheels can't leave the ruts.
+++++++++++++++++
I suggest that this is not an adequate rebuttal to what I said.
Well I don't know how to handle your self rebuttal while remaining steadfast to your preconceived notions .
Did you realise that you actually said this?
========================================
The war was obviously for profit, but there was no profit,
-
The cart wheels/ruts comment was obviously of no value whatsoever as its only meaning was that XO had stayed with the same opinion on the subject without any change. But so did plane. So did Little Sir Echo. It's meaningless to accuse one participant in a discussion of staying with his original arguments when the other participants have done the same thing themselves. Even had the other participants NOT stayed constant to their original stated beliefs, it is meaningless to accuse anyone of never wavering - - that is EXACTLY what one would say to one who was in the right at the beginning and understandably never wavered from that position.
plane seems to find some contradiction in XO's claiming that the war was for profit but there was no profit. WTF? Every failed business in the world started out with the idea of making a profit and there was no profit. How does the one negate the other? It's a measure of the Bush administration's evil, stupidity and incompetence that they not only started a war for profit but were unable to turn a profit on the war they started. How many ways are there to say "incompetent moronic schmucks?"
-
The cart wheels/ruts comment was obviously of no value whatsoever as its only meaning was that XO had stayed with the same opinion on the subject without any change. But so did plane. So did Little Sir Echo. It's meaningless to accuse one participant in a discussion of staying with his original arguments when the other participants have done the same thing themselves. Even had the other participants NOT stayed constant to their original stated beliefs, it is meaningless to accuse anyone of never wavering - - that is EXACTLY what one would say to one who was in the right at the beginning and understandably never wavered from that position.
plane seems to find some contradiction in XO's claiming that the war was for profit but there was no profit. WTF? Every failed business in the world started out with the idea of making a profit and there was no profit. How does the one negate the other? It's a measure of the Bush administration's evil, stupidity and incompetence that they not only started a war for profit but were unable to turn a profit on the war they started. How many ways are there to say "incompetent moronic schmucks?"
Bush never said that there was a profit in it , XOs key word there was "obviously " .
Perhaps he ment "odviously"?
Because no one expected it to make money or become a colony except those who were critics of it , their illusions were odvious to no one not so biased.
-
<<Bush never said that there was a profit in it , XOs key word there was "obviously " .>>
XO claimed the war was for profit or oil and you challenged him on it. What difference would it make if Bush said there was a profit or not in it? It was obvious whether or not Bush admitted it. Obvious to anyone who could think his way through the childish and ridiculous assertions that Saddam Hussein and the tiny nation of 23 million Iraqis in any way posed any kind of threat to the U.S.A. with or without WMD.
<<Perhaps he ment "odviously"?>>
No, obviously he meant "obviously."
<<. . . no one expected it to make money or become a colony except those who were critics of it . . . . >>
But that's ridiculous, given all the circumstances, there was no other credible reason for the war and that was obvious to any thinking person.
<< . . . their illusions were odvious to no one not so biased.>>
They were logical and valid conclusions, not "illusions," and they were obvious to anyone who could think clearly and reason things out from plain, old-fashioned common sense.
-
I'm afraid that the word is still spelled 'obviously'.
Juniorbush would not say that he invaded Iraq for oil, because that is basically theft. So he made up the WMD thing, and Saddam, who did not want Iran to know that he was basically naked and helpless, tried to fake that he did have some.It was a lie. Bush & Co. knew it was a lie, but it worked to their advantage, because he wanted an invasion, and 9-11 gave him the chance.
-
I do enjoy getting a glimpse into the twisted mind of those who still believe we went into Iraq for the oil, and Bush lied us into it. Here, we have this master evil planner in Bush, able to brilliantly convince nearly every intelligence agency that Saddam really had WMD, when he alone knew they didn't. Brilliantly able to take out Saddam with the greatest of military ease, and with Iraq at this evil man's fingertips, and the mighty murderous military at his command, now be too incompotent to take the oil, that a few Abrams could secure at a moment's notive
Pardon the oxymoron here, but the lunacy of such, is brilliant. Doesn't require 1 shred of evidence, just the U.S. simply not being in control of Iraq's oil, is analogus to proof positive of the whole theory. BDS in it's most terminal case
-
But that's ridiculous, given all the circumstances, there was no other credible reason for the war and that was obvious to any thinking person.
That in a nutshell , is the illusion.
You cannot give credence to any other explanation , therefore your illusion is quite strong .
Even in the same breath as admitting that there is no profit at all , you must say that profit is the prime motive for the act.
-
I'm afraid that the word is still spelled 'obviously'.
Even if it is much more odd than obvious?
-
The word odd is unrelated to the word obvious. Check an etymological dictionary and you will see that this is true.
Odd means "rare, strange"
odd Look up odd at Dictionary.com
c.1300, "constituting a unit in excess of an even number," from O.N. oddi "third or additional number," as in odda-maðr "third man, odd man (who gives the casting vote)," odda-tala "odd number." O.N. oddi means lit. "point, angle;" related via notion of "triangle" to oddr "point of a weapon," from P.Gmc. *uzdaz "pointed upward" (cf. O.E. ord "point of a weapon, spear, source, beginning," O.Fris. ord "point, place," Du. oord "place, region," O.H.G. ort "point," Ger. Ort "place"), from PIE *uzdho- (cf. Lith. us-nis "thistle"). None of the other languages, however, shows the O.N. development from "point" to "third number." Used from 1382 to indicate a surplus over any given sum. Sense of "strange, peculiar" first attested 1588 from notion of "odd one out, unpaired one of three" (attested earlier, c.1400, as "singular" in a positive sense of "renowned, rare, choice"); oddball "eccentric or unconventional person" first attested 1948. Odd job (c.1770) is so called from notion of "not regular." Odd lot "incomplete or random set" is from 1897. The international order of Odd Fellows began as local social clubs in England, late 18c., with Masonic-type trappings; formally organized 1813 in Manchester
obvious Look up obvious at Dictionary.com
1586, "frequently met with," from L. obvius "that is in the way, presenting itself readily, commonplace," from obviam (adv.) "in the way," from ob "against" + viam, acc. of via "way." Meaning "plain to see, evident" is first recorded 1635.
O.N. means Old Norse (ie Norwegian)
L. means Latin.
-
To control Iraq's oil, the US cannot just set up a pipeline and steal it outright. The days of that sort of colonialization are long past.
The plan was, and still is, to set up a government the US can control and then arrange for US companies, or entities they control to buy the oil for cheap and sell it at the inflated world price.
The US government is not and cannot appear to be in the oil business. It is controlled by the oil business, along with a variety of other business interests.
The war was for oil. The WMD's were a made-up lie. Juniorbush was the sockpuppet elected to do what he is doing now.
How does one make money in the stock market, by the way?
One buys at a low, low price and sells at a high one. Observe how low the prices are now.
Why, they have not been this low since, who was that? OLEBUSH was president.
Two Bushes, two amazing profitable opportunities to make a bundle.
What a co inkey dink, hunh?
-
:D Yep, pretty entertaining glimpse
-
To control Iraq's oil, the US cannot just set up a pipeline and steal it outright. The days of that sort of colonialization are long past.
Why would that be so?
As far as controll is concerned , in terms of being able to turn off the tap , we have had that ability since before Saddam took office, but it would be an act of war.
-
Oh please. The world does not permit this sort of thing. It's colonialism and that is against the UN charter. Also against the rules of common decency. Kuwait was once a part of Iarq, but Iraq was never a part of the US. Saddam had more motives to invade Kuwait than the US does to colonize Iraq.
-
<<I do enjoy getting a glimpse into the twisted mind of those who still believe we went into Iraq for the oil, and Bush lied us into it.>>
Naturally, disagreeing with the great political analyst known here as sirs constitutes having a "twisted mind."
<<Here, we have this master evil planner in Bush, able to brilliantly convince nearly every intelligence agency that Saddam really had WMD . . . >>
In the first place, Bush did not convince any intelligence agency of anything, he TOLD them what he wanted to find and then they "found" it. As for example when the CIA analysts were not coming up with the "intelligence" Bush needed to justify an invasion of Iraq, he formed a special intelligence operation in the office of Doug Feith, a Defense Department official, which produced the necessary results.
In the second place, there is absolutely nothing illegal in a sovereign country's acquiring any weapons it chooses to acquire. Even if Saddam DID have WMD, they were no more of a threat to the U.S. than similar weapons which were already in the possession of the U.S. itself and nine or ten other countries, some of which had much greater capacity to threaten the U.S. than did the tiny nation of Iraq.
It was a lie to claim that Saddam had WMD, and another lie to claim that Saddam, with or without WMD, posed any kind of real threat to the U.S.A. The mere concept is ridiculous and absurd.
<< . . . when he alone knew they didn't. >>
What Bush knew or didn't know is unimportant. There was no convincing evidence that Saddam had WMD. There was no evidence that convinced the leaders of Canada, France, Germany, Russia, China or most of the rest of the world. Not being a mind-reader, I don't know what Bush knew, and neither do you. However, I would suggest respectfully that if a man claims to believe something for which there is no evidence except what he himself has manufactured, there is a very good chance that he does not really believe it. As for what the rest of the world knew as to whether or not Saddam had WMD, I again suggest that in the absence of any credible evidence, there is no indication that any of them believed in Bush's bullshit either.
<<Brilliantly able to take out Saddam with the greatest of military ease, and with Iraq at this evil man's fingertips, and the mighty murderous military at his command, now be too incompotent to take the oil, that a few Abrams could secure at a moment's notive.>>
That's absurd. What, Bush admit to the entire world that he is a gangster and an outlaw and that the country under his leadership behaves as such? In a word, impossible. He could not send a force to secure the oil wells and pump the stuff out. He has to maintain the fiction that the U.S.A. wants nothing from Iraq and that the Iraqi oil remains in the control of the Iraqi people.
Every national leader has to maintain a veneer or a fiction of legality in his actions otherwise his own people wouldn't follow him. Even Adolf Hitler couldn't simply invade Poland, but had to manufacture the fiction that the Poles had attacked Germany first. If Hitler couldn't act with blatant illegality, even when his party had the power of life and death over his citizens, how could a "free country" like the U.S.A. act without even a shred of legality? Short answer is: they can't. Nobody can.
<<Pardon the oxymoron here, but the lunacy of such, is brilliant. Doesn't require 1 shred of evidence, just the U.S. simply not being in control of Iraq's oil, is analogus to proof positive of the whole theory. BDS in it's most terminal case>>
Sorry sirs, the above three lines are obviously wrong. There is plenty of evidence that the U.S. invaded Iraq for the oil and no other reason, and I've repeated that evidence over and over again.
-
<<I do enjoy getting a glimpse into the twisted mind of those who still believe we went into Iraq for the oil, and Bush lied us into it.>>
Naturally, disagreeing with the great political analyst known here as sirs constitutes having a "twisted mind."
No...disagreeing is perfectly sane & rational. H is a good example, and not twisted in the least. Twisted is going to the extreme in hyperbole and irrational thought processing that provides Bush as some brilliant mastermind to get everyone to believe Saddam had WMD, while he alone knew there weren't, and in the same breath decry how incompotent he is is not taking Iraq's oil, while both occupying Iraq and in charge of the greatest military on the globe...IF that's what it was all about. It literally defies sanity.
-
<<No...disagreeing is perfectly sane & rational. H is a good example, and not twisted in the least. Twisted is going to the extreme in hyperbole and irrational thought processing that provides Bush as some brilliant mastermind to get everyone to believe Saddam had WMD . . . >>
Bush did not get everyone to believe that Saddam had WMD. Most people did NOT believe that. And others knew that it made no difference to the U.S.A. whether Saddam had them or not.
<<while he alone knew there weren't, and in the same breath decry how incompotent he is is not taking Iraq's oil, while both occupying Iraq and in charge of the greatest military on the globe...IF that's what it was all about. It literally defies sanity.>>
Just so you understand the argument, which you have shown absolutely no sign of doing until now, Bush's failure lies in not being able to pacify the country and leave a reliable puppet government in place so the oil can appear to be sold freely and willingly to purchasers who appear to be paying reasonable prices for it. That's what Bush has to do and it's also what he's incapable of doing.
-
Oh please. The world does not permit this sort of thing.
"The world" does not permit that sort of thing?
I know you don't mean Europe , which can decry the ethnic clensing campaigns of the Balkins but cannot do anything about them.
I know you don't mean Russia or China , who would like to make their meals of Georgia and Tibet in peace.
I don't suppose you mean Africa , which is so cronicly weak and broke that our worst day in the last two centurys is above their ambition.
The World permits anything ,there is no rival in the world with the ambition to become the worlds policeman , only the US even trys .
-
<<The World permits anything ,there is no rival in the world with the ambition to become the worlds policeman , only the US even trys .>>
If the world "permits anything," maybe you could explain to me why even Adolf Hitler had to pretend that his attack on Poland was justified by faking evidence of a Polish attack on a German border post. Maybe you could explain why the U.S.A. had to fake an attack on its own ships in order to justify the invasion of Viet Nam? Of the Holocaust were necessary to rid the world of the horrible evil that the Germans believed was represented by the Jewish people, why didn't the Nazis just admit to the world what they were doing and take the world's press on a guided tour of the gas chambers?
As patently absurd and ridiculous as it is to deny that a campaign of deliberate lies was used to justify the invasion of Iraq to the American people, it is even MORE ridiculous to deny, in the face of all historical evidence, that even the worst outlaw state needs to find some "justification," however rigged and phony it may be, to cover its acts of aggression. Even in totalitarian states, there are very few citizens who would remain loyal to their government or even their country, if they came to believe that their government was engaged in criminal actions.
Let me ask you another question: If George Bush had come clean with you, had told the American people, "folks, ain't nuthin wrong with Saddam Hussein, he's been our friend for a long time, but God-damn it people, we are runnin out of oil and I just don't trust that sumbitch to sell it to us as cheap as we'd like it. Y'all know how much it's bin costin to fill up yer tank lately. So I think we better send our armed forces over there to grab his fucking oil wells, kill him and his family and anyone else who resists us, and take over those wells ASAP so we kin start gettin some good cheap gas for a change."
Would you be willing to support that? Would you want to vote for Bush again? Would you want to vote for any Representative or Senator who voted for the war after Bush had given his reasons for it?
-
I know you don't mean Russia or China , who would like to make their meals of Georgia and Tibet in peace.
Would like to, but can't
============================.
I don't suppose you mean Africa , which is so cronicly weak and broke that our worst day in the last two centurys is above their ambition.
OF COURSE I mean Africa. Is Portugal still running Mozambique, Angola, Cabinda, Guinea-Bissau? Is South Africa still running Namibia? Are the Brits still running Rhodesia? There are no colonies in Africa.
=================================
Other than Israel, with its WB colonies, colonialism is deceased. The Russians did not invade Georgia. They would love to take over Crimea, but that is'nt happening.
The World permits anything ,there is no rival in the world with the ambition to become the worlds policeman , only the US even trys .
---------------------------------------
The US could physically grab Iraq's oil and turn Iraqis into slaves. But then no one would trust the government or US-based companies. People would boycott American films, music, style and crap like Coca-Cola and Pepsi, the Gap, Walmart and you name it. Any voluntary decision to buy an American product would require it to be sold at a bargain price, which means fewer profits.
Rather than a bastion of democracy, we would be the Ferenghi;. Not to be trusted, ever. Juniorbush has cost US business millions.
-
No...disagreeing is perfectly sane & rational. H is a good example, and not twisted in the least.
Holy shit! I'm...I'm speechless! I feel faint!
-
Have someone provide you with a really cold washrag, and take deep breaths....in thru the nose, out thru pursed lips. Find a soft cushy chair to put behind you, just in case.
-
Even in totalitarian states, there are very few citizens who would remain loyal to their government or even their country, if they came to believe that their government was engaged in criminal actions.
Nice that you answered your first question for me.
Let me ask you another question: If George Bush had come clean with you, had told the American people, "folks, ain't nuthin wrong with Saddam Hussein, he's been our friend for a long time, but God-damn it people, we are runnin out of oil and I just don't trust that sumbitch to sell it to us as cheap as we'd like it. Y'all know how much it's bin costin to fill up yer tank lately. So I think we better send our armed forces over there to grab his fucking oil wells, kill him and his family and anyone else who resists us, and take over those wells ASAP so we kin start gettin some good cheap gas for a change."
Would you be willing to support that? Would you want to vote for Bush again? Would you want to vote for any Representative or Senator who voted for the war after Bush had given his reasons for it?
You can admit that oil is not cheaper now , and perhaps you can grasp the theroy that there was no potential for makeing oil cheap in this way , but you will stil insist that this odbvious impossibility was the cheif reason for the war?
-
You can admit that oil is not cheaper now , and perhaps you can grasp the theroy that there was no potential for makeing oil cheap in this way , but you will stil insist that this odbvious impossibility was the cheif reason for the war?
Now it's odbvious I defy you to pronounce that. O B V I O U S. a word derived from Latin, unrelated to O D D, a word derived from Old Norse.
The goal of Juniorbush was never to make oil cheaper. Bushed HATE cheap oil. When the price dripped to $15 a barrel in the late 1980's, Olebush sent James Baker to BEG the Saudis to raise the price.
No, the goal is to make sure that the oil you pay $5 a gallon for is sold to you by Texaco, Exxon, Shell, and not by Petrobras, Gazprom, Total, or Petroven. That is so they, the members of the oilgarchy that supports the Bushes, will get paid.
They could give a sh*t about what you or I pay.
-
<<You can admit that oil is not cheaper now , and perhaps you can grasp the theroy that there was no potential for makeing oil cheap in this way , but you will stil insist that this odbvious impossibility was the cheif reason for the war?>>
XO beat me to it and answered your question before I could.
However I'd like to add to XO's answer, that it was not only to control WHO sold you the oil, but who would not, when supplies became scarce, have to do without.
-
<<You can admit that oil is not cheaper now , and perhaps you can grasp the theroy that there was no potential for makeing oil cheap in this way , but you will stil insist that this odbvious impossibility was the cheif reason for the war?>>
XO beat me to it and answered your question before I could.
However I'd like to add to XO's answer, that it was not only to control WHO sold you the oil, but who would not, when supplies became scarce, have to do without.
And how would this war have that effect?
There is no potential for that either.
-
And how would this war have that effect?
There is no potential for that either.
No potential for what?
============================
Before the war, Saddam would sell his oil to whoever he chose. He was restricted from selling much of it because of the limits placed on him by the US (through the UN). This kept the price higher than it would have been otherwise due to a lower supply.
It was foreseen that India and China would soon greatly increase their oil needs, because both were building auto pants like crazy. So the Oligarchy decided that (a) Iraq had to sell more oil and (b) Saddam was unreliable, didn;t like the US and was less likely to give them their usual better price, so he had to go.
1200 dead Americans and he was gone, but then Iraq was in a state of anarchy because of Rummy's incompetence, so they had to keep fighting. Now we have nearly 4000 dead, who knows how many maimed, and about a fourth if all Iraqis have been forced to move out of their homes.
But th oil can now be purchased by American companies, who can sell it at a reraly high profit, because it is easier to get it our of the ground than nearly anywhere else.
Most important, Exxon Mobil and Texaco Conoco and others can purchase it without having to bribe Saddam.
-
<< . . . and (b) Saddam was unreliable, didn;t like the US and was less likely to give them their usual better price, so he had to go.>>
The U.S. saw times of oil scarcity coming, when the Middle East would not be able to satisfy every buyer. They did not want to have to get into a bidding war with the Chinese, which would be the result if Saddam were in power at such times. They needed a puppet government to do their bidding and sell lower to them and higher to their competitors, or even turn off the tap for countries which incurred their displeasure.
There was also the issue of control of the production volume. OPEC can use cutbacks in production to maintain high oil prices or conversely increase the flow to lower the upward pressure on prices if so desired. That power to control prices by controlling production is also important, and Americans wanted more of a voice in the process.
Whether oil is cheaper now or not is beside the point. The point is that whatever oil is, the ability to control its price is enhanced by control over the wells. The ability to control or direct its distribution is enhanced by control over the wells. The ability to participate in the profits of oil production is enhanced by control over the wells.
-
<< . . . and (b) Saddam was unreliable, didn;t like the US and was less likely to give them their usual better price, so he had to go.>>
The U.S. saw times of oil scarcity coming, when the Middle East would not be able to satisfy every buyer. They did not want to have to get into a bidding war with the Chinese, which would be the result if Saddam were in power at such times. They needed a puppet government to do their bidding and sell lower to them and higher to their competitors, or even turn off the tap for countries which incurred their displeasure.
There was also the issue of control of the production volume. OPEC can use cutbacks in production to maintain high oil prices or conversely increase the flow to lower the upward pressure on prices if so desired. That power to control prices by controlling production is also important, and Americans wanted more of a voice in the process.
Whether oil is cheaper now or not is beside the point. The point is that whatever oil is, the ability to control its price is enhanced by control over the wells. The ability to control or direct its distribution is enhanced by control over the wells. The ability to participate in the profits of oil production is enhanced by control over the wells.
No ,this isn't a possibility.
A country that sells surplus oil for less than it is worth is being foolish ,being free will not make the Iriquis foolish.
This would actually be a better argument for supporting Saddam , Saddam's Iraq had the worst record for obeying OPEC of any member , he even broke the 73 boycot on the US .
Oil is sold at auction , the tiny exceptions are subsidies mostly internal to the countrys that produce it , and Hugo Chavez who trys to make a gift of some of his oil to his political favoriates. It works so poorly for Hugo that it demonstrates how well the market corrects for artificial manipulation. If it is given for free to a customer , that customers bid is absent at the auction and the price drops for all , Hugo Chaves is doing without the income and the US benefits no less than all the rest of the world from Hugos subsidisd sale.
How indeed would controll of Iraq oil be enforced? You are speaking of an impossibility a goal never beleived by any of the wars proponents.
-
Oh, bullshit. You do not know how oil is sold.
The Saudis give discounts to their pals all the time. After all, the only person who actually knows how much oil is going through that pipeline or into that tanker ship is the guy who adjusts the meter. He can be bribed.
YOu do not know that Saddam broke OPEC's quotas more of the time, you only know that he was ACCUSED of this.
Countries only theoretically set prices, wangle deals and sell the oil. It is humans who control the flow. All you have to do is to move this little wheel one quarter of an inch to the right, and we will see to it that there is a new Escalade waiting for you in Sharjah. Or your kids get into this prestigious school and it won;t cost you a cent. No one will ever know. There is enough oil for centuries.
That recent film "There will be Blood" is entirely typical of the way oil deals are made. For every dollar the Oklahoma Indians made from their oil, back when they sold it for a dollar a barrel or so, they were swindled out of another dollar or more.
-
LOL....leave it to Xo to claim hollywood as being how things are realistically represented.
-
LOL....leave it to Xo to claim hollywood as being how things are realistically represented.
NO, you ignoramus. "There will Be Blood" was almost completely from Upton Sinclair's novel; of the same name, and THAT was extensively researched.
Some day you will come to the realization that damn near everything you know just isn't true. Or even renting on the fringes of the same neighborhood as the truth.
-
I hear LOTR was extensively researched as well, along with Tombstone :D Point being the difference between reality <--> a novel <--> and hollywood are tremendous. Hollywood, by design, takes liberty on both reality and history, in the effort to be dramatic. For you to lay claim to a movie as being how things really were demonstrates just how void your arguement is in substance
So good to see those classes for self control on name calling is paying off, as well
-
<<A country that sells surplus oil for less than it is worth is being foolish ,being free will not make the Iriquis foolish.>>
That's like saying that a man who would hand over his wallet to a total stranger is being foolish. Of course it's not so foolish if the stranger has a gun pointed at the man. A puppet Iraqi government will sell oil to whomever and at whatever prices the puppet-master dictates.
<<Oil is sold at auction . . . >>
Oil is sold any way the seller chooses to sell it. Right now a lot of it is stolen and sold at whatever price the vendors choose to extract and the buyers are willing to pay. The point you are missing is WHO SELLS the oil at auction? The Iraqi government, as under Saddam Hussein, or the Iraqi government in partnership with whoever the puppet government chooses to give partnerships to? (Hint: usually the decision on which partners the puppet government will admit to partnership and how much of a cut they get is not made by the puppets, but by the guy with the gun pressed into the puppets' backs.)
I find your understanding of the mechanics of invasion, occupation and theft of resources by the occupier to be incredibly childish and naive, particularly your contention that such control is impossible to achieve. Do you think that during the Russian occupation of Hungary, Hungary was free to auction off its uranium to whichever buyer was willing to bid the highest price for it?
<<How indeed would controll of Iraq oil be enforced? >>
How about at the point of a gun? That's usually a pretty good way of enforcing control of anything, till a bigger guy with a more powerful weapon comes onto the scene. Contracts both for production and sale are signed by the Petroleum Ministry or one of its corporations as dictated by the occupying power. Anyone who objects will have a very bad accident happen to him or maybe just vanish overnight in a "sectarian" abduction. Police and soldiers at the ports check what goes into the ships that pull up. Was it really necessary to even ask such a question?
<<You are speaking of an impossibility a goal never beleived by any of the wars proponents.>>
Oh, please. Stop it already. Do you really believe this crap? WHY?
-
<<A country that sells surplus oil for less than it is worth is being foolish ,being free will not make the Iriquis foolish.>>
That's like saying that a man who would hand over his wallet to a total stranger is being foolish. Of course it's not so foolish if the stranger has a gun pointed at the man. A puppet Iraqi government will sell oil to whomever and at whatever prices the puppet-master dictates.
All the while no proof or evidence of said strings or gun. But hey, it sure sounds good. Maybe Hollywood can work something out
-
While threatening an entire country is possible, it is a lot easier just to bribe that one guy that sets the meters at the pipeline or at the well header. Bribery was impossible when Saddam was in power,because he and his family skimmed so much off the top.
Sirs won't believe there is a crime unless they let him see them commit it. I think that is more naive than automatically disbelieving everything in a film.
-
While threatening an entire country is possible, it is a lot easier just to bribe that one guy that sets the meters at the pipeline or at the well header.
Actually, you have to bribe the people who build the tankers and tank trucks to falsify their capacities.
-
<<All the while no proof or evidence of said strings or gun. But hey, it sure sounds good. Maybe Hollywood can work something out>>
Sometimes the quality of debate in here becomes positively surrealistic. We know that there are 155,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, sure, but where is the EVIDENCE that any of them actually are carrying GUNS?
This has gotta rank right up there with "This country was founded on conservative principles."
Gotta love it. And if anyone of you were wondering where the Sarah Palin votes would come from, there you have it.
-
And of coruse Tee will now provide us the URL's that demonstrate how the U.S. is pointing its guns at the current Iraqi Government vs the insurgents & terrorists. Oh wait....lemme guess, it's done out of sight, demonstrating again how diablocally clever Bush is. Oh wait, Bush is too incompotent to take charge of the oil with its guns, that was their primary purpose to begin with. Oh wait, it's still being run as a puppet government, where Bush tells the Iraqi government when to jump & how high. Oh wait, this circular nonsense is for those inflicted with BDS
-
You gotta be careful, sirs, you'll get dizzy running in all those self-created circles. The theory is really a lot simpler than you pretend it is: Invade the country, destroy its Socialist constitution, "elect" a bunch of collaborators in "democratic" elections and leave when you've installed a puppet government that will do as you wish it to do.
The model is there for all to see from the First World War, as performed by the British: Invade, occupy, install a puppet government on the British model (a constitutional monarchy) and trust them to rule the country in your interests for relatively modest sums of money and the backing of what was then the most powerful Empire in the world.
Why do you need to pretend it's so complex? Rape and robbery are the oldest stories in history, from the Roman Empire through Adolf Hitler down to George W. Bush. It's simple, really. Think of the Hitler model from WWII, and you won't get so confused.
-
You gotta be careful, sirs, you'll get dizzy running in all those self-created circles.
You're right. Trying to keep up with how the left tries to explain the skillful brilliance of the evil master planner Bush with how incompotent he is, is quite dizzying
-
To the best of my knowledge Iraq has issued two oil contracts.
One was to China, the other to Royal Dutch Shell.
Both of those are heavily owned by non US interests.
So the whole idea that the war was to control wo got contracts seems to be proven not true by the contracts given.
And these are the people who support Obama?
And they dare ask about Kool-Aid?
-
Precisely....then again, that's supposed validation of how incompotent Bush is supposed to have been. See how neatly the circular (il)logic works
-
To the best of my knowledge Iraq has issued two oil contracts.
One was to China, the other to Royal Dutch Shell.
Both of those are heavily owned by non US interests.
So the whole idea that the war was to control wo got contracts seems to be proven not true by the contracts given.
And these are the people who support Obama?
And they dare ask about Kool-Aid?
Actually, it only proves how badly the Bushidiot has failed at nearly everything he has wanted . Except tax cuts for the rich , of course. I know you will forgive him because of these.
-
<<To the best of my knowledge Iraq has issued two oil contracts.
<<One was to China, the other to Royal Dutch Shell.
<<Both of those are heavily owned by non US interests. >>
Not only is that the oldest trick in the con-man's book (tokenism) but I predicted in an earlier post that the first contracts would probably go to non-U.S. firms just so con artists and their dupes (BT, sirs and plane being great examples of the latter) could point to the token contracts and crow, "See? It couldn't have been about oil after all."
I would suggest to my right-wing friends and all others suffering from severely impaired judgment, that the real test is not in the first contracts awarded but when the last contract is awarded. THAT'S when you want to know who got the lion's share.
-
Actually, you have to bribe the people who build the tankers and tank trucks to falsify their capacities.
No, you don't, because they don't have to fill them to capacity. But that could be faked easily enough.
-
Actually, it only proves how badly the Bushidiot has failed at nearly everything he has wanted . Except tax cuts for the rich , of course. I know you will forgive him because of these.
Actually it just shows your and your ilks propensity for lying.
Bush wanted a tax cut.
He got it.
Bush wanted NCLB
He got it.
Bush wanted a prescription drug benefit.
He got it.
Bush wanted to invade Iraq.
He got it.
If Bush wanted the oil
He would have gotten it.
-
If Bush wanted the oil
He would have gotten it.
=================================
No, because it has been very difficult forming a puppet government.
-
No, you don't, because they don't have to fill them to capacity. But that could be faked easily enough.
Yeah, because you can't check the levels in any other way than trusting the guy who filled it up.
And nobody down the line checks, either. They all trust that one guy to be honest, and never check up on it.
::)
-
Actually, it only proves how badly the Bushidiot has failed at nearly everything he has wanted . Except tax cuts for the rich , of course. I know you will forgive him because of these.
Actually it just shows your and your ilks propensity for lying.
> You accuse us of lying . I accuse y'all of being fools who wouldnt recognize a real lie if it bit you in the ass.<
Bush wanted a tax cut.
He got it.
> And fucked up the economy in the process<Just look around at the needed bail out.
Bush wanted NCLB
He got it.
>And fucked up the school system in the process<
http://www.amte.net/becker/9-2-2004-bushflunks.htm (http://www.amte.net/becker/9-2-2004-bushflunks.htm)
Bush wanted a prescription drug benefit.
He got it.
>And the main benefit went to big Pharma<http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17244
Bush wanted to invade Iraq.
He got it.
> A total fuck up < Need I say more?
If Bush wanted the oil
He would have gotten it.
>He didnt , but he still fucked up the war on terror by trying<
He fucked up everyone of those things you posted.
-
These guys simply aren't interested in facts or truth. All they really give a shit about is the spin. It is obvious beyond the need to even explain that the original excuses for going in were outright lies, often built on false evidence after the real evidence showing no threat was produced; the absurdity of Iraq being a threat to the U.S. is simply ignored. The long-standing plans to invade Iraq and the need for "a new Pearl Harbor" similarly ignored. The history of the U.S.A. - - never ever have they voluntarily started a war to free anybody - - is ignored. The oil wealth of Iraq is ignored or treated as a simple accident of history.
Knutey, if you've got time to waste arguing with these clowns, my hat's off to ya. It's the Flat Earth Society all over again, but called the "Bush Didn't Lie and It's Not About Oil" and there is literally no end to it.
-
These guys simply aren't interested in facts or truth. All they really give a shit about is the spin.
Oh, the irony. Projection in its most transparent ::)
-
These guys simply aren't interested in facts or truth. All they really give a shit about is the spin.
Oh, the irony. Projection in its most transparent ::)
RW Peewee brains favorite and usually only debating technique:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HyXDK2JBk_U&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true">
-
Oh, please. Stop it already. Do you really believe this crap? WHY?
Of course I do , I have reality based thinking.
You can beleive anything you want to , but I like evidence .
The price of oil on the spot market is an auction , if you sell oil for less , it will show up as a reduction in demand and a reduction in the next spot auction , if you try to sell it for more you will loose your customer.
Hungary can sell its uranium to either France or Russia if they want to , I hope that they choose not to sell it to Iran , but Iran will get some any way because even when the commodity is very dangerous , market forces are very powerfull. When Hungary was part of the Soviet Block did their customert set the price artificially? That is one of the things that made the whole Warsaw Pact shakey wasn't it?
Oil is sold at auction more than any other way , someone who makes a sweet heart deal to sell for less is giveing up money for some other consideration.
Iraq is starting to see some national income from oil and as far as I know there is no attempt from any American agency to restrict or direct their sales. Got an evidence of such a futile attempt?
-
SOME oil is sold at auction. Not all, only SOME.
If there are secret deals under the table, and there always are, you can count on them being secret and under the table. Duh.
-
<<When Hungary was part of the Soviet Block did their customert set the price artificially? That is one of the things that made the whole Warsaw Pact shakey wasn't it?>>
I have no idea how the U.S.S.R. set the price of Hungarian uranium, the point is that they determined where it would and would not be sold and who it would be sold to - - something that you seem to feel is impossible for the Americans to do in Iraq. And I can't even begin to imagine that the Russians would have had no say at all in the price of their satellites' commodities, especially when they were buying.
It's very obvious that by invading and occupying an oil-producing country, the U.S.A. will be able to dictate the price of its oil, and who can buy and sell it. I can't understand how anybody arguing in good faith could say otherwise and still maintain even a shred of credibility. Once the U.S. ends the occupation, leaving a puppet government behind, it's anyone's guess what the Iraqis (including even the puppets) will do, but even Obama is not advocating an end to the occupation.
-
What made the Warsaw Pact shakey was that the smaller states of Eastern Europe did not wish to be dominated by the Soviets. It was not always a total domination: East Germans had a MUCH higher standard of living than Soviets. Most families had cars, even if they were Trabants, many had second homes in the country. Russians were much worse off. Czechs and Hungarians were also better off economically.
The Russians managed to dominate the Slavic countries better. Czech may speak a Slavic language, but they are culturally German in many ways that the Russians aren't.Slovaks much less so, hence the split.
-
It's very obvious that by invading and occupying an oil-producing country, the U.S.A. will be able to dictate the price of its oil, and who can buy and sell it. I can't understand how anybody arguing in good faith could say otherwise and still maintain even a shred of credibility. Once the U.S. ends the occupation, leaving a puppet government behind, it's anyone's guess what the Iraqis (including even the puppets) will do, but even Obama is not advocating an end to the occupation.
Nope it isn't so at all.
The US sells more wheat than any other grower , but can you say that we are therefore able to fix the price?
I know that only the main part of oil is sold at auction and that it can be sold otherwise , but as long as it is available at an auction it is the auction that will set the price.
How you imagine it possible that the US government would repeal the law of supply and demand strikes me as funny , I hope that they repeal the law of gravity next , that would make vacations on Mars so much cheaper.
Do you think that Obama is thinking that he needs to occupy Iraq for the oil?
I believe you imagine oil being controlled in the way that DeBeers controlls diamonds, but DeBeers buys more than half the worlds production of Diamonds and puts somany on the shelf that they produce an artificial shortage. This situation isn't a possibility with oil. To force the Iriquis to sell the oil for any less than it is worth would be stupid and to force them to produce less than they can would be stupid , we are still spending money there to rebuild , why would we want them to make less money and rebuild less themselves?
Don't worry about my credibility being harmed for beleiveing that the law of supply and demand really is a law.
-
Nope it isn't so at all.
The US sells more wheat than any other grower , but can you say that we are therefore able to fix the price?
I know that only the main part of oil is sold at auction and that it can be sold otherwise , but as long as it is available at an auction it is the auction that will set the price.
=====================================================
The US does not sell wheat. The price for wheat is set by two very secretive companies: Cargill and Bunge y Born. Price varies according to type of wheat (hard winter, durham, semolina, red winter, etc,.) and quality.
Do not believe that the market sets the price. The diamond market is an extreme example of how an industry can furgle the law of supply and demand. De Beers must make deals with the Russians, but that has never been a problem.
Most oil is sold BELOW the "official" price, which is for Brent Light Sweet Crude, the best North Sea oil.
Very occasionally it is bid up by desperate retailers.
_______________________________________________
This situation isn't a possibility with oil. To force the Iriquis to sell the oil for any less than it is worth would be stupid and to force them to produce less than they can would be stupid , we are still spending money there to rebuild , why would we want them to make less money and rebuild less themselves?
This "we" you speak of... does it refer to the US govt., which has one set of objectives, some of them hidden agendas, or the oil companies in the US or both?
The oil companies and the US govt are different entities. The former has SOME hidden agendas, determined by lobbyists and their pals in Congress, the oil companies have many, but their bottom line is high profits and maximum domination of supply.
The most important "we" here is the American people, who would like gasoline for $1.;00 a gallon in ready supply forever. Count on them to be ignored.
-
This "we" you speak of... does it refer to the US govt., which has one set of objectives, some of them hidden agendas, or the oil companies in the US or both?
There is a good question , so who is the "we " we were talking about who wanted to invade Iraq for its oil?
DeBeers doesn't furgle the law of supply and demand , they use it , by controlling enough of the supply that all the rest of the supply is sold while they are still holding.
If you and I meet to sell each other vehicles we can ignore the blue book , would you ignore the blue book?
-
Let me modify the statement I made earlier, to which plane responded:
<<It's very obvious that by invading and occupying an oil-producing country, the U.S.A. will be able to dictate the price of its oil, and who can buy and sell it. I can't understand how anybody arguing in good faith could say otherwise and still maintain even a shred of credibility. Once the U.S. ends the occupation, leaving a puppet government behind, it's anyone's guess what the Iraqis (including even the puppets) will do, but even Obama is not advocating an end to the occupation.>>
It's very obvious that by invading and occupying an oil-producing country, the U.S.A. will be able to influence the price of its oil (by increasing or decreasing production, alone or more effectively in concert with other producers) and who can buy and sell it. I can't understand how anybody arguing in good faith could say otherwise and still maintain even a shred of credibility. Once the U.S. ends the occupation, leaving a puppet government behind, it's anyone's guess what the Iraqis (including even the puppets) will do, but even Obama is not advocating an end to the occupation.
The major oil advantage the U.S. gets from the invasion is to amend the laws permitting Iraq to partner with third parties in the exploitation of oil resources. It's kind of like letting the Mafia partner with you in a convenience store. You didn't need them at all as partners, you wouldn't have taken them on as partners except at the point of a gun, and now you are sharing income that used to be all yours with the mob or friends of the mob. Good deal for the mob, bad deal for the shopkeeper.
-
If you and I meet to sell each other vehicles we can ignore the blue book , would you ignore the blue book?
=============================
I would go by the wholesale price listed in Edmunds and KBB.com. If your car was in extremely good shape, I might pay you the wholesale price, or even the average of the wholesale and the retail price. You are not a dealer, I do not deal with dealers, and you aren't getting the retail price. Homey don't do retail.
I would look the car over, deduct the price of a brake job, a new battery and an alternator unless you had evidence of these being replaced in the last year, make sure the tranny had clearish fluid with no burnt smell, and drive it for at least fifteen minutes in city and highway areas. Then I would make an offer as described above.
If you rejected my offer, I would smile politely and tell you that yes, your car is really worth more, but this is all I can pay, and write a price on the card and shake your hand, smile again and drive slowly away.
If you are a typical seller, I would make a deal three times out of four on the first visit, and you would call me back one time in eight.
I am fair, but I am not a fool.
As for selling my cars, the last two were pretty far gone, and I donated them to charity.
I have never traded a car in.I have bought one car from a dealer in my entire life. It was a three year old Renault R-10 and I paid $1500 for it. That was $200 below the retail Blue Book, because in West Virginia, no one bought Renaults from Chevy dealers. It was a trade in on a Vega. I am sure it outlasted the Vega. I drove it for eight years, and sold it for $600.
-
If you and I meet to sell each other vehicles we can ignore the blue book , would you ignore the blue book?
=============================
I would go by the wholesale price listed in Edmunds and KBB.com.
So even if I had a really good car , you would not likely pay me more than that sort of car was being sold for elesewhere.
If I had an oil well , I might want to sell its oil for more than you were selling your oil for , but could I really keep my customer from knowing what you were selling at?
-
So even if I had a really good car , you would not likely pay me more than that sort of car was being sold for elesewhere.
If I had an oil well , I might want to sell its oil for more than you were selling your oil for , but could I really keep my customer from knowing what you were selling at?
+===============================
The last car I bought was a 1985 Mercedes 300TD wagon with 168,000 miles.
I found a Taiwanese Coca-Cola exec that advertised it for $3K, and told me everything about it. He said he's sell it for $3K. Being as old as it was, it was hard to find a reliable price, but the wholesale was $2,800 and the retail was $3500. I told him I'd take the greyhound up to Atlanta and pay him the $3K if all was as he described. It was, so I did, in cash. Then I drove it home.
The car before that, a 1990 Benz 300D, was listed at $11,500. Retail was $12,500. I offered $10K cash, and it was accepted gladly and immediately.
I would not pay you retail. If I wanted to buy it elsewhere, I would have gone there. No car is a one of a kind deal, unless you are talking about a celebrity's car, and I don't need one of those.
If I had an oil well, why would I want your oil?
If you wanted to buy my oil, I am sure we could work something out.
If you are a buyer, assume it's a buyer's market.
If you are a seller, assume it's a seller's market.
Act accordingly.
If you are unrealistic, and, say, try to buy a round trip to Paris in August at December prices, you will either have to compromise the date or the price.
-
So even if I had a really good car , you would not likely pay me more than that sort of car was being sold for elesewhere.
If I had an oil well , I might want to sell its oil for more than you were selling your oil for , but could I really keep my customer from knowing what you were selling at?
+===============================
The last car I bought was a 1985 Mercedes 300TD wagon with 168,000 miles.
I found a Taiwanese Coca-Cola exec that advertised it for $3K, and told me everything about it. He said he's sell it for $3K. Being as old as it was, it was hard to find a reliable price, but the wholesale was $2,800 and the retail was $3500. I told him I'd take the greyhound up to Atlanta and pay him the $3K if all was as he described. It was, so I did, in cash. Then I drove it home.
The car before that, a 1990 Benz 300D, was listed at $11,500. Retail was $12,500. I offered $10K cash, and it was accepted gladly and immediately.
I would not pay you retail. If I wanted to buy it elsewhere, I would have gone there. No car is a one of a kind deal, unless you are talking about a celebrity's car, and I don't need one of those.
If I had an oil well, why would I want your oil?
If you wanted to buy my oil, I am sure we could work something out.
If you are a buyer, assume it's a buyer's market.
If you are a seller, assume it's a seller's market.
Act accordingly.
If you are unrealistic, and, say, try to buy a round trip to Paris in August at December prices, you will either have to compromise the date or the price.
You seem to understand my point already.
You don't mind negotiateing the price , so you are unlikely to pay more than the least you must.
I don't see you accepting a high price from me if you know that the same thing will be sold for less by someone elese , so I may own and controll the commodity , car or oil, but unless I controll all of it that is availible to you I do not controll what you will pay.
-
I don't see you accepting a high price from me if you know that the same thing will be sold for less by someone elese , so I may own and controll the commodity , car or oil, but unless I controll all of it that is availible to you I do not controll what you will pay.
Typically, the salesman who wants to sell at a high price claims that he has better service (that's how Hank Hill peddles his propane) or a higher quality. This COULD be true.
How many people would think to call the service dept of a prospective dealer and ask for an unusual part t see if they have it in stock, or ask for a price quote on a brake job? But that's how you check on service. Quality, well, that's for Consumer Reports to tell me about most of the time.
I don't consider a diamond to be essential for anything, so de Beers' crap won't work on me. There are topazes, rubies and very impressive CZ. The difficulty is that they have brainwashed about 99% of the women into thinking that only a diamond means *true love*
They weren't keepers, anyway.
-
I don't see you accepting a high price from me if you know that the same thing will be sold for less by someone elese , so I may own and controll the commodity , car or oil, but unless I controll all of it that is availible to you I do not controll what you will pay.
Typically, the salesman who wants to sell at a high price claims that he has better service (that's how Hank Hill peddles his propane) or a higher quality. This COULD be true.
How many people would think to call the service dept of a prospective dealer and ask for an unusual part t see if they have it in stock, or ask for a price quote on a brake job? But that's how you check on service. Quality, well, that's for Consumer Reports to tell me about most of the time.
I don't consider a diamond to be essential for anything, so de Beers' crap won't work on me. There are topazes, rubies and very impressive CZ. The difficulty is that they have brainwashed about 99% of the women into thinking that only a diamond means *true love*
They weren't keepers, anyway.
There are diffrent qualitys of oil , but these quality diffrences are not secrets and the buyers can bring doctors of chemistry into advisement on the buy so the correction is exact.
I am not sure what diffrence service might make in this case , prompt delivery?
Oil is really too simple to hoodwink buyers very often , they know what the current price is when they buy .
-
Why don't we just forget all about the mechanics of how cars or diamonds or oil is sold and concentrate on who gets to pocket the profits, which is the crux of the matter.
If Iraq suddenly finds itself selling its oil with a lot of unwanted and unasked for partners sharing the proceeds, it's pretty obvious, especially when the change from a state monopoly to a state partnering occurred after an armed invasion and occupation, that this is a rape and a robbery at the international level.
Case closed.
-
Why don't we just forget all about the mechanics of how cars or diamonds or oil is sold and concentrate on who gets to pocket the profits, which is the crux of the matter.
If Iraq suddenly finds itself selling its oil with a lot of unwanted and unasked for partners sharing the proceeds, it's pretty obvious, especially when the change from a state monopoly to a state partnering occurred after an armed invasion and occupation, that this is a rape and a robbery at the international level.
Case closed.
Yes a state monopoly in which the head of state could pile billions into pet projects, castles ,palaces, Cronys and Swiss Bank accounts.
Vs
Chooseing from clamoring bidders either the lowest bidder or the one that inspires best confidence.
Where is the smallest evidence of Saddams doing a better job as the state in person , than the Iriqui legislature that will have to stand for re-election?
Saddam had three decades to prove his ability , I don't think that Iriqui Democracy will need that long to do better.
-
<<Where is the smallest evidence of Saddams doing a better job as the state in person , than the Iriqui legislature that will have to stand for re-election?>>
Evidence was in free JK to grad school education for every citizen, including grad school abroad, free health care, safe streets and peace between all religious factions. None of which you have now in Iraq, nor are you likely to get it any time soon.
I think you over-focus on the palaces of Saddam Hussein, the people had a good life-style and the ruler had a better one. That's the way it is in the Middle East and quite frankly as long as the people are looked after, most of them don't give a shit that Saddam has fifty or a hundred palaces. That's a really small, small fraction of the oil revenues.
Where's the evidence that admitting a bunch of multinational oil companies into a partnership with the state at the point of an invader's gun is going to produce better results for Iraqis than Saddam did?
Obviously there is not even a shred of evidence that the U.S. and Great Britain are genuinely interested in installing a democracy in Iraq. They want a puppet government and are doing everything they possibly can to set one up.
-
Saddam was amazingly incompetent at getting the oil out of the ground and off to market before invading Kuwait. After the destruction cauised by that war, and the restrictions placed on Iraq, the situation was far worse. It would be possible to produce mpore oil, raise the standard of living of the average Iraqi to perhaps triple of what it is today, and still allow for the usual measure of Middle East graft. It isn;'t being done now because of the civil war that started when the US invaded.
Saddam screwed things up a lot, but the US invasion was even worse.
-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5z9lD4C2Io[/youtube]
-
Typical ratwing claptrap.
for seven years, Juniorbush has had a veto.
But he's only used it for his goddamned war and other crap.
-
The video was hilarious, CU4. EIGHT YEARS of Republican misrule under George W. Bush but the Democrats are responsible for the mess. Eight years and the Republicans couldn't do a God-damn thing about it?
Who do you really think is going to buy that crap?
Bush fucked up on security - 9/11 happened on HIS WATCH. Fucked up on Afghanistan, STILL hasn't caught Osama OR Mullah Omar. Fucked up on Iraq majorly, STILL (and despite the lies of McCain and Palin) has NOT returned even to pre-surge troop levels there. Fucked up on New Orleans and Katrina. North Korea went nuclear on his watch. Iran and Venezuela have basically told the U.S. to go fuck themselves, again on his watch. Russia told the U.S. to go fuck themselves on his watch and invaded one of his allies without any repercussions.
So here is a guy who has fucked up on every issue that was handed to him, and yet you expect people to believe that, miraculously, he did NOT fuck up on the economy? I mean, what are the odds? And you further expect them to believe that after almost two full terms in office, it was the opposition's fault that the economy went south? That his entirely unnecessary wars had nothing to do with any of it?
That video was good for laughs and nothing else. You must be a very optimistic guy if you think anyone is going to fall for that crap.
-
That video was good for laughs and nothing else. You must be a very optimistic guy if you think anyone is going to fall for that crap.
Christians is always an optimist. All his posts! are exclamations! Wow!
Like his thought that Jesus had anything to do with small government!
Like his thought that Republicans actually would shrink the size of government!
He might as well be "Dobermans for a safe feline environment".
"Cockroaches for sanitary kitchens".
"Pederasts for smoother bowel movements".
-
<<Like his thought that Jesus had anything to do with small government>>
I really don't know what Jesus thought about small government, and I'm not even sure that he had ANY thoughts about it at all, because the Jews of his time must have had only two viable models of government to consider, Roman Empire on their backs or Roman Empire off their backs.
However, the thought reminded me of the claim by Bruce Barton, founder of the advertising agency BBD&O, that Jesus was the greatest businessman who ever lived. Seriously, that was the theme of his 1925 book, The Greatest Man Who Ever Lived, a life of Jesus. Jesus, according to Barton, was an organizing, sales and marketing genius who started a small organization that was eventually successfully marketed to the whole world. The greatest advertising man in history.
Here's a Bruce Barton quote I just found by Googling:
<<Jesus picked up twelve men from the bottom ranks of business and forged them into an organisation that conquered the world. >>
-
<<Jesus picked up twelve men from the bottom ranks of business and forged them into an organisation that conquered the world. >>
Paul, not Jesus, was responsible for Jesus' continuing popularity.
Jesus was Jew and was pretty much unconcerned with Gentiles, who to him were either Roman oppressors or irrelevant. He did think that Samaritains (a disliked sect within Judaism) were worthy of first aid and decent treatment.
There were no Gentiles among the apostles. To become a Christian in the first decades, you first had to become a Jew, which meant (ouch!) circumcision, which also made you a marked man for life. The First Century equivalent of a particularly ugly nect tattoo in out times, at least.
Peter insisted on all Gentiles converting to Christianity having their tallywhackers altered. This resulted in very few male converts. Paul decided that Gentiles could remain intact, and managed to convince Peter of this.
Paul's protegee Timothy was so sincere in his faith that he circumcised himself. Imagine how itr made him feel when Peter and Paul decided to change the requirements...
Only an American could think of Jesus as a super salesman.
Incidentally, when a Christian tent evangelist started peddling Salad Magic cookware, after a stint at Tupperware, the seeds of Amway were born.
-
It's always intriguing to watch anti-Christian and/or anti-religious folk speak so ........... authoritatively about all facets Christianity
-
It's always intriguing to watch anti-Christian and/or anti-religious folk speak so ........... authoritatively about all facets Christianity
This is like someone at the FDA beinbg blamed for being an expert on poison.
Unlike you, I have actually READ the Bible, The whole thing.
You could actually research how AmWay got started, but that would tax your tiny brain.
You have truly earned the title of slurs.
-
Nothing even remotely "like"
-
<<It's always intriguing to watch anti-Christian and/or anti-religious folk speak so ........... authoritatively about all facets Christianity>>
Yeah, I know. It's like watching knee-jerk anti-communists speaking so authoritatively about aspects of communism.
Jeeze, excuse me for expressing my opinion. It IS the religion of the dominant culture in your little crypto-fascist Republic, so I guess I picked up a LITTLE bit of knowledge about it while passing through.
Have you any specific comments, rebuttals or otherwise to add to our opinions about the One True Religion, or are you going to follow your usual practice of "debating" by personal smears and innuendo?
-
Strange.....did I see any reference where you're being denied your opinion, or even that it should be?? Oh yea, I forgot, famous leftist tactic --> complain that criticism of their criticism is tantamount to wanting to silence someone, or to call them unpatriotic. Garbage like that
-
<<Strange.....did I see any reference where you're being denied your opinion, or even that it should be??>>
No you did not. So why are you raising it now?
<< Oh yea, I forgot, famous leftist tactic --> complain that criticism of their criticism is tantamount to wanting to silence someone, or to call them unpatriotic. >>
No, nobody suggested anything like that. So why are you raising it now?
Yes, I know. Typical sirs "debating" tactic. Make shit up. Garbage like that
-
<<Strange.....did I see any reference where you're being denied your opinion, or even that it should be??>>
No you did not. So why are you raising it now?
"Jeeze, excuse me for expressing my opinion.", is pretty clear to me, as if I was criticising your right to an have an opinion. Why else would you post such a response??
<< Oh yea, I forgot, famous leftist tactic --> complain that criticism of their criticism is tantamount to wanting to silence someone, or to call them unpatriotic. >>
No, nobody suggested anything like that. So why are you raising it now?
See above for clarity. Perhaps next time, you'll make yourself a little more clear
-
<<"Jeeze, excuse me for expressing my opinion.", is pretty clear to me, as if I was criticising your right to an have an opinion. >>
Nobody's ever questioned my RIGHT to have an opinion on this board or anywhere else, so why on earth would I think you were at this point over such a relatively inconsequential matter?
"Excuse me" is a standard ironic response used hundreds of times a day by anyone who expresses an opinion for which someone else says he or she is insufficiently equipped to express an opinion on.
You're just like your Republican heroes, say one thing and when called on it, claim you meant something entirely different. Or grossly mischaracterize whatever it was that you were responding to.
-
It's always intriguing to watch anti-Christian and/or anti-religious folk speak so ........... authoritatively about all facets Christianity
There is a lot of value in an outsiders POV.
It is a lot easyer for him to see the dirt on your forehead , you might not know is there.
Then you get to explain Lent to him.
-
<<"Jeeze, excuse me for expressing my opinion.", is pretty clear to me, as if I was criticising your right to an have an opinion. >>
Nobody's ever questioned my RIGHT to have an opinion on this board or anywhere else, so why on earth would I think you were at this point over such a relatively inconsequential matter?
LOL...so "Jeeze, excuse me for expressing my opinion." doesn't really mean "Jeeze, excuse me for expressing my opinion.".
It depends on what the meanin of is, is. Gotcha
-
Is it true that Christians actually believe that they are drinking the blood and eating the flesh of a god who died 2000 years ago?
Is it actually true that Christians actually worship three gods that they consider to be the same entity?
Is it true that Christians believe that insanity is caused by demonic possession, and that it has been cured by driving said demons into a herd of pigs, who then commit suicide?
Those are among the hardest things to believe about Christianity to me. Have you some favorites, slurs?
-
Is it true that Christians actually believe that they are drinking the blood and eating the flesh of a god who died 2000 years ago?
Is it actually true that Christians actually worship three gods that they consider to be the same entity?
Is it true that Christians believe that insanity is caused by demonic possession, and that it has been cured by driving said demons into a herd of pigs, who then commit suicide?
Those are among the hardest things to believe about Christianity to me. Have you some favorites, slurs?
That God loves the likes of you and me?
That is a big one.
-
I fail to see how anyone could not love me.
My cat clearly has her moments when she does not even like me or acknowledge my existence, but I still love her.
I am thinking that an omniscient, omnipotent being that exudes goodness would have little difficulty in loving even those who do not believe in him.
-
LOL...so "Jeeze, excuse me for expressing my opinion." doesn't really mean "Jeeze, excuse me for expressing my opinion.".
It depends on what the meanin of is, is. Gotcha
================================================================
LOL. I forgot who I was dealing with here. People incapable of grasping either irony or sarcasm. Well, OK, going along with your Big Lie just for the moment, if you really took my words as literally as you claim you did, how come you didn't just say, "You're excused?"
-
LOL.....this coming from the same person who keeps claimimg the original intention of what HE believes someone meant to say, is end of story. Clarifications, Sarcasm, and Irony, need not apply. In fact, they're to be ignored
Delicious & Ironic indeed
-
<<LOL.....this coming from the same person who keeps claimimg the original intention of what HE believes someone meant to say, is end of story. Clarifications, Sarcasm, and Irony, need not apply. In fact, they're to be ignored>>
If you're referring to my comments on Insane's frantic efforts to escape from his own foolish words on the state of the economy, let me remind you that even The Man himself did not attempt to justify his words as sarcasm or irony. The "clarification" that he offered was clearly unbelievable.
I suppose you could argue that since I don't believe McCain's explanation of his own words, you don't have to believe my explanation of mine. It's completely illogical and ridiculous, but pretty much everything you say is illogical and ridiculous anyway. However, there is no way for me to stop you from believing what you believe and there is no way for me to stop you from lying about what you believe, so, having offered my explanation that "Excuse me" was meant sarcastically, I've contributed all that I can to the topic. It's of no importance to me what you believe, and more to the point, it's of no importance to me that you continue to lie about what you believe. My words are clear to anyone who chooses to read them, I'm perfectly happy with them and I don't intend to retract a single one of them.
-
Naaaa, I'm simply referring to your current hypocritical standard that anyone you disagree with, is concluded to have said something patently false, regardless the follow-up clarity that demonstrates it to be such, but you can say something that means anything you want it to, and simply plead sarcasm, when caught. In other words, it's perfectly acceptable for you to explain what you meant, but anyone else who does, who you don't agree with, is basically lying in their attempt, because you've concluded what they really meant to say
ahhh, the irony
-
There is a lot of value in an outsiders POV.
It is a lot easyer for him to see the dirt on your forehead , you might not know is there.
Then you get to explain Lent to him.
Very good
-
<<Naaaa, I'm simply referring to your current hypocritical standard that anyone you disagree with, is concluded to have said something patently false, regardless the follow-up clarity that demonstrates it to be such . . . >>
Well, if you accept the principle that sometimes people mis-speak and then wish to clarify their misstatement and sometimes people say something foolish and then try to lie their way out of it by inventing (after the fact) a different meaning for their words, then you would have to admit that one has to try to distinguish between the two situations. In McCain's case, for example, you have to choose: Did he really mean to say "the American worker is strong?" Or is he lying in order to avoid the consequences of claiming that the fundamentals of the economy are strong?
For good reason, I choose to believe that McCain is lying in his explanation of what he said. It's clear to me that he made a very foolish statement and then tried to give it a whole different meaning when he realized just how dumb the original statement was. But hey, that is just my opinion (and probably the opinion of 90% of the people who heard him speak those words.)
Similarly I explained my words, "Excuse me for expressing my opinion." I believe most people would recognize the sarcasm in those words, even without my explanation of it. Most of those who didn't catch the sarcasm the first time around would readily accept my word that the words were meant to be sarcastic. Why? Because it's not much of a stretch. Because "Excuse me" is not only commonly recognized as sarcasm, it's probably used today, at least in written communications, more in its sarcastic sense than in its simple and straightforward sense.
You on the other hand, claim not to recognize the obvious sarcasm in the phrase and not to believe the explanation offered that the words were meant in sarcasm. That's OK. I think you are lying, i.e., you know very well that the words were intended sarcastically, but for your own reasons, choose to deny that they were. Well, there is no point in debating a liar who persists in his lie, so I have no further interest in debating this point with you. There is of course another possibility, which is that you are just too fucking stupid to see the sarcasm, but I do not believe you are that stupid. I don't believe anyone in this group is that stupid, as a matter of fact. So I'll stick with my original conclusion.
-
Hey, makes perfect sense. You ignore McCain's (or anyone else's) clarifications to what's reasonably clear to begin with, from what they've said, but with the proper distortion, claim something totally outrageous, and then claim they're then lying, when clarity is added, based on your already hyperbolic bias
But you yourself have free reign to clarify anything you've said, and anyone that tries to claim you meant something ...oh, let's say something totally outrageous, well, they're just unable to understand what you were trying to say in the 1st place.
Note the neat little hypocritical double standard you've constructed? SOP, so I'm not surprised, in the least. You apply it to all your racist rhetoric as well
-
<<Hey, makes perfect sense. You ignore McCain's (or anyone else's) clarifications to what's reasonably clear to begin with, from what they've said . . . >>
Really? You really believe that it was reasonably clear that when McCain said, "The fundamentals of the American economy are strong," he meant that only the American WORKER was "strong?"
You are a bullshitter, my friend. That is just plain BS and you know it.
<< . . . but with the proper distortion, claim something totally outrageous>>
Huh? So it's "totally outrageous" to claim that when McCain said "The fundamentals of our economy are strong," he meant exactly what he said, "The fundamentals of our economy are strong?" It is now outrageous to claim that a man means what a man says?
Well, I am sorry, sirs, but I can't see anything even remotely outrageous, let alone "totally outrageous " in that . And BTW, exactly WHAT did I have to "distort" to get from the words ("The fundamentals of our economy are strong") to the alleged meaning of the words (The fundamentals of our economy are strong?") Where exactly is the distortion?
<< . . . and then claim they're then lying, when clarity is added>>
Well, obviously, he WAS lying. And he wasn't adding clarity, he was creating a whole new meaning for his words which no one had previously suspected, which context did not justify, and which is, frankly, quite unbelievable.
<< . . . based on your already hyperbolic bias>>
Uh, NO, sirs. Based on the plain and simple meaning of McCain's words. As I have told you many times, sirs, words have meaning. This is something which you seem to be constitutionally unable to grasp, but whether you get it or not, that is just a fact of life. Words mean what they say, unless intended as sarcasm or irony (which McCain has never suggested was the case) and you are stuck with the meaning of McCain's words. "The fundamentals of our economy are strong" still means "The fundamentals of our economy are strong" and totally different words are used to indicate that the American worker is strong.
<<But you yourself have free reign to clarify anything you've said . . .>>
sirs, EVERYBODY has free rein to clarify anything they said. But that doesn't mean some fundamentally dishonest people won't abuse that free rein. So when someone tells me that "the fundamentals are strong" and then later, after the roof falls in, THEN tells me, "Oh, I meant that the American worker was strong," well then you gotta weigh it all up and decide, is this guy telling me the truth or is this guy bullshitting me? The fact that everyone has free rein to clarify anything previously said does NOT mean that everyone who claims to be clarifying isn't really just bullshitting you, taking back something he said before because it's making him look stupid.
<<Note the neat little hypocritical double standard you've constructed?>>
No, I don't. Neither do you.
<<SOP, so I'm not surprised, in the least. You apply it to all your racist rhetoric as well>>
Not only are you not fooling anyone, sirs, you are beginning to bore me.
-
He was speaking in code.
He ment that the fundamentals of the american economy are strong.
Of course they are , there are none stronger .
But the strongest man can trip into a mudhole now and then , he is still strong when he climbs out.
-
<<He was speaking in code.
<<He ment that the fundamentals of the american economy are strong.
<<Of course they are , there are none stronger .
<<But the strongest man can trip into a mudhole now and then , he is still strong when he climbs out.>>
====================================================================
Well, THAT is exactly what McCain should have said. OF COURSE he didn't mean "the American worker is strong" or he would have SAID, "The American worker is strong." A lot of people would have disagreed with him, argued that the fundamentals were NOT strong, but "fundamentals" would first have to be defined, "strong" would have to be defined, and the argument would have been interminable and basically unwinnable by either side.
McCain's problem is fundamentally that he is a liar and a coward. Instead of sticking to his guns ("Yeah I said it and I meant it!") he tried to run away from his own words, so now the argument was no longer ONLY about his foolish judgment (because nobody of any intelligence really believes he meant anything other than what he said) but also again about his character, his silly panics (why NOT stick to your guns, nobody could ever settle the argument, although to most people you'd still look like a fool) and his lack of ethics, basically lying to the American people, and not even a clever lie, a stupid one that few will believe, as to what he "really" meant.
-
Without wondering bout McCain at all , lets discuss the fundamental parts of the economy.
What are the fundamental components of our economy , are there any of these being reduced or destroyed by the financhial problems in the news presently?
-
<<Hey, makes perfect sense. You ignore McCain's (or anyone else's) clarifications to what's reasonably clear to begin with, from what they've said . . . >>
Really? You really believe that it was reasonably clear that when McCain said, "The fundamentals of the American economy are strong," he meant that only the American WORKER was "strong?"
You are a bullshitter, my friend. That is just plain BS and you know it.
Naaa......what I know is as clear as your hypocritical little lying & agenda can get. You can make clarifications all you want, and anyone that dares to claim you meant to say X, when you didn't, is lying. While anyone else you don't agree with (or in McCain's case, despise), well, they mean what YOU say, and any clarification to the contrary is supposed BS
SOP
-
<<Naaa......what I know is as clear as your hypocritical little lying & agenda can get. You can make clarifications all you want, and anyone that dares to claim you meant to say X, when you didn't, is lying. While anyone else you don't agree with (or in McCain's case, despise), well, they mean what YOU say, and any clarification to the contrary is supposed BS
<<SOP>>
Without wasting any more time on this, I'm just going to say that you are full of shit, you KNOW you are full of shit, everyone else at this point probably knows you are full of shit and yet for some inexplicable reason, you feel the need to keep repeating these same two discredited points indefinitely in an endless loop, adding absolutely nothing to the debate. I feel I've already said all that I can say in response to the same points you keep repeating and so once again we are just going to have to cut this short and agree to disagree.
-
For someone who's supposededly "bored" with my posts, you (& Xo in other threads) sure seem to spend an enormous amount of time responding to them. Probably, because of the truthfullness I've been providing requires the rank accusations of me being some form of BS artist (that I'm also supposed to know.) What I know, and what any readers & visitors can take from this exchange as well, is the hypocritical double standard you employ at every turn. And when highlighted for all to see, yell BS
I recommend you move on
-
What are the fundamental components of our economy , are there any of these being reduced or destroyed by the financhial problems in the news presently?
So you want someone to type in all the class notes from Macroeconomics 301, and then complete the Senior thesis , all in this forum?
What you are requesting would require a major textbook and several subscriptions to several magazines, and then some.
-
<<For someone who's supposededly "bored" with my posts, you (& Xo in other threads) sure seem to spend an enormous amount of time responding to them. >>
I'm bored with the subject but I hate to give you the last word.
<< Probably, because of the truthfullness I've been providing requires the rank accusations of me being some form of BS artist (that I'm also supposed to know.) >>
Why I say you're a BS artist is not because you are truthful, because you are not truthful. You are a bullshit artist because when you make a statement that I refute, you do not respond to my refutation, but merely resort to repeating the statement that was already refuted. Instead of advancing the argument by attacking my last statement, you go back to your last (already) refuted statement - - which is a pointless argument since the only reply I can make to you is something that I've already said. You're basically admitting that you have nothing new to bring to the argument. So that's why it has to be refuted.
<< and re What I know, and what any readers & visitors can take from this exchange as well, is the hypocritical double standard you employ at every turn. >>
Well, I'm not going to address the "hypocritical double standard" issue, because I've already fully dealth with it in this thread and apparently whatever I had to write about it went in one ear and out the other. You for some reason (probably because you have no answer) refuse to deal with it at all, but just go back to your prior statement and repeat it again. As here with the "hypocritical double standard" so-called. It's just a total waste of effort to continue this thread. I can answer you once, but there's no reason I should have to answer the same point twice when you're not even prepared to deal with the answer I first gave you.
<<And when highlighted for all to see, yell BS>>
Well, the problem of course, is you couldn't highlight ANYTHING "for all to see." The most "debate" you seem capable of is:
1. Say something really stupid. (Stupid Statement No. 1)
2. Wait for me to demonstrate exactly how stupid your remark really was.
3. Say something stupid in a vain attempt to invalidate my rebuttal of Stupid Statement No. 1 (Your Stupid Statement No. 2)
4. Wait for me to demonstrate exactly how stupid Stupid Statement No. 2 was.
5. Scratch your ass for about 5 minutes trying in vain to think of some answer to my demonstration of how stupid Stupid Statement No. 2 was.
6. Repeat Stupid Statement No. 1 all over again as if I had never responded to it.
I am getting bored with this, but for some reason cannot and will not give you the last word on it. That's because you are a lying bullshit artist and I simply will not let you get away with it. The last word would be a victory you do not deserve.
<<I recommend you move on>>
I would like to. But you are not going to get a reward for lying and bullshitting. As long as you have anything to say on this, I will call you out on it and demonstrate in detail your lies and your bullshit. As many times and as often as necessary.
-
<<For someone who's supposededly "bored" with my posts, you (& Xo in other threads) sure seem to spend an enormous amount of time responding to them. >>
I'm bored with the subject but I hate to give you the last word.
Then don't. No one's stopping you, nor even advocating you don't have a right to your opinion. So, by all means, please, continue with the compulsive hypocrisy & lying
-
What are the fundamental components of our economy , are there any of these being reduced or destroyed by the financhial problems in the news presently?
So you want someone to type in all the class notes from Macroeconomics 301, and then complete the Senior thesis , all in this forum?
What you are requesting would require a major textbook and several subscriptions to several magazines, and then some.
That would be grand , but it does't sound practical.
So when someone speaks of the Fundamentals of our economy being strong , it requires a Phd. in Economics to contradict him?
I agree with the statement because what we had that built our economy in the first place we still have , in comparison with other countries we are still the largest and most stable.
Many of the other smaller economys seem very stable by leaning on our economy , practicly becoming subsets of our economy.
The world as a whole has an economy and on this scale the USA is an important part, but the interdependance is becomeing more pronounced all the time , I am not certain it is possible for one country to carry on while the rest are failing anymore.
-
Seems that alot of us knew what McCain was talking about Plane. Why is it so difficult for so many on the left to not lie about it though??
-
<<So, by all means, please, continue with the compulsive hypocrisy & lying>>
Thank you for yet another example of what I am talking about. There isn't a single example in this thread of hypocrisy or lying on my part. Any apparent hypocrisy that you have raised, I have answered. Any answers I gave were irrefutable and in fact you did not even attempt to refute them. All you were able to do was to repeat the same discredited accusations anew, as if they had never been raised, never been answered.
What I will continue to do is expose the fraudulent nature of your discourse: raising allegations you can't substantiate, failing to respond in any meaningful way to my rebuttals of your false allegations and "continuing the debate" by raising again the very same false accusations that were just rebutted. Calling you out as the liar you are every time you mention my alleged "hypocrisy" and "lying."
-
<<Seems that alot of us knew what McCain was talking about Plane. Why is it so difficult for so many on the left to not lie about it though??>>
Yes, of course. "A lot" of you just knew that when McCain said "The fundamentals of our economy are strong" he REALLY was saying "The American worker is strong." You knew that was what he meant because it was such an obvious meaning to take from his words.
Not only are you full of shit, but I would venture to say not one in a hundred people not already fiercely committed to McCain would draw that meaning from those words. Nobody will believe McCain's explanation of those words and nobody will believe you when you try to explain the "real meaning" of those words. It is just not believable.
-
Examples were this thread specifically. The direct side by side comparison of your rhetoric vs McCain's. The transparent double standard you hold over anyone that you don't agree with. Your overt ignoring of them being provided isn't my fault, and trying to tell others that they never were presented, when they can read it for themselves, only serves to undermine your accusations, all the more.
By all means, continue
-
<<Seems that alot of us knew what McCain was talking about Plane. Why is it so difficult for so many on the left to not lie about it though??>>
Yes, of course. "A lot" of you just knew that when McCain said "The fundamentals of our economy are strong" he REALLY was saying "The American worker is strong." You knew that was what he meant because it was such an obvious meaning to take from his words.
Not only are you full of shit, but I would venture to say not one in a hundred people not already fiercely committed to McCain would draw that meaning from those words. Nobody will believe McCain's explanation of those words and nobody will believe you when you try to explain the "real meaning" of those words. It is just not believable.
Sigh
It was in CODE, MT , of course it didn't mean what it sounded like it ment.
-
<<The transparent double standard you hold over anyone that you don't agree with. Your overt ignoring of them being provided isn't my fault, and trying to tell others that they never were presented, when they can read it for themselves, only serves to undermine your accusations, all the more.>>
My remarks were obviously sarcastic and needed no further exposition. An exposition was provided, not because it was necessary, but to expose your lies that my statement was not intended as sarcasm when it all too obviously was.
McCain's remark was clear on its face and needed no further exposition. McCain proceeded to provide further exposition, not to reinforce the original meaning of his statement, but to give it a totally different meaning. The problem with his further exposition was that it was simply unbelievable.
Your alleged "double standard" consists of taking MY exposition (which was purely gratuitous and given in support of the original meaning which nobody but you pretended not to understand) and then EQUATING it with McCain's exposition, which was patently false on its face, attempting to give a totally new meaning to a sentence with an obviously different meaning.
You claimed a double standard existed since I asked for acceptance of a gratuitous and wholly plausible exposition NOT seeking to change the obvious meaning of my statment, and compared that demand for acceptance with my ridicule of a desperately necessary, non-gratuitous and implausible exposition whose objective was to give a totally new meaning to a clear and intelligible statement having a perfectly clear but very different meaning of its own without need of further exposition.
-
<<The transparent double standard you hold over anyone that you don't agree with. Your overt ignoring of them being provided isn't my fault, and trying to tell others that they never were presented, when they can read it for themselves, only serves to undermine your accusations, all the more.>>
My remarks were obviously sarcastic and needed no further exposition
NO, they weren't. THAT's the issue. You had to clarify your position. You think, on God's green earth, McCain would have been under the belief that all was perfectly well with the economy, when he himself was raising the alarms regarding the housing debacle and the problems it posed on both the economy and the tax payer?? Of course YOU do, because that way you can proclaim how disconnected he is when he references something more accurate, specifically to the economy a week later. His clarifications on his prior statement are to be ignored....which we should then do with you apparently.
Unless of course we're to support your double standard & embrace your hypocrisy
-
<<You had to clarify your position. >>
Sure - - but only for one person: you, because you pretended not to get the sarcasm.
<<You think, on God's green earth, McCain would have been under the belief that all was perfectly well with the economy, when he himself was raising the alarms regarding the housing debacle and the problems it posed on both the economy and the tax payer?? >>
That was two years ago. Besides, he was probably lying anyway. Saying anything to defend the economy because of the perception (true enough as it turned out) that a bad economy would hurt him more than Obama.
You know what I just realized, sirs? This debate between us is pointless. The voters will either think as I do - - that the statement revealed McCain as foolish and out of touch, or they will believe as you claim you do, that he was really referring in that statement to the American worker. I am 100% convinced that 99% of the voters will see his statement as I see it, and I guess you are 100% convinced of the opposite.
There is nothing to add.
-
There is nothing to add.
Boy, ain't that the truth