Oil at $50 a barrel

BrooksMustGo · 09-27-2004, 07:05 PM

Oil is now going at historic highs that we'll all be paying at the gas pump.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/09/27/mark...ex.htm?cnn=yes

What I think the president ought to do is get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots. One reason why the price is so high is because the price of crude oil has been driven up. OPEC has gotten its supply act together and itÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã¢Â„Â¢s driving the price, like it did in the past. And the president must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price. And if in fact there is collusion amongst big oil, he ought to intercede there as well. Governor George W Bush, 2000

http://www.issues2000.org/Archive/GO..._+_Economy.htm

The expensive oil that Bush was talking about in 2000 was going for $28 a barrel. Doesn't seem like there is much "jawbone-ing" going on from the white house right now that oil is nearly double the price.

I'm not real excited about paying $2-3 a gallon this winter.

:kerry:

"If ignorance ever goes to $40 a barrel, I want the drilling rights to George Bush's head."

saintfan · 09-28-2004, 09:34 AM

The real question here is what does Kerry plan to DO about it. What does he plan to DO about anything?

I\'m not pullin your chain here BMG. It\'s an honest question. I hear him bash the Bush administration -- as politicians will do of course -- but I haven\'t heard him suggest anything.

Frankly I think Bush has made some mistakes. I don\'t think Iraq is one of them, but I can\'t get lined up with Kerry because the man is wishy washy best I can tell. I\'ve seen him scream to the world how horrible the USA is, and I disagree with his tactics...especially considering we have men fighting in another country. I\'ve seem him smilin\' that great big smile on Letterman, but I\'ve yet to hear him offer up a solution to anything he\'s complaining about.

canucksaint · 09-28-2004, 09:57 AM

Kerry has suggested some alternatives, however from what I can see, they are all long term plans, and there doesn\'t seem to be anything that he offers that will solve the problem short term.
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/r...2004_0525.html
Most of the solutiions he offers are reduction in dependance on oil, and use of renewable energy. (Plus tax incenetives and bonuses to do so, not just relying on people\'s love of nature)

I also feel that Bush has made MANY mistakes - including Iraq, however Kerry is not the right person to run against him. Kerry just doesn\'t have what it takes to beat him... Unfortunately.

BrooksMustGo · 09-28-2004, 02:24 PM

I\'m not pullin your chain here BMG. It\'s an honest question. I hear him bash the Bush administration -- as politicians will do of course -- but I haven\'t heard him suggest anything.

The basic dilemma is that we have an oil dependent economy and are tied to the most unstable region in the world to keep the economy running. Kerry at least acknowledges the problem. Bush seems content with more of the same.

1. For example, the California rolling blackouts were brought on by price gouging from the fine folks at Enron. Deregulation was supposed to bring down the price of power. Instead, electricity was going for $1500 a kilowatt hour, a 3000% increase. At the time Bush completely rejected the idea of price caps and wouldn\'t take a meeting with the California congressional delegation. Bush was just fine with the average consumer being held hostage to keep the lights on.

2. Bush still won\'t release the records from Cheney\'s energy taskforce. So we don\'t know if Ken Lay was writing US energy policy, but it sure looks fishy.

3. I don\'t understand how companies like Shell and Exxon can have the most profitable years in company history over the past couple of years and have this punishing overhead that they have to pass the cost along to the consumer.

It just seems to me that Bush is the devil I know and I don\'t want any more of him. His entire economic outlook seems to be that if Exxon has a good year, then everyone else must too. So Kerry pledges to develop long term solutions which probably won\'t make the prices of gas drop for a while, but it does seem to be a step in the right direction. Analysts seem to think that light crude could go all the way to $61 a barrel before we\'re done. What strikes me as odd is that Bush has a track record where its just fine for regular folks to pick up the tab for bad managment. So while I\'m unclear on all that Kerry wants to do, I can guarantee that Bush is just fine with the way things are.

I also feel that Bush has made MANY mistakes - including Iraq, however Kerry is not the right person to run against him. Kerry just doesn\'t have what it takes to beat him... Unfortunately.

Canuck, that blade cuts both ways. Kerry has the advantage of running against an inflexible idealogue. Do you really think that Bush is the best possible candidate his party could be nominating? Being a conservative used to mean something.

By the way Saintfan, just for fun. Why did we go to Iraq? What exactly has Bush done right with it?

:kerry:

saintfan · 09-28-2004, 03:44 PM

The basic dilemma is that we have an oil dependent economy and are tied to the most unstable region in the world to keep the economy running. Kerry at least acknowledges the problem.

That he acknowledges the \"problem\" makes him unique exactly how? What does he propose he\'ll acutally DO about it.

I\'m not talkin politi-speak either. What does he think he can actually DO about it? Up to now I haven\'t heard him say anything that would indicate to me that he\'s the man to fix this issue...or any other issue for that matter. He\'s a heckuva complainer thus far, but I just don\'t see much more about the man...other than his well-practiced smile.

Bush still won\'t release the records from Cheney\'s energy taskforce

I\'m not a big politics guy (can you tell -- lol), but I don\'t think the Democrats should be talking about releasing documents. Do you?

It just seems to me that Bush is the devil I know and I don\'t want any more of him.

Bush is the Devil ?!? LOL Voting for Kerry simply because you think Bush is the \"devil\" might be justification for you, but I know lots of people who think pretty much the same thing about Kerry. He has no loyalty far as I can tell. He seems to be all about being President, but I\'m not sure the man would have a clue if he ever got there.

So Kerry pledges to develop long term solutions which probably won\'t make the prices of gas drop for a while, but it does seem to be a step in the right direction.

Yes, he pledges long term solutions...to just about everything...but what ARE they? Where ARE they? WHAT is it he plans to do?

So while I\'m unclear on all that Kerry wants to do, I can guarantee that Bush is just fine with the way things are.

I can respect that, but I\'m not going to vote for the alternative until I know what the alternative is. Up to now Kerry is either unwilling or unable to explain his solutions.

As for Iraq, my view isn\'t one you\'ll like. I see the politics in it, but I see the need for it too. Maybe I\'m just a bit too patriotic, but SOMEthing had to be done when they slammed those planes into those buildings man. Something more than a few missles fired from the deck of a boat a thousand miles away from the problem. That was Clinton\'s solution. It was an ATTACK, and very different than Vietnam. Kerry and his ilk compare it to Vietnam, but they are not similar at all. Shall we just sit here and do nothing? More sanctions perhaps? Maybe the UN should have sent in more inspectors. I\'m sorry but I disagree. You can\'t allow them to fire on US planes unchecked, which they\'d been doing for 8 years while Bill Clinton was in office.

There isn\'t time for me to relate to you how I feel. It goes beyond just being in Iraq. It\'s the whole approach the Democratic party has used in their attempts to regain the Whitehouse. Liberal Democrats really turn my stomach sometimes.

You say that Bush seems to be happy with the way things are. I still haven\'t heard a thing from Kerry regarding his plan to change anything. Will he pull our troops from Iraq? Why? Why not? How will he deal with the mess he claims Bush is responsible for. Quite frankly, if pressed to comment, I\'d say Bush has inherited and is in the process of cleaning up a mess named Bill Clinton.

canucksaint · 09-29-2004, 10:48 AM

That he acknowledges the \"problem\" makes him unique exactly how?

Not unique compared to most people, but unique in presidential candidates, as Bush acknowledges that oil prices are higher, but is content to do nothing about it.

Yes, he pledges long term solutions...to just about everything...but what ARE they? Where ARE they? WHAT is it he plans to do?

If you look at the link I supplied above, you can see some of his plans. As stated, most of these are long term goals, and still will not solve the short term crisis.

SOMEthing had to be done when they slammed those planes into those buildings man

I thought something was done. Didn\'t the USA with the backing of the UN go into Afghanistan to fight the Taliban and the terrorists?
But you use this as an excuse to attack Iraq? Where is the link?

It was an ATTACK, and very different than Vietnam.

It was an attack that was very different from anything in history. This was carried out by a terrorist group, not a nation-state. However Bush has attacked a sovern country and is dealing with it in a similar fashion as Vietnam.

Maybe the UN should have sent in more inspectors

I don\'t think that they should have sent in more inspectors; however I do think that they should have let them finish the job before they attacked.

Now don\'t get me wrong here, I also don\'t think that Kerry is the right guy, and I don\'t necessarily trust his motives either. However Bush has proved that he can\'t be trusted. Bush went and attacked Iraq with no legal reason. Do I think that there needed to be a power shift in that country? Of course, however I do not like the fact that he went in without international support, ignoring the UN, and lying to his countrymen about the reasons why he went in.

BrooksMustGo · 09-29-2004, 03:43 PM

Bush is the Devil ?!?

No no. I don\'t think that Shrub is literally \"the devil, beezebub, ol scratch, lucifer, etc.\" What I\'m saying is that for anything that we don\'t know about Kerry, we have a 4 year record on Bush. We know that Bush is going to pursue.

I\'m not a big politics guy (can you tell -- lol), but I don\'t think the Democrats should be talking about releasing documents. Do you?

Point is, the Bush people have run the most behind closed doors presidency since Nixon.

SOMEthing had to be done when they slammed those planes into those buildings man.

I totally agree. As I recall, the hi-jackers were all Saudi\'s though. It would be like Japan bombing Pearl Harbor and FDR invading Mexico. As near as I can tell, it\'s a good idea to fight the people who actually attack you. Now we have Bush saying that Osama isn\'t a priority. I can\'t figure that one out.

You can\'t allow them to fire on US planes unchecked

Again, I totally agree. A SAM locks onto our aircraft and we destroy the SAM. We haven\'t been losing American aircraft over Iraq since the 91 gulf war.

I still haven\'t heard a thing from Kerry regarding his plan to change anything. Will he pull our troops from Iraq? Why? Why not? How will he deal with the mess he claims Bush is responsible for. Quite frankly, if pressed to comment, I\'d say Bush has inherited and is in the process of cleaning up a mess named Bill Clinton.

Kerry wants to get out within 4 years. Bush wants to create democracies all through the middle east. That\'s a pretty huge difference. McCain went on meet the press and suggested that we\'ll probably have troops in Iraq for 20 years or more. It will be like Korea or something.
As for the Clinton thing, he inherited the mess left by Bush I, who inherited a mess left by Reagan. Reagan decided to arm Iraq when they were fighting Iran, back then Saddam was our buddy, the good guy in the middle east. Then he invaded Kuwait and he\'s suddenly this awful tyrant who has to be stopped (partly because we stopped funding them). But Bush I refused to invade Iraq for regime change because it would result in a quagmire that would cost lots of American lives and billions (sounds familiar?). Clinton then inherited the situation where Iraq still needs to be punished or something. At any rate, it seems fair to say that Iraq wasn\'t going to be invading the gulf coast anytime soon. It was Saudi nationals that think its a good idea to fly aircraft into tall buildings.
Just this week, the Bush people are starting to make rumblings about Iran that sound suspiciously like the same stuff we said about Iraq. I don\'t think the purpose of our foreign policy is to be the world\'s cop.
This is a war of choice, something that we haven\'t really done since the war with Mexico of the 1840\'s.

saintfan · 09-29-2004, 04:26 PM

Man, you sound like you\'re digesting eveything being broadcast on Air America. That\'s too bad, because even I don\'t beleive everything I hear on Rush Limbaugh.

This is a war of choice, something that we haven\'t really done since the war with Mexico of the 1840\'s.

I\'m no fan of Saudi Arabia. I\'m no fan of the middle east...period. They\'re thugs...and yes it\'s that simple. The whole lot of them. We are there by choice you say? I\'m sorry you feel that way. We either deal with it now or deal with it later. I\'m all for now, because the situation we were in prior to the war in Iraq was not going to get any better. If you think it would have then I\'d like to hear your theory on how that might have happened. UN inspectors? Please.

I\'m an American. I think what Kerry is doing (of course he\'s done this before) is a totally classless way to attempt to reach his life\'s goal of becomming president (other than to marry money). He\'s soft. He has no heart. His record proves that.

Again, I totally agree. A SAM locks onto our aircraft and we destroy the SAM. We haven\'t been losing American aircraft over Iraq since the 91 gulf war.

So what are we going to do about it then? Nothing? Something? Anything?

What would Kerry\'s platform have been if they hadn\'t flown those planes into those buildings and he didn\'t have the war in Iraq to slander Bush with? His voting record as a Senator? NOW I\'m laughing.

As for the Clinton thing, he inherited the mess left by Bush I, who inherited a mess left by Reagan.

Who did Regan inherit the mess from, or did he start the whole thing? Careful with this answer, because the history of those killers in the Middle East goes back WAY before Mr. Reagan. As far as doing something about it, Clinton, of the names you\'ve mentioned, is the only one who chose to look the other way...for 8 years...and I\'m sure you can see what happened to our national security during those 8 years. They don\'t teach you that on Air America do they?

Point is, the Bush people have run the most behind closed doors presidency since Nixon.

One thing\'s for sure. We\'ll never know. There aren\'t any documents left from the Clinton Administration.

At any rate, it seems fair to say that Iraq wasn\'t going to be invading the gulf coast anytime soon.

This is 2004 BMG. Our national security reaches FAR beyond the coastline. C\'mon man. This is the weakest of the liberal arguments.

Just this week, the Bush people are starting to make rumblings about Iran that sound suspiciously like the same stuff we said about Iraq

Any problem we\'ve encountered in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libia, etc will most definately reoccur in Iran, Saudi Arabia, or anywhere else in the middle east. Defend the scurge of humanity if you feel the need to, but they want you DEAD BMG...no questions asked. They want you Dead. Kerry is willing to walk away...and in the interest of what? Appeasing the UN? His opinion poll? What? Does he think that\'s the right thing to do?

One thing I can tell you for certain about Mr. Kerry is that if he thinks it\'s the right thing to do today, ask him again tomorrow and you\'ll get a different answer.

BrooksMustGo · 09-29-2004, 05:30 PM

I just don\'t get the idea that we need to go around declaring war on other nations indiscriminately. This \"invade first ask questions later\" foreign policy seems like a real departure for this country.

As for the Clinton military, it seems like it was more than capable of doing the job in Iraq, or was it? Careful how you answer, you might indict our great leader. As for Reagan, he pulled out of Beruit when the going got rough. Reagan and Bush traded weapons for hostages for those killers, so let\'s not paint with too broad a brush on who is acting decisively in the middle east.

Defend the scurge of humanity if you feel the need to, but they want you DEAD BMG...no questions asked. They want you Dead.

I\'m not defending anything other the sort. If Iraq had done Sept 11, then I\'d be all in favor of glassing it over with nukes. The fact is--they didn\'t. What hacks me off is that the guys who did it \"aren\'t a priority\" for this president. As for leaving American soldiers in the middle east for the next 50 years, I don\'t think its a good idea. It isn\'t worth the money, it isn\'t worth the time and it isn\'t worth the blood. I wouldn\'t trade a million Arabs for one marine.

I agree with you on this, I don\'t think the Arabs are civilized now, nor will they ever be. It is Bush\'s fantasy that if we spend enough and bleed enough that Iraq will turn into a Jeffersonian democracy. I don\'t think that \"free elections\" in Iraq will be anything more than a sham and won\'t make us one bit safer in the middle east or here at home.

Kerry\'s senate career isn\'t marked by offering a lot of legislation. But I would have to say that the BCCI scandal that he investigated says a lot about him. He unmasked the bank that terrorists were using to launder their money and buy influence with the US government. he stood nothing to gain and faced opposition from this government all along the way, but stuck it out. But again, let\'s not get crazy here because being governor of Texas doesn\'t qualify you for dogcatcher, much less president.

saintfan · 09-29-2004, 06:07 PM

Look man. The longer this debate goes the nastier it\'s gonna get, so this is my last response. As I have said, I respect your opinion. Be thankful you have the ability to put it on display, as I do mine...because there are people in the world who want to take that away from you. You think it\'s about oil to them?

Do you drive an electric car yet? Do you bike your way around town? Probably not. I don\'t blame you. Neither do I. It\'s easy to be negative man. It\'s easy to attack the president for what he\'s doing while you\'re running for president, but it\'s another thing to make the tough decisions once you\'re sitting in the chair. Kerry has proved to me at least that he\'s not the guy to make tough decisions. He changes his mind too much. He appears to me to be interested in something far less important to me than oil. He appears to me to be interested in John Kerry. I just can\'t see how his supporters don\'t see that.

If John Kerry is elected, and I hope and pray to God that he never is, you will have elected our first woman president -- and her name is Jane Fonda. God help us all indeed.

09-27-2004, 07:05 PM	#1
BrooksMustGo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,762	Oil at $50 a barrel Oil is now going at historic highs that we'll all be paying at the gas pump. http://money.cnn.com/2004/09/27/mark...ex.htm?cnn=yes What I think the president ought to do is get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots. One reason why the price is so high is because the price of crude oil has been driven up. OPEC has gotten its supply act together and itÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã¢Â„Â¢s driving the price, like it did in the past. And the president must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price. And if in fact there is collusion amongst big oil, he ought to intercede there as well. Governor George W Bush, 2000 http://www.issues2000.org/Archive/GO..._+_Economy.htm The expensive oil that Bush was talking about in 2000 was going for $28 a barrel. Doesn't seem like there is much "jawbone-ing" going on from the white house right now that oil is nearly double the price. I'm not real excited about paying $2-3 a gallon this winter. :kerry: "If ignorance ever goes to $40 a barrel, I want the drilling rights to George Bush's head."

09-28-2004, 09:34 AM	#2
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	Oil at $50 a barrel The real question here is what does Kerry plan to DO about it. What does he plan to DO about anything? I\'m not pullin your chain here BMG. It\'s an honest question. I hear him bash the Bush administration -- as politicians will do of course -- but I haven\'t heard him suggest anything. Frankly I think Bush has made some mistakes. I don\'t think Iraq is one of them, but I can\'t get lined up with Kerry because the man is wishy washy best I can tell. I\'ve seen him scream to the world how horrible the USA is, and I disagree with his tactics...especially considering we have men fighting in another country. I\'ve seem him smilin\' that great big smile on Letterman, but I\'ve yet to hear him offer up a solution to anything he\'s complaining about.
	C'mon Man...

09-28-2004, 09:57 AM	#3
canucksaint 100th Post Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 227	Oil at $50 a barrel Kerry has suggested some alternatives, however from what I can see, they are all long term plans, and there doesn\'t seem to be anything that he offers that will solve the problem short term. http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/r...2004_0525.html Most of the solutiions he offers are reduction in dependance on oil, and use of renewable energy. (Plus tax incenetives and bonuses to do so, not just relying on people\'s love of nature) I also feel that Bush has made MANY mistakes - including Iraq, however Kerry is not the right person to run against him. Kerry just doesn\'t have what it takes to beat him... Unfortunately.

09-28-2004, 02:24 PM	#4
BrooksMustGo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,762	Oil at $50 a barrel I\'m not pullin your chain here BMG. It\'s an honest question. I hear him bash the Bush administration -- as politicians will do of course -- but I haven\'t heard him suggest anything. The basic dilemma is that we have an oil dependent economy and are tied to the most unstable region in the world to keep the economy running. Kerry at least acknowledges the problem. Bush seems content with more of the same. 1. For example, the California rolling blackouts were brought on by price gouging from the fine folks at Enron. Deregulation was supposed to bring down the price of power. Instead, electricity was going for $1500 a kilowatt hour, a 3000% increase. At the time Bush completely rejected the idea of price caps and wouldn\'t take a meeting with the California congressional delegation. Bush was just fine with the average consumer being held hostage to keep the lights on. 2. Bush still won\'t release the records from Cheney\'s energy taskforce. So we don\'t know if Ken Lay was writing US energy policy, but it sure looks fishy. 3. I don\'t understand how companies like Shell and Exxon can have the most profitable years in company history over the past couple of years and have this punishing overhead that they have to pass the cost along to the consumer. It just seems to me that Bush is the devil I know and I don\'t want any more of him. His entire economic outlook seems to be that if Exxon has a good year, then everyone else must too. So Kerry pledges to develop long term solutions which probably won\'t make the prices of gas drop for a while, but it does seem to be a step in the right direction. Analysts seem to think that light crude could go all the way to $61 a barrel before we\'re done. What strikes me as odd is that Bush has a track record where its just fine for regular folks to pick up the tab for bad managment. So while I\'m unclear on all that Kerry wants to do, I can guarantee that Bush is just fine with the way things are. I also feel that Bush has made MANY mistakes - including Iraq, however Kerry is not the right person to run against him. Kerry just doesn\'t have what it takes to beat him... Unfortunately. Canuck, that blade cuts both ways. Kerry has the advantage of running against an inflexible idealogue. Do you really think that Bush is the best possible candidate his party could be nominating? Being a conservative used to mean something. By the way Saintfan, just for fun. Why did we go to Iraq? What exactly has Bush done right with it? :kerry:
	http://www.blackandgold.net/site/signature/buddysig.jpg

09-28-2004, 03:44 PM	#5
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	Oil at $50 a barrel The basic dilemma is that we have an oil dependent economy and are tied to the most unstable region in the world to keep the economy running. Kerry at least acknowledges the problem. That he acknowledges the \"problem\" makes him unique exactly how? What does he propose he\'ll acutally DO about it. I\'m not talkin politi-speak either. What does he think he can actually DO about it? Up to now I haven\'t heard him say anything that would indicate to me that he\'s the man to fix this issue...or any other issue for that matter. He\'s a heckuva complainer thus far, but I just don\'t see much more about the man...other than his well-practiced smile. Bush still won\'t release the records from Cheney\'s energy taskforce I\'m not a big politics guy (can you tell -- lol), but I don\'t think the Democrats should be talking about releasing documents. Do you? It just seems to me that Bush is the devil I know and I don\'t want any more of him. Bush is the Devil ?!? LOL Voting for Kerry simply because you think Bush is the \"devil\" might be justification for you, but I know lots of people who think pretty much the same thing about Kerry. He has no loyalty far as I can tell. He seems to be all about being President, but I\'m not sure the man would have a clue if he ever got there. So Kerry pledges to develop long term solutions which probably won\'t make the prices of gas drop for a while, but it does seem to be a step in the right direction. Yes, he pledges long term solutions...to just about everything...but what ARE they? Where ARE they? WHAT is it he plans to do? So while I\'m unclear on all that Kerry wants to do, I can guarantee that Bush is just fine with the way things are. I can respect that, but I\'m not going to vote for the alternative until I know what the alternative is. Up to now Kerry is either unwilling or unable to explain his solutions. As for Iraq, my view isn\'t one you\'ll like. I see the politics in it, but I see the need for it too. Maybe I\'m just a bit too patriotic, but SOMEthing had to be done when they slammed those planes into those buildings man. Something more than a few missles fired from the deck of a boat a thousand miles away from the problem. That was Clinton\'s solution. It was an ATTACK, and very different than Vietnam. Kerry and his ilk compare it to Vietnam, but they are not similar at all. Shall we just sit here and do nothing? More sanctions perhaps? Maybe the UN should have sent in more inspectors. I\'m sorry but I disagree. You can\'t allow them to fire on US planes unchecked, which they\'d been doing for 8 years while Bill Clinton was in office. There isn\'t time for me to relate to you how I feel. It goes beyond just being in Iraq. It\'s the whole approach the Democratic party has used in their attempts to regain the Whitehouse. Liberal Democrats really turn my stomach sometimes. You say that Bush seems to be happy with the way things are. I still haven\'t heard a thing from Kerry regarding his plan to change anything. Will he pull our troops from Iraq? Why? Why not? How will he deal with the mess he claims Bush is responsible for. Quite frankly, if pressed to comment, I\'d say Bush has inherited and is in the process of cleaning up a mess named Bill Clinton.
	C'mon Man...

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

09-29-2004, 10:48 AM	#6
canucksaint 100th Post Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 227	Oil at $50 a barrel That he acknowledges the \"problem\" makes him unique exactly how? Not unique compared to most people, but unique in presidential candidates, as Bush acknowledges that oil prices are higher, but is content to do nothing about it. Yes, he pledges long term solutions...to just about everything...but what ARE they? Where ARE they? WHAT is it he plans to do? If you look at the link I supplied above, you can see some of his plans. As stated, most of these are long term goals, and still will not solve the short term crisis. SOMEthing had to be done when they slammed those planes into those buildings man I thought something was done. Didn\'t the USA with the backing of the UN go into Afghanistan to fight the Taliban and the terrorists? But you use this as an excuse to attack Iraq? Where is the link? It was an ATTACK, and very different than Vietnam. It was an attack that was very different from anything in history. This was carried out by a terrorist group, not a nation-state. However Bush has attacked a sovern country and is dealing with it in a similar fashion as Vietnam. Maybe the UN should have sent in more inspectors I don\'t think that they should have sent in more inspectors; however I do think that they should have let them finish the job before they attacked. Now don\'t get me wrong here, I also don\'t think that Kerry is the right guy, and I don\'t necessarily trust his motives either. However Bush has proved that he can\'t be trusted. Bush went and attacked Iraq with no legal reason. Do I think that there needed to be a power shift in that country? Of course, however I do not like the fact that he went in without international support, ignoring the UN, and lying to his countrymen about the reasons why he went in.

09-29-2004, 03:43 PM	#7
BrooksMustGo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,762	Oil at $50 a barrel Bush is the Devil ?!? No no. I don\'t think that Shrub is literally \"the devil, beezebub, ol scratch, lucifer, etc.\" What I\'m saying is that for anything that we don\'t know about Kerry, we have a 4 year record on Bush. We know that Bush is going to pursue. I\'m not a big politics guy (can you tell -- lol), but I don\'t think the Democrats should be talking about releasing documents. Do you? Point is, the Bush people have run the most behind closed doors presidency since Nixon. SOMEthing had to be done when they slammed those planes into those buildings man. I totally agree. As I recall, the hi-jackers were all Saudi\'s though. It would be like Japan bombing Pearl Harbor and FDR invading Mexico. As near as I can tell, it\'s a good idea to fight the people who actually attack you. Now we have Bush saying that Osama isn\'t a priority. I can\'t figure that one out. You can\'t allow them to fire on US planes unchecked Again, I totally agree. A SAM locks onto our aircraft and we destroy the SAM. We haven\'t been losing American aircraft over Iraq since the 91 gulf war. I still haven\'t heard a thing from Kerry regarding his plan to change anything. Will he pull our troops from Iraq? Why? Why not? How will he deal with the mess he claims Bush is responsible for. Quite frankly, if pressed to comment, I\'d say Bush has inherited and is in the process of cleaning up a mess named Bill Clinton. Kerry wants to get out within 4 years. Bush wants to create democracies all through the middle east. That\'s a pretty huge difference. McCain went on meet the press and suggested that we\'ll probably have troops in Iraq for 20 years or more. It will be like Korea or something. As for the Clinton thing, he inherited the mess left by Bush I, who inherited a mess left by Reagan. Reagan decided to arm Iraq when they were fighting Iran, back then Saddam was our buddy, the good guy in the middle east. Then he invaded Kuwait and he\'s suddenly this awful tyrant who has to be stopped (partly because we stopped funding them). But Bush I refused to invade Iraq for regime change because it would result in a quagmire that would cost lots of American lives and billions (sounds familiar?). Clinton then inherited the situation where Iraq still needs to be punished or something. At any rate, it seems fair to say that Iraq wasn\'t going to be invading the gulf coast anytime soon. It was Saudi nationals that think its a good idea to fly aircraft into tall buildings. Just this week, the Bush people are starting to make rumblings about Iran that sound suspiciously like the same stuff we said about Iraq. I don\'t think the purpose of our foreign policy is to be the world\'s cop. This is a war of choice, something that we haven\'t really done since the war with Mexico of the 1840\'s.
	http://www.blackandgold.net/site/signature/buddysig.jpg

09-29-2004, 04:26 PM	#8
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	Oil at $50 a barrel Man, you sound like you\'re digesting eveything being broadcast on Air America. That\'s too bad, because even I don\'t beleive everything I hear on Rush Limbaugh. This is a war of choice, something that we haven\'t really done since the war with Mexico of the 1840\'s. I\'m no fan of Saudi Arabia. I\'m no fan of the middle east...period. They\'re thugs...and yes it\'s that simple. The whole lot of them. We are there by choice you say? I\'m sorry you feel that way. We either deal with it now or deal with it later. I\'m all for now, because the situation we were in prior to the war in Iraq was not going to get any better. If you think it would have then I\'d like to hear your theory on how that might have happened. UN inspectors? Please. I\'m an American. I think what Kerry is doing (of course he\'s done this before) is a totally classless way to attempt to reach his life\'s goal of becomming president (other than to marry money). He\'s soft. He has no heart. His record proves that. Again, I totally agree. A SAM locks onto our aircraft and we destroy the SAM. We haven\'t been losing American aircraft over Iraq since the 91 gulf war. So what are we going to do about it then? Nothing? Something? Anything? What would Kerry\'s platform have been if they hadn\'t flown those planes into those buildings and he didn\'t have the war in Iraq to slander Bush with? His voting record as a Senator? NOW I\'m laughing. As for the Clinton thing, he inherited the mess left by Bush I, who inherited a mess left by Reagan. Who did Regan inherit the mess from, or did he start the whole thing? Careful with this answer, because the history of those killers in the Middle East goes back WAY before Mr. Reagan. As far as doing something about it, Clinton, of the names you\'ve mentioned, is the only one who chose to look the other way...for 8 years...and I\'m sure you can see what happened to our national security during those 8 years. They don\'t teach you that on Air America do they? Point is, the Bush people have run the most behind closed doors presidency since Nixon. One thing\'s for sure. We\'ll never know. There aren\'t any documents left from the Clinton Administration. At any rate, it seems fair to say that Iraq wasn\'t going to be invading the gulf coast anytime soon. This is 2004 BMG. Our national security reaches FAR beyond the coastline. C\'mon man. This is the weakest of the liberal arguments. Just this week, the Bush people are starting to make rumblings about Iran that sound suspiciously like the same stuff we said about Iraq Any problem we\'ve encountered in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libia, etc will most definately reoccur in Iran, Saudi Arabia, or anywhere else in the middle east. Defend the scurge of humanity if you feel the need to, but they want you DEAD BMG...no questions asked. They want you Dead. Kerry is willing to walk away...and in the interest of what? Appeasing the UN? His opinion poll? What? Does he think that\'s the right thing to do? One thing I can tell you for certain about Mr. Kerry is that if he thinks it\'s the right thing to do today, ask him again tomorrow and you\'ll get a different answer.
	C'mon Man...

09-29-2004, 05:30 PM	#9
BrooksMustGo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,762	Oil at $50 a barrel I just don\'t get the idea that we need to go around declaring war on other nations indiscriminately. This \"invade first ask questions later\" foreign policy seems like a real departure for this country. As for the Clinton military, it seems like it was more than capable of doing the job in Iraq, or was it? Careful how you answer, you might indict our great leader. As for Reagan, he pulled out of Beruit when the going got rough. Reagan and Bush traded weapons for hostages for those killers, so let\'s not paint with too broad a brush on who is acting decisively in the middle east. Defend the scurge of humanity if you feel the need to, but they want you DEAD BMG...no questions asked. They want you Dead. I\'m not defending anything other the sort. If Iraq had done Sept 11, then I\'d be all in favor of glassing it over with nukes. The fact is--they didn\'t. What hacks me off is that the guys who did it \"aren\'t a priority\" for this president. As for leaving American soldiers in the middle east for the next 50 years, I don\'t think its a good idea. It isn\'t worth the money, it isn\'t worth the time and it isn\'t worth the blood. I wouldn\'t trade a million Arabs for one marine. I agree with you on this, I don\'t think the Arabs are civilized now, nor will they ever be. It is Bush\'s fantasy that if we spend enough and bleed enough that Iraq will turn into a Jeffersonian democracy. I don\'t think that \"free elections\" in Iraq will be anything more than a sham and won\'t make us one bit safer in the middle east or here at home. Kerry\'s senate career isn\'t marked by offering a lot of legislation. But I would have to say that the BCCI scandal that he investigated says a lot about him. He unmasked the bank that terrorists were using to launder their money and buy influence with the US government. he stood nothing to gain and faced opposition from this government all along the way, but stuck it out. But again, let\'s not get crazy here because being governor of Texas doesn\'t qualify you for dogcatcher, much less president.
	http://www.blackandgold.net/site/signature/buddysig.jpg

09-29-2004, 06:07 PM	#10
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	Oil at $50 a barrel Look man. The longer this debate goes the nastier it\'s gonna get, so this is my last response. As I have said, I respect your opinion. Be thankful you have the ability to put it on display, as I do mine...because there are people in the world who want to take that away from you. You think it\'s about oil to them? Do you drive an electric car yet? Do you bike your way around town? Probably not. I don\'t blame you. Neither do I. It\'s easy to be negative man. It\'s easy to attack the president for what he\'s doing while you\'re running for president, but it\'s another thing to make the tough decisions once you\'re sitting in the chair. Kerry has proved to me at least that he\'s not the guy to make tough decisions. He changes his mind too much. He appears to me to be interested in something far less important to me than oil. He appears to me to be interested in John Kerry. I just can\'t see how his supporters don\'t see that. If John Kerry is elected, and I hope and pray to God that he never is, you will have elected our first woman president -- and her name is Jane Fonda. God help us all indeed.
	C'mon Man...