PDA

View Full Version : If the Presidential Election was today....



TerryTate
05-04-2004, 04:39 AM
Who would you vote for?

TerryTate
05-04-2004, 04:40 AM
NOTE: This poll closes in a week

iceblizzard69
05-04-2004, 01:46 PM
It actually depends a lot on where I lived. Since I live in New York, a state that John Kerry will win easily, I would consider voting for a third party candidate, most likely a Libertarian (I prefer voting for the person so I won't vote for someone just because they are Libertarian, but when I can register to vote next year I will probably register as either an Independent or a Libertarian.) If I lived in a Swing State where my vote would have a bigger impact, then I would have a very tough decision to make. I'm not a fan of Bush or Kerry.

TerryTate
05-04-2004, 11:23 PM
wow its 3-3-0-1 so far....

Clumpy
05-04-2004, 11:38 PM
I will be voting for John Kerry. I hate the Neo-conservative agenda.

PhinPhan1227
05-06-2004, 02:43 PM
I'd rather vote Lieberman...but given the choice between bad(Bush), and worse(Kerry), I'll take Bush. Kerry just seems like the type of leader who will take a lot of inncocent people down with him.

DeDolfan
05-09-2004, 11:48 AM
Who would you vote for?

Kerry, today, anyway!

upstart
05-11-2004, 05:36 PM
Mr.Bush

The_Philster
05-11-2004, 09:59 PM
anybody but Bush

ohall
05-11-2004, 10:16 PM
Bush, we're at war and we need a President who won't flip flop on issues and let foreign influence disrupt what is best for us the American public. I don't care what Europe or the U.N. thinks about our safety.

I fear that Kerry doesn't even believe we are at war. I am scared he would go back to how Clinton treated terrorism. He tried to treat terrorism as a crime, and he never went after the source. If that's how the FBI went after the Italian MOB some 60 years ago they may still be running this country thru politicians.

Oliver...

paul13
05-11-2004, 11:00 PM
would vote for Bush because Kerry is the biggest hypocrite to walk god’s green earth.


Bush & Chaney for 2004


P.S GO DOLPHINS

DeDolfan
05-12-2004, 11:43 AM
would vote for Bush because Kerry is the biggest hypocrite to walk god’s green earth.


Bush & Chaney for 2004


P.S GO DOLPHINS

Care to explain??

ohall
05-12-2004, 01:46 PM
Care to explain??

I know you didn't ask me, but Kerry missed a very important vote yesterday when the Senate went in session yesterday. One of the bills up for vote was a bill for extended unemployment bennefits, a bill he's been pushing for months now. It didn't pass by 1 vote. The man basically voted against the very bill he's been pimping for months now by not showing up for his job as a Senator yesterday. Way to go Kerry. Let's see if the ELITE liberal press even makes an issue of this. I some how doubt they will.

He is nothing but one of the biggest flip floppers this country has ever seen. He takes every side to every political issue there is. You would have to be ignoring reality real hard to not understand that about Mr. Kerry. If you only watch CNN ignoring reality is not an issue for their viewers. I bet you watch CNN huh?

Oliver...

DeDolfan
05-12-2004, 02:30 PM
I know you didn't ask me, but Kerry missed a very important vote yesterday when the Senate went in session yesterday. One of the bills up for vote was a bill for extended unemployment bennefits, a bill he's been pushing for months now. It didn't pass by 1 vote. The man basically voted against the very bill he's been pimping for months now by not showing up for his job as a Senator yesterday. Way to go Kerry. Let's see if the ELITE liberal press even makes an issue of this. I some how doubt they will.

He is nothing but one of the biggest flip floppers this country has ever seen. He takes every side to every political issue there is. You would have to be ignoring reality real hard to not understand that about Mr. Kerry. If you only watch CNN ignoring reality is not an issue for their viewers. I bet you watch CNN huh?

Oliver...

I didn't hear that yet til now. What was the reason he wasn't there? Did they say?

no, i do not watch CNN or Fox News. There about as far left and right as you can get, neither which is any good.

paul13
05-12-2004, 09:37 PM
Would I like to explain sure. For example Kerry voted for a 50 cent increase on gas numerous of times but then tell’s the American people that Bush has a deal with the saoudies to drive up oil prices until it gets close to the elections if he cares so much about the people why all the votes for the for the tax on gas. If that’s not enough how about the photos of him protesting the Vietnam war and calling all the soldiers over there sinners because they where killing people unjustly and they should be ashamed of them selves. Like I said he’s a hypocrite .

iceblizzard69
05-12-2004, 10:07 PM
Would I like to explain sure. For example Kerry voted for a 50 cent increase on gas numerous of times but then tell’s the American people that Bush has a deal with the saoudies to drive up oil prices until it gets close to the elections if he cares so much about the people why all the votes for the for the tax on gas. If that’s not enough how about the photos of him protesting the Vietnam war and calling all the soldiers over there sinners because they where killing people unjustly and they should be ashamed of them selves. Like I said he’s a hypocrite .

Kerry went to Vietnam even though he was opposed to the war and earned a purple heart. Bush used his Daddy to get into the Air National Guard, where he didn't really have to do anything.

I don't care if Kerry protested the Vietnam war, going into Vietnam was not a good idea.

paul13
05-12-2004, 10:14 PM
I agree we should not have been in Vietnam but don’t come home and blame the soldiers for fighting over there after all they were drafted they had know choice to be there.

PhinPhan1227
05-13-2004, 02:34 AM
Kerry went to Vietnam even though he was opposed to the war and earned a purple heart. Bush used his Daddy to get into the Air National Guard, where he didn't really have to do anything.

I don't care if Kerry protested the Vietnam war, going into Vietnam was not a good idea.


Correction, Kerry was against the war after he came back...not before he left. And quite honestly there's no way of knowing whether he was actually against the war or not. Protesting was a convenient way to get his name out into the political mix. Don't forget, Kerry was hanging out with the Kennedy's at a young age. And nobody was better than Joe Kennedy at political manipulation and planning.

ohall
05-13-2004, 02:54 AM
I didn't hear that yet til now. What was the reason he wasn't there? Did they say?

no, i do not watch CNN or Fox News. There about as far left and right as you can get, neither which is any good.

I didn't hear his explination yet, because the ELITE liberal media is not touching it yet, but he was in I believe Kansas or Kentucky, can't remember right now.

You would think for a bill he has been pushing so hard for, for so long he would have at least been there on that day. I mean he is one of the worst Senators as far attendance goes. He misses something like 60% of the votes on most years and this year so far it's in the high 70's.

Oliver...

ohall
05-13-2004, 03:02 AM
Would I like to explain sure. For example Kerry voted for a 50 cent increase on gas numerous of times but then tell’s the American people that Bush has a deal with the saoudies to drive up oil prices until it gets close to the elections if he cares so much about the people why all the votes for the for the tax on gas. If that’s not enough how about the photos of him protesting the Vietnam war and calling all the soldiers over there sinners because they where killing people unjustly and they should be ashamed of them selves. Like I said he’s a hypocrite .

If Bush is dirty from oil $, Kerry is dirty from cellular telecommunications $. Kerry is basically their b!tch.

Of course to liberals it's OK Kerry is used by a non-oil company. Because of course oil is evil, the root of all evil known to man. Just like so many liberals, especially these liberal movie stars, talk about not buying SUV's, while they drive home in their HUGE HUMVEE's or fly from coact to coast in their private jets, or they keep 9 luxury homes heated and cooled while they live out of luxury hotels. They don't think the rules applyo to them. They can call all thing evil while they use those evil things day in day out in their lives. It's only wrong when a conservative is doing it.

Oliver...

ohall
05-13-2004, 03:07 AM
Correction, Kerry was against the war after he came back...not before he left. And quite honestly there's no way of knowing whether he was actually against the war or not. Protesting was a convenient way to get his name out into the political mix. Don't forget, Kerry was hanging out with the Kennedy's at a young age. And nobody was better than Joe Kennedy at political manipulation and planning.

He went to war because at the time it was popular, and when he returned it was popular to be anti-war. Kerry has no backbone, and he has taken every side to almost every subjedct there is.

He is married to one of the richest women in the world, yet he constantly insults rich ppl. You can't help but feel sorry for ppl like him. They have guilt that they are doing so well. They have to rationalize their wealth and success.

This man would have marched us into Iraq, and when the polls started to swing negative, he would have pulled us out immediately. This country is not stupid and they know the kind canidate Kerry is, and only the politically blind will vote for someone like that.

Also does anyone know why Kerry's RICH wife won't release her tax records? All canidates and their spouses have always done this. Also, why is it the ELITE liberal press is not going after them on that?

Oliver...

DeDolfan
05-13-2004, 01:27 PM
Would I like to explain sure. For example Kerry voted for a 50 cent increase on gas numerous of times but then tell’s the American people that Bush has a deal with the saoudies to drive up oil prices until it gets close to the elections if he cares so much about the people why all the votes for the for the tax on gas. If that’s not enough how about the photos of him protesting the Vietnam war and calling all the soldiers over there sinners because they where killing people unjustly and they should be ashamed of them selves. Like I said he’s a hypocrite .

Fuel taxes somtetimes are necessary to build/maintain infrastrucre. granted, sometimes they may not always be necessary. The "fuel tax" doesn't line anybody's pockets but an "agreement" to have prices hiked, for whatever reason, you think is the same? And therefore makes KERRY hypocritical?
Prostesting the war in Viet Nam? I think he more than earned the right to. I guess if you are a protester you're just ne good, ya? BTW, he didn't call ALL soldiers sinners. He was against/ptrotesting alot of the unjust actions that were going on and that we shouldn't be there. You know, alot of the unjust crap going on RIGHT now. But bush is heading this all up so I guess that makes it OK now. :rolleyes:

DeDolfan
05-13-2004, 01:29 PM
Kerry went to Vietnam even though he was opposed to the war and earned a purple heart. Bush used his Daddy to get into the Air National Guard, where he didn't really have to do anything.

I don't care if Kerry protested the Vietnam war, going into Vietnam was not a good idea.

I agree. And in hindsight, neither was Iraq, but that's another topic.

DeDolfan
05-13-2004, 01:36 PM
I didn't hear his explination yet, because the ELITE liberal media is not touching it yet, but he was in I believe Kansas or Kentucky, can't remember right now.

You would think for a bill he has been pushing so hard for, for so long he would have at least been there on that day. I mean he is one of the worst Senators as far attendance goes. He misses something like 60% of the votes on most years and this year so far it's in the high 70's.

Oliver...

I've heard that about his attendance in the past tho. Kerry was not my first choice anyway but giving him benefit of alot [obviously :) ] of doubt, maybe he already knew how the vote would go and figured he had more important things to do other than to cast a tying vote only to have Chehey step in and swing back anywya. I don't know.

PhinPhan1227
05-13-2004, 01:37 PM
Fuel taxes somtetimes are necessary to build/maintain infrastrucre. granted, sometimes they may not always be necessary. The "fuel tax" doesn't line anybody's pockets but an "agreement" to have prices hiked, for whatever reason, you think is the same? And therefore makes KERRY hypocritical?
Prostesting the war in Viet Nam? I think he more than earned the right to. I guess if you are a protester you're just ne good, ya? BTW, he didn't call ALL soldiers sinners. He was against/ptrotesting alot of the unjust actions that were going on and that we shouldn't be there. You know, alot of the unjust crap going on RIGHT now. But bush is heading this all up so I guess that makes it OK now. :rolleyes:

Kerry is a hypocrite for blaming Bush for the high gas prices when it's primarily the fault of the environmental lobby which he strongly supports. Heck, read Al Gores book...this is EXACTLY what he and his friends have been working towards. Instead of blaming Bush Kerry should be saying "Ha!! we won!!".

DeDolfan
05-13-2004, 01:39 PM
If Bush is dirty from oil $, Kerry is dirty from cellular telecommunications $. Kerry is basically their b!tch.

Of course to liberals it's OK Kerry is used by a non-oil company. Because of course oil is evil, the root of all evil known to man. Just like so many liberals, especially these liberal movie stars, talk about not buying SUV's, while they drive home in their HUGE HUMVEE's or fly from coact to coast in their private jets, or they keep 9 luxury homes heated and cooled while they live out of luxury hotels. They don't think the rules applyo to them. They can call all thing evil while they use those evil things day in day out in their lives. It's only wrong when a conservative is doing it.

Oliver...

Gee, does that mean that the conservative movie stars live in a fridge box under I95 overpasses then ??!! :D :goof: ;)

ohall
05-13-2004, 05:12 PM
Gee, does that mean that the conservative movie stars live in a fridge box under I95 overpasses then ??!! :D :goof: ;)

No it means they are not hypocrites and they don’t say one thing and do another. Sorry you missed that point.

Some like to live in the real world, where we need oil products, automobiles and have to use air planes to get around in life.

Oliver...

TerryTate
05-13-2004, 05:42 PM
If Bush is dirty from oil $, Kerry is dirty from cellular telecommunications $. Kerry is basically their b!tch.

Of course to liberals it's OK Kerry is used by a non-oil company. Because of course oil is evil, the root of all evil known to man. Just like so many liberals, especially these liberal movie stars, talk about not buying SUV's, while they drive home in their HUGE HUMVEE's or fly from coact to coast in their private jets, or they keep 9 luxury homes heated and cooled while they live out of luxury hotels. They don't think the rules applyo to them. They can call all thing evil while they use those evil things day in day out in their lives. It's only wrong when a conservative is doing it.

Oliver...

Oil isnt evil, however....going to war with a country where its key resource is oil makes him look a lot more shady than Kerry. There havent been WMD found, and shortly after the war, a deal was struck with the company that Cheney was the "B!tch" of....that makes this issue a whole lot worse than whether Kerry is a b!tch of cellular communications...NOW...if we invaded Japan while Kerry is president because "they had WMD", then he would look shady (Japan = the most technologically advanced country in electronics, communications, etc)

DeDolfan
05-13-2004, 06:21 PM
No it means they are not hypocrites and they don’t say one thing and do another. Sorry you missed that point.

Some like to live in the real world, where we need oil products, automobiles and have to use air planes to get around in life.

Oliver...

Oh, I'm glad you said that. Let me fill you in on something here. I'm going to Miami next week for about 3 weeks. My preferred mode of transportation is to fly. OK, so I'm thinking, maybe I should drive since how oil prices are going thru the roof, etc. and flying would surely cost me double at least, anyway. Well, with gas sitting at $1.90 around here, i thought, well let me check plane fares anyway. You know what I found? Fares from balitmore to Ft Lauderdale on US Air were $149 round trip, as cheap as they have ever been! Would you like to know what I have concluded? Well, I'm going to tell ya anyway. Air fares have dropped dramatically since 9/11. Ppl started driving further and more often instead on vacas, etc. Airline were going bankrupt, bush was "bailing" them out somewhat. And now, almost 3 yrs after the fact, the airlines were still not setting the world on fire, so what happens next? Oil goes thru the roof but plane fares are still down. Screrwy, yes, but why? Just maybe it'sa ploy to get ppl from driving all these gas-guzzlers they have and fly again. In the past, airlines used to have a surcharge for higher fuel costs as do alot of other transportation companies do, freight companies, etc. So why is it do you think that airfares are still cheap?? Keep in mind that the last time I drove to Miami, it was about $150 total in gas, both ways. Now, I would be looking at at least $250. So here we are again, looking at one hand, but then again, on the other....................................... ;)

ohall
05-13-2004, 06:42 PM
Oil isnt evil, however....going to war with a country where its key resource is oil makes him look a lot more shady than Kerry. There havent been WMD found, and shortly after the war, a deal was struck with the company that Cheney was the "B!tch" of....that makes this issue a whole lot worse than whether Kerry is a b!tch of cellular communications...NOW...if we invaded Japan while Kerry is president because "they had WMD", then he would look shady (Japan = the most technologically advanced country in electronics, communications, etc)

We didn't go to war in Iraq for oil, as you can see going in there is rasing oil prices. Oooops there goes that theory by the left.

Haliburton is a world class org, and it is not uncommon during times of war for an Administration to choose, quickly, companies they want to use because of a positive long term track record. Haliburton has been used by DEM's and REP's, anyone implying that there was some sort of exclusive prefernce for Haliburton by this administration is simply ignorant. I'm not trying to bash you, but Haliburton is almost alone in what they provide to rebuilding a country. The fact that Cheney worked for that company is neither here or there. If he did something illegal I'm certain he would have been charged by now. He hasn't so obviously it's a moot point.

As I point out, the implication by some ppl is that dirty $ from oil is more evil than say dirty $ from a cellular company. I don't see the dif at all. Because I do not think for 1 second we went into Iraq for oil. We are there because Iraq was a serious risk to our safety after 9/11. The world changed, and for 1 year everyone in this country was with this concept, but now for political reasons one side is trying splinter this countries focus. I think it's shameful.

Oliver...

ohall
05-13-2004, 06:51 PM
Oh, I'm glad you said that. Let me fill you in on something here. I'm going to Miami next week for about 3 weeks. My preferred mode of transportation is to fly. OK, so I'm thinking, maybe I should drive since how oil prices are going thru the roof, etc. and flying would surely cost me double at least, anyway. Well, with gas sitting at $1.90 around here, i thought, well let me check plane fares anyway. You know what I found? Fares from balitmore to Ft Lauderdale on US Air were $149 round trip, as cheap as they have ever been! Would you like to know what I have concluded? Well, I'm going to tell ya anyway. Air fares have dropped dramatically since 9/11. Ppl started driving further and more often instead on vacas, etc. Airline were going bankrupt, bush was "bailing" them out somewhat. And now, almost 3 yrs after the fact, the airlines were still not setting the world on fire, so what happens next? Oil goes thru the roof but plane fares are still down. Screrwy, yes, but why? Just maybe it'sa ploy to get ppl from driving all these gas-guzzlers they have and fly again. In the past, airlines used to have a surcharge for higher fuel costs as do alot of other transportation companies do, freight companies, etc. So why is it do you think that airfares are still cheap?? Keep in mind that the last time I drove to Miami, it was about $150 total in gas, both ways. Now, I would be looking at at least $250. So here we are again, looking at one hand, but then again, on the other....................................... ;)

Air fares are down right now because less ppl are flying and companies are trying to draw in as many customers as possible. Delta is about to go bankrupt specifically because air plane gas prices have gone thru the roof.

After saying all that, I don't see what this has to do with the point I was trying to make. Liberals try and imply they do so much to help the environment, while the reality is they are just as dirty as the person who never claims they do. It's all about hypocrisy IMO. One side generally are hypocrites on this subject and the other side is not.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is an environmental lawyer, who tells everyone to not buy SUV's, who says everyone should fly in airplanes because it's better for the environment. This guy owns and is driven around in many SUV's, has his own personal private jet, and who has many homes he keeps running while he lives out of luxury hotels. This guy is a perfect example of the left. They bash the right, while doing and living the same was the right. That is hypocritical, no?

Oliver...

iceblizzard69
05-13-2004, 06:54 PM
Oh, I'm glad you said that. Let me fill you in on something here. I'm going to Miami next week for about 3 weeks. My preferred mode of transportation is to fly. OK, so I'm thinking, maybe I should drive since how oil prices are going thru the roof, etc. and flying would surely cost me double at least, anyway. Well, with gas sitting at $1.90 around here, i thought, well let me check plane fares anyway. You know what I found? Fares from balitmore to Ft Lauderdale on US Air were $149 round trip, as cheap as they have ever been! Would you like to know what I have concluded? Well, I'm going to tell ya anyway. Air fares have dropped dramatically since 9/11. Ppl started driving further and more often instead on vacas, etc. Airline were going bankrupt, bush was "bailing" them out somewhat. And now, almost 3 yrs after the fact, the airlines were still not setting the world on fire, so what happens next? Oil goes thru the roof but plane fares are still down. Screrwy, yes, but why? Just maybe it'sa ploy to get ppl from driving all these gas-guzzlers they have and fly again. In the past, airlines used to have a surcharge for higher fuel costs as do alot of other transportation companies do, freight companies, etc. So why is it do you think that airfares are still cheap?? Keep in mind that the last time I drove to Miami, it was about $150 total in gas, both ways. Now, I would be looking at at least $250. So here we are again, looking at one hand, but then again, on the other....................................... ;)

Airfare is cheap for many reasons, one definitely being that less people are flying so they hope lower rates will get more people to fly again. However, another reason is competition. Airlines like jetBlue and Southwest are very cheap and airlines like American and Delta don't want to lose customers, so they lowered their rates too. I went to Los Angeles in January on Delta and it cost $220 round trip.

PhinPhan1227
05-14-2004, 02:01 AM
Oh, I'm glad you said that. Let me fill you in on something here. I'm going to Miami next week for about 3 weeks. My preferred mode of transportation is to fly. OK, so I'm thinking, maybe I should drive since how oil prices are going thru the roof, etc. and flying would surely cost me double at least, anyway. Well, with gas sitting at $1.90 around here, i thought, well let me check plane fares anyway. You know what I found? Fares from balitmore to Ft Lauderdale on US Air were $149 round trip, as cheap as they have ever been! Would you like to know what I have concluded? Well, I'm going to tell ya anyway. Air fares have dropped dramatically since 9/11. Ppl started driving further and more often instead on vacas, etc. Airline were going bankrupt, bush was "bailing" them out somewhat. And now, almost 3 yrs after the fact, the airlines were still not setting the world on fire, so what happens next? Oil goes thru the roof but plane fares are still down. Screrwy, yes, but why? Just maybe it'sa ploy to get ppl from driving all these gas-guzzlers they have and fly again. In the past, airlines used to have a surcharge for higher fuel costs as do alot of other transportation companies do, freight companies, etc. So why is it do you think that airfares are still cheap?? Keep in mind that the last time I drove to Miami, it was about $150 total in gas, both ways. Now, I would be looking at at least $250. So here we are again, looking at one hand, but then again, on the other....................................... ;)

In answer to your question, the environmental lobby has made it VERY expensive to refine gasoline. Jet fuel doesn't have the same restrictions, and it's not in as great demand since airline flights are down. Flying is cheaper than driving because of the laws of supply and demand as influenced by the environmental lobby...ie...John Kerry.

DeDolfan
05-14-2004, 09:05 AM
Air fares are down right now because less ppl are flying and companies are trying to draw in as many customers as possible. Delta is about to go bankrupt specifically because air plane gas prices have gone thru the roof.

After saying all that, I don't see what this has to do with the point I was trying to make. Liberals try and imply they do so much to help the environment, while the reality is they are just as dirty as the person who never claims they do. It's all about hypocrisy IMO. One side generally are hypocrites on this subject and the other side is not.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is an environmental lawyer, who tells everyone to not buy SUV's, who says everyone should fly in airplanes because it's better for the environment. This guy owns and is driven around in many SUV's, has his own personal private jet, and who has many homes he keeps running while he lives out of luxury hotels. This guy is a perfect example of the left. They bash the right, while doing and living the same was the right. That is hypocritical, no?

Oliver...

The fact that less ppl are flying has everything to do with it. Airlines can not cut fares while oil prices have doubled. Do the math, they simply can not survive that way. pull your eyes over to the center a little and take a GOOOD look. Do you know that's why Delta is in trouble? Even if fuel was free, they'd still be in trouble in no one was flying, yes?

What does Kennedy have to do with what I was saying? but this is what the right does alot, switch the topic. Anyway, I think it is funny as hell how all these ppl go out and buy all these huge sUVs, not because they really need them but just because they can. you know, they hafta keep up with the Jones and with that mentality, it's no wonder this country in in the shape it is. It's everybody, not just the left or right either. The last time i filled up at the gas station, I was waiting for this Suburban to finish filling up. I noticed the owner had this terrible looking scowl on his face. when he got done and left, I pulled up and saw why. He had dropped over $82 in that thing. This time last yr, I could fill up for $12 and now it's over 20. I would've been a little more disturbed than I was cuz it could have been 80 bucks tho. But it is amazing hoe all the Joneses are the first to complain about it tho!!

DeDolfan
05-14-2004, 09:14 AM
In answer to your question, the environmental lobby has made it VERY expensive to refine gasoline. Jet fuel doesn't have the same restrictions, and it's not in as great demand since airline flights are down. Flying is cheaper than driving because of the laws of supply and demand as influenced by the environmental lobby...ie...John Kerry.

So you think it is ok to trash all the environmental laws?
The environmental laws is not what pushed oil over $40 a barrel, OPEC did that and I don't think Kerry had a thing to do with that. Bush is not an environmentalist? Why? Because if he can "bushwhack" enough environmental laws, then the cost of refining comes down and more windfalls [for him and cronies], etc.
I heard a report something about Saudi Arbia saying that they have plenty of oil but the US doesn't have the refining capabilites to refine enough anyway and that they had offered to build refineries for us. I haven't confirmed that myself but it was told to me by a local, about as far a right winger there is, guy. Not that that means anything but i just thought I'd throw that in there since everyone esle likes to always "throw the left" in there to support their pov.

PhinPhan1227
05-14-2004, 10:29 AM
So you think it is ok to trash all the environmental laws?
The environmental laws is not what pushed oil over $40 a barrel, OPEC did that and I don't think Kerry had a thing to do with that. Bush is not an environmentalist? Why? Because if he can "bushwhack" enough environmental laws, then the cost of refining comes down and more windfalls [for him and cronies], etc.
I heard a report something about Saudi Arbia saying that they have plenty of oil but the US doesn't have the refining capabilites to refine enough anyway and that they had offered to build refineries for us. I haven't confirmed that myself but it was told to me by a local, about as far a right winger there is, guy. Not that that means anything but i just thought I'd throw that in there since everyone esle likes to always "throw the left" in there to support their pov.

Trash them? No...but don't ***** when the environmental laws make it impossible to build new refineries and that drives up gas prices. I've never read a report about the Saudi's offering to build new refineries here. But if they wanted to, they could build them at home and ship us the gasoline, so why would they need our approval? Yes, oil has gone up...but the BOTTOM line is that the US refineries are running at capacity, and demand is at an all time high. Basic economics of supply and demand. Supply is static, while demand has increased...and there go the prices. I have no problem with America choosing to pay higher prices for gas in order to save the environment. I have a HUGE problem with Kerry blaming Bush when it was HIS OWN PARTY that caused them however. That DEFINES hypocrite.

DeDolfan
05-14-2004, 01:07 PM
Trash them? No...but don't ***** when the environmental laws make it impossible to build new refineries and that drives up gas prices. I've never read a report about the Saudi's offering to build new refineries here. But if they wanted to, they could build them at home and ship us the gasoline, so why would they need our approval? Yes, oil has gone up...but the BOTTOM line is that the US refineries are running at capacity, and demand is at an all time high. Basic economics of supply and demand. Supply is static, while demand has increased...and there go the prices. I have no problem with America choosing to pay higher prices for gas in order to save the environment. I have a HUGE problem with Kerry blaming Bush when it was HIS OWN PARTY that caused them however. That DEFINES hypocrite.

That's part of the whole problem I was talking about. We haven't added any refinery capacity in 15 yrs or so. to blame it on the environmental laws is not close to being fair. Delaware has one of the highest cancer rates in the country, mostly upstate where Motiva enterprises operates. They've had tanks collaspe killing ppl, acid spills killing others there as well. The Bush comes along and "relaxes" the environmental laws JUST for the sake of profit and THAT my friend is hypocritcal. Spin it and blame the Dems for it all you qant which is typical right spin anyway, but that's ok cuz we know what's coming anyway. Yeah, sure, let Bush do away with it all so his precious oil companies can make even more and let these damn refineries contaminate the water and spew out polluntants by the ton that we have to breath in. That a real good recipe for longevity now, ain't it.

BTW, if the Saudis refined all the oil for us, how much dod you think THAT would cost? Let's see, one tanker for gas, another for diesel, another for fuel oil, another for kerosene, another for........................... no, i don't think anyone could afford that.

PhinPhan1227
05-14-2004, 02:08 PM
That's part of the whole problem I was talking about. We haven't added any refinery capacity in 15 yrs or so. to blame it on the environmental laws is not close to being fair. Delaware has one of the highest cancer rates in the country, mostly upstate where Motiva enterprises operates. They've had tanks collaspe killing ppl, acid spills killing others there as well. The Bush comes along and "relaxes" the environmental laws JUST for the sake of profit and THAT my friend is hypocritcal. Spin it and blame the Dems for it all you qant which is typical right spin anyway, but that's ok cuz we know what's coming anyway. Yeah, sure, let Bush do away with it all so his precious oil companies can make even more and let these damn refineries contaminate the water and spew out polluntants by the ton that we have to breath in. That a real good recipe for longevity now, ain't it.

BTW, if the Saudis refined all the oil for us, how much dod you think THAT would cost? Let's see, one tanker for gas, another for diesel, another for fuel oil, another for kerosene, another for........................... no, i don't think anyone could afford that.

The blame falls ENTIRELY on the environmental laws. Here's how they work...the new laws that have been passed over the last few decades are all non-grandfathered. They only take effect on new refineries, or refinery expansions. The oil companies can't afford to build new refineries under the existing laws. In some cases they've even had to shut down existing refineries because it would have cost too much to renovate them. Again, that's economic fact. Now, you're suggestion I suppose is that the oil companies should just bite the bullet and absorb the cost. Who cares if their profits tank? Well gee...the shareholders might care because their 401k's tanked because the price per share of Exxon just went in the crapper. And those shareholders are going to turn around and fire the CEO or entire board of directors who did such a stupid thing. So what you're suggesting is that out of a sense of civic duty, the heads of Exxon and every other oil company should get themselves fired within a 5 month period. Tell me that's what YOU would do in their situations? Come on, tell me that's what you would do? Oh, and lets not even talk about the workers who would get laid off when the oil companies stock went in the crapper...that's a whole 'nother discussion.

TerryTate
05-14-2004, 02:56 PM
We didn't go to war in Iraq for oil, as you can see going in there is rasing oil prices. Oooops there goes that theory by the left.

Haliburton is a world class org, and it is not uncommon during times of war for an Administration to choose, quickly, companies they want to use because of a positive long term track record. Haliburton has been used by DEM's and REP's, anyone implying that there was some sort of exclusive prefernce for Haliburton by this administration is simply ignorant. I'm not trying to bash you, but Haliburton is almost alone in what they provide to rebuilding a country. The fact that Cheney worked for that company is neither here or there. If he did something illegal I'm certain he would have been charged by now. He hasn't so obviously it's a moot point.

As I point out, the implication by some ppl is that dirty $ from oil is more evil than say dirty $ from a cellular company. I don't see the dif at all. Because I do not think for 1 second we went into Iraq for oil. We are there because Iraq was a serious risk to our safety after 9/11. The world changed, and for 1 year everyone in this country was with this concept, but now for political reasons one side is trying splinter this countries focus. I think it's shameful.

Oliver...

I never said that they were going into IRaq for oil, i said that it makes people think that, im waiting to see if the motive the government tells me was true or if it was for something else.....

The bottom line for me is that there still hasnt been WMD found, and regardless of whether it was moved or not, it's still not there ,and thats why I have slowly gone from supporting the war to not supporting the war....I believe the #s are over 700 in american casualties, and there still hasnt been WMD found.

ohall
05-14-2004, 05:50 PM
I never said that they were going into IRaq for oil, i said that it makes people think that, im waiting to see if the motive the government tells me was true or if it was for something else.....

The bottom line for me is that there still hasnt been WMD found, and regardless of whether it was moved or not, it's still not there ,and thats why I have slowly gone from supporting the war to not supporting the war....I believe the #s are over 700 in american casualties, and there still hasnt been WMD found.

It's not important to you that the UN may have delayed for Saddam to move those WMD? I know to me that is a huge reason why I am a REP. It's something that REP's would never be a part of knowingly or ignorantly.

I'm sorry 700 casualties even though awful, is something you should give credit to this adminstration for keeping the casualties #'s so low. This administration has given everything it has to protect and save American soldiers lives while in combat. Yet the ELITE liberal media constantly jumps right over that reality, and turns it into a negative not a positive.

Oliver...

DeDolfan
05-15-2004, 10:23 AM
The blame falls ENTIRELY on the environmental laws. Here's how they work...the new laws that have been passed over the last few decades are all non-grandfathered. They only take effect on new refineries, or refinery expansions. The oil companies can't afford to build new refineries under the existing laws. In some cases they've even had to shut down existing refineries because it would have cost too much to renovate them. Again, that's economic fact. Now, you're suggestion I suppose is that the oil companies should just bite the bullet and absorb the cost. Who cares if their profits tank? Well gee...the shareholders might care because their 401k's tanked because the price per share of Exxon just went in the crapper. And those shareholders are going to turn around and fire the CEO or entire board of directors who did such a stupid thing. So what you're suggesting is that out of a sense of civic duty, the heads of Exxon and every other oil company should get themselves fired within a 5 month period. Tell me that's what YOU would do in their situations? Come on, tell me that's what you would do? Oh, and lets not even talk about the workers who would get laid off when the oil companies stock went in the crapper...that's a whole 'nother discussion.

Hell yes I would if it comes down to protecting the environment and people's lives. which is more important, lives or "keeping 401Ks from tanking"? Cost to much to renovate? You have GOT to be kidding! too much as compared to what? Well, just listen to this cold hard fact.................. if you simply let the oil companies [and other] just operate the way THEY see fit, ruin the environment, no safe water to drink, etc., there won't be many ppl left living to worry about their 401s, a job or whatever. Granted, either way we go, it's gonna be a catch-22 for someone but when faced with hard choices, i think it makes more sense to do the things that protect people rather than making it convenient for others ie, profits and such.
Here's another "novel idea" so the oil ppl don't have to build anymore "expensive" refineries. How about everybody ditching their huge SUVs [that probably 90% don't really NEED anyway] and drive something that gets triple the mileage. How much do you think that demand would drop just from that alone? Ever wonder what kind of ties that the oil and motor companies may have together? You think maybe the oil ppl encourage production of the gas guzzler? But as far as oil co. folks getting laid off, wqhat difference does that make [to Bush]? Hell, he sends alot of jobs overseas anyway so what difference does a few more make. That follows right down his alley.

DeDolfan
05-15-2004, 10:32 AM
I never said that they were going into IRaq for oil, i said that it makes people think that, im waiting to see if the motive the government tells me was true or if it was for something else.....

The bottom line for me is that there still hasnt been WMD found, and regardless of whether it was moved or not, it's still not there ,and thats why I have slowly gone from supporting the war to not supporting the war....I believe the #s are over 700 in american casualties, and there still hasnt been WMD found.

I agree. Most ppl did support the war, going in. Since then, we have found out about the bad intel and all the other things and the right accuses the left of flip flopping on it. IMO, that is pretty stupid since all that has been done is realizing that a mistake/s was/were made and the left is simply 'fessing up of sorts. Bush is so arrogant and will not acknowledge any mistakes to begin with and heaven help us if he is re-elected cuz if you think he is arrogant now, just wait and see after he's re-elected [if so]. I'm sorry that I ever supported him in 2000, but THAT mistake will not be made again.

DeDolfan
05-15-2004, 10:48 AM
We are there because Iraq was a serious risk to our safety after 9/11. The world changed, and for 1 year everyone in this country was with this concept, but now for political reasons one side is trying splinter this countries focus. I think it's shameful.

Oliver...


This is where I take exception. the bush admin petitioned the world/UN the need to go to war with Iraq. They had all these films, pics, whatever as "proof" and the whole country bought into it for good reason, at the time. HOWEVE, last fall, reoprts started coming out about the bad intel, no WMDs found, no proven ties to global terrorism, no this, no that. It was then that ppl starting jumping ship AND for good reason. those folks saw the mistakes that were made. Bush, to this day STILL hasn't. As it trurns out, iraq was no more a threat to us than anyone else. N Korea was/is actually more of a threat to us than Iraq. Why was Iraq chosen? Hmmm. it is a shame, i'll agree, that the countries focus is being splintered. But, iMO, that has been done by the right, since they apparently still are of the mind that no mistakes have been made. And admitting to them and apologizing for them is an entirely different matter. A person's worth is alot more when they realize mistakes are made and 'fessing up. Otherwise, they lose alot/all respect they may have had. But, the key there is to "realize" it first. maybe that is their "out"? ;)

Dolfan954
05-15-2004, 02:35 PM
I'm on the ABB (Anybody But Bush) bandwagon. I'd vote for Kerry.

Phin19
05-15-2004, 02:56 PM
It's not important to you that the UN may have delayed for Saddam to move those WMD? I know to me that is a huge reason why I am a REP. It's something that REP's would never be a part of knowingly or ignorantly.

I'm sorry 700 casualties even though awful, is something you should give credit to this adminstration for keeping the casualties #'s so low. This administration has given everything it has to protect and save American soldiers lives while in combat. Yet the ELITE liberal media constantly jumps right over that reality, and turns it into a negative not a positive.

Oliver...

Goerge Bush is finishing what his daddy started, WMD, mmm. . . it´s naive to believe that. North Korea is much more of a threat regarding WMD (they have openly theaten the US with their nuclear program) and Bush hasn´t sent an army there . . . again ¿where are the WMD? let´s face the facts and not make up THEORIES of what might have happened to them.

Dolfan954
05-15-2004, 03:03 PM
Goerge Bush is finishing what his daddy started, WMD, mmm. . . it´s naive to believe that. North Korea is much more of a threat regarding WMD (they have openly theaten the US with their nuclear program) and Bush hasn´t sent an army there . . . again ¿where are the WMD? let´s face the facts and not make up THEORIES of what might have happened to them.
My guess is there's no substantial oil reserves in North Korea. If there's no potential financial gain, America doesn't care.

ohall
05-15-2004, 05:53 PM
Goerge Bush is finishing what his daddy started, WMD, mmm. . . it´s naive to believe that. North Korea is much more of a threat regarding WMD (they have openly theaten the US with their nuclear program) and Bush hasn´t sent an army there . . . again ¿where are the WMD? let´s face the facts and not make up THEORIES of what might have happened to them.

Why would they send the military into N Korea? I wasn't aware there have been 13-years of failed diplomacy, with them thumbing their nose at the world by shooting at our planes enforcing a no fly zone on an almost daily basis for 9-years. I wasn’t aware that they have tried to kill one of our ex-Presidents. The list can go on and on.

It's a fact there were WMD in Iraq pre-invasion, everyone agreed on that, the UN, Clinton, Kerry, Bush #41 and Bush #43. You name them they all agreed WMD were in there. Even Howard Dean has said he thought WMD were in Iraq. What took place was the UN delayed for Saddam and the WMD were moved. The UN food for oil controversy makes that pretty darn clear.

Naive huh?

Oliver...

PhinPhan1227
05-16-2004, 04:50 AM
Hell yes I would if it comes down to protecting the environment and people's lives. which is more important, lives or "keeping 401Ks from tanking"? Cost to much to renovate? You have GOT to be kidding! too much as compared to what? Well, just listen to this cold hard fact.................. if you simply let the oil companies [and other] just operate the way THEY see fit, ruin the environment, no safe water to drink, etc., there won't be many ppl left living to worry about their 401s, a job or whatever. Granted, either way we go, it's gonna be a catch-22 for someone but when faced with hard choices, i think it makes more sense to do the things that protect people rather than making it convenient for others ie, profits and such.
Here's another "novel idea" so the oil ppl don't have to build anymore "expensive" refineries. How about everybody ditching their huge SUVs [that probably 90% don't really NEED anyway] and drive something that gets triple the mileage. How much do you think that demand would drop just from that alone? Ever wonder what kind of ties that the oil and motor companies may have together? You think maybe the oil ppl encourage production of the gas guzzler? But as far as oil co. folks getting laid off, wqhat difference does that make [to Bush]? Hell, he sends alot of jobs overseas anyway so what difference does a few more make. That follows right down his alley.


FINE...finefinefine!! If the American people decide that the environment is worth paying $5.00/gallon for gas like Europe does, that's GREAT!! But it's INSANE to blame Bush when it's KERRY's side of the table that did it. That DEFINES hypocrite. And in answer to your question...it costs too much to renovate a refinery becuse the new renovations require the up to date regulations which MASSIVELY increase the cost of production. So if Exxon renovates a refinery it will have to sell its gas MUCH higher than Citgo or Amoco. Are people going to buy the higher priced Exxon gas because they are being more friendly to the environment? Or are the Exxon stations going to watch their pumps sit empty while Citgo and Amoco have lines at theirs? Exxon then goes out of business, or has massive layoffs...which are agin somehow Bush's fault? And those 401k's you're tossing away? That's what some elderly couple is planning on living on for the last 15-20 years of their lives. THEY are DEEPLY concerned with what happens to it. So are all the employees who would lose their jobs. The environment is vital...but so are human lives. A middle ground can be found, but people need to understand the economic impact of their decisions.

DeDolfan
05-16-2004, 01:42 PM
FINE...finefinefine!! If the American people decide that the environment is worth paying $5.00/gallon for gas like Europe does, that's GREAT!! But it's INSANE to blame Bush when it's KERRY's side of the table that did it. That DEFINES hypocrite. And in answer to your question...it costs too much to renovate a refinery becuse the new renovations require the up to date regulations which MASSIVELY increase the cost of production. So if Exxon renovates a refinery it will have to sell its gas MUCH higher than Citgo or Amoco. Are people going to buy the higher priced Exxon gas because they are being more friendly to the environment? Or are the Exxon stations going to watch their pumps sit empty while Citgo and Amoco have lines at theirs? Exxon then goes out of business, or has massive layoffs...which are agin somehow Bush's fault? And those 401k's you're tossing away? That's what some elderly couple is planning on living on for the last 15-20 years of their lives. THEY are DEEPLY concerned with what happens to it. So are all the employees who would lose their jobs. The environment is vital...but so are human lives. A middle ground can be found, but people need to understand the economic impact of their decisions.

first of all, if a refinery is upgraded, it would aLL go up, not just Exxon's. around here at least anyway, all brands come from the same refinery. Makes no differencs, exxon, Mobil, Shell, BP, Citgo, pic one. We have the same brands here as well as where you're from. All our gas comes from the same place. What does that tell you? It tells me that the oil companies have some sort of a shared plan together in refining oil.
I am not suggesting that spending more for fuel is a good thing [economically]. Thing is that you're not able to look beyond those things to gain the whole big picture. If you relax the enviromental laws, there will not be enough ppl left to enjoy anything, let alone cheap oil. You say it was Kerry's "side" that is responsible [for the epa laws, etc.]? uuhhh, who was is that has recently went against alot of the clean air laws? BTW, big biz will not police themselves to not screw up the environment, that much has already been proven. Otherwise there would have been no need for any regulation to begin with, ya? So please spare me all of this "rightist ertremeist" rhetoric. It starts to sound like a little kid in a candy store that can't have his way !! ;) :D

DeDolfan
05-16-2004, 01:52 PM
Why would they send the military into N Korea? I wasn't aware there have been 13-years of failed diplomacy, with them thumbing their nose at the world by shooting at our planes enforcing a no fly zone on an almost daily basis for 9-years. I wasn’t aware that they have tried to kill one of our ex-Presidents. The list can go on and on.

It's a fact there were WMD in Iraq pre-invasion, everyone agreed on that, the UN, Clinton, Kerry, Bush #41 and Bush #43. You name them they all agreed WMD were in there. Even Howard Dean has said he thought WMD were in Iraq. What took place was the UN delayed for Saddam and the WMD were moved. The UN food for oil controversy makes that pretty darn clear.

Naive huh?

Oliver...

Failed diplomacy has been going on alot longer than 13 yrs in N Korea. Like since the late 40s. The rest may just be aNY excuse to go in there, iMO.
Yes, it is a fact that there were WMDs in Iraq pre-invasion [pre march 2003] but what you fail to realize is that word "were", which means past tense but not now, or even at the time of invasion. The right will still not acknowledge that at all, any of them. There is NO proof of it at the time the plan for war was being drawn up. This is like an old west lynch mob. One person makes a claim and the rest follow suit. Still do even after being shown proof otherwise. That is not the kind of leadership I want any longer. Bush is just too stubborn and arrogant to be anything different. he is like the leader of the lemmings. Knowing the cliff is just ahead but still expects the rest to follow. Sorry, not this cat. Like I said, i supported him beforew, but i'll not any longer. As much as i detested al Gore, I'm thinking now that we may have been better off with him instead.

ohall
05-16-2004, 03:02 PM
Failed diplomacy has been going on alot longer than 13 yrs in N Korea. Like since the late 40s. The rest may just be aNY excuse to go in there, iMO.
Yes, it is a fact that there were WMDs in Iraq pre-invasion [pre march 2003] but what you fail to realize is that word "were", which means past tense but not now, or even at the time of invasion. The right will still not acknowledge that at all, any of them. There is NO proof of it at the time the plan for war was being drawn up. This is like an old west lynch mob. One person makes a claim and the rest follow suit. Still do even after being shown proof otherwise. That is not the kind of leadership I want any longer. Bush is just too stubborn and arrogant to be anything different. he is like the leader of the lemmings. Knowing the cliff is just ahead but still expects the rest to follow. Sorry, not this cat. Like I said, i supported him beforew, but i'll not any longer. As much as i detested al Gore, I'm thinking now that we may have been better off with him instead.

BECAUSE THE UN DELAYED FOR SADDAM SO HE COULD MOVE THE WMD. Think what you like, but if WMD were there as a fact, and the UN delayed the invasion, 1 + 1 still = 2.

North Korea is a problem, but they have never invaded South Korea at least not since the 50's or have they used any WMD on it's own ppl. Keep spinning about North Korea all you want to, but they are sitting down to discuss things, this is something Iraq never did with any seriousness as long as Saddam was running that country.

Oliver...

DeDolfan
05-16-2004, 03:45 PM
BECAUSE THE UN DELAYED FOR SADDAM SO HE COULD MOVE THE WMD. Think what you like, but if WMD were there as a fact, and the UN delayed the invasion, 1 + 1 still = 2.

North Korea is a problem, but they have never invaded South Korea at least not since the 50's or have they used any WMD on it's own ppl. Keep spinning about North Korea all you want to, but they are sitting down to discuss things, this is something Iraq never did with any seriousness as long as Saddam was running that country.

Oliver...

As I told you before, I don't believe those WMDs were just moved b4 the war. We would have know that already with all the imaging that we posess UNLESS we already have it but since it would not help our cause for going to war..........................................
I only brought N Korea to begin with because you were saying how much of a threat i raq was to us and I simply countered with N Korea since there were and are more of a threat to us that Iraq ever was. You think we could have marched thru N Korea with the same results that we did in iraq? Hardly cause we may have just gotten our asssesss kicked a bit. what real spin is about using WMDs on their own ppl. Granted, it was horrible that Sadaam used them on his own ppl but what gave us the right to become the "self annointed remover of evil"? Saddam didn't do us in but rather his own ppl. i'm not saying that it makes the situation right, but neither does it make us right for invading them. We had no world support and there must have been a good reason for that. Bush should have yanked the chain back when sadaam was captured. That was what "we were supposed to do" in the first place. Let them make up their own government and laws, etc. They don't even want us there now. Most were grateful for taking out Saddam, fine, and now, we have worn out welcome. How long will it take for Bush to understand that? How many ppl have been killed SINCE Saddam's capture than before?

ohall
05-16-2004, 08:09 PM
As I told you before, I don't believe those WMDs were just moved b4 the war. We would have know that already with all the imaging that we posess UNLESS we already have it but since it would not help our cause for going to war..........................................


Nonsense!

The precursors and most of the chem and bio WMD that you're talking about would fit inside 5-25 semi-trucks! Tell me, how is anyone supposed to know with the thousands of trucks crossing in-between Iraq and Jordan/Syria on a weekly basis what is on those trucks?

Ignore reality as much as you wan to. No offenses, but most DEM’s appear to want to leave their common sense behind when talking about WMD in Iraq.

North Korea is not as big a threat to America now as Iraq was 1.5 years ago. They do not have WMD to give/sell to terrorist that would in turn use it against America with an attack to make 9/11 look like a fire works show. They are not going to attack South Korea with the Nuclear bombs. They know if they did, they would be destroyed within minutes by America. Their leader may be crazy, but he ain't stupid.

Oliver...

PhinPhan1227
05-17-2004, 12:22 AM
first of all, if a refinery is upgraded, it would aLL go up, not just Exxon's. around here at least anyway, all brands come from the same refinery. Makes no differencs, exxon, Mobil, Shell, BP, Citgo, pic one. We have the same brands here as well as where you're from. All our gas comes from the same place. What does that tell you? It tells me that the oil companies have some sort of a shared plan together in refining oil.
I am not suggesting that spending more for fuel is a good thing [economically]. Thing is that you're not able to look beyond those things to gain the whole big picture. If you relax the enviromental laws, there will not be enough ppl left to enjoy anything, let alone cheap oil. You say it was Kerry's "side" that is responsible [for the epa laws, etc.]? uuhhh, who was is that has recently went against alot of the clean air laws? BTW, big biz will not police themselves to not screw up the environment, that much has already been proven. Otherwise there would have been no need for any regulation to begin with, ya? So please spare me all of this "rightist ertremeist" rhetoric. It starts to sound like a little kid in a candy store that can't have his way !! ;) :D

The refineries are owned by individual companies. If one company has to charge the stations $1.00/gallon, while another refinery, farther away charges $.75/gallon, stations will buy from the farther refinery even though transport costs may make the total $.85/gallon. Stations all buy from the closest source now because the prices are all about the same because the costs are all about the same. Ang again, that's not the key to the issue. The central point to the issue is that environmental laws make it difficult/impossible for companies to expand our gasoline production capacity. Not only is this a fact, it's the plan of the environmental lobby come to fruition. There concern isn't just the air around the refineries, their concern is getting us away from fossil fules all together. And that's a GREAT goal. But it carries a price tag to the consumer and the economy. And it kills me that some people blame Bush for this when it's Kerry's side that brought this about. If the people want this, than it's the route we should take. But Kerry should step up and take the credit/blame for the situation instead of blaming Bush.

DeDolfan
05-17-2004, 10:23 AM
Nonsense!

The precursors and most of the chem and bio WMD that you're talking about would fit inside 5-25 semi-trucks! Tell me, how is anyone supposed to know with the thousands of trucks crossing in-between Iraq and Jordan/Syria on a weekly basis what is on those trucks?

Ignore reality as much as you wan to. No offenses, but most DEM’s appear to want to leave their common sense behind when talking about WMD in Iraq.

North Korea is not as big a threat to America now as Iraq was 1.5 years ago. They do not have WMD to give/sell to terrorist that would in turn use it against America with an attack to make 9/11 look like a fire works show. They are not going to attack South Korea with the Nuclear bombs. They know if they did, they would be destroyed within minutes by America. Their leader may be crazy, but he ain't stupid.

Oliver...

Oliver, as much as i've always respected your opinions [and still do], apparently, we'll never see eye to eye on this. I'm still of the opinion that if we can detect a pimple on a gnat's assss from a satelite surveilance, i'm sure we can determine the movement of ANYTHING Iraq was moving no matter how many vehicles were moving. As far as ignoring reality goes, the Reps will not acknowledge the possibility of anything not suited to their agenda, whatever that really is anymore. That is why they have lost my support this time around.

Again, the weapons N Korea posesses make them more dangerous than Iraq iwas then. At the time, Iraq didn't have the WMDs any longer. They were not proven to al-qeida, etc. i believe al-quida has infiltraded Iraq since perhaps, but not at the time of question. saddaam probably may have supported them if he could but knew that if he did he couldn't afford the consequences. i still contend that iraq was not a threat as bush made it out to be. All the reports, yada, yada, show this but yet he can not prove them to be false. Why is this? IMO, the FAR right is so deep into bush that they feel that he can not possibly be wrong. Well, im sorry, but he is being shown to be wrong more everyday. I liken it to nothing more than false hope and faith.

DeDolfan
05-17-2004, 10:53 AM
The refineries are owned by individual companies. If one company has to charge the stations $1.00/gallon, while another refinery, farther away charges $.75/gallon, stations will buy from the farther refinery even though transport costs may make the total $.85/gallon. Stations all buy from the closest source now because the prices are all about the same because the costs are all about the same. Ang again, that's not the key to the issue. The central point to the issue is that environmental laws make it difficult/impossible for companies to expand our gasoline production capacity. Not only is this a fact, it's the plan of the environmental lobby come to fruition. There concern isn't just the air around the refineries, their concern is getting us away from fossil fules all together. And that's a GREAT goal. But it carries a price tag to the consumer and the economy. And it kills me that some people blame Bush for this when it's Kerry's side that brought this about. If the people want this, than it's the route we should take. But Kerry should step up and take the credit/blame for the situation instead of blaming Bush.

First, I aplogize for misunderstanding you. I was thinking you meant kerry's side for the failing EPA laws, etc. You are correct, the Dems are more for the ePA lwas than the reps.

I understand that the laws make it difficult for refinery expansion, etc. But we simply cannot have it both ways in that we can't simply trash all the EPA laws for the sake of way cheap oil refining. My feeling is that the oil companies are so deep into this and think they are as much of the problem as anyone. Think back 150 yrs b4 fossil fuel really began to be used. For all eternity, this world has survived on it's own by whatever means it could. No ozone problems, greenhouse effects, whatever. When the indudtrial revolution struck, progress, well, progressed at an alarming rate compared to the rest of history. Fossil fuel burning engines spewed forth all sorts of pollutants albeit unbeknownst at the time. but it is like any other thing, once realized, it's often way past the point of a quick real fix. iMO, progess has far outpaced our own ability to be able to effectively handle it. Should we have the technology to effeively handle our own progress? if we can go to Mars, split an atom to power ships almost indefinitely, etc., i would like to think so. back in the 70s, there were federal madates to the motor companies to produce cars with better gas mileage, etc. What happened? Detroit produces monster vehicles now with sucky gas mileage and under little pressure to do much else. Think the oil lobby had anything to do with it? i think so, since it was not in the oil companies "best interest" to have a nation driving vehicles getting over 60 mpg. They'd much rather have them getting 15 instead, having big SUVs dropping over 80 bucks per pop to fill up. but this only scratches the surface as I'm sure none of us here can really comprhend was truly and totally goes on inside. IMO, all lobbying should be outlawed. Otherwise, big money will always get what it wants, and that is not right. Til then, the little guy has to keep up with the ante.

PhinPhan1227
05-17-2004, 11:40 AM
First, I aplogize for misunderstanding you. I was thinking you meant kerry's side for the failing EPA laws, etc. You are correct, the Dems are more for the ePA lwas than the reps.

I understand that the laws make it difficult for refinery expansion, etc. But we simply cannot have it both ways in that we can't simply trash all the EPA laws for the sake of way cheap oil refining. My feeling is that the oil companies are so deep into this and think they are as much of the problem as anyone. Think back 150 yrs b4 fossil fuel really began to be used. For all eternity, this world has survived on it's own by whatever means it could. No ozone problems, greenhouse effects, whatever. When the indudtrial revolution struck, progress, well, progressed at an alarming rate compared to the rest of history. Fossil fuel burning engines spewed forth all sorts of pollutants albeit unbeknownst at the time. but it is like any other thing, once realized, it's often way past the point of a quick real fix. iMO, progess has far outpaced our own ability to be able to effectively handle it. Should we have the technology to effeively handle our own progress? if we can go to Mars, split an atom to power ships almost indefinitely, etc., i would like to think so. back in the 70s, there were federal madates to the motor companies to produce cars with better gas mileage, etc. What happened? Detroit produces monster vehicles now with sucky gas mileage and under little pressure to do much else. Think the oil lobby had anything to do with it? i think so, since it was not in the oil companies "best interest" to have a nation driving vehicles getting over 60 mpg. They'd much rather have them getting 15 instead, having big SUVs dropping over 80 bucks per pop to fill up. but this only scratches the surface as I'm sure none of us here can really comprhend was truly and totally goes on inside. IMO, all lobbying should be outlawed. Otherwise, big money will always get what it wants, and that is not right. Til then, the little guy has to keep up with the ante.

I don't disagree with you. If the American people are willing to make the economic/environmental trade, so be it. I just find it insulting for KErry to pass that buck on to Bush.

PhinPhan1227
05-17-2004, 11:43 AM
Oliver, as much as i've always respected your opinions [and still do], apparently, we'll never see eye to eye on this. I'm still of the opinion that if we can detect a pimple on a gnat's assss from a satelite surveilance, i'm sure we can determine the movement of ANYTHING Iraq was moving no matter how many vehicles were moving. As far as ignoring reality goes, the Reps will not acknowledge the possibility of anything not suited to their agenda, whatever that really is anymore. That is why they have lost my support this time around.

Again, the weapons N Korea posesses make them more dangerous than Iraq iwas then. At the time, Iraq didn't have the WMDs any longer. They were not proven to al-qeida, etc. i believe al-quida has infiltraded Iraq since perhaps, but not at the time of question. saddaam probably may have supported them if he could but knew that if he did he couldn't afford the consequences. i still contend that iraq was not a threat as bush made it out to be. All the reports, yada, yada, show this but yet he can not prove them to be false. Why is this? IMO, the FAR right is so deep into bush that they feel that he can not possibly be wrong. Well, im sorry, but he is being shown to be wrong more everyday. I liken it to nothing more than false hope and faith.

N Korea isn't a military option...terrain, the presence of nukes, and fanatical support of his people mean that we will not invade N. Korea...not in the near
future anyway.

WharfRat
05-17-2004, 03:52 PM
My guess is there's no substantial oil reserves in North Korea. If there's no potential financial gain, America doesn't care.

More likely... it would be way too much to take on at this point.

We're overextended now.... and quite possible pulling troops FROM S Korea, to bolster troops in Iraq.
I know.. if we went after N Korea INSTEAD of Iraq, you'd think we wouldn't be over-extended....

However... with our troops still in Afghanistan, Serbia, etc etc... we still would have been too over-extended to take on a campaign against N Korea. That would not be nearly as easy to accomplish as Iraq and Afghanistan were. We attempted that once, with a LOT of help (UN forces were huge in the Korean war), and couldn't do it then.... N Korea would be something we would have to throw the full force of our military against, something we are certainly not prepared to do at this point. Also, don't think that China wouldn't jump in to help...again.
So, it was much better to resolve it diplomatically... their threats of firing Nukes at us were empty ones. They know damn well that even though we've cut back considerably, we still have them too... and with our missile defense systems, chances are, they'd come out of it MUCH worse than we would...

ohall
05-17-2004, 05:22 PM
Oliver, as much as i've always respected your opinions [and still do], apparently, we'll never see eye to eye on this. I'm still of the opinion that if we can detect a pimple on a gnat's assss from a satelite surveilance, i'm sure we can determine the movement of ANYTHING Iraq was moving no matter how many vehicles were moving. As far as ignoring reality goes, the Reps will not acknowledge the possibility of anything not suited to their agenda, whatever that really is anymore. That is why they have lost my support this time around.

Again, the weapons N Korea posesses make them more dangerous than Iraq iwas then. At the time, Iraq didn't have the WMDs any longer. They were not proven to al-qeida, etc. i believe al-quida has infiltraded Iraq since perhaps, but not at the time of question. saddaam probably may have supported them if he could but knew that if he did he couldn't afford the consequences. i still contend that iraq was not a threat as bush made it out to be. All the reports, yada, yada, show this but yet he can not prove them to be false. Why is this? IMO, the FAR right is so deep into bush that they feel that he can not possibly be wrong. Well, im sorry, but he is being shown to be wrong more everyday. I liken it to nothing more than false hope and faith.

We have some of the BEST tech in the world, no doubt, but if WMD is being loaded into a semi-trucks let's say in a milk factory how are we supposed to know with all our tech that that there is WMD being loaded into that truck? Common sense tells me with human intelligence would help with that not a satelite in the sky. And we are lacking in that area in the Middle East.

I have no doubt that Saddam used his connection with the corrupt UN officials to delay and staul the US for as long as they could. After all he wasn't just giving them $ so their kids could have a GREAT education. Saddam obviously wanted something in return for the $ he was giving those bastards.

I agree I don't think we'll ever agree about this until lets say the UN tells you it happened. I trust our government and I use my common sense, no matter who the President is.

Tell me, what about the Sirin and Mustard gas IED's that have been found in Iraq over the last month? What does your common sense tell you about that?

Oliver...

PhinPhan1227
05-17-2004, 05:46 PM
Oliver, as much as i've always respected your opinions [and still do], apparently, we'll never see eye to eye on this. I'm still of the opinion that if we can detect a pimple on a gnat's assss from a satelite surveilance, i'm sure we can determine the movement of ANYTHING Iraq was moving no matter how many vehicles were moving. As far as ignoring reality goes, the Reps will not acknowledge the possibility of anything not suited to their agenda, whatever that really is anymore. That is why they have lost my support this time around.

.


Our high tech survelance missed Saddams son leaving the country with 4 tractor trailers worth of cash from the Iraqi national bank. It also missed the burying of 25 Migs in the desert. You've read too much Tom Clancy if you think that we can watch an area the size of California. Look at it this way...we can't even track truckloads/boatloads of drugs in and out of THIS country, with the full support of the military and police on the ground. Our surveilance is designed to track large bodies of troops...not 3-4 tractor trailors in an oil producing country which probably owns hundreds of thousands of such trailors.

BigFinFan
05-17-2004, 05:49 PM
Goerge Bush is finishing what his daddy started, WMD, mmm. . . it´s naive to believe that. North Korea is much more of a threat regarding WMD (they have openly theaten the US with their nuclear program) and Bush hasn´t sent an army there . . . again ¿where are the WMD? let´s face the facts and not make up THEORIES of what might have happened to them.

Do you know for a fact that we haven't sent the military there?

I know otherwise!!!

ohall
05-17-2004, 05:59 PM
Our high tech survelance missed Saddams son leaving the country with 4 tractor trailers worth of cash from the Iraqi national bank. It also missed the burying of 25 Migs in the desert. You've read too much Tom Clancy if you think that we can watch an area the size of California. Look at it this way...we can't even track truckloads/boatloads of drugs in and out of THIS country, with the full support of the military and police on the ground. Our surveilance is designed to track large bodies of troops...not 3-4 tractor trailors in an oil producing country which probably owns hundreds of thousands of such trailors.

If a Predator is not flying in that area and of course predator's would not have been flying around in Iraq at that time. Satelite has it's limitations and the Iraqi's knew when there was a satelite blackout over any given area in Iraq. Tech is important, but there are limits to the tech.

I don't know why ppl remove their common sense when they are talking about WMD in Iraq. It's not like it's fiction that there was WMD in Iraq.

And now we hear about Sarin and Mustard gas IED's being used in Iraq. I wonder how the ELITE liberal press is going to spin this. I have gone to MSNBC and CNN web sites and I don't see anything about it on their sites. Only FOX News has it up on their site, and has it as their lead story. I wonder why that is that only 1 of the 3 main news sites have it on their sites?

Oliver...

WharfRat
05-17-2004, 05:59 PM
Do you know for a fact that we haven't sent the military there?

I know otherwise!!!

They probably hitched a ride on one of your "sea buses" no doubt... :salute:


Since you know the "prove it" posts are coming....
Please don't put yourself at risk by posting any details of anything that may be classified.... it's not worth it.....

ohall
05-17-2004, 06:01 PM
They probably hitched a ride on one of your "sea buses" no doubt... :salute:


Since you know the "prove it" posts are coming....
Please don't put yourself at risk by posting any details of anything that may be classified.... it's not worth it.....

I think most ppl would think it's safe to assume special forces go in and out of North Korea and other countries when needed all the time.

Then again some ppl only believe what they want to believe.

Oliver...

Phin19
05-17-2004, 09:04 PM
"Then again some ppl only believe what they want to believe".
this is so ironic.

ohall
05-17-2004, 09:22 PM
"Then again some ppl only believe what they want to believe".
this is so ironic.

Agreed, some ppl would rather trust a madman like Saddam or a corrupt orginization like the UN.

Me, I'll trust our leaders. I trust Clinton, Kerry, Dean and Bush on this subject. They all agree, Saddam had WMD pre-invasion. Obviously those WMD are no longer there, or at least most them aren't any longer. I would have to leave my common sense behind to not understand they were destroyed or moved while the UN delayed for Saddam. After all, we're talking about 13-years of delays on the UN's part, not 13 days.

If that's the POV you want to believe, more power to you.

Oliver...

WharfRat
05-17-2004, 09:43 PM
I think most ppl would think it's safe to assume special forces go in and out of North Korea and other countries when needed all the time.




Yes... and?

How is that assumption (which is probably correct) giving details? :huh:

ohall
05-17-2004, 11:01 PM
Yes... and?

How is that assumption (which is probably correct) giving details? :huh:

Who said it was? Not I.

Oliver...

DeDolfan
05-18-2004, 12:12 PM
We have some of the BEST tech in the world, no doubt, but if WMD is being loaded into a semi-trucks let's say in a milk factory how are we supposed to know with all our tech that that there is WMD being loaded into that truck? Common sense tells me with human intelligence would help with that not a satelite in the sky. And we are lacking in that area in the Middle East.

I have no doubt that Saddam used his connection with the corrupt UN officials to delay and staul the US for as long as they could. After all he wasn't just giving them $ so their kids could have a GREAT education. Saddam obviously wanted something in return for the $ he was giving those bastards.

I agree I don't think we'll ever agree about this until lets say the UN tells you it happened. I trust our government and I use my common sense, no matter who the President is.

Tell me, what about the Sirin and Mustard gas IED's that have been found in Iraq over the last month? What does your common sense tell you about that?

Oliver...

OMG !!! In a MILK factory???? :shakeno:

WharfRat
05-18-2004, 12:25 PM
Who said it was? Not I.

Oliver...


Perhaps I misread/misunderstood your post...I thought, well, I'm not sure what I thought, I think I was confused as to what your point was... :dunno:

BigFinFan
05-18-2004, 12:38 PM
Too many of you believe EVERYTHING the media tells you!

Phin19
05-18-2004, 03:38 PM
Agreed, some ppl would rather trust a madman like Saddam or a corrupt orginization like the UN.

Me, I'll trust our leaders. I trust Clinton, Kerry, Dean and Bush on this subject. They all agree, Saddam had WMD pre-invasion. Obviously those WMD are no longer there, or at least most them aren't any longer. I would have to leave my common sense behind to not understand they were destroyed or moved while the UN delayed for Saddam. After all, we're talking about 13-years of delays on the UN's part, not 13 days.

If that's the POV you want to believe, more power to you.

Oliver...

common sense tells me that Iraq was defenseless when the invasion started. although Iraq once had WMD, i highly doubt they had WMD when the war started.

you make it seem like the UN had a pact with Saddam :shakeno:
the UN has supported the US in wars, like in 1991, or in serbia in 1999. it`s just that this war is absurd but you don`t believe it just because Bush says it`s a fair war. leaders can be wrong sometimes, after all, they are humans like us.

ohall
05-18-2004, 03:57 PM
OMG !!! In a MILK factory???? :shakeno:

Umm yes, if one was going to combine some every day product and a chem or bio plant a milk/cheese factory would be ideal. You can switch a legitament milk factory over to a chem factory in a matter of weeks. At least that's what I've read. I wouldn't know from personal experience. :D

And I noticed you didn;t even approach the fact that thosands of trucks were going between Iraq and Syrai/Jordan on a weekly basis. Do you actually believe our tech can track all those trucks and where they were really going? If not I believe you have to admit those WMD could be any where, and they could be any where because of the UN and their corruption with the food for oil program.

Oliver...

ohall
05-18-2004, 04:01 PM
common sense tells me that Iraq was defenseless when the invasion started. although Iraq once had WMD, i highly doubt they had WMD when the war started.

you make it seem like the UN had a pact with Saddam :shakeno:
the UN has supported the US in wars, like in 1991, or in serbia in 1999. it`s just that this war is absurd but you don`t believe it just because Bush says it`s a fair war. leaders can be wrong sometimes, after all, they are humans like us.

Turn on a channel other than CNN and you'll figure out the UN most certainly did have a pact with Saddam. The food for oil scandal makes it very clear why the UN was delaying for Saddam. They wanted to fatten their already fat pockets at the expense of world peace and on the stomachs and health of innocent Iraqi women and children.

The UN is a joke, and their corruption will be their down fall. The US needs to work with NATO more now than the UN IMO. At least NATO will bite after it barks.

A fair war? A war that engages the enemy on their soil rather than on broadway and main in NY? Yeah what is Bush thinking about any way!

Oliver...

BigFinFan
05-18-2004, 04:02 PM
common sense tells me that Iraq was defenseless when the invasion started. although Iraq once had WMD, i highly doubt they had WMD when the war started.

you make it seem like the UN had a pact with Saddam :shakeno:
the UN has supported the US in wars, like in 1991, or in serbia in 1999. it`s just that this war is absurd but you don`t believe it just because Bush says it`s a fair war. leaders can be wrong sometimes, after all, they are humans like us.

You have the right to your opinion that "this war is absurd". How were you able to form this opinion? Unless you went to Iraq and gathered first hand knowledge that they do not have WMD, you are basing your opinion on what you have heard through the media.

Did you know that Military has personnel that gather and analyze many types of information? This information is then verifeid and used to brief the JCS and the NSA.

One thing that you fail to realize is that although President Bush is the Commander in Chief, he did not wake up one morning with a wild hair up his *** and say "Hmmmm...Let me send the boys to invade Iraq".

This process was well planned and it was a joint decision - by many civilian and military advisors. The President cannot delcare war on any country without Congressional Approval.

Maybe the war is absurd to you - you are entitled to your opinion. I for one disagree - because I have been there in battle.

ohall
05-18-2004, 04:08 PM
You have the right to your opinion that "this war is absurd". How were you able to form this opinion? Unless you went to Iraq and gathered first hand knowledge that they do not have WMD, you are basing your opinion on what you have heard through the media.

Did you know that Military has personnel that gather and analyze many types of information? This information is then verifeid and used to brief the JCS and the NSA.

One thing that you fail to realize is that although President Bush is the Commander in Chief, he did not wake up one morning with a wild hair up his *** and say "Hmmmm...Let me send the boys to invade Iraq".

This process was well planned and it was a joint decision - by many civilian and military advisors. The President cannot delcare war on any country without Congressional Approval.

Maybe the war absurd to you - you are entitled to your opinion. I for one disagree - because I have been there in battle.

The problem is certain ppl think Bush is corrupt already because his family made their $ from oil. Now if they made their wealth from let's say cellular phones or ketchup it would be OK. Hunts IMO is much better than Heinze, wouldn't you agree?

You have to understand certain ppl think this President is simply paying Saddam back because Saddam tried to kill his father. You see some ppl try and push their pettyness onto others.

To some ppl Bush is the devil, because he has religious morals. There is no worse offense to some ppl. To some ppl they will do everything to bash Bush even if it means they have to bash this country and their soldiers while saying the whole time they are not. To some ppl it's more important to get social acceptance from Europe rather than standing on their own culture.

Oliver...

BigFinFan
05-18-2004, 04:19 PM
Another problem that too many civilians don't realize is that the War with Iraq (Desert Shield/Storm) never ended! Bill Clinton just never made it known what we were doing over there.

PhinPhan1227
05-18-2004, 07:13 PM
Another problem that too many civilians don't realize is that the War with Iraq (Desert Shield/Storm) never ended! Bill Clinton just never made it known what we were doing over there.


Lol...you're assuming that while getting a hummer Bill CARED what was going on over there.