There is help for Scott

Scott,

Are you tired of the constant barrage of people trying to control your
mind? Is the mother ship reprogramming your thought patterns? Is that
what's wrong with you? Perhaps this might help...

http://zapatopi.net/afdb

We have a president who seems to need one of these also.

H. R. Hofmann

wrote:
We have a president who seems to need one of these also.

H. R. Hofmann


You must be French

A. B. Normal wrote:
wrote:
We have a president who seems to need one of these also.

H. R. Hofmann


You must be French

Based on latest polling, I say he's part of the majority.

WW

"Too Crooda" wrote in message
news:cGhhdHBoaWw=.8e309c3b913205f4800329156ae8b037 @1128784977.nulluser.com...
WaltW wrote:

A. B. Normal wrote:
wrote:
We have a president who seems to need one of these also.

H. R. Hofmann


You must be French

Based on latest polling, I say he's part of the majority.

WW

I guess but, remember, he did better in school than either Gore or Kerry.
Says alot about the
leaders of this country, doesn't it?

A lot of what, exactly?

Too Crooda wrote:

I guess but, remember, he did better in school than either Gore or Kerry. Says alot about the
leaders of this country, doesn't it?

I don't think Bush is stupid. After all, he did graduate from Harvard
Business School. Liberals love to look down on him as being stupid,
which is a serious mistake. He's not stupid at all. He is, however,
incurious, shallow, very insecure, and rigid. He lives in a plexiglass
bubble in which he never has to listen to information that is
contradictory to his unchangeable views. Unfortunately for him, that
bubble is developing serious and widening cracks in recent months.

The supermarket tabloids say he's drinking again. Of course, the stuff
that supermarket tabloids print often isn't true. Not always, however...

I do think he's the most psychologically and emotionally f*cked up
President we've had since at least Nixon. I actually almost feel sorry
for the guy sometimes. At least, I would if it wasn't for the damage he
is doing.

Dave

"Too Crooda" wrote in message
He may may be causing damage, but I have to submit that the real damage
started during
the Clinton years - the lack of response to the terrorist threat, the
polarization of the
electorate, the corporate scandals (the major scandals of Enron and World
Com were hatched
and implemented in the 1996 time frame under the Clinton years).
Unfortunately, you seem
to be blind to his total lack of leadership. In fact, one of the reasons
that Bush was elected
was the backlash to the Clinton/Gore years.


All very well and fine (and quite accurate) but if you want to trace the
origins of the whole thing, you need to go back further than Clinton. Who
was responsible for setting up bin Ladin in Afghanistan in the first place?
Reagan, I think. Course Reagan did pretty much what his advisers told him to
do just like the current moron. The real root of the problem is US foreign
policy in the mideast and elsewhere is creating an atmosphere where many
feel they have nothing to lose.

But the immediate problem is that the US is in Iraq for no good reason. That
is Mr Bush's fault, pure and simple. He created a tiger by the tail. He
can't win and he can't just get out because he will have created another,
much worse Afghanistan. That mistake will remain to haunt the US for decades
to come. And you can't blame anybody but Bush.and his inner circle (Cheney
Rumsfeld, Rice) for that one.

Higher elevations around here got a little snow last week, but its all gone
now.

"Norm" wrote in message
news:J0d2f.128389$1i.8753@pd7tw2no...
He created a tiger by the tail.

Right in front of our eyes, a new metaphor is born.

"Too Crooda" wrote in message

But the immediate problem is that the US is in Iraq for no good reason.

1.) Saddam Hussein was responsible for the deaths of more than 1.2
million.

That was not the reason given before the invasion. However... Is SH the only
dictator who has caused death and destruction? How come we leave the others
alone and go after Iraq? Could it be, perhaps, they have nothing we covet?



2.) Saddam had been disrupting oil/energy prices for years.
Kuwait/threatening Saudi Arabia
etc.
3.) Stable energy prices are essential not just for the US but for every
industrial society not to
mention burgeoning economies like China/India.


Yes, and invading Iraq has certainly addressed THAT concern in a big way
hasn't it?


4.) Oil for Food was an unmitigated disaster largely because of the
hypocrisy of Russia/
France who, despite, their posturing were protecting their own self
economic interests. And
don't forget the corruption of the UN. If it wasn't for these people maybe
Oil of Food might
have worked, but it didn't stand a chance.

Granted, the whole process has been poorly planned/executed but to say
that the world is
better off with Saddam Hussein than without is really pretty stupid.

Saddam Hussein was one person. He may have been evil itself but he was no
threat to anybody outside his own immediate area. The world as a whole is
now a much more dangerous place because of the actions GWB took.





Think of all those people who need to eat, have jobs, support their
families not only the US
but all over the world and how important energy is to that goal.
Throughout this debate, I
have NEVER heard any one express any concern for the economic well-being
of the avg guy
or any comprehension of simple economics.

Its hardly my specialty but I understand enough about economics to know that
oil in Texas, at least pre Katrina/Rita wasn't costing a penny more to take
out of the ground than it did 4 years ago, but it is now selling for twice
as much. Who do you think is profiting from that equation? Where was it the
Bush Family made their fortune again?






That
is Mr Bush's fault, pure and simple.

Wrong, read above - Russia, France and the UN are also very much at fault.

Unless I am sadly mistaken, Russia and France really wanted to stay OUT of
Iraq.

"Sven Golly" wrote in message

Its hardly my specialty but I understand enough about economics to
know that oil in Texas, at least pre Katrina/Rita wasn't costing a
penny more to take out of the ground than it did 4 years ago, but it
is now selling for twice as much. Who do you think is profiting from
that equation? Where was it the Bush Family made their fortune again?

Well on this much you're wrong. The Bush family (going back to Prescott
Bush) made their "fortunes" (certainly nothing like Kerry/Heinz) from
investment banking. Prescott was no angel but he was no oilman either.


I was thinking more geographically but a quick search does turn up
Prescott's ties to Dresser Industries (oil drilling equipment) and
Hydrocarbon Technologies Inc, and GW's links to Arbusto Energy, co-owned
with Khalid bin Mahfouz and Salem bin Laden (hmmm), Bush Exploration,
Spectrum 7 and Harken Energy.
You are correct, however, in the sense that none of these enterprises made
the Bush family particularily wealthy, the majority of their money did come
from investment banking, long before either George ever got involved.




Pulling oil out of the ground gets progressively more expensive with each
passing year. It's probably 4x more expensive to pull oil out of Texas
than it is to get it out of the Arab Gulf countries.


Hmmm...

Why do you suppose this is?




The main problems with pricing are demand, refining capacity (not enough)
and the fact that 75% of the world's supply is under cartel control (and
in politically unstable regions). The US could probably be pretty much
oil independent with what's in Canada (heh),

So, hypothetically speaking, if we (Canada) were to cut back oil production
in retaliation for the current blatant dishonouring of NAFTA in regards to
softwood lumber, should we expect an invasion?