Re: A Taste of Terrorism – Crudely Bitter

by Aaron Fri Apr 04, 2008 3:18 pm

ziggy wrote:
Aaron wrote:You're the one that isn't looking for a converastion. Sam's right about you. All your interested in is bashing Bush.

But Bush started it. All Bush is interested in is self-agrandizment of God's chosen one- the great G.W. Bush. And as long as he's doing that, I'll be tellin' it like it really is. When he's gone, then we can all proclaim, "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!"

Until then, when you and he tell us how grand the U.S. war in Iraq has been, I'm gonna tell 'em how sh!tty that same war has been. Get use to it. Nine more months to go.

And my mommy makes more then yours and my daddy can beat your daddy up. Sounds like more of your childish bs to me.

And if you think for a split second that Obama or Clinton, IF they manage to defeat McCain is going to pull troops out, you're dumber then your post make you out to be.

What will you cry about then? How the dumocrats betrayed the uba liberals. Isn't that the reason the idiot from the green party gives for running every four years or so!!!

lol!

by ziggy Fri Apr 04, 2008 8:43 pm

Aaron wrote:And if you think for a split second that Obama or Clinton, IF they manage to defeat McCain is going to pull troops out, you're dumber then your post make you out to be.

Why would I think that? They have both spent months dancing around that issue- trying as hard as they can to say nothing about it. They don't seem to have any more of a clue about it than you and little Georgie Bush do. McCain at least did say something about it- that another 100 years would be OK with him. Either way, it looks like it's gonna be another long and bloody spell for the U.S. in Iraq and for Iraqis.

by SamCogar Sat Apr 05, 2008 6:22 am

Stephanie wrote:
Sam I disagree. Most of the oil we import comes from Canada & Mexico. I've been doing some reading about this today. I believe the amount of oil we import from our neighbors to the north and the south is probably one of the driving forces behind the NAU, the NAFTA Super Highway, and the unwillingness of this administration and the Congress to take the steps necessary to secure our southern border and deal with the crisis of illegal immigration. If you think the loss of Iraqi oil would be bad, the loss of Mexican oil would be catastrophic.

We only get about 17% of our oil from the Persian Gulf region. We should be spending all those trillions of dollars becoming energy independent by investing in alternative energy sources such as solar, hydro, nuclear etc. We should be spending all those billions of dollars we're sending to Egypt and Israel and Saudi Arabia and dozens and dozens of other nations each year and use those funds to access the massive oil reserve recently discovered in the Dakotas. If we don't take these steps, 20 years from now we will be no closer to energy independence than we are today.

Stephanie, there is one hell of a big difference in "what we are now doing", ....... "what we should be doing", ........ and "what we are going to do".

Now Steph, my concern is "what we are going to do" over the next 20 + years and I guarantee you it will not be much different than "what we are now doing" barring any unforseen global/regional catastrophes.

The public's mindset and habits will not easily change unless there occurs said catastrophe and if you attempt to force a radical change on them you will create a catastrophe. Steph, just try to force "what we should be doing" on the Public School System ......... and see what you get. Razz

Steph, maybe Canada and Mexico are our largest sources of imported oil, ….. but did you know this:

Source: EIA, Weekly Petroleum Status Report, June 30, 2004, In one form or another, the nation imports slightly more than 10% of the gasoline it consumes, the unavoidable outcome of growing motor fuel demand and refining capacity which has not kept pace. This supply is necessary to fill the gap between gasoline production and demand. (source: CRS Report for Congress)

Or this:

US IMPORTS

Jan 08 Crude Oil Imports ----------- 9,513,000 b/d ……... Middle East – 2,261,000 b/d
Jan 08 total imports of petroleum – 11,435,000 b/d ……. Middle East – 2,285,000 b/d

Stephanie, if I look into the future I see the world’s demand for oil and gasoline dramatically increasing as the population increases and more people in Asia become mobile. And the US’s demand will increase as our population increases.

So Steph, it is really unimportant were we are currently importing oil and gasoline from. But what is important is where we are going to be importing oil and gasoline from over the next 20 – 30 years. And that “source” of oil is of “vital interest” to the socio-economic health of the US.

And that makes the stability of the Middle East of “vital interest” to the US.

And that is because that is where most of the world’s known reserves of “easily recoverable ”oil is, to wit:

WORLD PRODUCTION: in 2004 averaged about 83.02 million barrels per day

20 largest oil producers, in million barrels per day:
country - Estimated Reserves - 2004 Production

1. Saudi Arabia - 267 billion bbl - 10.4 mb/d
2. Russia – 60 - 9.3 mb/d
3. USA - 21 - 8.7 mb/d
4. Iran - 132 - 4.1 mb/d
5. Mexico – 13 - 3.8 mb/d
6. China - 18 - 3.6 mb/d
7. Norway - 8 - 3.2 mb/d
8. Canada - 179 (includes tar sands) - 3.1 mb/d
9. Venezuela – 79 – 2.9 mb/d
10. United Arab Emirates – 98 - 2.8 mb/d
11. Kuwait - 104 - 2.5 mb/d
12. Nigeria - 36 - 2.5 mb/d
13. United Kingdom - 4 - 2.1 mb/d
14. Iraq - 115 - 2.0 mb/d
15. Other FSU Mostly Kazakhstan + Azerbaijan – 47 - 1.9 mb/d
16. Algeria - 12 - 1.7 mb/d
17. Brazil - 11 - 1.5 mb/d
18. Libya – 39 - 1.5 mb/d
19. Indonesia - 4 - 1.1 mb/d
20. Angola - 6 - 0.9 mb/d

http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html

Stephanie, if "the shidt hits the fan", ........ how many of those countries can the US depend on importing oil from? geek

And don't go off on a tangent, ....... just answer the question.

by SamCogar Sat Apr 05, 2008 7:56 am

Stephanie wrote:
Ziggy,

Have you forgotten that Aaron said he was ok with occupying Iraq for a 100 years months ago? I called him despicable and my choice of word upset you. I'm sure you didn't forget that. This doesn't upset Aaron, he supports that position.

Steph, if you would avert your eyes for a moment and quit looking at "what happened yesterday" .......... and focus on "what is going to be happening tomorrow" you just might gain an understanding of the reason for Aaron's statement.

Stephanie wrote:To Aaron it's all about oil and nothing else matters. Iraqi lives and bodies and souls don't matter, neither do shattered American bodies, lost lives, or unbelievable debt. To some it's about oil, for some it's about protecting Israel and to others it is about saving face.

Stephanie, your stated opinion is exactly why I firmly believe that no female should ever be placed in "a critical decision making position", ...... because they will more often than not, ..... make an emotional decision that will only benefit a few, rather than making a logical decision that benefits the majority.

Steph, it should be obvious to anyone that your above comments prove that you are more "emotionally concerned" about the health and well being of 150,000+- Military personnel ........ instead of being "logically concerned" about the health and well being of 300,000,000+- American citizens.

Any and all Presidents of these United States should only be making "logical decisions" that best benefit the total populace ....... if said "decision" concerns the total populace.

Stephanie, iffen you could enact your "emotional decision" to recall those 150,000+- Military personnel to get them out of harm's way, .......... then what other "emotional decision" are you planning on making when 300,000,000+- American citizens are placed in harm's way and TENS OF THOUSANDS of them start dying?

OOPS, ...... bad question, ....... "planning on" requires Logical decision making.

So, you will just hafta wait until "THOUSANDS OF CITIZENS START DYING" ......... then you can make some more emotional decisions, ....... right?

eritas Razz

.

by **Stephanie** Sat Apr 05, 2008 7:59 am

Sam,

We shouldn't be depending on anybody, Sam. That's the problem.

At some point in most people's lives, they come to realize there really aren't a whole lot of individuals you can count on. Most people can always depend on their spouse. I can. Most people fortunate enough to still have their parents, can count on them. A lot of people can count on their adult children and some have dependable siblings. There are those of us lucky enough to have a few very dear friends who will stand by our side.

When I look at your list of countries, I don't see the "parent" to the US (GB) as being able to offer much help, they simply don't produce the oil. I do see a couple of close friends, and perhaps one might consider Canada and/or Mexico "sister" nations. I would say if we can count on any of the countries you listed, my money would be on Canada.

I don't consider any Middle Eastern nation to be our "friend", I consider China to be our enemy. Obviously Chavez & Bush want to be enemies. I could go on but you get the point.

Right now we're not importing any oil from Iran and haven't for a good while. Right now, with oil over $100 a barrel, our military is using 1.2 million barrels a month on a needless, senseless war in Iraq. Right now, at these prices and with our mounting deficit, our government is still depositing of crude oil in the nearly-full strategic petroleum reserve each month. This is all insane.

Rather than bitchin' and moanin' about capitalism working very effectively for US oil companies, our government should be clearing the way for these companies to invest in pumping the oil out of the Bakken shales formation.

The USGS report is due out later this month. Our government has known about this massive oil reserve for years. Too bad they've been so busy invading and occupying another nation to do much about it. The Bakken formation reserve rivals the Saudi Arabian reserves in size. It may actually be even larger. Drilling and refining of US oil in combination with conservation efforts and the development of alternative energy sources, could make us energy independent in just a few short years.

When I think of all the great accomplishments of past generations, like landing a man on the moon in a few short years, it seems to me this goal is achievable. We just need to decide to do it.

by Aaron Sat Apr 05, 2008 8:00 am

ziggy wrote:
Aaron wrote:And if you think for a split second that Obama or Clinton, IF they manage to defeat McCain is going to pull troops out, you're dumber then your post make you out to be.

Why would I think that? They have both spent months dancing around that issue- trying as hard as they can to say nothing about it. They don't seem to have any more of a clue about it than you and little Georgie Bush do. McCain at least did say something about it- that another 100 years would be OK with him. Either way, it looks like it's gonna be another long and bloody spell for the U.S. in Iraq and for Iraqis.

Both have said plenty about it. All you have to do is listen. Both have said they would implement the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group which calls for leaving troops in Iraq to protect America's vital interest, train Iraqi's, prevent civil war and combat terrorism, which is pretty much what McCain said. The difference is, McCain stated that he would leave troops there UNTIL the mission was complete and if it took a hundred years, he was willing to commit to that. I agree with that.

At least they're willing to put forth some sort of plan. That's more then can be said for you, ain't it!!!

As for the blood, when Iraqi's stop killing, the blood stops. It's pretty much all on their hands.

by **Stephanie** Sat Apr 05, 2008 8:18 am

SamCogar wrote:
Stephanie wrote:
Ziggy,

Have you forgotten that Aaron said he was ok with occupying Iraq for a 100 years months ago? I called him despicable and my choice of word upset you. I'm sure you didn't forget that. This doesn't upset Aaron, he supports that position.

Steph, if you would avert your eyes for a moment and quit looking at "what happened yesterday" .......... and focus on "what is going to be happening tomorrow" you just might gain an understanding of the reason for Aaron's statement.

Stephanie wrote:To Aaron it's all about oil and nothing else matters. Iraqi lives and bodies and souls don't matter, neither do shattered American bodies, lost lives, or unbelievable debt. To some it's about oil, for some it's about protecting Israel and to others it is about saving face.

Stephanie, your stated opinion is exactly why I firmly believe that no female should ever be placed in "a critical decision making position", ...... because they will more often than not, ..... make an emotional decision that will only benefit a few, rather than making a logical decision that benefits the majority.

Steph, it should be obvious to anyone that your above comments prove that you are more "emotionally concerned" about the health and well being of 150,000+- Military personnel ........ instead of being "logically concerned" about the health and well being of 300,000,000+- American citizens.

Any and all Presidents of these United States should only be making "logical decisions" that best benefit the total populace ....... if said "decision" concerns the total populace.

Stephanie, iffen you could enact your "emotional decision" to recall those 150,000+- Military personnel to get them out of harm's way, .......... then what other "emotional decision" are you planning on making when 300,000,000+- American citizens are placed in harm's way and TENS OF THOUSANDS of them start dying?

OOPS, ...... bad question, ....... "planning on" requires Logical decision making.

So, you will just hafta wait until "THOUSANDS OF CITIZENS START DYING" ......... then you can make some more emotional decisions, ....... right?

eritas

.

tsk, tsk, tsk..........

We need to remember the mistakes and successes of yesterday to be successful tomorrow, Sam. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it and all that.

Yes, I am very concerned about the 150,000 US military personnel in Iraq. I must be overly emotional because I am also concerned (although to a lesser degree I'll admit) about the 27,500,000 million citizens of Iraq. I must be the most emotional person on the planet, because my concerns extend to all the people of that region and the citizens of the USA. Sheesh, I don't know how I find time to sleep with all that worrying and concern.

I am very concerned about the 300 million American citizens and we are my first concern. The best way to maintain the safety of my countrymen isn't by invading and occupying any nation that doesn't like us. The best way to protect my countrymen (and my family) is to take the steps necessary to get a grip on the aliens here and those trying to get here. Our troops can't do that in Iraq and they can't do that in South Korea and they can't do that in Germany. They can help in doing that right here in the good old US of A by guarding our ports and our borders and in tracking down criminal illegal aliens.

We cannot forget that many of the "troops on the ground" in Iraq are members of the Guard who should be home right now doing those things. Many of them have been plucked from their jobs in domestic law enforcement to patrol the streets of Baghdad and Basra and Karkuk......

I fail to see the logic in having our top border patrol agents pulled from guarding American borders to be sent overseas to protect the borders between other nations. I want our borders protected. I don't want the National Guard protecting Baghdad International Airport, I want them protecting Yeager and Logan and Green Airports. I don't want our government compling and keeping detailed records on Sam Cogar in Burnsville or Stephanie Butcher in Leon, I want them thoroughly investigating every Saudi and every Malaysian and every Mexican wishing to cross our borders.

by Aaron Sat Apr 05, 2008 8:35 am

But they've been doing it in Germany for almost 63 years. Before our troops began our occupation in 1945, that country was responsible for 2 World Wars in a span of 23 years. Since our occupation, ZERO hostilities from that country. Occupation of that country and Korea are also key reason's we had no head to head conflict with the Soviet Union and allowed were vital to our winning the cold war.

We can better protect ourselves from Middle Eastern terrorist and fundamental Islamist over there then we can here. Your reasons for marching out are bunk.

by SamCogar Sat Apr 05, 2008 8:39 am

Stephanie wrote:
The USGS report is due out later this month. Our government has known about this massive oil reserve for years. Too bad they've been so busy invading and occupying another nation to do much about it. The Bakken formation reserve rivals the Saudi Arabian reserves in size. It may actually be even larger. Drilling and refining of US oil in combination with conservation efforts and the development of alternative energy sources, could make us energy independent in just a few short years.

Steph, say ya drill that Bakken field ......... then what are you going to do with the oil.

Did you forget about this?

Source: EIA, Weekly Petroleum Status Report, June 30, 2004, In one form or another, the nation imports slightly more than 10% of the gasoline it consumes, the unavoidable outcome of growing motor fuel demand and refining capacity which has not kept pace. This supply is necessary to fill the gap between gasoline production and demand. (source: CRS Report for Congress)

Maybe no comprehendeeeee what "refining capacity" means in that statement?

Ya know Steph, ten bushel of Black Walnuts are no use to you unless you have some means to frack them with. Laughing

.

by SamCogar Sat Apr 05, 2008 8:54 am

Stephanie wrote:

tsk, tsk, tsk..........

We need to remember the mistakes and successes of yesterday to be successful tomorrow, Sam. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it and all that.

Remembering it is fine, ......... but being so obsessed with it that they dwell upon, re-hash and re-live it 12 hours every day, 7 days each week, 52 weeks each year makes one doomed to the "funny farm" and distracts and distorts any sensible, logical discussion of/for a successful tomorrow.

.

by **Stephanie** Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:00 am

Sam,

I most certainly have not forgotten about the lack of refining capacity which is precisely why I included the word refining in my post.

I'm not obsessed with the past, it just seems to me that in dealing with the nations of the Middle East, none of our government leaders are willing to consider our past actions and their consequences. I keep hoping that if enough people keep talking about it, eventually they may stop, listen, and consider the whole torturous history.

by SamCogar Sat Apr 05, 2008 10:17 am

Stephanie wrote:Sam,

I most certainly have not forgotten about the lack of refining capacity which is precisely why I included the word refining in my post.

HUUUUMMMM, then you got me confused.

What for thou make this statement then?

Stephanie wrote:
The USGS report is due out later this month. Our government has known about this massive oil reserve for years. Too bad they've been so busy invading and occupying another nation to do much about it. The Bakken formation reserve

"DUH", then the oil companies told them about it, the government is not into "test bore drilling", ..... they are into Permiting and taxing the drillers of "test bore holes".

What can our government do about it, other than issuing Permits when applicable affraid

.......... and what would be the point in them doing it even if they could or would?

Our government is not into the "drilling business" ......... nor is it into the "refinery building-operating business".

And besides it would take 10, 15, maybe 20 years, if ever, to build a refinery ....... so there is really no reason to get in a hurry to start pumping the Bakken formation.

The lefties, the greenies, the not-in-my-back-yarders, the Global Warminists, the CO2 sequestors, the Carbon Creditors and pissy faced people will all be after the arse of anyone attempting to build a refinery.

And there is a Judge somewhere that will issue an Injunction preventing any "action" until all the above are satisfied and happy.

Now Steph, that was my "remembering of history" .......... to make logical deductions of the future, ..... and thus our oil import dependence will be with us for years n' years ......... and I don't really want to be around here iffen it gets cut off.

And I really pity you and yours iffen you think things will still remain "hunky dory" and peaceful Sleep

if it is cut off.

.

by **Stephanie** Sat Apr 05, 2008 7:44 pm

The government can do a lot to help get the oil flowing and refineries constructed in the Dakotas. They can help clear the way for the drilling and the refineries, Sam. They can encourage oil companies and investors. Let's not forget that the W has had 7 years to appoint judges and although there was a gap of 8 years his dad and Reagan had 12 years between them to appoint judges. Now granted there have been some mistakes and disappointments (think Souter), but over all they've been pretty darn good.

There is a lot the goverment could and should do.

by ziggy Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:08 pm

Stephanie, Sam doesn't want the government nor anyone else to actually do anything. All he wants is to sit around and bitch and moan about "the lefties, the greenies, the not-in-my-back-yarders, the Global Warminists, the CO2 sequestors, the Carbon Creditors and other pissy faced people."

by Aaron Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:11 pm

ziggy wrote:Sam doesn't want the government nor anyone else to actually do anything. All he wants is to sit around and bitch and moan ...

A Taste of Terrorism – Crudely Bitter - Page 5 Mfln130l

by ziggy Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:14 pm

That's a cure one, Aaron, funny. Thanks for the smile. Smile

by **Stephanie** Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:14 pm

Ziggy,

There are few people who want government to do less than I do. I do believe they could and should work diligently to make America energy independent. I believe energy independence is a national security issue and serves "the common good".

Of course, what do I know? I'm just an emotional, illogical, silly woman.

by SamCogar Sun Apr 06, 2008 4:26 am

Stephanie wrote:The government can do a lot to help get the oil flowing and refineries constructed in the Dakotas. They can help clear the way for the drilling and the refineries, Sam. They can encourage oil companies and investors.

Stephanie, why don't ya wipe the Bush outta yer eyes so ya can see better, then read these, to wit:

USA: October 5, 2005

WASHINGTON - President Bush Tuesday repeated his call for more oil refineries to be built in the United States, a need he said was highlighted by "tight" petroleum supplies and high energy prices caused by hurricanes Rita and Katrina.
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/32805/newsDate/5-Oct-2005/story.htm

Refinery Construction Bill Is Drawing Broad Criticism

Published: October 7, 2005
WASHINGTON, Oct. 6 - A Texas congressman's bill to give the oil industry incentives to increase refinery capacity would gut air-quality protections that currently govern the refining and power industries, Democrats, environmental groups and state and local regulators are charging.

The legislation's sponsor, Representative Joe L. Barton, the Republican chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said that no new domestic refineries had been completed in the past three decades.

"We've got to do something to change the status quo," Mr. Barton added, "and this bill intends to do it but it does it without messing with any environmental laws."

The measure is scheduled for a vote on the House floor Friday. Mr. Barton and leading Democrats predicted a close vote; the bill was approved by Mr. Barton's committee on a voice vote last week. It was introduced within weeks of the passage of major energy legislation that had been a goal of the Republican leadership for two years or more and includes some provisions that were dropped from that bill.

But Hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit the Gulf Coast in the weeks after the energy bill, and the subsequent rise in gasoline prices created a new political climate, prompting Mr. Barton to reintroduce some of the ideas that had not survived in the earlier legislation.

Representative Sherwood Boehlert, a New York Republican who is chairman of the House Science Committee, announced his opposition to the Barton measure Thursday.

In a press release, Mr. Boehlert said, "The bill is based on false premises. The facts are that U.S. refining capacity has been increasing since 1994," despite the reduction in the total number of refineries. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/07/politics/07air.html

(519) HR 3893: Oil Refinery Construction
October 07, 2005 - Passage of the bill that would allow state governors to opt into a streamlined regulatory process for refinery expansion and construction projects. It would require the president to designate federal sites for new oil refineries and allow the federal government to pay new refineries for the costs of significant delays due to lawsuits and government regulations.
http://www.house.gov/shays/issues/votes/2005/1005.htm

Published: June 8, 2006
WASHINGTON, June 7 — The House passed a bill on Wednesday that its Republican sponsors said would streamline the permit process to build the first domestic oil refineries in a generation.

The vote was largely along party lines, 238 to 179, closely mirroring a vote on the same bill last month, when 237 lawmakers supported it in a procedure that required two-thirds approval for passage.

The bill would create a federal coordinator to manage the permit process for a new refinery by bringing together agencies from all levels of government. Another provision would require the president to identify at least three closed military bases as suitable refinery sites, a provision that President Bush supports.

For now, the Senate has no comparable bill under consideration.

The last time a refinery was built in the United States was 1976.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/08/washington/08energy.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Now Stephanie, ...... tell me, ....... which government or part there of, ..... was you talking about when you stated "the government can do a lot"?

Stephanie wrote:Let's not forget that the W has had 7 years to appoint judges and although there was a gap of 8 years his dad and Reagan had 12 years between them to appoint judges. Now granted there have been some mistakes and disappointments (think Souter), but over all they've been pretty darn good.

There is a lot the goverment could and should do.

AAAAAWWWWWWHHHHH, ....... why do you say such things, Stephanie?

So, "the W has had 7 years", HUH?

Seven (7) years of what, Stephanie, ....... (7) years of what?

Steph, here is a clue for you .... from 2004.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- After three years of watching Senate Democrats block his judicial nominees, President Bush trumped them for the second time this year by installing Alabama Attorney General William Pryor on the federal appeals court.

The move infuriated Democrats, who now may be even less likely to cooperate with the White House on getting judicial nominees through the closely divided Senate in an election year.

"Regularly circumventing the advise and consent process is not the way to change the tone in Washington," Sen. Charles Schumer, a Democrat from New York, said.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/21/bush.judges.ap/index.html

Now I expect such tripe from Ziggy, but from you I expect better.

I'll just attribute said implication to a touch of "Type 4 feminine rebuttal". Laughing

cheers

and ps, Steph, for GAWDS SAKE, ...... don't cite or mention this statement from the above:

and allow the federal government to pay new refineries for the costs of significant delays due to lawsuits and government regulations.

Cause iffen you do, Ziggy will go on a tirade ........ claiming it is all lies and crap and BS being spread by President Bush. Razz

.

by **SheikBen** Sun Apr 06, 2008 6:45 am

I say the answer is nuclear power.

by Aaron Sun Apr 06, 2008 9:19 am

But how long does it take us to build the proper amount of nuclear plants and what do we do with the waste?

by ziggy Sun Apr 06, 2008 9:21 am

SheikBen wrote:I say the answer is nuclear power.

The best nuclear power technology- safest and most efficient- in the world today appears to be that which exists and continues to expand in France- and with France being the world's largest exporter of electricity.

And we all know that good, patriotic, red blooded Americans are loathe to endorse anything French. And besides, the French people opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, the cowardly Saddamites that they were. So we could not possibly, in our zeal for political correctness, turn to such a French promoted enterprise as nuclear power as a predominant source of electricity. It might be a tacit admission that- horrors!- that we had learned something from the French.

by Aaron Sun Apr 06, 2008 9:25 am

There is nothing factual in that statement.

The 'facts' are, and Sam has laid them out, the liberal left hold far more responsibility for our current situation given it is they that have opposed new refineries and power plants that have created our dependence on foreign oil.

by ziggy Sun Apr 06, 2008 9:49 am

Aaron wrote:There is nothing factual in that statement.

Nor in yours just above.

So the French don't export more electricity than any other nation in the world?

They don't have a good nuclear energy safety record?

Patriotic Americans didn't give France hell for its failure to join the world Rambos such as Tony Blair who followed Bush into Iraq?

by Aaron Sun Apr 06, 2008 9:52 am

The liberal left isn't solely responsible for no new refineries or power plant construction in the past 30+ years!!!

by **Stephanie** Sun Apr 06, 2008 10:19 am

Sam,

Bush can't get his judicial nominees confirmed because of Bush's lack of leadership and negotiating skills. Bush, btw, played a major role in the loss of seats held by Republicans in both houses of Congress.

He can't get his judges confirmed because of his inadequacies and his malfeasance. You both can cry me a river.

by Sponsored content