Oil prices got you down?
#271
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Oil prices got you down?
Did I say he owned any oil companies? In your Bush-worshipping imagination,
you don't think W has ever forgotten who he serves best, that being his
friends in Big Oil? And not just his American friends in Big Oil...
"L.W. ("ßill") ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42FD866D.FF53DE4E@***.net...
> Matt, in your bleeding heart liberal imagination you don't think people
> like president Bush or Rockefellers own the oil companies do you?
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>>
>> 2005 2nd quarter profits:
>>
>> Exxon-Mobil: $7.64 billion, 32% increase. The retail fuel sales portion
>> of
>> the profit was $764 million in 2004. Same period 2005 increased to $2.2
>> billion, or about a 65% increase.
>>
>> Royal Dutch Shell: $5.24 billion, 34% increase.
>>
>> Full article at
>> http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/...ap2163629.html
>>
>> Is there any wonder oil companies are reaping record profits with W in
>> office?
you don't think W has ever forgotten who he serves best, that being his
friends in Big Oil? And not just his American friends in Big Oil...
"L.W. ("ßill") ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42FD866D.FF53DE4E@***.net...
> Matt, in your bleeding heart liberal imagination you don't think people
> like president Bush or Rockefellers own the oil companies do you?
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>>
>> 2005 2nd quarter profits:
>>
>> Exxon-Mobil: $7.64 billion, 32% increase. The retail fuel sales portion
>> of
>> the profit was $764 million in 2004. Same period 2005 increased to $2.2
>> billion, or about a 65% increase.
>>
>> Royal Dutch Shell: $5.24 billion, 34% increase.
>>
>> Full article at
>> http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/...ap2163629.html
>>
>> Is there any wonder oil companies are reaping record profits with W in
>> office?
#272
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Oil prices got you down?
Did I say he owned any oil companies? In your Bush-worshipping imagination,
you don't think W has ever forgotten who he serves best, that being his
friends in Big Oil? And not just his American friends in Big Oil...
"L.W. ("ßill") ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42FD866D.FF53DE4E@***.net...
> Matt, in your bleeding heart liberal imagination you don't think people
> like president Bush or Rockefellers own the oil companies do you?
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>>
>> 2005 2nd quarter profits:
>>
>> Exxon-Mobil: $7.64 billion, 32% increase. The retail fuel sales portion
>> of
>> the profit was $764 million in 2004. Same period 2005 increased to $2.2
>> billion, or about a 65% increase.
>>
>> Royal Dutch Shell: $5.24 billion, 34% increase.
>>
>> Full article at
>> http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/...ap2163629.html
>>
>> Is there any wonder oil companies are reaping record profits with W in
>> office?
you don't think W has ever forgotten who he serves best, that being his
friends in Big Oil? And not just his American friends in Big Oil...
"L.W. ("ßill") ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42FD866D.FF53DE4E@***.net...
> Matt, in your bleeding heart liberal imagination you don't think people
> like president Bush or Rockefellers own the oil companies do you?
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>>
>> 2005 2nd quarter profits:
>>
>> Exxon-Mobil: $7.64 billion, 32% increase. The retail fuel sales portion
>> of
>> the profit was $764 million in 2004. Same period 2005 increased to $2.2
>> billion, or about a 65% increase.
>>
>> Royal Dutch Shell: $5.24 billion, 34% increase.
>>
>> Full article at
>> http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/...ap2163629.html
>>
>> Is there any wonder oil companies are reaping record profits with W in
>> office?
#273
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Oil prices got you down?
Did I say he owned any oil companies? In your Bush-worshipping imagination,
you don't think W has ever forgotten who he serves best, that being his
friends in Big Oil? And not just his American friends in Big Oil...
"L.W. ("ßill") ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42FD866D.FF53DE4E@***.net...
> Matt, in your bleeding heart liberal imagination you don't think people
> like president Bush or Rockefellers own the oil companies do you?
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>>
>> 2005 2nd quarter profits:
>>
>> Exxon-Mobil: $7.64 billion, 32% increase. The retail fuel sales portion
>> of
>> the profit was $764 million in 2004. Same period 2005 increased to $2.2
>> billion, or about a 65% increase.
>>
>> Royal Dutch Shell: $5.24 billion, 34% increase.
>>
>> Full article at
>> http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/...ap2163629.html
>>
>> Is there any wonder oil companies are reaping record profits with W in
>> office?
you don't think W has ever forgotten who he serves best, that being his
friends in Big Oil? And not just his American friends in Big Oil...
"L.W. ("ßill") ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42FD866D.FF53DE4E@***.net...
> Matt, in your bleeding heart liberal imagination you don't think people
> like president Bush or Rockefellers own the oil companies do you?
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>>
>> 2005 2nd quarter profits:
>>
>> Exxon-Mobil: $7.64 billion, 32% increase. The retail fuel sales portion
>> of
>> the profit was $764 million in 2004. Same period 2005 increased to $2.2
>> billion, or about a 65% increase.
>>
>> Royal Dutch Shell: $5.24 billion, 34% increase.
>>
>> Full article at
>> http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/...ap2163629.html
>>
>> Is there any wonder oil companies are reaping record profits with W in
>> office?
#274
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Oil prices got you down?
200 miles/55 miles per hour= 3 hours 38 minutes 27 seconds
200 miles/70 miles per hour= 2 hours 51 minutes
much larger difference than 10 minutes. Are you driving the entire route at
70mph until you get to the front door? I doubt it.
"tim bur" <dbrider@cac.net> wrote in message
news:42FE7118.1577C92F@cac.net...
> hmmm that isn't right
> i have a cabin exactly 200 miles from my house and at 70 mph it takes 3
> hours on the dot to get
> there and at 55 it takes 3hours ten minutes i have driven it at both
> speeds
>
> "L.W.(ßill) ------ III" wrote:
>
>> It take three hour thirty eight minutes to travel two hundred miles
>> at 55 MPH, or two hours fifty one at 70 MPH, a difference of forty seven
>> minutes.
>> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
>> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>>
>> tim bur wrote:
>> >
>> > did you know driving at 55 verses going the same place driving 70 only
>> > results in about a 10
>> > minute difference in a 200 mile trip there is a formula for this thats
>> > given to each new
>> > driver going thru training in my area
>> > and i drive a 383 bigblock newport to work
>> > talk to people u know and you will find that people fill the tanks on
>> > monday and use up 1/4
>> > tank then drive right bac in and top off the tank thinking they are
>> > going to save a few
>> > pennies. because gas goes up everyday, so demand goes up i see it
>> > everyday and hear about it
>> > everyday
>
200 miles/70 miles per hour= 2 hours 51 minutes
much larger difference than 10 minutes. Are you driving the entire route at
70mph until you get to the front door? I doubt it.
"tim bur" <dbrider@cac.net> wrote in message
news:42FE7118.1577C92F@cac.net...
> hmmm that isn't right
> i have a cabin exactly 200 miles from my house and at 70 mph it takes 3
> hours on the dot to get
> there and at 55 it takes 3hours ten minutes i have driven it at both
> speeds
>
> "L.W.(ßill) ------ III" wrote:
>
>> It take three hour thirty eight minutes to travel two hundred miles
>> at 55 MPH, or two hours fifty one at 70 MPH, a difference of forty seven
>> minutes.
>> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
>> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>>
>> tim bur wrote:
>> >
>> > did you know driving at 55 verses going the same place driving 70 only
>> > results in about a 10
>> > minute difference in a 200 mile trip there is a formula for this thats
>> > given to each new
>> > driver going thru training in my area
>> > and i drive a 383 bigblock newport to work
>> > talk to people u know and you will find that people fill the tanks on
>> > monday and use up 1/4
>> > tank then drive right bac in and top off the tank thinking they are
>> > going to save a few
>> > pennies. because gas goes up everyday, so demand goes up i see it
>> > everyday and hear about it
>> > everyday
>
#275
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Oil prices got you down?
200 miles/55 miles per hour= 3 hours 38 minutes 27 seconds
200 miles/70 miles per hour= 2 hours 51 minutes
much larger difference than 10 minutes. Are you driving the entire route at
70mph until you get to the front door? I doubt it.
"tim bur" <dbrider@cac.net> wrote in message
news:42FE7118.1577C92F@cac.net...
> hmmm that isn't right
> i have a cabin exactly 200 miles from my house and at 70 mph it takes 3
> hours on the dot to get
> there and at 55 it takes 3hours ten minutes i have driven it at both
> speeds
>
> "L.W.(ßill) ------ III" wrote:
>
>> It take three hour thirty eight minutes to travel two hundred miles
>> at 55 MPH, or two hours fifty one at 70 MPH, a difference of forty seven
>> minutes.
>> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
>> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>>
>> tim bur wrote:
>> >
>> > did you know driving at 55 verses going the same place driving 70 only
>> > results in about a 10
>> > minute difference in a 200 mile trip there is a formula for this thats
>> > given to each new
>> > driver going thru training in my area
>> > and i drive a 383 bigblock newport to work
>> > talk to people u know and you will find that people fill the tanks on
>> > monday and use up 1/4
>> > tank then drive right bac in and top off the tank thinking they are
>> > going to save a few
>> > pennies. because gas goes up everyday, so demand goes up i see it
>> > everyday and hear about it
>> > everyday
>
200 miles/70 miles per hour= 2 hours 51 minutes
much larger difference than 10 minutes. Are you driving the entire route at
70mph until you get to the front door? I doubt it.
"tim bur" <dbrider@cac.net> wrote in message
news:42FE7118.1577C92F@cac.net...
> hmmm that isn't right
> i have a cabin exactly 200 miles from my house and at 70 mph it takes 3
> hours on the dot to get
> there and at 55 it takes 3hours ten minutes i have driven it at both
> speeds
>
> "L.W.(ßill) ------ III" wrote:
>
>> It take three hour thirty eight minutes to travel two hundred miles
>> at 55 MPH, or two hours fifty one at 70 MPH, a difference of forty seven
>> minutes.
>> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
>> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>>
>> tim bur wrote:
>> >
>> > did you know driving at 55 verses going the same place driving 70 only
>> > results in about a 10
>> > minute difference in a 200 mile trip there is a formula for this thats
>> > given to each new
>> > driver going thru training in my area
>> > and i drive a 383 bigblock newport to work
>> > talk to people u know and you will find that people fill the tanks on
>> > monday and use up 1/4
>> > tank then drive right bac in and top off the tank thinking they are
>> > going to save a few
>> > pennies. because gas goes up everyday, so demand goes up i see it
>> > everyday and hear about it
>> > everyday
>
#276
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Oil prices got you down?
200 miles/55 miles per hour= 3 hours 38 minutes 27 seconds
200 miles/70 miles per hour= 2 hours 51 minutes
much larger difference than 10 minutes. Are you driving the entire route at
70mph until you get to the front door? I doubt it.
"tim bur" <dbrider@cac.net> wrote in message
news:42FE7118.1577C92F@cac.net...
> hmmm that isn't right
> i have a cabin exactly 200 miles from my house and at 70 mph it takes 3
> hours on the dot to get
> there and at 55 it takes 3hours ten minutes i have driven it at both
> speeds
>
> "L.W.(ßill) ------ III" wrote:
>
>> It take three hour thirty eight minutes to travel two hundred miles
>> at 55 MPH, or two hours fifty one at 70 MPH, a difference of forty seven
>> minutes.
>> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
>> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>>
>> tim bur wrote:
>> >
>> > did you know driving at 55 verses going the same place driving 70 only
>> > results in about a 10
>> > minute difference in a 200 mile trip there is a formula for this thats
>> > given to each new
>> > driver going thru training in my area
>> > and i drive a 383 bigblock newport to work
>> > talk to people u know and you will find that people fill the tanks on
>> > monday and use up 1/4
>> > tank then drive right bac in and top off the tank thinking they are
>> > going to save a few
>> > pennies. because gas goes up everyday, so demand goes up i see it
>> > everyday and hear about it
>> > everyday
>
200 miles/70 miles per hour= 2 hours 51 minutes
much larger difference than 10 minutes. Are you driving the entire route at
70mph until you get to the front door? I doubt it.
"tim bur" <dbrider@cac.net> wrote in message
news:42FE7118.1577C92F@cac.net...
> hmmm that isn't right
> i have a cabin exactly 200 miles from my house and at 70 mph it takes 3
> hours on the dot to get
> there and at 55 it takes 3hours ten minutes i have driven it at both
> speeds
>
> "L.W.(ßill) ------ III" wrote:
>
>> It take three hour thirty eight minutes to travel two hundred miles
>> at 55 MPH, or two hours fifty one at 70 MPH, a difference of forty seven
>> minutes.
>> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
>> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>>
>> tim bur wrote:
>> >
>> > did you know driving at 55 verses going the same place driving 70 only
>> > results in about a 10
>> > minute difference in a 200 mile trip there is a formula for this thats
>> > given to each new
>> > driver going thru training in my area
>> > and i drive a 383 bigblock newport to work
>> > talk to people u know and you will find that people fill the tanks on
>> > monday and use up 1/4
>> > tank then drive right bac in and top off the tank thinking they are
>> > going to save a few
>> > pennies. because gas goes up everyday, so demand goes up i see it
>> > everyday and hear about it
>> > everyday
>
#277
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Oil prices got you down?
200 miles/55 miles per hour= 3 hours 38 minutes 27 seconds
200 miles/70 miles per hour= 2 hours 51 minutes
much larger difference than 10 minutes. Are you driving the entire route at
70mph until you get to the front door? I doubt it.
"tim bur" <dbrider@cac.net> wrote in message
news:42FE7118.1577C92F@cac.net...
> hmmm that isn't right
> i have a cabin exactly 200 miles from my house and at 70 mph it takes 3
> hours on the dot to get
> there and at 55 it takes 3hours ten minutes i have driven it at both
> speeds
>
> "L.W.(ßill) ------ III" wrote:
>
>> It take three hour thirty eight minutes to travel two hundred miles
>> at 55 MPH, or two hours fifty one at 70 MPH, a difference of forty seven
>> minutes.
>> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
>> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>>
>> tim bur wrote:
>> >
>> > did you know driving at 55 verses going the same place driving 70 only
>> > results in about a 10
>> > minute difference in a 200 mile trip there is a formula for this thats
>> > given to each new
>> > driver going thru training in my area
>> > and i drive a 383 bigblock newport to work
>> > talk to people u know and you will find that people fill the tanks on
>> > monday and use up 1/4
>> > tank then drive right bac in and top off the tank thinking they are
>> > going to save a few
>> > pennies. because gas goes up everyday, so demand goes up i see it
>> > everyday and hear about it
>> > everyday
>
200 miles/70 miles per hour= 2 hours 51 minutes
much larger difference than 10 minutes. Are you driving the entire route at
70mph until you get to the front door? I doubt it.
"tim bur" <dbrider@cac.net> wrote in message
news:42FE7118.1577C92F@cac.net...
> hmmm that isn't right
> i have a cabin exactly 200 miles from my house and at 70 mph it takes 3
> hours on the dot to get
> there and at 55 it takes 3hours ten minutes i have driven it at both
> speeds
>
> "L.W.(ßill) ------ III" wrote:
>
>> It take three hour thirty eight minutes to travel two hundred miles
>> at 55 MPH, or two hours fifty one at 70 MPH, a difference of forty seven
>> minutes.
>> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
>> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>>
>> tim bur wrote:
>> >
>> > did you know driving at 55 verses going the same place driving 70 only
>> > results in about a 10
>> > minute difference in a 200 mile trip there is a formula for this thats
>> > given to each new
>> > driver going thru training in my area
>> > and i drive a 383 bigblock newport to work
>> > talk to people u know and you will find that people fill the tanks on
>> > monday and use up 1/4
>> > tank then drive right bac in and top off the tank thinking they are
>> > going to save a few
>> > pennies. because gas goes up everyday, so demand goes up i see it
>> > everyday and hear about it
>> > everyday
>
#278
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Oil prices got you down?
> Ruel you are making some sense here. If you are making the point that
> both political parties are at fault in getting us to where we are, I
> would agree. But here are a couple of comments back to you..
I don't wholly agree with either side. I think the Republicans are whoring
the labor in the country out. They're certainly not doing anything to
curtail the wholesale shipment of jobs out of this country, or the illegal
immigrants that are being hired to do all kinds of work, particularly good
paying construction jobs. However, Clinton signed NAFTA so he's to blame as
well.
> What I detest is being considered a "bleeding heart liberal" just
> because I work at a university. Being employed at a university is due
> to a choice of professions and not a political philosophy.
Because you work at a university, doesn't make you a bleeding heart liberal.
In the business college at my old university, the University of Cincinnati,
most professors were staunch conservatives.
> Just for your information, what Jane Fonda did was absolutely stupid.
> Whether or not she was a traitor, well I will leave that one for the
> legal profession to determine. In no way was she a hero.
It was more than just stupid. Several servicemen in captivity died as a
result of her actions. The prison guards beat them to death. Anyway, it's a
side issue not really germaine to this conversation.
> In a previous post the "greatest generation" was mentioned.
> Fortunately for them, they have a social security plan to help them in
> their old age. So the "greatest generation" has certainly benefited
> from that liberal cause and they deserve it.
>
> You speak of "liberalism and softness", need you be reminded that FDR,
> a liberal president, got us into the second world war.
Liberalism in the 1930's and 1940's is a far cry from the liberalism today.
Today, they're off the hook trying to save breeds of weeds that are dying
off in desert areas, and trying to model our government after more
socialistic governments like Canada and others in Europe. There's a reason
we're far better off than they are... Let's not.
> So I don't think your observation about liberalism and softness holds
> up to reality.
>
>>From what I history I have read, the decline of many a civilization is
> really caused by the destruction of the middle class. That was
> certainly true in the decline of the Roman Empire. They kicked a
> whole lot of butt in the known world and it eventually drained their
> treasury dry trying to defend their over stressed borders..
They also developed a welfare system, started having orgies, got fat and
lazy... By the time Rome fell, it wasn't even close to being the powerhouse
that it was under Julius Caesar.
> I don't understand the reasoning that going around the world and
> kicking butt and bullying nations is making this country strong.
Now, don't get me wrong, as people die as a result of these actions. Take
for a moment and remove yourself from the human element of the process of
war and see things on a much higher level. A boxer that hasn't fought in a
few years vs. a boxer that has continually kept his skills sharpened by
staying active and fighting regularly: Who do you think will win? If the
military goes for long period of inactivity in war time, there won't be
anyone running the military that has had actual battle experience. This is
not only bad, but very bad. You can practice all you want with drills, but
until those techniques have seen war and the quirks ironed out, they're only
limited in usefulness. It's like a boxer only shadow boxing his entire
career, only to finally fight someone who hits back. This is what, I
believe, happened to Russia during the Afghanistan war. Not only had they
not actually fought a war since WWII, they weren't prepared at all for
unconventional warfare. The got their ***** handed to them.
I'm not trying to make light of the situation that people die during war and
that's a horrible thing. A lot of money is spent in the process, as well.
And, it's not like we're out seeking out war for the sake of sharpening our
skills. Greed and disrespect from leaders of rogue nations that have
ambition to topple the one who sits at the top of the mountain gives us
these opportunities. It is our activity in war time that has our troops and
equipment battle tested and ready for the next country that tries to screw
with us.
This is why I pointed out the China is only assumed to be powerful. I highly
doubt that with their very limited experience in modern warfare that they
would do well against us. That's not to say they won't win their battles.
However, they certainly can't compete with our level of training and
sophistication.
BTW, who have we bullied? All those that have seen our might has been as a
result of THEIR actions. We never sought out our targets.
> both political parties are at fault in getting us to where we are, I
> would agree. But here are a couple of comments back to you..
I don't wholly agree with either side. I think the Republicans are whoring
the labor in the country out. They're certainly not doing anything to
curtail the wholesale shipment of jobs out of this country, or the illegal
immigrants that are being hired to do all kinds of work, particularly good
paying construction jobs. However, Clinton signed NAFTA so he's to blame as
well.
> What I detest is being considered a "bleeding heart liberal" just
> because I work at a university. Being employed at a university is due
> to a choice of professions and not a political philosophy.
Because you work at a university, doesn't make you a bleeding heart liberal.
In the business college at my old university, the University of Cincinnati,
most professors were staunch conservatives.
> Just for your information, what Jane Fonda did was absolutely stupid.
> Whether or not she was a traitor, well I will leave that one for the
> legal profession to determine. In no way was she a hero.
It was more than just stupid. Several servicemen in captivity died as a
result of her actions. The prison guards beat them to death. Anyway, it's a
side issue not really germaine to this conversation.
> In a previous post the "greatest generation" was mentioned.
> Fortunately for them, they have a social security plan to help them in
> their old age. So the "greatest generation" has certainly benefited
> from that liberal cause and they deserve it.
>
> You speak of "liberalism and softness", need you be reminded that FDR,
> a liberal president, got us into the second world war.
Liberalism in the 1930's and 1940's is a far cry from the liberalism today.
Today, they're off the hook trying to save breeds of weeds that are dying
off in desert areas, and trying to model our government after more
socialistic governments like Canada and others in Europe. There's a reason
we're far better off than they are... Let's not.
> So I don't think your observation about liberalism and softness holds
> up to reality.
>
>>From what I history I have read, the decline of many a civilization is
> really caused by the destruction of the middle class. That was
> certainly true in the decline of the Roman Empire. They kicked a
> whole lot of butt in the known world and it eventually drained their
> treasury dry trying to defend their over stressed borders..
They also developed a welfare system, started having orgies, got fat and
lazy... By the time Rome fell, it wasn't even close to being the powerhouse
that it was under Julius Caesar.
> I don't understand the reasoning that going around the world and
> kicking butt and bullying nations is making this country strong.
Now, don't get me wrong, as people die as a result of these actions. Take
for a moment and remove yourself from the human element of the process of
war and see things on a much higher level. A boxer that hasn't fought in a
few years vs. a boxer that has continually kept his skills sharpened by
staying active and fighting regularly: Who do you think will win? If the
military goes for long period of inactivity in war time, there won't be
anyone running the military that has had actual battle experience. This is
not only bad, but very bad. You can practice all you want with drills, but
until those techniques have seen war and the quirks ironed out, they're only
limited in usefulness. It's like a boxer only shadow boxing his entire
career, only to finally fight someone who hits back. This is what, I
believe, happened to Russia during the Afghanistan war. Not only had they
not actually fought a war since WWII, they weren't prepared at all for
unconventional warfare. The got their ***** handed to them.
I'm not trying to make light of the situation that people die during war and
that's a horrible thing. A lot of money is spent in the process, as well.
And, it's not like we're out seeking out war for the sake of sharpening our
skills. Greed and disrespect from leaders of rogue nations that have
ambition to topple the one who sits at the top of the mountain gives us
these opportunities. It is our activity in war time that has our troops and
equipment battle tested and ready for the next country that tries to screw
with us.
This is why I pointed out the China is only assumed to be powerful. I highly
doubt that with their very limited experience in modern warfare that they
would do well against us. That's not to say they won't win their battles.
However, they certainly can't compete with our level of training and
sophistication.
BTW, who have we bullied? All those that have seen our might has been as a
result of THEIR actions. We never sought out our targets.
#279
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Oil prices got you down?
> Ruel you are making some sense here. If you are making the point that
> both political parties are at fault in getting us to where we are, I
> would agree. But here are a couple of comments back to you..
I don't wholly agree with either side. I think the Republicans are whoring
the labor in the country out. They're certainly not doing anything to
curtail the wholesale shipment of jobs out of this country, or the illegal
immigrants that are being hired to do all kinds of work, particularly good
paying construction jobs. However, Clinton signed NAFTA so he's to blame as
well.
> What I detest is being considered a "bleeding heart liberal" just
> because I work at a university. Being employed at a university is due
> to a choice of professions and not a political philosophy.
Because you work at a university, doesn't make you a bleeding heart liberal.
In the business college at my old university, the University of Cincinnati,
most professors were staunch conservatives.
> Just for your information, what Jane Fonda did was absolutely stupid.
> Whether or not she was a traitor, well I will leave that one for the
> legal profession to determine. In no way was she a hero.
It was more than just stupid. Several servicemen in captivity died as a
result of her actions. The prison guards beat them to death. Anyway, it's a
side issue not really germaine to this conversation.
> In a previous post the "greatest generation" was mentioned.
> Fortunately for them, they have a social security plan to help them in
> their old age. So the "greatest generation" has certainly benefited
> from that liberal cause and they deserve it.
>
> You speak of "liberalism and softness", need you be reminded that FDR,
> a liberal president, got us into the second world war.
Liberalism in the 1930's and 1940's is a far cry from the liberalism today.
Today, they're off the hook trying to save breeds of weeds that are dying
off in desert areas, and trying to model our government after more
socialistic governments like Canada and others in Europe. There's a reason
we're far better off than they are... Let's not.
> So I don't think your observation about liberalism and softness holds
> up to reality.
>
>>From what I history I have read, the decline of many a civilization is
> really caused by the destruction of the middle class. That was
> certainly true in the decline of the Roman Empire. They kicked a
> whole lot of butt in the known world and it eventually drained their
> treasury dry trying to defend their over stressed borders..
They also developed a welfare system, started having orgies, got fat and
lazy... By the time Rome fell, it wasn't even close to being the powerhouse
that it was under Julius Caesar.
> I don't understand the reasoning that going around the world and
> kicking butt and bullying nations is making this country strong.
Now, don't get me wrong, as people die as a result of these actions. Take
for a moment and remove yourself from the human element of the process of
war and see things on a much higher level. A boxer that hasn't fought in a
few years vs. a boxer that has continually kept his skills sharpened by
staying active and fighting regularly: Who do you think will win? If the
military goes for long period of inactivity in war time, there won't be
anyone running the military that has had actual battle experience. This is
not only bad, but very bad. You can practice all you want with drills, but
until those techniques have seen war and the quirks ironed out, they're only
limited in usefulness. It's like a boxer only shadow boxing his entire
career, only to finally fight someone who hits back. This is what, I
believe, happened to Russia during the Afghanistan war. Not only had they
not actually fought a war since WWII, they weren't prepared at all for
unconventional warfare. The got their ***** handed to them.
I'm not trying to make light of the situation that people die during war and
that's a horrible thing. A lot of money is spent in the process, as well.
And, it's not like we're out seeking out war for the sake of sharpening our
skills. Greed and disrespect from leaders of rogue nations that have
ambition to topple the one who sits at the top of the mountain gives us
these opportunities. It is our activity in war time that has our troops and
equipment battle tested and ready for the next country that tries to screw
with us.
This is why I pointed out the China is only assumed to be powerful. I highly
doubt that with their very limited experience in modern warfare that they
would do well against us. That's not to say they won't win their battles.
However, they certainly can't compete with our level of training and
sophistication.
BTW, who have we bullied? All those that have seen our might has been as a
result of THEIR actions. We never sought out our targets.
> both political parties are at fault in getting us to where we are, I
> would agree. But here are a couple of comments back to you..
I don't wholly agree with either side. I think the Republicans are whoring
the labor in the country out. They're certainly not doing anything to
curtail the wholesale shipment of jobs out of this country, or the illegal
immigrants that are being hired to do all kinds of work, particularly good
paying construction jobs. However, Clinton signed NAFTA so he's to blame as
well.
> What I detest is being considered a "bleeding heart liberal" just
> because I work at a university. Being employed at a university is due
> to a choice of professions and not a political philosophy.
Because you work at a university, doesn't make you a bleeding heart liberal.
In the business college at my old university, the University of Cincinnati,
most professors were staunch conservatives.
> Just for your information, what Jane Fonda did was absolutely stupid.
> Whether or not she was a traitor, well I will leave that one for the
> legal profession to determine. In no way was she a hero.
It was more than just stupid. Several servicemen in captivity died as a
result of her actions. The prison guards beat them to death. Anyway, it's a
side issue not really germaine to this conversation.
> In a previous post the "greatest generation" was mentioned.
> Fortunately for them, they have a social security plan to help them in
> their old age. So the "greatest generation" has certainly benefited
> from that liberal cause and they deserve it.
>
> You speak of "liberalism and softness", need you be reminded that FDR,
> a liberal president, got us into the second world war.
Liberalism in the 1930's and 1940's is a far cry from the liberalism today.
Today, they're off the hook trying to save breeds of weeds that are dying
off in desert areas, and trying to model our government after more
socialistic governments like Canada and others in Europe. There's a reason
we're far better off than they are... Let's not.
> So I don't think your observation about liberalism and softness holds
> up to reality.
>
>>From what I history I have read, the decline of many a civilization is
> really caused by the destruction of the middle class. That was
> certainly true in the decline of the Roman Empire. They kicked a
> whole lot of butt in the known world and it eventually drained their
> treasury dry trying to defend their over stressed borders..
They also developed a welfare system, started having orgies, got fat and
lazy... By the time Rome fell, it wasn't even close to being the powerhouse
that it was under Julius Caesar.
> I don't understand the reasoning that going around the world and
> kicking butt and bullying nations is making this country strong.
Now, don't get me wrong, as people die as a result of these actions. Take
for a moment and remove yourself from the human element of the process of
war and see things on a much higher level. A boxer that hasn't fought in a
few years vs. a boxer that has continually kept his skills sharpened by
staying active and fighting regularly: Who do you think will win? If the
military goes for long period of inactivity in war time, there won't be
anyone running the military that has had actual battle experience. This is
not only bad, but very bad. You can practice all you want with drills, but
until those techniques have seen war and the quirks ironed out, they're only
limited in usefulness. It's like a boxer only shadow boxing his entire
career, only to finally fight someone who hits back. This is what, I
believe, happened to Russia during the Afghanistan war. Not only had they
not actually fought a war since WWII, they weren't prepared at all for
unconventional warfare. The got their ***** handed to them.
I'm not trying to make light of the situation that people die during war and
that's a horrible thing. A lot of money is spent in the process, as well.
And, it's not like we're out seeking out war for the sake of sharpening our
skills. Greed and disrespect from leaders of rogue nations that have
ambition to topple the one who sits at the top of the mountain gives us
these opportunities. It is our activity in war time that has our troops and
equipment battle tested and ready for the next country that tries to screw
with us.
This is why I pointed out the China is only assumed to be powerful. I highly
doubt that with their very limited experience in modern warfare that they
would do well against us. That's not to say they won't win their battles.
However, they certainly can't compete with our level of training and
sophistication.
BTW, who have we bullied? All those that have seen our might has been as a
result of THEIR actions. We never sought out our targets.
#280
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Oil prices got you down?
> Ruel you are making some sense here. If you are making the point that
> both political parties are at fault in getting us to where we are, I
> would agree. But here are a couple of comments back to you..
I don't wholly agree with either side. I think the Republicans are whoring
the labor in the country out. They're certainly not doing anything to
curtail the wholesale shipment of jobs out of this country, or the illegal
immigrants that are being hired to do all kinds of work, particularly good
paying construction jobs. However, Clinton signed NAFTA so he's to blame as
well.
> What I detest is being considered a "bleeding heart liberal" just
> because I work at a university. Being employed at a university is due
> to a choice of professions and not a political philosophy.
Because you work at a university, doesn't make you a bleeding heart liberal.
In the business college at my old university, the University of Cincinnati,
most professors were staunch conservatives.
> Just for your information, what Jane Fonda did was absolutely stupid.
> Whether or not she was a traitor, well I will leave that one for the
> legal profession to determine. In no way was she a hero.
It was more than just stupid. Several servicemen in captivity died as a
result of her actions. The prison guards beat them to death. Anyway, it's a
side issue not really germaine to this conversation.
> In a previous post the "greatest generation" was mentioned.
> Fortunately for them, they have a social security plan to help them in
> their old age. So the "greatest generation" has certainly benefited
> from that liberal cause and they deserve it.
>
> You speak of "liberalism and softness", need you be reminded that FDR,
> a liberal president, got us into the second world war.
Liberalism in the 1930's and 1940's is a far cry from the liberalism today.
Today, they're off the hook trying to save breeds of weeds that are dying
off in desert areas, and trying to model our government after more
socialistic governments like Canada and others in Europe. There's a reason
we're far better off than they are... Let's not.
> So I don't think your observation about liberalism and softness holds
> up to reality.
>
>>From what I history I have read, the decline of many a civilization is
> really caused by the destruction of the middle class. That was
> certainly true in the decline of the Roman Empire. They kicked a
> whole lot of butt in the known world and it eventually drained their
> treasury dry trying to defend their over stressed borders..
They also developed a welfare system, started having orgies, got fat and
lazy... By the time Rome fell, it wasn't even close to being the powerhouse
that it was under Julius Caesar.
> I don't understand the reasoning that going around the world and
> kicking butt and bullying nations is making this country strong.
Now, don't get me wrong, as people die as a result of these actions. Take
for a moment and remove yourself from the human element of the process of
war and see things on a much higher level. A boxer that hasn't fought in a
few years vs. a boxer that has continually kept his skills sharpened by
staying active and fighting regularly: Who do you think will win? If the
military goes for long period of inactivity in war time, there won't be
anyone running the military that has had actual battle experience. This is
not only bad, but very bad. You can practice all you want with drills, but
until those techniques have seen war and the quirks ironed out, they're only
limited in usefulness. It's like a boxer only shadow boxing his entire
career, only to finally fight someone who hits back. This is what, I
believe, happened to Russia during the Afghanistan war. Not only had they
not actually fought a war since WWII, they weren't prepared at all for
unconventional warfare. The got their ***** handed to them.
I'm not trying to make light of the situation that people die during war and
that's a horrible thing. A lot of money is spent in the process, as well.
And, it's not like we're out seeking out war for the sake of sharpening our
skills. Greed and disrespect from leaders of rogue nations that have
ambition to topple the one who sits at the top of the mountain gives us
these opportunities. It is our activity in war time that has our troops and
equipment battle tested and ready for the next country that tries to screw
with us.
This is why I pointed out the China is only assumed to be powerful. I highly
doubt that with their very limited experience in modern warfare that they
would do well against us. That's not to say they won't win their battles.
However, they certainly can't compete with our level of training and
sophistication.
BTW, who have we bullied? All those that have seen our might has been as a
result of THEIR actions. We never sought out our targets.
> both political parties are at fault in getting us to where we are, I
> would agree. But here are a couple of comments back to you..
I don't wholly agree with either side. I think the Republicans are whoring
the labor in the country out. They're certainly not doing anything to
curtail the wholesale shipment of jobs out of this country, or the illegal
immigrants that are being hired to do all kinds of work, particularly good
paying construction jobs. However, Clinton signed NAFTA so he's to blame as
well.
> What I detest is being considered a "bleeding heart liberal" just
> because I work at a university. Being employed at a university is due
> to a choice of professions and not a political philosophy.
Because you work at a university, doesn't make you a bleeding heart liberal.
In the business college at my old university, the University of Cincinnati,
most professors were staunch conservatives.
> Just for your information, what Jane Fonda did was absolutely stupid.
> Whether or not she was a traitor, well I will leave that one for the
> legal profession to determine. In no way was she a hero.
It was more than just stupid. Several servicemen in captivity died as a
result of her actions. The prison guards beat them to death. Anyway, it's a
side issue not really germaine to this conversation.
> In a previous post the "greatest generation" was mentioned.
> Fortunately for them, they have a social security plan to help them in
> their old age. So the "greatest generation" has certainly benefited
> from that liberal cause and they deserve it.
>
> You speak of "liberalism and softness", need you be reminded that FDR,
> a liberal president, got us into the second world war.
Liberalism in the 1930's and 1940's is a far cry from the liberalism today.
Today, they're off the hook trying to save breeds of weeds that are dying
off in desert areas, and trying to model our government after more
socialistic governments like Canada and others in Europe. There's a reason
we're far better off than they are... Let's not.
> So I don't think your observation about liberalism and softness holds
> up to reality.
>
>>From what I history I have read, the decline of many a civilization is
> really caused by the destruction of the middle class. That was
> certainly true in the decline of the Roman Empire. They kicked a
> whole lot of butt in the known world and it eventually drained their
> treasury dry trying to defend their over stressed borders..
They also developed a welfare system, started having orgies, got fat and
lazy... By the time Rome fell, it wasn't even close to being the powerhouse
that it was under Julius Caesar.
> I don't understand the reasoning that going around the world and
> kicking butt and bullying nations is making this country strong.
Now, don't get me wrong, as people die as a result of these actions. Take
for a moment and remove yourself from the human element of the process of
war and see things on a much higher level. A boxer that hasn't fought in a
few years vs. a boxer that has continually kept his skills sharpened by
staying active and fighting regularly: Who do you think will win? If the
military goes for long period of inactivity in war time, there won't be
anyone running the military that has had actual battle experience. This is
not only bad, but very bad. You can practice all you want with drills, but
until those techniques have seen war and the quirks ironed out, they're only
limited in usefulness. It's like a boxer only shadow boxing his entire
career, only to finally fight someone who hits back. This is what, I
believe, happened to Russia during the Afghanistan war. Not only had they
not actually fought a war since WWII, they weren't prepared at all for
unconventional warfare. The got their ***** handed to them.
I'm not trying to make light of the situation that people die during war and
that's a horrible thing. A lot of money is spent in the process, as well.
And, it's not like we're out seeking out war for the sake of sharpening our
skills. Greed and disrespect from leaders of rogue nations that have
ambition to topple the one who sits at the top of the mountain gives us
these opportunities. It is our activity in war time that has our troops and
equipment battle tested and ready for the next country that tries to screw
with us.
This is why I pointed out the China is only assumed to be powerful. I highly
doubt that with their very limited experience in modern warfare that they
would do well against us. That's not to say they won't win their battles.
However, they certainly can't compete with our level of training and
sophistication.
BTW, who have we bullied? All those that have seen our might has been as a
result of THEIR actions. We never sought out our targets.