# Does anyone still consider themself a Bush fan?



## chadn2000 (Aug 4, 2006)

I was just curious if anyone still considers themself a big fan of Bush. I'm not just speaking of mediocre support on certain issues or support for him out of disgust for the Democrats...I mean does anyone still feel that Bush is an excellent President for whom they would vote for again any day.


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

Never did and I am not surprised what he did with the privilege of being the POTUS. Sad to say the least.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Ronnie was the first POTUS that registered on my maturing person. Living in Canada still, I was less than enthusiastic of him. Everyone around me was liberal to downright leftist, and needless to say, Ronnie did not appeal to any of them. However, looking back from now until then, he is the only POTUS I can say I was a fan of. Every other contest has been a choice of lesser evils. Dubya still wins that distinction IMO. I mean, Gore had wanted $4/gallon gas back in his original book from the 1990s, can you imagine how much it would cost in 2007 if he had won in Y2K?


----------



## A Questionable Gentleman (Jun 16, 2006)

I voted for Bush twice. First time around, I imagined we were getting a product more in the mold of GHWB. Turns out W's rather a different critter. Fine.

Second time around, Iraq's starting to look a little dubious for Dubya. Nonetheless, it doesn't appear hopeless and Kerry really didn't strike me as having the answer to anything despite his claims to have a plan for everything. I went looking for the plans but never found them.

So, it didn't make sense to me to change horses mid-course, nor to the other Americans who comprised the rougly 53% who elected W. 

At the same time, I was beginning to look forward to a change in Repulican leadership at the end of the term. I suppose that's because the religious right have gotten pretty big for their britches under the present admin and, as a more libertarian sort of R, they bug me.

Domestically, though, I give Bush credit for moving No Child Left Behind through. As a school solicitor, I'm aware of its faults. However, the mere introduction of accountability, however imperfect, is a huge step in the world of union dominated public education.

So, big fan, no. Could the Republican party have done better? Probably.


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Ronnie was the first POTUS that registered on my maturing person. Living in Canada still, I was less than enthusiastic of him. Everyone around me was liberal to downright leftist, and needless to say, Ronnie did not appeal to any of them. However, looking back from now until then, he is the only POTUS I can say I was a fan of. Every other contest has been a choice of lesser evils. Dubya still wins that distinction IMO. I mean, Gore had wanted $4/gallon gas back in his original book from the 1990s, can you imagine how much it would cost in 2007 if he had won in Y2K?


Let's look at the price of GAS...the US government subsidizes the oil companies to keep the price down, really...I the US public had to pay what GAS really cost you would see better thought out cars (less SUV's, probably no Hummer types) and more fuel efficient cars being demanded. GM and other US auto makers would have to rethink the crap they give up, Toyota and Honda would get even bigger, Clean Diesel would be a reality here in the US. Do you think the government is doing us a FAVOR by subsidizing the price of gas? That money could go into much more useful areas, health care, child education and many more. So while it is nice that the government is saving us money on gas it is not because they love us as much as the lobby by big oil...think about this, if we use less oil we subsidize terrorist a bit less, our environment stays cleaner, we save this natural resource by extending it's life and we may be able to actually see ahead while driving (that blocking of the SUV from the vision of the road). Do I hate SUV's, yes, if they are not used as off road vehicles, I say bring back the station wagon, just make it fuel efficient.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

I am not rbaidly Democratic or Republican. In the last 5 cycles I went Republican three and Democrat two. I voted for the W both times, but only becuase the Democrats ran really terrible candidates against him. It seemed to me that the Democratics thought that everyone hated Bush, so they could run fringe candidates and still win. 

I do not believe that either GW Bush nor WJ Clinton will be remembered as historically imprtant presidents. Both had bold agendas, and both so mismanaged whatever political capital they had to end up achieving little (if any) of their stated goals. I refer here particularly to health care and social security reform.


----------



## A Questionable Gentleman (Jun 16, 2006)

agnash said:


> I do not believe that either GW Bush nor WJ Clinton will be remembered as historically imprtant presidents. Both had bold agendas, and both so mismanaged whatever political capital they had to end up achieving little (if any) of their stated goals.
> 
> 
> > I'd tend to agree with that. Clinton will get a footnote for his impeachment proceedings. Bush will probably end up with "Mr. Bush's War" in the same way that the war with Mexico ended up as "Mr. Jackson's War." Both have a remarkable talent for squandering goodwill.


----------



## chadn2000 (Aug 4, 2006)

*No child left behind*

QG--I'm curious about No Child...though I understand that it seeks to hold accountable teachers via student testing, I've never really quite heard fleshed out the criticisms of it.

I heard some vague discussion at one point about problems with its funding, but I never really delved too deep to find out what this meant.

Is this what you mean, and if so, what are its funding problems? If not, what are its shortfalls you speak of?


----------



## chadn2000 (Aug 4, 2006)

*new pres*

who does everyone hope to see as next pres out of the current candidates?


----------



## A Questionable Gentleman (Jun 16, 2006)

cenelson43,

There was an interesting and, believe it or not, relatively well balanced article about it in Time this week.

One of the primary concepts behind NCLB is Adequate Yearly Progress or AYP. Schools have to make it or the face sanctions up to forcible restaffing. AYP is measured by testing students in various grades in math and reading. Each year, each school must increase the percentage of students who perform at a proficient or better level and reach 100% by 2013.

The tests themselves form one of the problems. Each state does its own. Some states have constructed very easy tests. So, while they claim high achievement based on their tests, their students are not performing well on national standardized tests. This is called an achievement gap.

School response to the tests has been another problem. Many are no longer really teaching subjects. They're teaching students how to take the test.

Funding is another issue. NCLB detractors claim that it places lots of mandates on school districts but does not fund them. Without more money, they claim, they can't make AYP. I think there is some validity to a counterargument that NCLB simply expects teachers and school districts to actually do the job that they are already paid and levying taxes to do. It expects them to deliver value for money.

The structure of the AYP requirement does not necessarily recognize that schools may make tremendous progress, yet not make AYP.

NCLB is, however, the very first measure, at least that I know of, that actually holds schools and educators accountable for performance. There's been a lot of whinging about it from both, but I think the public deserves results for its money. The accountability structure may be flawed, but that, IMO, is a reason to reform rather than scrap it. The time for this will be 2008 when the current act will lapse unless reauthorized.


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

*Treading into the minefield...*

:crazy:

+1 to AQG's sentiments. I too am a 2-time GWB voter. Both were, I must say, enthusiastic (I might say naive, in hindsight). I would cast both votes again, but with much less enthusiasm this time principally because the choices the Dems put forward were...what?...let's just say worse.

Certainly there are others on this board with a more educated view of the President than mine, but here's my take: Bush has run the war like a Harvard MBA. He has told us that his focus in managing the war has been on "properly aligning authority and responsibility". It seems to me that he should have read more books on Lincoln, who didn't focus on such fluff and instead:

1. Fired generals on a regular basis until he found one that knew how to win a war.

2. Hired cabinet members who were capable and many of whom hated his guts and had no personal loyalty to him, but were among the most capable the country had to offer. This, while dangerous politically, availed him of the widest possible range of policy choices when time came to make a decision.

3. Knew that you go to war against countries, not people. Lincoln was at war with the South, not with Jefferson Davis. He knew he had to subjegate the entire South, not just the government in Richmond. Bush tried to go to war with Osama Bin Laden and with Sadam Hussein and didn't realize he needed to establish quick order in both countries or the vacuum would be filled with undesirable elements.

4. Knew that you take a country to war, not just its army. One of Bush's key mistakes was that he tried to just take the military to war. He reasoned that he might have more time if the American people weren't forced to sacrifice too much. This was a mistake. It was too large a wager. Today, the army is nearly spent, with no plan and little enthusiasm for its restoration. This might be his worst legacy.

5. Knew that wars can't be won nicely, but are only won when the other side is humiliated and submits. There is no such thing as a war of liberation. It is a fantasy. It doesn't exist. If you're not willing to wage that kind of war, you need to stay home.

6. Understood the strategic importance of allies, both yours and the other guy's. He knew that you needed support from yours and you needed to deny allied support to the other guy.

7. Knew that once the war was won, humility and gregarious generousity were the path to a permanent peace. Andrew Johnson rejected this point after Lincoln was assassinated, instituted Reconstruction (which Grant tried to partially reverse) and we paid the price for about 100 years thereafter in North/South relations. Truman accepted it and Germany and Japan quickly became some of our strongest allies.

I could be wrong about all of this. I have a fairly narrow view of things sitting here in Dallas, TX. But count me as one of the former Bush supporters who is less than enthusiastic about him today.

I'm acquainted with a retired judge here in North Texas (a Democrat) who told me back in 2000 that he could never support GWB because he had played too many years in a poker game Bush here in Dallas. He said GWB was a really bad poker player. It turns out he was right.

GWB (via the DOD and it's intel operations) got bluffed into going into Iraq by the Iranians who wanted Sadaam out of the way and couldn't do it themselves. Once we'd done it, Iran turned its agents on the US to keep us from getting too firm a control on Iraq because it didn't want us there either. GWB overplayed his hand militarily and overbet the pot. Now he's holding a loser and his only play is to try to bluff Iran into some kind of settlement through this "surge" approach. I hope it works, because if it doesn't we've lost (Fortunately their hand isn't that great either). We got our money into this pot badly, we've misplayed our hand at several stages and now we're making desperation moves to stay in the game. It's hard to make the case that this is the work of a great President, but I'd love for someone to tell me I'm wrong.

JMHO.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

guitone said:


> Let's look at the price of GAS...the US government subsidizes the oil companies to keep the price down, really...I the US public had to pay what GAS really cost you would see better thought out cars (less SUV's, probably no Hummer types) and more fuel efficient cars being demanded. GM and other US auto makers would have to rethink the crap they give up, Toyota and Honda would get even bigger, Clean Diesel would be a reality here in the US. Do you think the government is doing us a FAVOR by subsidizing the price of gas? That money could go into much more useful areas, health care, child education and many more. So while it is nice that the government is saving us money on gas it is not because they love us as much as the lobby by big oil...think about this, if we use less oil we subsidize terrorist a bit less, our environment stays cleaner, we save this natural resource by extending it's life and we may be able to actually see ahead while driving (that blocking of the SUV from the vision of the road). Do I hate SUV's, yes, if they are not used as off road vehicles, I say bring back the station wagon, just make it fuel efficient.


Guit:

You miss the point. I currently hear an endless parade of Dem/liberals bashing Bush for the price of gas going to its current levels. This is seven kinds of stupid, on their part, as their poster child wanted gas to be more expensive than it currently is, 15 years ago. To bash Bush for it today is, at the very least, extremely hypocritical.


----------



## rnoldh (Apr 22, 2006)

Mark from Plano said:


> :crazy:
> It's hard to make the case that this is the work of a great President, but I'd love for someone to tell me I'm wrong.
> 
> JMHO.


I agree with most of your points.

Have you ever thought it's easy to make the case that this is the work of a mediocre, incompetent President.

BTW: I voted for GWB twice


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Guitone,

Having a bad day? You seem like a reasonable guy so I am surprised about the serious errors you make in your post. Government does not subsidize the price of gas and in fact have hindered refinery expansion. GM and Ford have quality and reliability ratings that are very competitive with the Japanese brands. The old canard that American cars are crap as you say, is a myth. And if the domestic auto companies go under then fine, the Japanese and Koreans produce over 90% of their US offerings in the US. BMW and Mercedes also produce cars here. American auto companies are struggling for numerous reasons but the quality of their product isn't the reason.

As to the price of gas at the pump, we can attribute this primarily to two things. First China has entered the world oil market in the past few years (before it was able to domestically supply its needs) and India has also seen explosive growth in oil demand as its economy takes off. Surely you don't begrudge Chinese and Indian economic growth, do you?

Secondly, although there exists a long term supply problem right now there is NOT a supply problem. What there is in the US is a refinery capacity problem. The fact is that no new refineries have been built here in decades and the process to win approval to build a new one is daunting. President Bush and Congress should be faulted for not addressing this problem.

If you want to blame the government and President Bush for something then by all means blame them for not starting a Manhattan Project style effort to find a renewable and ecologically friendly alternative to oil. It may very well take 20 years to develop such an alternative and implement the necessary infrastructure such an alternative would require but had we begun after 9-11 we would have been 6 years down the path. So let us begin now - for economic, national security and enviromental reasons. I prefer the market to government intervention but there are times when only the government can muster the power and resources to accomplish such a daunting task, and this is one of those times.

I was pleased to see some of the Republicans in this week's debate call for an Apollo style program to find an alternative to oil but I would like to see some candidate offer a concrete proposal and to make a firm promise that such an endeavor would be a priority - the candidate that does so has my vote, even if its Hillary. In my mind this is the most important issue we face today as a nation, no matter what the Soccer Moms think.

Karl


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*One slight disagreement Karl*

Karl:

Your last post was spot on and got into things I did not want to address as I was trying to stay focused on my Gore point. However, I do have to disagree with one item.

You inferred Soccer Mom's think.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Wayfarer,

Yes, my mistake. Perhaps if we can somehow link this issue to a Bed, Bath and Beyond (what exactly is the Beyond they sell there anyway?) sale we can win over Soccer Moms to the cause.

Karl


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

I would consider myself a GWB fan. I was unable to vote for him in 2000 but I was very excited to vote for him in 2004. I'm disappointed with the immigration bill that he helped to design, but I can forgive him for that as it looks like it isn't going anywhere. 

I appreciate that GWB identified a growing threat, Islamic extremism in the ME, and had the willingness to begin to fight that threat at the expense of his approval ratings. I remain hopeful that history will view him in a positive light, but I think that the nature of a preemptive war may never allow that to happen. Because I expect us to succeed in this war, we will never see the alternative outcome that would have occurred had the threat been allowed to continue to grow. As we will never see the alternative, I think most will never understand that the sacrifice made now, to stop this threat early, would pale in comparison to a war necessary to protect ourselves in twenty years.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Wayfarer,
> 
> Yes, my mistake. Perhaps if we can somehow link this issue to a Bed, Bath and Beyond (what exactly is the Beyond they sell there anyway?) sale we can win over Soccer Moms to the cause.
> 
> Karl


We can broadcast v-mail messages to the cell phones they are constantly gabbing on, as they drive their precious burdens to school in their gas guzzling SUVs; far too sensitive children to use the school bus. Or we can get the message out at Starbuck's, the only thing that will slow their juggernauts down. It is self-actualizing for their misbehaved children, to slow down the line in the morning, as they proudly rifle through the cool drink display, dripping gobber and snot on items they never take.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

HS,

Yes, Bush was right that we need to fight against global Islamic terrorism and yes he is right when he says that our very survival is at stake but the facts are that he has managed our efforts in this regard beyond incompetently.
Imagine Churchill declaring the Nazis to be a grave threat but that ordinary Britons only had to keep shopping at Marks and Spence.

Bush has not asked anything of this nation as a whole except to to keep shopping. If our very survival is at stake and fighting the global war on terrorism is our national priority then why hasn't he brought the tremendous power of the US to bear by enlisting all of us into this fight? Why hasn't he begun a Manhattan Project style program to find an alternative to oil so that we stop enriching the coffers of Iran, Saudia Arabia and Russia? Why hasn't he asked sacrifice from you and me so that our soldiers have everything they need and that those who are injured don't have to fight for treatment and benefits when they return home?

I don't want my taxes increased but I would gladly pay an increased rate to fund our efforts against terrorism and to support our troops. Instead Bush has dramatically increased the scope of government and the subsidy for middle class senior citizens. It will take decades to undo and scale back the governmental levithan Bush has created with new programs. 

Bush may recognize what is right but he has been a disaster implementing effective policy. The only question that now exists for me, is if Gore or Kerry would have been bigger disasters. On spending undoubtedly they would have been but perhaps they might have conducted the war more competently.

I supported McCain in 2000 primaries (which continued a long tradition of supporting losing candidates that began when as a 14 year old I was an enthuastic supporter of Pete Dupont's quest for the 1988 GOP nomination) and was disheartend when Bush won the nomination. 

Karl


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

A Questionable Gentleman said:


> agnash said:
> 
> 
> > I do not believe that either GW Bush nor WJ Clinton will be remembered as historically imprtant presidents. Both had bold agendas, and both so mismanaged whatever political capital they had to end up achieving little (if any) of their stated goals.
> ...


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Wayfarer,

That was a postively Kav like posting! Which is a good thing.

Karl


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

FrankDC,

Do me a favor - don't comment on Korea. We all know that if Korea was united under a Communist dictatorship you'd be happier and we all know that you regret the very existence of South Korea and the sacrifice that hundreds of thousands of men and women made to ensure the survival of that prosperous, liberal democracy BUT please give it a rest bc I assure you that you are alone on this issue.

Karl


----------



## chadn2000 (Aug 4, 2006)

Hopkins Student--I concur wholeheartedly. Sure, Iraq has not been a walk in the park. I don't disagree with any of the criticisms levied against W, but it's very easy to sit back and Monday Morning Quarterback the entire war. You can criticize a number of things that are easy to look back on and call misjudgments, but did anyone expect that fighting an enemy who has no country and who hides in the shadows of society would be simple?

We're fighting al-Queda and other hostile militias over there who would love to take control with this existing power vaccum and that fight surely isn't going to yield a low death toll. 

If there are other suggestions on how to transform the Middle East into a region which does not have terrorists, throw those ideas out there. 

It's my belief that terrorism is the obvious product of a grossly impoverished and restrictive society and that as a result, in order to get at the root of it, you have to change the very basic elements of that society as best you can. But I'm open to other opinions and views on the Middle East and how to fight terrorism. Let's hear 'em.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> The problem is...we haven't had a declaration of war from our congress since WWII. It's not the job of our DoD to go around the world starting, determining or policing the civil wars of other countries, and trying to impose forms of government on them which either can't or won't work.


This will be my one and only post to you on this thread concerning this topic Frank, as we have all realized you are totally immune to facts that run contrary to your position.

You are correct, Congress has not done a formal "declaration of war" since WWII. However, there have been a number of extended military actions specifically authorized by Congress since then, including the current Iraq one, which of course I happen to have been against. So while what you say is factually true, it is a distinction without a difference. To paint the DoD as "go(ing) around the world" and starting military actions on their own, without Congressional authorization, is clearly wrong, and no doubt intentional on your part.

Please do not take my word that Congress has authorized military actions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I never have been a Bush fan and never will be.


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Guitone,
> 
> Having a bad day? You seem like a reasonable guy so I am surprised about the serious errors you make in your post. Government does not subsidize the price of gas and in fact have hindered refinery expansion. GM and Ford have quality and reliability ratings that are very competitive with the Japanese brands. The old canard that American cars are crap as you say, is a myth. And if the domestic auto companies go under then fine, the Japanese and Koreans produce over 90% of their US offerings in the US. BMW and Mercedes also produce cars here. American auto companies are struggling for numerous reasons but the quality of their product isn't the reason.
> 
> ...




"In his State of the Union address, President George W. Bush admitted to the American people that America has a problem: Oil addiction. The first step in overcoming an addiction is acknowledging the problem. The logical second step should be addressing the root causes of that addiction and correcting the imbalances that enable it. But the Bush proposal does little to meet this challenge.

If past is any prediction of the future, one need only follow the money to see who has profited under the Bush Administration's energy policies and who has not.

Exxon Mobil Corp., one of Bush's strongest supporters, made a record $36 billion in profits in 2005. Exxon Mobil has also been actively campaigning against the Kyoto Protocol, for fear their profits may be affected. Bush followed their urging, and withdrew from the climate negotiations in 2001. To post record profits in a year when a historic hurricane season made thousands homeless, killed over a thousand, and cost over a $100 billion in damages--and record prices at the pump--is obscene. But it is also the result of Bush's energy strategy.

In comparison, the money that Bush has committed to such items as the "solar America initiative" and the "clean energy from wind" is dwarfed by the amount of tax breaks, subsidized loans and other forms of government handouts that are given to the oil, gas and coal industry every year, and result in record profits such as these. Oil and gas companies are the lucky winners of $6 billion in subsidies written into law with last year's approval of the Bush and Cheney energy bill alone.

Bush's vehicle tax credits mean SUV drivers can get a full deduction for the price of a new 6,000 pound SUV priced under $25,000--most of which get less than 20 miles per gallon, but the $2,000 tax credits for hybrid vehicles, which get more than 50 miles per gallon, are being phased out.

What is left unsaid in the pledges Bush made in his so-called "advance energy initiative" is almost as important as what was said. The most striking statement made by Bush was his claim that he will set a goal of "replacing more than 75% of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025."

Yet our consumption of oil and gas is going up, not down, and to replace this roughly 15% of our imports with another source means one of several possibilities. One is increase in extraction from poor and troubled countries such as Nigeria or Angola. Merely changing where the oil comes from doesn't address the real issue of energy independence, however; it only shifts it from one part of the world to another.

Another option would be turning to ethanol, as the President suggested. What he didn't mention is that ethanol requires using large amounts of farmland for energy production. There are fundamental problems, which will only increase as the world's population grows, with turning crops into fuel for the well-fed in a world where over two billion people go hungry each day.

It also could mean exploitation of the tar sands in Canada's Northern provinces. Buried in Canada's tar sands is more oil than is found in all of Saudi Arabia, but it is also very carbon intensive; simply extracting it from the soils of Alberta would mean doubling Canada's CO2 emissions into the already overheated atmosphere.

The only way that America will become truly independent of its oil dealers, whether in the Middle East or elsewhere, is by kicking the oil habit.

Here are three simple ways we could begin to really address our fossil fuel addiction:

1) Replace subsidies and tax breaks for the oil, gas and coal industry with carbon taxes, and phase this in simultaneous with a comparable phase-out of the payroll tax to avoid regressive impacts on the poorest and to encourage employment.

2) Stop muzzling the climate scientists and listening only to oil, gas and coal interests so that our energy policy can be better informed by both science and the public interest.

3) Withdraw American troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, and start to reorient the funds now being spent on the military with a clean energy fund to rapidly phase in emissions-free vehicles, better public transportation, and the rapid uptake of renewable energy nationally and globally.

Such a policy would not only break our oil addiction, it would make America a true leader by taking the world down the path to a clean energy future.

Daphne Wysham and Nadia Martinez are contributors to Foreign Policy In Focus and co-direct the Sustainable Energy and Economy Network (SEEN), a project of the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, DC."


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

How do I get my SUV tax break? Anyone? I'll sure as hell take it if it is as easy to get as the above article indicates.

Edit: Sorry...just noticed it has to be an el cheapo SUV.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Guitone,

A tax break is not a subsidy and the 6 billion in subsidies that the article you post would haradly make a dent in the price at the pump. Even conservation would have very little effect on the price at the pump and I am not against conservation (my car gets 30 mpg) but, and I think we would agree on this, the real solution is to find an alternative solution to oil. I think the next POTUS should launch a program to do such thing and should enlist Europe, Japan and Korea in the effort. Such a step, in addition to being a wise strategic move, would greatly improve our image around the world.

Karl


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Guitone,
> 
> A tax break is not a subsidy and the 6 billion in subsidies that the article you post would haradly make a dent in the price at the pump. Even conservation would have very little effect on the price at the pump and I am not against conservation (my car gets 30 mpg) but, and I think we would agree on this, the real solution is to find an alternative solution to oil. I think the next POTUS should launch a program to do such thing and should enlist Europe, Japan and Korea in the effort. Such a step, in addition to being a wise strategic move, would greatly improve our image around the world.
> 
> Karl


Every president since Gerald Ford, including the current one has given us the same empty speech. E.g. development of alternative fuels was one of Ronald Reagan's primary campaign issues -- in 1980.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

FrankDC,

So what's your point? That we shouldn't develop alternative fuels? Are you against progress as well?

Karl


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

Karl, you and I shall disagree on what our government does for BIG OIL to keep the price down to the consumer who surely would go hog wild if they had to pay prices as they are in other parts of the world...but that is ok, I would not use RR as an avatar, we are very far apart, still in the morning I do respect you, I just do not agree.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

guitone said:


> Karl, you and I shall disagree on what our government does for BIG OIL to* keep the price down to the consumer who surely would go hog wild if they had to pay prices as they are in other parts of the world...but that is ok,* I would not use RR as an avatar, we are very far apart, still in the morning I do respect you, I just do not agree.


So Guit, do you think the US should have had $4/gal gas back in the 1990s, as Gore expounded in his book at that time?


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Guitone,

But the price of gas at the pump in other countries is primarily due to taxes. They dont pay on average $7.00 a gallon in Europe bc that is what it actualy costs! 

But even if the government subsidizes the cost of gasoline to the tune that you seem to think it does, who do you think winds up paying for the goverment subsidies? Unfortunately the government isn't a rich uncle who likes to dole out unexpected presents, though many seem to think that is the case.

But let's focus on the future and thats a future that shouldn't include oil, can we agree on that?

Karl


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> FrankDC,
> 
> So what's your point? That we shouldn't develop alternative fuels?


Absolutely we should. My point is that we haven't, despite claims by every U.S. president since Ford that we should, or that they would etc. It was a particular riot hearing GWB make that particular speech, considering where nearly his entire White House comes from.

IMO it won't happen in any substantive way we're forced to do so, sometime within the next 50-60 years.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

FrankDC,

Well here's the issue that should unite the US. If you and I can agree on something as important as this then surely its possible to sway the rest of the country.

Karl


----------



## longwing (Mar 28, 2005)

I've noticed that all the Bush-fan books are gone from the bookstores. I guess the market has dried up.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> FrankDC,
> 
> Do me a favor - don't comment on Korea. We all know that if Korea was united under a Communist dictatorship you'd be happier and we all know that you regret the very existence of South Korea and the sacrifice that hundreds of thousands of men and women made to ensure the survival of that prosperous, liberal democracy BUT please give it a rest bc I assure you that you are alone on this issue.
> 
> Karl


Yes, those evil Communists. Tell us Karl, who was North Korea's primary supporter in that conflict? And what has the U.S. trade status been with this primary supporter for the last several decades?

The "Korean War" in China is known as "The War to Resist America and Aid Korea".

Korea isn't a democracy, it's a country forcably divided in half against its will and which has been in a state of civil war for sixty years.

Also, did you catch Paul Wolfowitz talking about Vietnam on Charlie Rose's show last month? He beamed with pride at Vietnam's "second-fastest growing economy in the world", and at the $900 million loaned annually by the World Bank to a Communist dictatorship. That same cooperation and result would have been possible had we not wasted the lives of 58,000+ American troops in that country. The same was and is true in Korea.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

FranKDC,

First, if you should know anything it should be that I have never defended US trade policy with China (a policy begun by Clinton btw.)

Secondly, I don't favor our current policy towards Vietnam either, though the Vietnamese bc of their fear of China are overwhelmingly pro-American now.

But if you can't admit that South Korea is a democracy and refuse to condemn North Korea then you truly are divorced from reality.

I can't even get mad at you what you post anymore, I just feel sorry for you and am grateful that you have no role in shaping policy or influencing a wider audience.

Karl


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Guitone,
> 
> But the price of gas at the pump in other countries is primarily due to taxes. They dont pay on average $7.00 a gallon in Europe bc that is what it actualy costs!
> 
> ...


I can agree that, I sure hope do develop some alternate forms of energy that can be useful and affordable.

BTW Wayfarer, I don't have to agree with everything said by anyone who says the cost of fuel should be more, it is not an all or nothing deal.. Gore is a bright guy, just not good at talking and getting his point across in a believable way. Did I like Gore? More than I liked Bush, but I find him to be boring and probably out of touch. Did I see his movie, yes I did and found much that I believe, An Inconvenient Truth, in my eyes, for sure.

And btw, while I have liberal leanings do not assume I am a liberal..I am far more right than I ever was in the past...the thing about maturing is that we sometimes tend to be more willing to hear both sides, maybe just not what one may consider extreme.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

LongWing said:


> I've noticed that all the Bush-fan books are gone from the bookstores. I guess the market has dried up.


Good thing we operate under a market system or we would only have those books for inventory for the next 20 years, if they printed excess. Right next to the Little Red Book. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

guitone said:


> I can agree that, I sure hope do develop some alternate forms of energy that can be useful and affordable.
> 
> BTW Wayfarer, I don't have to agree with everything said by anyone who says the cost of fuel should be more, it is not an all or nothing deal.. Gore is a bright guy, just not good at talking and getting his point across in a believable way. Did I like Gore? More than I liked Bush, but I find him to be boring and probably out of touch. Did I see his movie, yes I did and found much that I believe, An Inconvenient Truth, in my eyes, for sure.
> 
> And btw, while I have liberal leanings do not assume I am a liberal..I am far more right than I ever was in the past...the thing about maturing is that we sometimes tend to be more willing to hear both sides, maybe just not what one may consider extreme.


Guit, I agree, it is not an all or nothing thing. However, it is still somewhat dishonest, IMO, to be all "Gore Green" and then bash Dubya for the price of gas, when part of Gore's green was to up gas so much 15 years ago. I have very liberal leanings socially, in fact, probably more so than you. I just have little patience for people that want to have their rhetorical cake and eat it too (not saying that is you). I really just cannot stand people that posture as "enviro-friendly", have a Gore/Lieberman bumper sticker, bash Dubya for the price of gas, then trundle off to Starbuck's in their gas guzzling SUVs.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

Bush fan? I was never a "fan" of his or any past President, although I did and do support him. I am very disappointed with many of his decisions, but still much prefer him over either Al Gore or John Kerry.


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Guit, I agree, it is not an all or nothing thing. However, it is still somewhat dishonest, IMO, to be all "Gore Green" and then bash Dubya for the price of gas, when part of Gore's green was to up gas so much 15 years ago. I have very liberal leanings socially, in fact, probably more so than you. I just have little patience for people that want to have their rhetorical cake and eat it too (not saying that is you). I really just cannot stand people that posture as "enviro-friendly", have a Gore/Lieberman bumper sticker, bash Dubya for the price of gas, then trundle off to Starbuck's in their gas guzzling SUVs.


Well I think we all know that Gore is a proponent of Global Warming and wanting us to be smarter with energy use and then has his own astronomical energy bills...I know these things...he still says some good stuff, but you know, do as I say not as I do..if you want an environmental hero look at Ed Begley Jr., now there is someone who lives by his words.


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

guitone said:


> Well I think we all know that Gore is a proponent of Global Warming and wanting us to be smarter with energy use and then has his own astronomical energy bills...I know these things...he still says some good stuff, but you know, do as I say not as I do..if you want an environmental hero look at Ed Begley Jr., now there is someone who lives by his words.


It's interesting to me that when the automobile was introduced, part of the rationale was that it would clean up the environment by reducing the amount of "horse waste" in the cities. Ed Begley's big push for hybrid cars is in that same vein.

The big secret about hybrids that no one wants you to focus on is that hybrids are a ticking environmental time bomb. Cars wear out and batteries are hazardous waste. If the US goes increasingly toward hybrid technologies and increases exponentially the amount of batteries and battery acid that we need to dispose of over time we'll just replace one environmental hazard with another. But we shouldn't actually let the facts get in the way of a good deed, right. In the meantime sell you oil stocks and start buying shares of companies that make car batteries. At least you can make a few bucks off the problem.


----------



## jimbabwe (Jan 15, 2006)

I remember very clearly the late 70's when the big environmental concern was global COOLING! Yes, just 30 years ago the wacko enviromental commies were claiming that we were all going to starve to death as the next ice age consumed our crop land.

1970's Global COOLING according to the wackos was caused by (you guessed it) BIG business. It went something like this: "The pollution caused by BIG business was blocking the suns rays from reaching earth thereby cooling the planet.

2007 Global WARMING according to the wackos is caused by - (you guessed it) BIG business. It goes something like this: "The pollution caused by BIG business is blocking the heat from the suns rays from escaping thereby warming the planet.

These commies never explain how the 1970's sun rays were blocked by pollution but now these same sun rays have evolved (Darden's theory) into pollution dodging little rascals and now make their way to earth but are still too dumb to figure out how to escape the same pollution they managed to dodge coming in.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I am a big fan of science fiction. I always have been. I was very young in the 1970's, but was always a voracious reader and one above my grade level. I can remember numerous books that involved a future dystopia based on a new ice age. Also dystopias post-nuclear holocausts. The early 80's were dystopias post-oil production and/or post-nuclear holocausts. Into the 90's got interesting for awhile, dystopias post-escaped nano tech, that sort of thing. 

Then came the global warming dystopias around the early/mid 1990s. I was never much one on those. I guess after 25 years of reading dystopias caused by Big Gov and Big Business, I became desensitized.


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> So Guit, do you think the US should have had $4/gal gas back in the 1990s, as Gore expounded in his book at that time?


I do, and I am a Reagan conservative (even though I was in my early teens then). Cheap gasoline has led to waste, as evidenced by the massive Hummers, Yukons, and Escalades that are all over the freeways here in Atlanta. I think had the government discouraged waste (much as they discourage smoking and drinking alcohol with high taxes) by levying a higher tax on gasoline, and then pumped the proceeds into alternative energy (fuel cells etc), we would be far better off. I am not only talking about global warming, which can not and will not be solved overnight anyway, but from a proce volatility perspective. More alternatives and subsitutes for crude oil/gasoline would result in much reduced price volatility. I think we haven't seen anything yet. What happens with strained refining capacity, massive hurricane damage in the gulf, and a major terrorist attack against a Saudi refinery? Can we say $20.00/gallon?

I was a fan of Bush in his first term, but he has done little for the economy, nothing to solve the horrible insanity of the AMT, and even less to fix social security. I don't see much choice on either side of the spectrum for 2008, God help us.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

'Wacko environmental Commies' Now thats a word I haven't been called in a looooong time. Obi Won Kenobi, er WEC's yes that was the name we were called; Dave Foreman, a registered Republican and one of three co founders of EARTH FIRST! David Brower, WW2 tenth Mountain Division veteran who long led the Sierra Club. And if I may link myself to such honoured names, I am a combat veteran, NRA lifetime member wore a Goldwater button and voted for Ford and Reagan. Julia Butterfly Hill slept in the dedicated winter sleeping bag I gave her after I heard she was in a Coleman car camper bag. I crewed with Captain Paul Watson on Sea Shepherd and and been a real PITA vs PETA and just about everybody else. But communist? If You knew ANYTHING about the party platform of the American Worker's Party, the people who are indeed card carrying communists, You would find envireonmentalists are anathema. We promote ecological concerns over those of people. Clearcutting redwoods creates jobs, and when those WASP loggers move into the cities bereft of work more latinos can move into the newly established wine vinyards to work. This is a simple matter of research. Try it sometime instead of reactionary hate speech coined by somebody suffering Tourette's Syndrome.


----------



## anglophile23 (Jan 25, 2007)

Never was, never will be.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

gnatty8:

What anyone else thinks the price of gas should be, in this conversation, is moot. I am just trying to hammer home it is totally illogical for a liberal to bash Dubya over the current price of gas yet be a big backer of Al Gore and his platform of fighting global warming. Basically, one cannot have their cake and eat it too


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Karl89 said:


> Guitone,
> 
> Having a bad day? You seem like a reasonable guy so I am surprised about the serious errors you make in your post. Government does not subsidize the price of gas and in fact have hindered refinery expansion.


From the get go, you're either wrong or not giving full information, depending on how you think of things. There are BIG subsidies to businesses to use oil, which is an effective subsidy on oil, which in turn subsidizes gas (which is really just to fool people into spending more on gas than they would otherwise - people view gas and taxes separately, they then don't constrict their gas usage because of how low the price is).

The dumbest thing to ever happen are these new W-backed ethanol subsidies. But then, I don't blame him for that one so much as the system because everybody just does what their big backers want them to do, and Archer Daniels Midland happens to be a big backer.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

The fundamental problem with oil is indeed supply and demand. The worldwide ecosystem has a finite supply regardless of technology, each with it's pros and often as many cons. Outside of Solar, which is sadly still under utilised, this puts us back to demand. If people don't want dams, nuclear reactors, oil derricks off the California coast or huge ethanol fields with a yoeman organic farmer from the Rainbow People with a beautific smile as spokeperson for a mega company of greedheads the solution is simple: reduce demand by reducing the world population something below that of cockraoches and rats, the two other species that have followed us to every continent and ( cockroaches) into space itself.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Kav:

The population question is one I sometimes think about. What has happened is that the Western and Industrialized nations (to include countries like Japan), have put themselves into a bad spot. Birth rates are too low to equal replacement needs, yet all the Big Gov programs are about to implode due to population inversion. OTH, countries that cannot support their current population are breeding at a geometric rate.

Does anyone else wonder if there will be population wars where those in poor countries come to feel the good life can be had simply by occupying the real estate of the West? Oh wait...where did those gentlemen that wandered through the arroyo behind my house last night come from?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I am a bit scared of this.

This is one area that I think Pat Buchanan (weird as he is sometimes) sees the problem clearly, although I have not actually read his book.)

(Then again, by not marrying and reproducing, I suppose I am part of this problem.)


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

The sidebar discussion here on oil is laughable.

I've just returned from five weeks of work in West Africa to bring you guys oil. Your gasoline is cheap. The real problem is that you want it for free, but you just don't know the risks or even the business well enough to understand just what a bargain you are currently getting. I actually want you to pay more for it than what you are paying now.

Not to worry, because the industry has practically left the US now anyways, only our elected leaders, the media, and you paparazzi out there are all too stupid to know this.

Cheers,

M8


----------



## chadn2000 (Aug 4, 2006)

Amen, M8. Thank you.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Martinis at 8 said:


> The sidebar discussion here on oil is laughable.
> 
> I've just returned from five weeks of work in West Africa to bring you guys oil. Your gasoline is cheap. The real problem is that you want it for free, but you just don't know the risks or even the business well enough to understand just what a bargain you are currently getting. I actually want you to pay more for it than what you are paying now.
> 
> ...


I had just been wondering where you were. Welcome back and thanks for keeping my Rover's tank filled 

Hey, I would find some things about $20/gal gas attractive. It would sure cut down on the brainless soccer mares in their jumbo SUVs being a menance on the road. I bet there would be less traffice too....


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I am a bit scared of this.
> 
> This is one area that I think Pat Buchanan (weird as he is sometimes) sees the problem clearly, although I have not actually read his book.)
> 
> (Then again, by not marrying and reproducing, I suppose I am part of this problem.)


Me too Fors. We're DINKs and likely to stay that way. Took awhile to really scratch my way ahead, if I had wanted to breed I should have gone for someone ten years younger than me vs. the same age.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

I voted for Bush because I didn't like the others in the competetion. I was for John McCain before the primary almost all the way but toward the end decided John McCain didn't know where to stand on some issues that he should have.

The second time, even though Bush hadn't finished the Afanistan war and errorantly went into Iraq there was nobody there to vote for except Bush. Would have voted for Joe Lieberman, but the Democrats don't like moderates.


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> gnatty8:
> 
> What anyone else thinks the price of gas should be, in this conversation, is moot. I am just trying to hammer home it is totally illogical for a liberal to bash Dubya over the current price of gas yet be a big backer of Al Gore and his platform of fighting global warming. Basically, one cannot have their cake and eat it too


I agree with you. Besides the federal tax take, the president has nothing to do with the price of gas whatsoever. It is determined by the intersection of supply and demand.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

There are still some things about W I like. Every once in a while he gets "caught" in a candid moment and says or does something I like. For instance, his interview with Greta when he was in South & Latin America was fantastic IMHO. He's really a pretty good guy I think, when he isn't being so over managed. At least he's likeable that way. I'd go fishing or play golf with him. When he's being natural, he couldn't be anything except an American and I like that too. If that's offensive to some, so-be-it. He's my guy at the moment. Some of the stuff like saying "Yes Sir" to the Pope is endearing to me. I think people that expect other people to refer to their Pope as "his holiness" is pushing their religion and then those are the people that whine about things like prayer in school or the pledge of allegiance. "Yes Sir" is plenty polite and formal and I don't expect my President to walk on eggshells for anyone. Even on the immmigration bill, which I disagree with, W's explanation of it doesn't really offend me. I believe he is a sincere person. Playing golf with McCain would give me hives. I wouldn't even shake hands with a Kerry or an Edwards. Of course, I'm frustrated with some of the lost opportunities in the last 6+ years. I half blame the Administration and half blame the media and Dems. The attack has been persistant. If they consider that credit instead of blame, good for them, well done. It's worked.


----------



## jimbabwe (Jan 15, 2006)

Martinis at 8 said:


> The sidebar discussion here on oil is laughable.
> 
> I've just returned from five weeks of work in West Africa to bring you guys oil. Your gasoline is cheap. The real problem is that you want it for free, but you just don't know the risks or even the business well enough to understand just what a bargain you are currently getting. I actually want you to pay more for it than what you are paying now.
> 
> ...


No. Sixty-nine cents a gallon (1999) is cheap and $3.50 is expensive. It doesn't matter if Haiti is paying close to $10 a gallon. A five fold increase in a price during a time of low inflation is expensive.

We are sitting on over a 200 year supply of oil and natural gas and we haven't finished exploring all areas within our borders. New technology will no doubt bring more to the surface as well.

Refining capacity, exploration curtailment, 60+ blends of gasoline, and high taxation to appease the wacko environmentalists is a primary cause. Not the SUV. Not China. Not India.

So lets all grow corn and sugar in our backyards so we can create an environmental nightmare of excessive fresh water usage, herbicide and pesticide pollution, permanent deforestation, enormous refining and distribution costs all in the name of "alternative" fuel.

No. Let's all mount toxic laden, non-biodegradable, solar panels on our houses. So that when they fail we all end burying them in our backyards because the garbage dumps of the municipalities will not take these same toxic laden panels. You think it's hard to get rid of a can paint?

No. Lets all mount 280 foot span giant windmills so they can create 106 decibels of noise, 160mph winds, slice migrating birds to pieces and toss chucks of ice over a 1/2 mile and right into your spanking brand new solar panel that shatters spewing toxic elements down the gutter and into your soil.

How about, we stick more pipes in the ground and suck the energy right out of it. Very low environmental impact at the surface vs growing corn/sugar. Then pump that oil through a pipeline distribution (Caribou love those pipelines for the warmth they provide resulting in an explosion of the Caribou population around Alaskan pipeleines) network that brings it to the refining center. Far more efficient than driving all over the Midwest collecting the farmers corn/sugar spewing millions of gallons of diesel particulate matter into the air, etc.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

You dropped communist from wacko environmentalist. Corrupting young minds one argument at a time.


----------



## jimbabwe (Jan 15, 2006)

Kav said:


> You dropped communist from wacko environmentalist. Corrupting young minds one argument at a time.


Yes I know. I believe I hurt somebody's feelings with that term earlier. Commie = fanatic for my use.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

jimbabwe said:


> No. Sixty-nine cents a gallon (1999) is cheap and $3.50 is expensive. It doesn't matter if Haiti is paying close to $10 a gallon. A five fold increase in a price during a time of low inflation is expensive.
> 
> We are sitting on over a 200 year supply of oil and natural gas and we haven't finished exploring all areas within our borders. New technology will no doubt bring more to the surface as well.
> 
> Refining capacity, exploration curtailment, 60+ blends of gasoline, and high taxation to appease the wacko environmentalists is a primary cause. Not the SUV. Not China. Not India.


And certainly, most definitely not Dick Cheney's "energy policy".


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> And certainly, most definitely not Dick Cheney's "energy policy".


Please explicate your meaning.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Please explicate your meaning.


It's taken six years and a dozen lawsuits to get heavily redacted versions of what took place in Cheney's "Energy Task Force":
https://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/03/21/ING0H5LTDA1.DTL

https://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/taskforce/tfinx.asp

etc. It'll likely take another six years to learn the whole truth.

This much we know: oil industry officials lied through their teeth to Congress about meetings that took place with Cheney, and by March 2001 -- six months before 9/11 -- Cheney and Bush were already eyeing Iraqi oil:

"Documents turned over in the summer of 2003 by the Commerce Department as a result of the Sierra Club's and Judicial Watch's Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, concerning the activities of the Cheney Energy Task Force, contain a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as two charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts."

Beyond this, every sabre rattled -- from Iran to Venezuela -- is another dollar in the pockets of OPEC and Big Oil. And a fine job the Bush Administration has done. Look at Big Oil's profits for the last six years. There's no problem with supply or demand that hasn't been artificially created (with few exceptions such as Hurricane Katrina).


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Ahhh, VRWC. But of course. And just for the record, Katrina only further crimped refining capacity (the real bottleneck).


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Ahhh, VRWC. But of course.


Far from it. Judicial Watch is a conservative organization and has been at or near the front of this investigation for years.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Far from it. Judicial Watch is a conservative organization and has been at or near the front of this investigation for years.


Conservative =! right wing.

Thus endeth the lesson.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Bush Receives Hero's Welcome ...

https://apnews.myway.com/article/20070610/D8PM5QT00.html

... in Albania


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Ksinc,

Don't tell FrankDC that a Muslim country that suffered under decades of oppression welcomed Bush with open arms. Surely if FrankDC is a North Korean apologist he must be wistful for the glory days of Albania under Enver Hoxha.

Karl


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Ksinc,
> 
> Don't tell FrankDC that a Muslim country that suffered under decades of oppression welcomed Bush with open arms.


So one country is left who welcomes Bush with open arms.



Karl89 said:


> Surely if FrankDC is a North Korean apologist


I'm not apologizing for anyone. The point is, we had (and still have) no business getting involved in the civil wars of other countries. As if Korea, Vietnam and Iraq aren't enough evidence of what happens when we do?

Face facts: What would have happened if a foreign country had marched 100,000 of their troops into the U.S. during our own Civil War? Presence of these troops might have swayed the conflict one way or the other, or might have forced a stalemate. But in any case these troops would have been completely irrelevant to the underlying causes for the war.

Is this concept really so difficult for you to grasp?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

So then Frank, you are saying the Korean War was a US thing, not a UN sponsored action?


----------



## A Questionable Gentleman (Jun 16, 2006)

It is not without irony that the Korean War appears to be discussed more on a website devoted to clothes than anywhere else in the world.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> So then Frank, you are saying the Korean War was a US thing, not a UN sponsored action?


It was a Roosevelt/Stalin thing. They divided the Korean Peninsula at the end of WWII without bothering to find out what the people of Korea wanted. Everything that followed was a direct result of this.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> It was a Roosevelt/Stalin thing. They divided the Korean Peninsula at the end of WWII without bothering to find out what the people of Korea wanted. Everything that followed was a direct result of this.


Good dodge. Out of this one, suddenly having _deja vu_.


----------



## jimbabwe (Jan 15, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Face facts: What would have happened if a foreign country had marched 100,000 of their troops into the U.S. during our own Civil War? Presence of these troops might have swayed the conflict one way or the other, or might have forced a stalemate.


Many would make the argument that when Lee crossed into Pennsylvania you had that exact situation. The presence of these troops did indeed bring about an early announcement by Lincoln called the Emancipation Proclamation.

Oh that good ol' "hippie movement" of the late 60's /early 70's with the "Give Peace a chance". Well, the hippies got their peace and the Cambodians were put to slaughter in the range of 750,000 to 1.5 million after we pulled out. That's some "peace" alright.

Now replace "Cambodian" with "Iraqi" and you have that "Vietnam" comparison that the lib's have been preaching of late.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

FrankDC,

Next time I am in Seoul I will tell the South Koreans that their country doesn't exist and that its a shame that the United Nations prevented North Korea from winning the Korean War - at least according to Francis.

Karl


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

jimbabwe said:


> Many would make the argument that when Lee crossed into Pennsylvania you had that exact situation. The presence of these troops did indeed bring about an early announcement by Lincoln called the Emancipation Proclamation.
> 
> Oh that good ol' "hippie movement" of the late 60's /early 70's with the "Give Peace a chance". Well, the hippies got their peace and the Cambodians were put to slaughter in the range of 750,000 to 1.5 million after we pulled out. That's some "peace" alright.


Responsibility for that genocide lies squarely with U.S. involvement in Vietnam, and the government of Lon Nol. Read your history:

"In 1955, Sihanouk abdicated in favour of his father in order to be elected Prime Minister. Upon his father's death in 1960, Sihanouk again became head of state, taking the title of Prince. As the Vietnam War progressed, Sihanouk adopted an official policy of neutrality until ousted in 1970 by a military coup led by Prime Minister General Lon Nol and Prince Sisowath Sirik Matak, while on a trip abroad. From Beijing, Sihanouk realigned himself with the communist Khmer Rouge rebels who had been slowly gaining territory in the remote mountain regions and urged his followers to help in overthowing the pro-United States government of Lon Nol, hastening the onset of civil war."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodia#History


----------



## jimbabwe (Jan 15, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> And certainly, most definitely not Dick Cheney's "energy policy".


I do believe that Dick Cheney as CEO of Haliburton is primarily responsible for the superb oil distribution network in the nation that saves millions of gallons of fuel, cuts vehicle emissions to nearly zero, and don't you know the Caribou just love the man for providing them a nice warm respite from those long dreary months on a frozen wasteland where they can now gather by the thousands in a warm communal setting. God Bless Dick Cheney's oil distribution network. Now lets all sing Kumbaya my Lord.

Now lets look at Al Gore's idea. Let's plant millions of acres of corn and sugar. Bulldoze those trees, plow virgin prarie land with diesel powered farm equipment, then use diesel powered equipement to plant the seed, then use herbicides & pesticides & growth hormones to make sure we grow nice plump little corn kernels. Then we're going to suck the water table dry to make sure we get nice plump corn kernels, then we're going to use more diesel powered equipment to harvest our corn. Then big diesel trucks will come and pickup from me and thousands of other farms across the midwest and take it to some processing plant that has yet to be created but will know doubt involve extensive amount of energy to build and run. Then we'll put it back on trucks and take it to a refinery that will mix it into 60 varieties and then we'll put it into more trucks and deliver to a station near you.


----------



## jimbabwe (Jan 15, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Responsibility for that genocide lies squarely with U.S. involvement in Vietnam, and the government of Lon Nol.


"Oh those nasty American terrorists." From Beijing, Sihanouk realigned himself with the communist Khmer Rouge rebels who had been slowly gaining territory in the remote mountain regions and urged his followers to help in overthowing the pro-United States government of Lon Nol, hastening the onset of civil war."

"From Beijing" = Communist China.

"communist Khmer Rouge rebels" = Communist China

"overthrowing the pro-United States government of Lon Nol" = The Good Guys were overthrown by the Communist when we left thereby leaving 750,000 - 1.5 million dead.

"American Hippie" = acting in concert and in support of the communist Khmer Rouge are to be implicated in the slaughter. However, one must remember that the "American Hippie" was a drug induced, alcohol inhibriated, 18 year who didn't know his axx from a hole in the ground. Ignorance is bliss.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

jimbabwe said:


> "Oh those nasty American terrorists." From Beijing, Sihanouk realigned himself with the communist Khmer Rouge rebels who had been slowly gaining territory in the remote mountain regions and urged his followers to help in overthowing the pro-United States government of Lon Nol, hastening the onset of civil war."
> 
> "From Beijing" = Communist China.
> 
> ...


The Good Guys? Didn't they go out of business?

Yeah, evil Communist China. And I'll bet you shop at Walmart.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I don't get hurt feelings. I get even, in fact I see that I come out ahead. Posters who use inflamatory hate speach of any political stripe are pathetic heirs to the old black and white reels of the KKK marching in Washington, Triumph of the Will and Uncle Joe clapping as the same Soviet regiments went around the block at Red Square. If your going to paint history with a wide paintbrush kindly remove the plastic cover first.


----------



## CCabot (Oct 4, 2006)

I remain in support of most of Bush's policies, but lament the mediocre execution and wasted opportunities of the past seven years. I do not think he is an excellent president by any means, but I would still probably put him slightly above average. I think we could have done a lot worse.


----------



## jimbabwe (Jan 15, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> The Good Guys? Didn't they go out of business?
> 
> Yeah, evil Communist China. And I'll bet you shop at Walmart.


NO, they're alive and well and currently operating in Iraq, Afghanistan and a couple hundred other locations throughout the world.

You bet I do, 1.34 million American jobs depend on it.


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

jimbabwe said:


> Now lets look at Al Gore's idea. Let's plant millions of acres of corn and sugar. Bulldoze those trees, plow virgin prarie land with diesel powered farm equipment, then use diesel powered equipement to plant the seed, then use herbicides & pesticides & growth hormones to make sure we grow nice plump little corn kernels. Then we're going to suck the water table dry to make sure we get nice plump corn kernels, then we're going to use more diesel powered equipment to harvest our corn. Then big diesel trucks will come and pickup from me and thousands of other farms across the midwest and take it to some processing plant that has yet to be created but will know doubt involve extensive amount of energy to build and run. Then we'll put it back on trucks and take it to a refinery that will mix it into 60 varieties and then we'll put it into more trucks and deliver to a station near you.


_To reach this goal, we must increase the supply of alternative fuels, by setting a mandatory fuels standard to require 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels in 2017 -- and that is nearly five times the current target. (Applause.) At the same time, we need to reform and modernize fuel economy standards for cars the way we did for light trucks -- and conserve up to 8.5 billion more gallons of gasoline by 2017_
....Bush 2007 State of the Union

hmmm. Seems like Shrub has a knack for picking up really bad ideas. Ineptness overflowing.

-appalled


----------



## jimbabwe (Jan 15, 2006)

Kav said:


> I don't get hurt feelings. I get even, in fact I see that I come out ahead. Posters who use inflamatory hate speach of any political stripe are pathetic heirs to the old black and white reels of the KKK marching in Washington, Triumph of the Will and Uncle Joe clapping as the same Soviet regiments went around the block at Red Square. If your going to paint history with a wide paintbrush kindly remove the plastic cover first.


Naughty, naughty, boy Kav. VERY NAUGHTY INDEED.

You see folks, Kav is one of those slimy fellows on the net who likes to hit a particular pc with about 150,000 intrusion attempts that hopefully get through and muckup your OS. Yes, Kav is one of those fellows.

However, I logged his attempts and forwarded them to the to the FBI. Probably not much will happen as there are plenty of slimly little trolls like Kav out there.

I would suggest that AskAndy be very carful about Kav because they are endorsing him with a particular "title" on this forum.


----------

