Board member on fox news last night ??? very O/T [Archive]

Archive

10-20-2006, 03:18 AM

Posted By: Ryan ChristoffJeff, I was sure you were joking, but my search for a smiley face emoticon in your post has, like Al Capone's vaults, shockingly turned up nothing. This left me a bit concerned for the future of our nation, so I was hoping you could clarify what qualifies as "young people" today? If "young people" are really watching O'Reilly, I would suggest that perhpas the most likely scenario would be that a marijuana-induced remote control malfunction has left their television on Fox when they were searching for The Colbert Report and they were too stoned to realize that Stephen Colbert wears glasses. Maybe they were watching the playoffs on Fox, then switched to Comedy Central, then accidentaly hit the "last channel" button without realizing it. I can definitely see the appeal of watching Bill O'Reilly if you think his show is tongue-in-cheek political satire dripping with yummy irony. Especially if you're high! Doritos and Bill O'Reilly: Curing the munchies of America's youth since 1996! But really, I think you're probably just taking a jab at Olbermann, so I hereby pronounce you today's net54 Worst...Person...In The World! -Ryan P.S. Insert smiley face somewhere above. Wherever would offend you the least.

Archive

10-20-2006, 04:50 AM

Posted By: barrysloateRyan- I'm with you. If more young people watch O'Reilly is that a feather in O'Reilly's cap or a condemnation of how conservative America's youth are? When I was young I would have used an 8" x 10" of O'Reilly to roll joints on, and have a few good laughs along the way.

Archive

10-20-2006, 05:08 AM

Posted By: ScottIngoldO'Reilly's allright in my book. I think his value's are what we need in this country at this point in our history. I guess i'm not a young'en anymore but his value's and thoughts on where our country needs to go ring very true for someone like me. ( White married male w/2 children and a buisness to protect) Am i in the minority ? I can't believe that.

Archive

10-20-2006, 05:55 AM

Posted By: barrysloateNo Scott, you are probably in the majority, and that is what is so disheartenening to me. Where is all the moral outrage that we felt growing up during the Viet Nam war? Don't want to get too carried away, as I know Leon does not like these political threads. But I need to rave and rant every once in a while to get it out of my system.

Archive

10-20-2006, 06:08 AM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisSCOTT Your in the majority.....I watch O'Reilly (sometimes I agree with him and other times I don't); but, in any event about 2 MILLIOM viewers watch him every nite. And, my 20-year old Grandson prefers FOX to the other lesser news stations. Jeff is correct that a large number of young people are getting their news from FOX or the Internet.....as opposed to the "Old Media". So RYAN, I do not appreciate your uninformed comments. You can't be serious, man ? On that M(ost) S(enseless) NBC channel, that "liberal weenie" Keith Olberman is lucky if he gets 200,000 viewers. Hey RYAN, do the math.....that's a factor of 10-1.....so, who suddenly made you the "judge" of Net54....of who is deemed "good" and who is the "worst" ? ? ? ? I have never met Jeff Lichtman and I do not know him; other than reading his posts on this Forum. And, I like what I read from him. What is with you guys ? Do we need to run a SURVEY to see who favors the FOX news network vs. the C(ommunist)NN ? We don't need that kind of "crap" on this Forum. I tune into this site to be educated and to contribute regarding VINTAGE BB cards, or chat about BB in general.....not someone's political "B.....S". T-Rex TED

Archive

10-20-2006, 06:20 AM

Posted By: jay behrensWe need more people with the values and concerns of Lou Dobbs, not Biull O'Reilly. Jay I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

Archive

10-20-2006, 06:34 AM

Posted By: Mark EvansWhile I am squarely in the Adam/Barry/Ryan camp, I would make the point that my beef with O'Reilly and Olbermann, as well as most other commentators, is that they present complicated issues in too simplistic terms. Most of the tough issues we face have at least two arguable sides but such a presentation typically lacks drama and fails to instill passions. I think we would all be better off if there were some tv commentators who both educate and entertain in an even-handed manner. Ted Koppel's former Nightline show comes to mind, although perhaps not everyone would agree. Mark

Archive

10-20-2006, 06:42 AM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanRyan, I'm trying to find something in my posts here that indicate that I either like O'Reilly's show, like him or support any of his positions. All I reported was his show's demographics. Alas, I cannot - but that didn't stop you from jumping to conclusions about me. I had taken a neutral political position on the Stewart case when I was on - that she belonged in jail (unlike most liberal thinking), just not a de-facto life sentence (unlike most conservatives). I also supported O'Reilly's position that the country has gotten way too negative when it comes to political criticism. After the show was over, I only received one death threat from someone who presumed I was a lefty (even though my comments implied no political leanings at all). I'm simply amazed at how angry people are in this country - both liberal and conservative - which causes them to not think clearly sometimes. I think it's bad for our country, period, regardless of one's political affiliation.

Archive

10-20-2006, 07:01 AM

Posted By: James FeaginEveryday I'm pleased with my decision to leave both the Republicans and Democrats behind. Neither of them represent my values and the "shouting heads" programs are like political junk food, lots of rhetoric, little substance. My life is actually more informed, and more happy with out the CNN's, Washington Posts, and Fox News' of the world.

Archive

10-20-2006, 07:05 AM

Posted By: barrysloateJeff- I think you made a very good point and we even prove it on this board- that the country is very split and likewise very angry. The Nov 7 elections should be a good indicator of just how outraged people may or may not be. And you really got a death threat? There are so many nuts out there. And Ted, while you are free to dislike the way Keith delivers the news, calling him a Communist is hitting below the belt. That's just an old schoolyard ruse that doesn't hold much water. But we're still friends. I take it back, you called the network, not Keith, Communist. My error, but same sentiment.

Archive

10-20-2006, 07:10 AM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisAnd....NO Where did I refer to KO as a "commie"....just a "liberal weenie"....there is a difference !

Archive

10-20-2006, 07:28 AM

Posted By: barrysloateTed- you are right, I did misread your post. But "liberal weenie", that's actually a funny term. I guess I'm one of those too, but I've been called worse.

Archive

10-20-2006, 07:31 AM

Posted By: James FeaginAnd may I add (as I think to myself) that I try to be very careful who I discuss political matters with. I tend to be more conservative, but most of my friends are democrats, and when we approach issues, we always make ground rules. Terms like "liberal", don't really describe anything, and mean different things to different folks. What my friends and I have agreed on is that the art of civil debate is long lost in this country. Our media is so catered to our niche and interest, that if we don't want to, we don't have to think outside of the box; creating lazy mindsets and lazy politics. James (The Christian, anti-Christian-coalition, anti-neo-con, anti-war, anti-death penalty (except for terrorists) Conservative)

Archive

10-20-2006, 08:07 AM

Posted By: Bill KI'm sorry, there is no way I can watch O'Reilly after hearing that nasty phone sex tape; where his co-worker sued him. The mental image of that whacko is burned into my brain. Give me Jon Stewart every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Bill My personal collection - <a href="http://s47.photobucket.com/albums/f176/fkm_bky/" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://s47.photobucket.com/albums/f176/fkm_bky/</a>

Archive

10-20-2006, 08:22 AM

Posted By: Ryan ChristoffTed, Glad to hear you're an objective critical thinker when watching O'Reilly ("sometimes I agree with him and other times I don't") just when I thought O'Reilly was like a preacher and his viewers, the choir. Although the tone of your entire post does smell a little choirish. You obviously didn't get the "worst person in the world" joke if you think I am playing Net54 judge. Still, I'd be interested to hear what information in my post I am "uninformed" about. Would you mind specifically addressing the factual inaccuracies in my post? If possible, please do so in a way that sounds less like Zell Miller than your last post. Thanks. Jeff, I didn't mean to imply I was drawing any personal conclusions about you, other than assuming you may have been taking a jab at Olbermann. If that was not true, I apologize. I even offered an olive branch in the form of a smiley face at the bottom of my post, although I still refuse to use the actual emoticon. And where did I say anything about you liking, not liking, or agreeing with O'Reilly? I wasn't challenging (and don't care about) your political views, nor those of other board members. All I was, and still am challenging is your statement about young people. I would still like an answer as to what you are defining as "young people." Incidentally, I agree with you on the predicament the country finds itself in, with the anger people feel on all political sides often suspending their capacity for rational thought. It's exactly this kind of emotional vulnerability that makes people susceptible to propaganda, in all its forms. I can generally distill a decent idea of the truth from whatever news source it comes from because I have an understading that each particular media outlet will have their own particular bias. In fact, it's often useful to hear the same story reported several times, each with a different bias. My concern is that most "young people" might have a harder time not believing what they are shown on television. This is where a show like O'Reilly's could dangerous. Not because of what he believes in or says. Like him or not, no one's going to say he's an unbiased reporter of the truth, right? At least, not with a straight face. I don't care what people believe, I would jsut hope they had a chance to develop their beliefs on their own, because they actually believe them, not because of some unquestioned loyalty to their family's views or vague idea of political correctness or whatever else. Really, all I am raling against is intellectual laziness. Believe me, I fully realize where the great majority of this board falls along political lines. I completely understand that most board members will view me as ignorant for saying these things. I am not blind to that and it doesn't bother me. We are a unique group on this board and there are many differences between us, but it's important to remember that we are not a microcosm of the country. Let's not pretend we're a diverse group here. -Ryan

Archive

10-20-2006, 09:08 AM

Posted By: Dan BrettaNobody should be looking to Bill O'Reilly as their moral compass. Unless sexual harassment, lying and bullying are all okay with them. And anyone claiming FOX news to be unbiased and fair and balanced really needs a reality check....just a quick check with them this morning and I can see they are on full alert scary mode running with the NFL Dirty bomb story which even the federal government says is baseless, but hey gotta scare up them votes somehow....

Archive

10-20-2006, 09:13 AM

Posted By: barrysloateDan- you know the tactic: only Republicans can save us from terrorism; if the Democrats come back into power, they'll be welcoming the terrorists into the country with open arms. I am amazed that that tactic has actually worked and has been so successful. Why do people actually believe it?

Archive

10-20-2006, 09:33 AM

Posted By: davidcyclebackDuly note that I've seen no more than five minutes of either show, and don't offer my political views on this board, so my earlier comments were strictly jokes-- except the part about no one wanting to drink coffee from Jersey City.

Archive

10-20-2006, 09:48 AM

Posted By: James FeaginBarry, Who believes it? Most real conservatives don't buy it, many die-hard Republicans are admitting Iraq is a failure, Republican political candidates want nothing to do with Bush, who believes it now?

Archive

10-20-2006, 09:51 AM

Posted By: barrysloateI don't believe it, but I think the voters have been scared into believing it. But if they no longer do, Nov 7 should be interesting.

Archive

10-20-2006, 10:39 AM

Posted By: Dan BrettaLet's see, the so called conservatives turned a budget surplus into the largest deficit this country has ever seen. Pork barrell spending is at its zenith and Bush has never used his Veto power once to strike any of it down. So far 8 Republicans have been either indicted or plead guilty in the Abramoff scandal for taking bribes, Denny Hastert looked the other way when a Republican member of congress was showing a little too much interest in underage pages. Tom Delay is under indictment for money laundering. Bill Frist under investigation for insider trading....not to mention his creepy admission to dissecting cats in his apartment when he was in college...oh and don't forget how he diagnosed Terry Schaivo from watching a videotape. And I didn't even mention the federal government's embarassing response to Katrina, wiretapping Americans, destroying Habeas Corpus and the wishy washy attempts to claim they are protecting Americans while at the same time doing nothing to secure either the Mexican or Canadian border and outsourcing our port security to a company in Dubai - a country that supports the Taliban.

Archive

10-20-2006, 10:49 AM

Posted By: barrysloateDan, you've got my vote.

Archive

10-20-2006, 10:57 AM

Posted By: paulstrattonNeither party will have enough votes to do anything after November 7th. I can't wait.

Archive

10-20-2006, 11:00 AM

Posted By: ScottIngold"only Republicans can save us from terrorism; if the Democrats come back into power, they'll be welcoming the terrorists into the country with open arms." Unfortunatlly Barry i do believe this. I don't know how people can see how the mid to late 90's philosophy of nonretaliation can be seen as the road to take. As for O'Reilly. Like Ted there are time's i agree and time's i don't. But i do believe he is trying to do good and show how important it is for us as a country to have some sort of value system to follow. (Moral compass) ? I guess is a good phase. Where these sex charge's ever proven ? Not sure i heard that.

Archive

10-20-2006, 11:06 AM

Posted By: Dan BrettaO'Reilly gave Andrea Mackris anywhere from 2-10 million dollars to drop her lawsuit. Innocent people don't settle for 2-10 million dollars if the charges are false. She had him on tape doing some pretty disgusting things. I'm pretty sure O'Reilly has singlhandedly destroyed the falafel industry. <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14> How's that for morality?

Archive

10-20-2006, 11:13 AM

Posted By: ScottIngoldI just pulled this up on CBS news. "O'Reilly lawyer Ronald Green had said he believed there were tapes of conversations between the two and asked a court to compel Mackris to produce them so they could be played publicly." Not sure thats a sign of guilt either. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

10-20-2006, 11:19 AM

Posted By: barrysloateScott- back in the late 90's, 9/11 hadn't happened yet. Now the stakes are ratcheted up and if the Democrats get back in the driver's seat they better be ever more vigilant. I think they know that but we shall see. If not, we might as well sell our baseball cards now before we are all turned back into dust.

Archive

10-20-2006, 11:20 AM

Posted By: Steve M.when this Board gets back on track. <img src="/images/sad.gif" height=14 width=14> <img src="/images/sad.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

10-20-2006, 11:25 AM

Posted By: Dan BrettaScott, how did Ronald Reagan retaliate against Hezbolloh for killing 200+ American soldiers in Beirut?

Archive

10-20-2006, 11:31 AM

Posted By: Tom BoblittFOX, let's not forget that those long-playing favorites like NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC all have slants on the news too and while it's definitely off center it ain't to the right. And while you're perusing the halls of Congress Dan, there's a skeleton or two in a few dozen of the Democrats closets. Always the other guy.......... Speaking of morality....hmmm....who was that guy named....Clinton?

Archive

10-20-2006, 11:32 AM

Posted By: Bob Pomillahow did Ronald Reagan retaliate against Hezbolloh for killing 200+ American soldiers in Beirut? By knocking off Grenada.

Archive

10-20-2006, 11:44 AM

Posted By: barrysloateSteve- if you read my last post I did use the term "baseball cards". Doesn't that count as getting back on track?

Archive

10-20-2006, 11:49 AM

Posted By: ScottIngoldI think back in the 80's the threat was not understood as it is now. No doubt looking back something should have been done than. But who knew where this was going ? Yes Iraq is bad right now. But i think the basic premise was right. How can you not feel it's either them or us. Most if not all that we are fighting in Iraq are committed to exporting there brand of Islam. If it is not dealt with now. Than when and where ?

Archive

10-20-2006, 12:33 PM

Posted By: Bryan LongThis may sound very stupid to everyone that has posted on this thread so far, but after reading the entire thread I decided to give my opinions for what they are worth. I consider myself the typical young AMERICAN. But I do not watch the news and I rarely watch anything political. The media circus in our world has created the "Angry American." It is no longer about being informed, but being reformed into the mindless soldiers that both political parties are wanting the citizens of American to be. Whether you are talking about Olbermann, O'Reilly, or any other paid sell-out that stands in front of a camera pretending to be the all-knowing, all-powerful, follow-me type of person. Bush is not at fault for our problems. Clinton is not at fault for our problems. Who is? The media! The media created the "Angry American" because it means dollor signs. The angrier America gets the more they watch the news and follow the advise of so-called now-it-alls. We hear news everyday about who killed who, who robbed what and who kidnapped who - but why? Because that is what sells. Rarely do we hear the stories of the heroes the exist in our world everyday. A celebrity (or politican) dives in the ocean to save a drowning swimmer and it gets 5 minutes on the midnight news, but a celebrity (or politican) jumps in front of a on-coming car and you hear about it for several days. How the man had problems - his wife left him - his dog died of cancer - his gerbil committed suicide by hanging himself from his running wheel. And all of this because he voted for George W. Bush (or Clinton) and hates himself for it. We are angry because we are forced to be anrgy by what we are told - true or not true. Maybe becoming numb to the news and the members of the news that spew it out is making me a bad American - but if that is the case then Americans are filled with young bad Americans. Instead of following the rich and powerful for your information, do your own research. Instead of being told what the "truth" is - find out for yourself. -- OK after reading this I realized that it no longer had much to do with what the thread was really about, but I though that it may still have some degree of truth to it . . . so I figured what the heck, I may as well post it. I apologize for my ramblings. -- Respectfully, One Angry Youth of America .

Archive

10-20-2006, 12:55 PM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisRE:your post...... "Let's see, the so called conservatives"....... Your litany of liberal "Talking Points" will not influence Americans in how they vote in Nov. These did not work 2 years ago when G. W. Bush received more votes than any previous President....62,000,000+. There are really two main factors which will determine this year's election. 1st....Parents are very concerned about the safety of their families. And the fact that we have not been "targeted" in 5+ years since 9-11-2001 is very important to them. And, consider this....if we were to get hit again, all those mundane items you listed do not mean a damn thing. 2nd....Their "pocketbooks" matter....the DOW is at a record-breaking 12,000 today and this is mainly attributable to the dynamic of BROAD-BASED Tax cuts these past 5 years. People are seeing more of their income and are also happy with the EQUITY they have gained (and are drawing from) in their homes these past 5 years. Plus, here in Pennsylvania we are paying just $2.00 for gas....what is it going for out your way ? That's it guy......with POSITIVE factors like this......people do not want a change. The election of 2004 proved that "NEGATIVISM" does not win....the American Spirit is that of OPTIMISM. T-Rex TED

Archive

10-20-2006, 12:56 PM

Posted By: leonNot sure why some guy named Mike keeps emailing me saying this is TOO political and not giving a good return email addy. Discuss politics all you want to in this thread but let's don't let it permeate to others please....thanks

Archive

10-20-2006, 01:00 PM

Posted By: MikeOK, now I see how this has everything to do with vintage baseball cards and nothing to do with politics. Weak.

Archive

10-20-2006, 01:03 PM

Posted By: James FeaginBryan, Post of the thread, completely spot on. Arguing about such things is a complete waste of good energy.

Archive

10-20-2006, 01:16 PM

Posted By: barrysloateTed -people desperately want a change. I can't promise you a change will make America better, it very well may not. But I don't think we have ever had a moment in history where Americans wanted a change more than they do today. I think you are in for a surprise this Nov 7. Didn't we used to make bets on the election in the old days?

Archive

10-20-2006, 01:30 PM

Posted By: Dan BrettaTed, I am a parent and I'm far more worried about guys like Mark Foley preying on my child than I am the next terrorist attack. If you feel the GOP led by Bush is making us safer with your strawman argument that we haven't been "targeted" in the last five years then go ahead and vote Republican. As FDR said "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself"....sounds like Bushco and Fox News have you mighty fearful. And that's too bad. As for gas being at $2.00/gallon who didn't see that coming? Manipulating the price of oil right before an election in which the GOP has absoulutely nothing else to run on? Why it's the least the big fat oil companies could do after the billion dollar windfall (read corporate welfare) they all recieved in the last energy bill.

Archive

10-20-2006, 01:31 PM

Posted By: Al C.risafulliEDIT: Nah, I should shut up. This is a baseball card board. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> -Al

Archive

10-20-2006, 01:33 PM

Posted By: barrysloateDan- I saw the same thing coming. A few weeks before the election, and gas suddenly gets cheap. That's the oldest trick in the book.

Archive

10-20-2006, 01:46 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanHey -- wasn't this thread about me? Can't we get back to that? <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Ryan, thanks for clearing that up. I just presumed by what you wrote that you thought I was an O'Reilly supporter because I was on his show (I'm also on other shows across the political spectrum). As for the young people that watch O'Reilly, I mean the age group of 18 to approximately early 30s. Certainly, Fox News has a large share of this demographic. As for Keith, it's a different type of show and has to go up against the O'Reilly buzz saw every night. He does like baseball cards, however, so he's ok in my book. Barry, I appreciate what you say about the need for change. Alas, in America, when one party is out of power for a while it is inevitable that they will get back into power as the status quo, i.e. the party in power, eventually angers all. I don't purport to know Bill O'Reilly in any meaningful way. However, I happen to think based on my limited dealings, that he is a decent guy and I agree with him a lot and disagree with him a lot. I don't color my views to take advantage of a show I'm on; I just say what's on my mind. The fact that he may or may not have sexually harrassed an underling does not necessarily color my view of him. After all, if Bill Clinton can do it so can O'Reilly. My point is, we shouldn't be so quick to condemn public figures for their personal shortcomings. After all, I'm sure all of us have done things we are not proud of. Finally, we really are in such a dangerous part of our history with what is going on in the world and all. I think finger-pointing and negativity solely to advance one's cause is not the way to go. It's selfish, shortsighted and doesn't advance the ball at all.

Archive

10-20-2006, 01:54 PM

Posted By: barrysloateAn intelligent well balanced response. I for one don't think that the Democrats taking charge of the country is going to make things that much better at all. I just think that the staus quo is so hopelessly abysmal that we have to make a change. The current administration has failed miserably, embarrassingly so, so it's just time to give someone else a chance. Hey, they may not do any better, but our choices are limited. Fortunately in America we have choices.

Archive

10-20-2006, 01:55 PM

Posted By: leonJeff- good thoughts well spoken Bryan- "his gerbil committed suicide by hanging himself from his running wheel." Although an amimal lover I thought that was pretty good...

Archive

10-20-2006, 02:03 PM

Posted By: Tom Boblittabove...the litmus test for just how upset the American people are will be November 7th....there were huge amounts of people sabre-rattling before the 2004 elections....but we are where we are because the votes fell the way they did (unless the voting conspiracy is as large as the big oil conspiracy.....guess the republicans not only control the gas prices but also the market forces of the entire world which caused oil to drop to below $60 per barrel). I voted for Clinton twice....okay, I admit it. Even as a Republican. I guess I can be treated for it now if I believe in a higher power.....hopefully all of us look at more than Donkeys and Elephants when we're figuring out where to cast our vote. This is NOT a one issue race. 2008 will NOT be a one issue race. If they are, we all lose.........

Archive

10-20-2006, 02:12 PM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisThe world OIL market is not controlled by any one man or any one political party. It is a GLOBAL market force, and if you don't understand that then I am a fool to continue to discuss anything, anymore with you......bye.

Archive

10-20-2006, 02:21 PM

Posted By: Dan BrettaA world oil market controlled by very few companies all with a vested interest in making sure that one of their largest consumers is led by a party that doesn't want to look for alternative energy and also doesn't care how much they pollute.

Archive

10-20-2006, 02:23 PM

Posted By: ScottIngoldDan, I as a parent as well. I have more fear of a bombing or highjacking as the world stands now. One errant sleazeball congressman i do not fear. Barry, Your not saying that the republicans are controlling oil are you ? I mean i wish it were that simple. Than each election cycle we could be sure of a republican victory. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Ted, I see great minds think alike <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

10-20-2006, 02:29 PM

Posted By: Dan BrettaHey Scott - go back and read what I wrote. I didn't say that Mark Foley worries me more than a terrorist attack. I said guys like him. Mark Foley isn't the only pedophile in America.

Archive

10-20-2006, 02:39 PM

Posted By: ScottIngoldDan, Sorry i misunderstood. But under the current topic his name being thrown out made me assume that thats where you were going. But...... I still feel i have more control over my family's protection in regards to pedophiles than a planned/random terror attack.

Archive

10-20-2006, 02:40 PM

Posted By: Tom BoblittOil companies don't set the price of oil. If you want to say OPEC is manipulating prices, I'd agree some. They have a mutual interest of keeping oil at a reasonable level as it will keep people--ALL people from looking for alternative fuel sources. I'm not sure they REALLY care who's in office as long as the checks keep coming....The US is the largest oil consumer--FOR NOW. That will change in the upcoming years. You would have to agree supply and demand forces on pricing from India and China have had SERIOUS effects on oil. And hmmm.....NO hurricanes, reduced consumption by American public might have made a dent in the pricing model too. I've even seen stories about that on other media outlets than the evil Fox network. And....while we're talking about the current administration's efforts to find alternative sources, I'm not sure what Clinton in 8 years or Jimmy Carter in 4 did to further the alternative fuel sources. Too many people have too much to gain by keeping the status quo--both Democrats AND Republicans...... We have at least a couple energy traders in our midst.....everyone's harping about contributing to the board in the other thread....how bout some contributions.....?

Archive

10-20-2006, 02:48 PM

Posted By: barrysloateScott- I don't know who is controlling what, but doesn't Dick Cheney have an awful lot of pull with Halliburton? Let's just say I don't trust how this secretive bunch of misfits operate. I don't know how they do it, but they find a way.

Archive

10-20-2006, 02:51 PM

Posted By: ScottIngoldBarry, Than i want in.<img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> And if this is so.....Than i really want them looking out for me. I mean to pull off something that complex. Edit to add... Index Value: 12,011.73 Trade Time: 4:03PM ET Change: 19.05 (0.16%) Prev Close: 11,992.68 Open: 11,988.92 Day's Range: 11966.91 - 12027.74 52wk Range: 10,161.60 - 12,108.90 Boy those Bush tax cuts have been horrible. Please explain why the Dems want to roll those back and how that would make the country better. For me it goes beyond just the security issue. Even though that is the biggest.

Archive

10-20-2006, 02:53 PM

Posted By: Dan BrettaTom, I admit I don't know nearly as much about the world oil market as perhaps you do, but all the coincidences seem fishy to me. And I do know that China and India have had a huge affect on the world oil market, but certainly it can't be as dramatic in the last 5 years to make Oil prices jump from $20 to $70/barrell. IMO higher gas prices in the US are a good thing long term because it will make the consumer look for more fuel effecient vehicles and in turn force more R&D into alternafive fuels.

Archive

10-20-2006, 03:01 PM

Posted By: paulstrattonTwice Tom? How does that old saying go? "Fool me once..." What percentage of Chinese own a car today? Very small. What percentage of Chinese will own a car in the near future? Probably still very small but %10 of 1.5 billion is quite a few cars.

Archive

10-20-2006, 04:24 PM

Posted By: warshawlawI do not want to get into this political debate but there are a bunch of very ill-informed statements in this thread. The first of these is the naive assumption that oil costs naturally affect gas prices. They do not. The price of oil quoted every night on the news is a spot market price; what can you buy it for right then and there. The price of gas at the pump is dictated by the prices charged by the major oil refineries for delivery of their products. The actual gas at the pump today was purchased as crude oil some weeks or months before by the refiners from the extractors, who in turn purchased it even before that from the producers (if the company is vertically integrated, it may be a bunch of subsidiary transactions designed to strand profits outside the USA tax system; that is a story for another thread). If the spot price of oil jumps to $100 per barrel tomorrow based on, say, investor panic over a pipeline explosion or hurricane, the price of gas does not HAVE to jump correspondingly because the cost of the gas in the tank isn't affected by that event. The fact that it does jump is indicative only of price gouging by the refiners by virtue of their linking the price they charge service stations for their products to the spot market. The only way to prevent this gouging is to institute a windfall profits tax that discourages the refiners from using spot prices to jack up prices at the pump or by regulating what they can do when setting prices. And before the free-marketeers cry foul, I suggest they get over the asinine assumption that the market is free; it is an oligopolistic structure without meaningful competition. The other thing that the defenders of the status quo fail to account for is that the price of oil on the spot market is not necessarily directly tied to what the extracting companies pay for the oil they send here. The Saudis don't take hold of a nozzle and ask the major oil companies, China, etc., to place a bid on the product like at auction. They enter into contracts over long terms granting concessions to explore, develop and extract crude. There is all kinds of forward purchasing, hedging and other arcane betting done by the oil companies to limit their exposure to the swings of the market. I think a few of our board members are in that business and could better explain it. The other misstatement I see over and over is the treatment of oil prices as fact-based. No one can say why oil prices are where they are with any certainty. As with any other commodity, the price of oil on any given day represents only the sum of the "bets" of the buyers and sellers that day. Just like a card's "value" can swing wildly from auction to auction. The point that a lot of folks also miss is that because gas pricing is artificially tied to the market for oil it is possible for producing nations, oil companies, refiners and politicians in power to manipulate the gas prices in the USA virtually overnight. The real reason for the Iraq invasion (as explained in the Neo-Con position papers on Iraq and setting aside all the rhetorical niceties that the pols and their devoted followers mouth) was to prevent Hussein from further open efforts to use the world oil market to manipulate energy prices in the USA. Ditto for the attempted coup against Hugo Chavez; he was openly advocating for using Venezuela's position as the #2 reserve in OPEC to reprice oil on a market basket of currencies or Euros rather than in dollars. The same kind of manipulation has been used by the Bush administration. In 2004, for example, according to Bob Woodward, the Bush administration made a deal with the Saudis to open the spigots in advance of the election to try and dampen consumer anger over energy prices by lowering gas prices. I am not surprised at all that oil prices have relaxed lately; Bush and the Republicans have been very good to the oil companies and oil producing countries. In addition to their $120 billion a year in subsidies, tax breaks and credits, since Bush implemented his foreign policies, the value of the oil companies' proven reserves has risen by over 2 trillion dollars, their profits have broken all records, and the do-nothing congress has refused to consider a windfall profits tax. Do you think they want a change in leadership when it means an end to that giant sucking sound in your wallet? I think not. Can I prove a quid pro quo? No, but the inference is there.

Archive

10-20-2006, 04:49 PM

Posted By: barrysloateAdam- thanks for that detailed and informed response. You just made me look a lot smarter.

Archive

10-20-2006, 04:50 PM

Posted By: Gilbert MainesYeah so what? My recommendation is to treat the Oil Industry the way we treat the Electric Utility Industry. That is: as a Public Utility. Install the PUC in charge of pricing, make sure that shareholders get a reasonable return for their investments, and cut the crap. This gouging has been going on (heavily) since the 1970 oil crisis, which I believe was predicated on the passage of environmental regulation requiring the capture of refueling emissions. In any case, continuing to allow this industry to manipulate pricing will be a vote for continuing our experiences over the past several decades. It is time for the govt. entity which we established for this exact purpose to take control, imho.

Archive

10-20-2006, 04:51 PM

Posted By: Al C.risafulliGood for you, Adam. I agree with just about everything in your post, particularly the use of thepetrodollar theory as an explanation for the war and the business in Venezuela. -Al

Archive

10-20-2006, 05:01 PM

Posted By: CatWarshaw: Paragraph 1 seems to state that oil prices are not the reason for high gas prices. Paragraph 4 states that the Saudi's dropped the price of oil so energy costs can go down before the election. Huh?

Archive

10-20-2006, 05:13 PM

Posted By: Dan BrettaThanks Adam. And even though I still look dumb I knew I was right. <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

10-20-2006, 05:23 PM

Posted By: warshawlawYou are confusing prices and costs. Oil COSTS today are not the cause of high gas prices today. Oil COSTS for the oil that has been made into the gasoline you pump today are dictated by the other factors listed and were set long before the gas got to the pump where you buy it. If oil COSTS were the factor driving gas prices, a change in oil costs at the wellhead would affect gas prices some time in the future when that more expensive oil made its way from the wellhead to the gas pump at the 7-11, not today. The reason spot market prices result in immediate changes in gas prices is because the refiners have found it to be profitable to link the two measures, and given their oligopolisitic positioning, vast wealth and lock stock and barrel ownership of the Republican party, have done so without meaningful competition or regulation. My second point was that because the refiners have artificially tied oil prices to gas prices so that a change in oil price immediately changes gas prices, it is possible for someone in the oil supply chain to manipulate the price of gas today by manipulating the gamblers (er, investors) who participate in the spot market for oil. While the oil industry intended that they be the manipulators, they forgot about OPEC. The unintended consequence of the linkage established is that someone the oil folks don't like (like Saddam or Chavez) who has clout in the oil market could manipulate that market and immediately hammer the US economy. Or, alternatively, could immediately help the US economy if it served their interests to do so, as the Saudis have done repeately at the urging of various US administrations.

Archive

10-20-2006, 05:35 PM

Posted By: barrysloateAdam hit the nail on the head once again. Big business runs this country. The Republicans are there to do their dirty work. At least somebody understands how this country operates.

Archive

10-20-2006, 06:10 PM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisYou guys do not know what the hell you are talking about.....for example..... "The real reason for the Iraq invasion (as explained in the Neo-Con position papers on Iraq and setting aside all the rhetorical niceties that the pols and their devoted followers mouth) was to prevent Hussein from further open efforts to use the world oil market to manipulate energy prices in the USA." First, Iraq is just one of many sources of OIL in the Global market. And, did we benefit from whatever OIL they are pumping....NO....a resounding NO ! We went there as a larger campaign on fighting TERRORISM. Iraq is just one front of several fronts that we have to fight. Let's have a History refresher....in WWII, Japan initially attacked us, and we went after them....then the German front and also the Italian front. Most of us recall that there was an AXIS of EVIL then....just as there is now. Perhaps, you have forgotten. Do I have to remind you that Sadamm was paying 10 of 1000's of dollars to the suicide terrorists' families, whose sons and daughters were murdering innocent Israelies and their children in ISRAEL ? I just don't understand your thinking....and I guess I never will. Incidently, those plastic devices you guys have your valuable Graded cards in are a derivative of OIL.....I hope you realize this.....doesn't that fact scare you ? "OIL" the "BOGEY-WORD" of the NEO-COMS....you don't realize how foolish you sound. It's a natural substance that drives our civilization......maybe you guys want to revert back to the "Dark Ages".

Archive

10-20-2006, 06:17 PM

Posted By: Ryan ChristoffTed, I assume you won't be answering me from earlier, correct? -Ryan

Archive

10-20-2006, 06:34 PM

Posted By: Dan BrettaWe don't want to revert to the dark ages, we want to continue to live in the future with clean skies and water. There are cleaner fuel alternatives to look toward. IMO we need to wean ourselves off of foreign oil and leave the middle east to their own devices. They hate us and if you think that our presence there installing a "Democracy" is going to work then you are fooling yourself. Terrorism is a tactic...it is not an enemy. You can not win a war on terror anymore than you can win a war on drugs. When will you declare victory??? when terror is dead? It only takes two guys and a truck full of fertilizer to reopen that war. And don't even try to compare this war with WWII. We had a plan, an exit strategy and competent military command. Rumsfeld makes Robert McNamara look like a freaking genius. We secured all of Europe and the Pacific in nearly the same time that it's taken us to turn Iraq into a civil war. Yeah, yeah....I know.....It's all Clinton's fault.

Archive

10-20-2006, 06:55 PM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisYour comments and "rush to judgement" in your prior post revealed to me something very telling about you.....and, my wise old Uncle gave me some good advice when I was young..... "never argue with a fool.....as others will soon not be able to tell the difference".

Archive

10-20-2006, 07:20 PM

Posted By: Tom BoblittThe recent World Bank report China: Air, Land and Water estimates a 19 percent average annual growth rate for passenger vehicles between 1990 and 1999. This, according to the report, is “only the very beginning.” The Chinese government has forecast a market of six million vehicles a year by 2010. By comparison, I see about seventeen million were sold in the U.S. last year. China has passed Germany for #3 and is poised to pass Japan in the next couple of years for #2.

Archive

10-20-2006, 07:23 PM

Posted By: Bob Pomilla"Do I have to remind you that Sadamm was paying 10 of 1000's of dollars to the suicide terrorists' families, whose sons and daughters were murdering innocent Israelies and their children in ISRAEL ?" If their subsidizing terrorists is justification for invading and occupying a country, I wonder why we're not in Saudi Arabia right now.

Archive

10-20-2006, 07:30 PM

Posted By: ScottIngold"We went there as a larger campaign on fighting TERRORISM. Iraq is just one front of several fronts that we have to fight" Very true Ted. Why is this hard to understand ? Do we really believe there are more motive's at work ? Yes money is involved. But when is it not. Yes oil as well. But the larger picture is fighting those who would do us harm. Is there any doubt that these people we're fighting over there want to kill everyone of us ?

Archive

10-20-2006, 08:12 PM

Posted By: Ryan ChristoffTed, I figured you had no answer. And what exactly did I "rush to judgement" about. Oh, that's right, you can't answer direct questions. Thanks anyway, Zell. -Ryan

Archive

10-20-2006, 08:28 PM

Posted By: Dan BrettaCareful Ryan or Zell may challenge you to a duel.

Archive

10-20-2006, 08:44 PM

Posted By: Gilbert MainesT-Rex: What are you doing in this thread? This is exactly what you warn me to stay out of. Here you will only create animosity, not friendships. Come with me now. Its time for your walk around the old dinosaurs park.

Archive

10-20-2006, 08:58 PM

Posted By: CatTed has became my hero in this thread!!!

Archive

10-20-2006, 10:35 PM

Posted By: Colt McClellandthen it must be a [blank]. Since this thread is going to be locked, I decided to edit my original post. It was probably a little too personal against some people on this board who I don't even know but who have political views different than my views. Not really my intention, but I tend to get a little bit fired up when I feel very strongly about something. My apologies if my original post rubbed anyone the wrong way. However, I do want to vent my true opinions on the political issues now facing our country . . . So, for the record and at the risk of a possible IRS audit, I just want to make it known that in my opinion - BUSH SUCKS ASS!!!!!!!!!!!!! I basically grew up a Republican and now consider myself a Democrat for both business and idealogical reasons. Also, I have never in my life felt so strongly against a sitting President. That's my 2 cents, and it feels good to get it out there in a pulic forum.

Archive

10-20-2006, 10:41 PM

Posted By: warshawlawThe 9/11 commission concluded that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Sorry, but that's the truth. “We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United States.” National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, June 16, 2004 Plans for the Iraq war were made before 9/11. Even before the invasion the NeoCons planned to use Iraqi captured oil to break OPEC apart. That plan was scuttled by the oil industry insiders in the Bush administration, as reported by the BBC on March 17, 2005. <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm</a> The actual facts, as opposed to the right wing drivel that so many in this country follow, are quite interesting. The first plan prepared by the Bush administration was called “Moving the Iraqi Economy from Recovery to Sustainable Growth” and was written by a committee of Defense, State, and Treasury officials in conjunction with various corporate lobbyists. The cornerstone of the project was the sell-off of the Iraqi national industries, including, on page 73 of the report: “privatization… [of] the oil and supporting industries.” The fact is that six months before the invasion, the Bush Administration designated Philip Carroll to advise the Iraqi Oil Ministry once U.S. tanks entered Baghdad. In May 2003, a month after his arrival in Iraq, Carroll told the Washington Post that Iraq might break with OPEC: “[Iraqis] have from time to time, because of compelling national interest, elected to opt out of the quota system and pursue their own path. . . . They may elect to do that same thing. To me, it’s a very important national question.” This sent shock waves through the oil sector and they responded full force. In December 2003 in response to pressure from the petroleum industry, the State Department issued a new plan entitled “Options for Developing a Long Term Sustainable Iraqi Oil Industry.” The plan, nominally written by State Department contractor BearingPoint, was guided by a handful of oil industry consultants and executives. That plan calls for continued state run oil industry and adherence to OPEC limits on production. So, my friend, you believe whatever you want but the reality is that Bush invaded Iraq for one reason and only one reason: oil. The Iraqi oil situation was never intended to help American consumers; it was intended to give US oil companies an inroad to the reserves. The administration's own documentation proves it. 9/11 and the supposed war on terrorism were just the smokescreen designed to convince the public to support it.

Archive

10-20-2006, 10:58 PM

Posted By: Cobby33The well-read, hard-core GOP acknowledges that oil/profit was the #1 reason for the invasion, but spun it differently to appease the nation and give them something to "root for." For the most part, I think they were successful, as there appears to be a high number of citizens who support this "campaign" in the name of stomping-out the "axis of evil."

Archive

10-20-2006, 11:39 PM

Posted By: scgaynor If you want to discuss politics, suggested reading for conservatives is instapundit.com, Protein-wisdom.com and littlegreenfootballs.com. For liberals dailykos.com (anti-semitism and conspiracy theory warning) and huffingtonpost.com. Colt, while that may be your opinion of the responses in this thread, I think that you will find that is not the case on high traffic political blogs. Read some of the posts on the sites mentioned above and I think that you will see what I mean. While I find myself in the middle on domestic issues, I am probably even a little more hard line on international issues than the current administration. As a father of two children and a small business owner, it is counterproductive to vote for a democrat when it comes to national security. They simply have no backbone and their "plan" of appeasement to the people who want to do us harm only gives the enemy more encouragement. Just look at Europe to see how well that is working. Adam, the BBC's blatant anti-americanism makes them an unreliable source. Besides the "we went to war for oil" line is played out, especially since five years into the confict there is no evidence to support it. You might as well be saying it was revenge for Bush 41, or it was to make Isreal happy, it makes about as much sense.

Archive

10-20-2006, 11:59 PM

Posted By: Ryan ChristoffScott, It seems to me like a more diplomatic approach to international relations would do more for national security than brute force does. Don't you think it's become easier for this country to create more enemies (therefore more potential individuals who wish to do us harm) than friends (a.k.a. "allies") due to foreign policy? For the record, I am not a democrat. Not sure why I felt the need to clarify that. Maybe it's because the idea of National Security being left in the hands of Democrats doesn't exactly give me a warm and fuzzy feeling, either. -Ryan

Archive

10-21-2006, 12:47 AM

Posted By: Lee BehrensHoly Cow, My head is going to explode!!!!!!! My last view of this thread. Lee

Archive

10-21-2006, 01:41 AM

Posted By: ScottIngoldAdam, The BBC ????? Are we from California ? <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

10-21-2006, 04:48 AM

Posted By: barrysloateI just woke up. Did I miss anything? At least I am poster #100. And Adam, since Leon locked the other thread, thanks for the offer of the steak dinner. Sounds great, and I may show up one day...unannounced and very hungry!

Archive

10-21-2006, 05:53 AM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanI've never voted republican in any election, ever, in my life. But to suggest that we invaded Iraq solely for oil is really very Jimmy Carterish. I put nothing past this administration. But I also believe that a very large part of the reason Iraq was invaded was because Saddam was playing cat and mouse with the UN weapons inspectors, refused to cooperate, had fomented terrorism in the middle east, and had previously used chemical weapons against his own people. Indeed, Saddam had killed more arabs than Israel had in all of its wars with the arabs combined. Hatred for Bush should not obscure the facts of what occurred prior to and after 9/11.

Archive

10-21-2006, 06:10 AM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisFINALLY.......A SANE VOICE on this Thread. I agree totally with you. And, I will add the "Oil for Food" scam that Sadamm had going with France, Germany, and Russia. There is the real "OIL CORRUPTION" story.....but the L-I-b-E-R-al Media doesn't want to investigate it......as it doesn't fit their "agenda". THANK YOU JEFF L. T-Rex TED

Archive

10-21-2006, 06:12 AM

Posted By: barrysloateOkay- this thread has calmed down for the night so allow me to summarize my feelings: We've all had an opportunity to express our views, and clearly many of us have very strong opinions about the state of the world. But what I find most disheartening is just how split this nation is, and how deeply divided we are in our thinking. Net54 is just a microcosm of what is happening around us. You would think that 9/11 would have rallied this country together but it has done just the opposite; in fact, if we weren't a civilized nation, I am not certain we couldn't be on the brink of a civil war here. And I have no choice but to put the responsibility for this on our failed leadership. Whether you are Republican or Democrat, privileged or disenfranchised, people in ever greater numbers are becoming totally fed up with the people at the top. We have a president who has the look of someone who is neither qualified for the job nor even interested in having it, one who is clueless about diplomacy and has created enemies in nearly every corner of the globe. We have a war that we should have never been in that will probably go on for years to come, yet we have almost no tangible moral outrage. Why? Because it is somebody else's son who is being killed or maimed. If the draft were ever reinstated, you could be sure that no privileged family would want their son to fight and we would see an end to the war in short order. We've created a breeding ground for terrorists, and they are rampaging through Iraq with impunity. We've destroyed that country and the rest of the Middle East is likely to follow. The Right likes to brag about all the wonderful tax cuts we've gotten but I don't feel any richer. However, I can say with confidence there are more billionaires, and if there is anything America needs right now is more billionaires. I'm not sure anybody can save this country right now, but I do feel passionate that the current leadership needs to get their sorry asses out of office. We've been betrayed by them and the country is divided like never before. And I for one have never felt more pessimistic about the future.

Archive

10-21-2006, 06:51 AM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanBarry, weren't Muslim terrorists rampaging around the globe at the time of 9/11? Weren't Muslim terrorists planning large scale attacks against us prior to 9/11? Hadn't they succeeded? What about in Israel? Were Muslims strapping bombs to their children's bodies and sending them to slaughter innocent Israelis -- every day? Should we have done nothing in Afghanistan after 9/11? If we had stopped after Afghanistan would the French and Germans and Russians like us more? Why do the Russians condemn our attacks against Muslim terrorists when they seem to have no problem attacking their own Muslim terrorists - with much more ferocity I might add? Why do the Russians do everything they can to prevent real sanctions against Iran? (Do you think it might be based in economics?) Since the French are so against any war against Muslim terrorists why is it that they have had such internal strife with Muslims in their country - while we have had virtually none? Just some simple questions to answer if you can.

Archive

10-21-2006, 07:01 AM

Posted By: barrysloateJeff- I can't answer all your questions but there have been terrorists for centuries. But there are more now than ever before, unquestionably more than there were five years ago. And yes, we should have focused more on Afghanistan, a war there would at least have had some justification. We just picked the wrong country. And don't get me wrong- Saddam Hussein was a vicious tyrant and I am very happy to see he is just a short time away from his execution, but what we have ended up with is an unwinnable war and no way for it to end. It wasn't wrong to go in and get Hussein, it was just handled abominably and incompetently. And with regard to your other questions, sorry but I don't have the answers.

Archive

10-21-2006, 07:14 AM

Posted By: James FeaginColt---When the ruling party is in power, there aren't too many who are willing to defend their administration against attack; why bother? During the Clinton years, there was no shortage of well-informed idealogues who catologued a variety of his offenses (outside of adultery). Now of course the same goes for GWB. It is a veritable industry to attack the sitting president, and I find it amusing that each succession will inevitably be dubbed the "worst ever". What I feel is really being missed is that Bush never was a "true" conservative nor was Clinton a Liberal. They are mid-stream politicians, with gobs of charisma, and crossover appeal. What needs to cease is this elitist attitude that the opposition are full of bumbling buffoons. Most Democrats are not bed-wetting, sniveling hippies, who hate God, and are devoid of morals. On the same token, most Republicans are not backwoods bible thumpers who walk in lock-step with the Christian Coalition. To hold to those assertions is narrow-minded.

Archive

10-21-2006, 07:20 AM

Posted By: barrysloateThat's a good point James. In the end the difference between Democrats and Republicans may not be a big as most people assert. I'm just saying the current group had their chance, failed miserably, and it's time for them to hit the links.

Archive

10-21-2006, 07:21 AM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanJames, I think you're hitting the nail on the head. Slash and burn attacks against either party by the other is not really helpful at this point in our country's history. Perhaps the more violent attacks could be reserved for, let's say, those who are trying to blow us up? We need our citizens to listen and think without regard to political affiliation. Otherwise you end up with a bunch of people who think that our government was behind the 9/11 attacks and that all of our country's aggression over the past five years is due to oil-based reasons alone. And Barry, thanks for the thoughtful response. My only question is how do you consider the war in Afghanistan to only have 'some' justification? Consider that every Dem in the country was for that war and still is - they just believe that we have been run thin there due to the war in Iraq.

Archive

10-21-2006, 07:57 AM

Posted By: barrysloateYou are right Jeff, the war in Afghanistan should have been a high priority. In fact, in spite of my liberal bent, if I thought Osama was hiding there at the time (and he probably was) I would have voted for wiping the country off the map. But for some reason we left there and went into a place that was arguably dangerous but not the focus of our immediate concern. Nobody, not even the most conservative, can honestly say things are going well in Iraq. Even some of our generals want to bow out. But our president feels it is a sign of weakness to admit a mistake, so this is the morass we are left with.

Archive

10-21-2006, 08:08 AM

Posted By: jay behrensrecent presidential popularity polls show that 1/3 of Americans are comeplete idiots. If you think the oil in Iraq had nothing to do with the decision to fight there, then you are truely cluess. We have a war on 2 fronts. Guess which one got all the troops and the govts attention? The one with the oil. Afghanastan offers us nothing economically, except opium. Then there is the thought that W wanted to the finish the job that his daddy screwed up. As Barry pointed out, if we were a less civilized society, I would be very worried about a civil war right now. The division between the haves and have nots is wider ever day. All these ballyhooed tac cuts benefited no one except the very rich. Just more of the failed trickle down economics theory. I saw news report a few weeks ago that showed the parallels between what is happenening in our country and the collapse of the communist block. It's pretty scary. This board is microcism of our society, to a degree. It is more heavily slanted towards the wealthy, by nature of the value/cost of what we collect. The wealthy have benefited the most from this admitstations tax cuts. I tell you that I have not see one extra penny becuase of the tax cuts and real wages (that is adjusted for inflation) for the middle class and below have dropped 5% since W took office. How is that an economic boom for the country, even if the Dow hit 12k? How about minimum wage? It hasn't been eaised since 1997, yet our leadership can alays find reason to give themselve huge raises all the time and they are the people that need the raise the least. We used to have a govt by the people, of the poeple and for the people. We now have a govt that is by big business, of big business and for big business. Jay I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

Archive

10-21-2006, 08:13 AM

Posted By: Kenneth A. CohenRight on!! Workers of the world unite!!!!

Archive

10-21-2006, 08:24 AM

Posted By: James FeaginBarry, That is assuming that most real conservatives actually supported the war. Many of whom, did not. I will use this quote which explains it FAR better than I ever could, from the American Conservative... "James Traub contends, “Today’s Republican Party is arguably the most extreme—the furthest from the center—of any governing majority in the nation’s history.” This is the Republican Party that has embraced as its own every liberal initiative, from Lyndon Johnson’s Medicare to Jimmy Carter’s Department of Education to Bill Clinton’s AmeriCorps. This is the Republican Party preparing to enact a Medicare drug benefit that would represent the largest expansion of the welfare state in 40 years. This is the Republican Party that is increasing federal education spending as if doing so had something to do with the quality of local schools. This is the Republican Party that is increasing spending faster than during the Clinton years. Right-wing extremists? For the Left, liberal means centrist, and moderate conservative approaches fascist. Really conservative is off the spectrum. Let's add spending billions on a failed war, a dilema regarding immigration, and other domestic misdeeds. At the same time, we live in an era of hyper-prosperity (hence this board), but live in a society that is going more the way of the ancient Roman empire.

Archive

10-21-2006, 08:34 AM

Posted By: DylanWell I havent been following this thread so skipped some of the messages so forgive me if i say anything already said, but the reality is were not going anywhere. We are staying in Iraq in an attempt to "stabilize" the middle east. Has anyone seen how many US military bases are being built to this day in Iraq? If Iraq had the oil reserves of oh say Syria would we have gone and occupied? I dont think so. And from everyone ive heard that isnt A bush spindoctor Saddam was embroiled in inner state affairs the last years of his reign. All that talk of him uniting the middle east under one flag and taking control of its vast oil reserves, not since the iraq iran debacle. Iran was weak militarly when the Shah abdicated and the situation fell in Saddams lap but the whole reason Kuwait was even invaded was to pay the massive war debts from the iraq iran conflict, not another attempt to conquer the entire middle east. installing governments favorable to our needs in crucial places, like Afgahnistan (hotbed of terrorism) and Iraq(hotbed of oil). Too bad the Shah was kicked out of Iran, was good while it lasted though. But hey we still have the Saudis wrapped around our little finger so it cant be too bad, and everyone still has to trade in dollars when it comes to oil for now anyways. Get the Iraqis on their feet and get the military out of there. Honestly without a brutal dictator in Iraq the country is going to be in constant turmoil. Remember India. Everyone moved to their own segregated area, and now you have India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. These people in Iraq should just form three sovereign states and be done with it. Its better then babysitting a bunch of religous fanatics whove been fighting for 1200 hundred years, think that ****s gonna stop cause we said so?

Archive

10-21-2006, 08:36 AM

Posted By: Bob PomillaGreat points, James. People seem to ignore the fact that the old-line, true conservatives, not just the "liberal weenies", mostly have opposed this war right along. The neo-cons and the dems are mostly indistinguishable and merely servants of the Corporatocracy. The idea of George Bush being a conservative is laughable, for all the points you mentioned.

Archive

10-21-2006, 08:37 AM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisPlease recall that shortly after the tragedy of 9/11 we went into a War-footing in Afghanistan and in pretty quick time we rid this country of the Taliban and Al Queda. These band of warring terrorists were no match for our military might. We were victorious in just a few months (a feat that the Russians with all their might, could not achieve for many years). We freed 25 Million people and enabled them to set up a Government. An election took place which chose the current President, Mr Karhzid. We started deploying our troops as the UN (or NATO) troops took over to safeguard the people of Afganistan. And unfort- unately, the UN (or NATO) troops cannot keep the peace. As for Osama....Mr Clinton had a least four opportunities to get him throughout the late 1990's; when, he very visible. After 9/11 he was no longer visible, and has been in deep seclusion, wherever. To blame the current administration for failing to get him is the height of hypocrisy. But, don't you worry, Osama and his 2nd in command, Zahawari, are dying a slow (hopefully tortuous) death. Just compare the recent videos of either of them with the pictures of them just a few years ago. Their faces are gaunt, their eyes look lifeless, and their facial hairs have the look of dying men. Fate will get them before we do.

Archive

10-21-2006, 08:58 AM

Posted By: Dan BrettaTed, it's laughable to suggest that we defeated the Taliban in Afghanastan. The Taliban just came out of hiding. We left there before the job was done and outside of Kabul we control very little of what is happening in that country. Maybe if you watched something besides Fox news you would know that. Yeah....yeah....I know....It's all Clinton's fault.

Archive

10-21-2006, 09:10 AM

Posted By: Kenneth A. CohenWhen did we leave Afghanistan? Did the NATO forces leave too?

Archive

10-21-2006, 09:31 AM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisYour are a "presumptious dude"....you don't know what I watch or where I get my news from. You don't know a darn thing about me.....but, your mindset is typical LIBERAL, who thinks they know what's better for everyone. FYI, I get my news primarily from the Internet. Sports are about the only thing I watch on TV and an occasional movie. You view Afghanistan as a failure, tell that to 25 Million people there, who are trying to develop a free society. Your main problem is that can't see the bigger picture, all you have is this "negative" viewpoint on life....I feel sorry for you....just lighten up a little.

Archive

10-21-2006, 09:32 AM

Posted By: barrysloateTed- I agree with Dan that despite our diligence after 9/11, and we were rooting them out for some period of time, the Taliban have regrouped and are stronger than ever. And Clinton has publicly apologized for letting Osama slip through his fingers. He knows he made a mistake. Would Bush ever apologize for anything? Not in a million years.

Archive

10-21-2006, 09:38 AM

Posted By: barrysloateTed- Could you do me one little favor, as one friend to another? Please stop referring to people with differing opinions than yours as "typical liberals." You and I are good friends but know we disagree politically, and I respect your right to have an opinion contrary to mine. I likewise believe you have put much thought into it and stand by your convictions. But name calling doesn't help bridge the differences. Thank you.

Archive

10-21-2006, 09:50 AM

Posted By: James FeaginI recently saw a bumper sticker amidst a myriad of other anti-Bush and anti-Christian rants which said "If you aren't outraged, you aren't paying attention." I definitely pay attention, like to think of myself as aware of the worlds plight, and problems; however, I refuse to be angry or outraged. Anger, vitriol, all other ugly university-indoctrinated attributes have never been constructive, nor will they ever be. Those who are angry rarely serve to help others, and smell of self-loathing selflishness. I recently was watching "Link TV" which airs programming such as Democracy Now, tributes to Noam Chomsky (yawn), and other anti-corporate rhetoric. I couldn't help but laugh when they slotted a single 30-minute program per week called "Positive News". Even they know. I'm not advising "lightening up" or becoming unaware, just the opposite. However, the biblical admonition which holds true, even if you don't believe, is the allusion that we should not be given the spirit of fear, but of a sound heart and mind. That applies to conservatives, liberals, and all other shades or mindsets.

Archive

10-21-2006, 09:52 AM

Posted By: Dan BrettaI should have learned my lesson from 10+ years on usenet that these types of discussions never lead to anything productive and only tend to create animosity. Ted and Scott I am sorry if I offended you. You are completely entitled to your views. We probably have more in common than we do differences and it is our commonalities that we should be sharing here. Sorry. I have made my last political post to Net 54.

Archive

10-21-2006, 09:55 AM

Posted By: barrysloateMaybe it's time for all of us to take a deep breath and count to ten.

Archive

10-21-2006, 10:25 AM

Posted By: JoannYes - the country is very split today. It even causes trouble between me (almost 100% liberal) and my much more conservative family that thinks GWB is doing a great job, and any thinking to the contrary is a result of the liberal media. I have yet to have any one of them state an actual fact. "We're doing well in Iraq" is an opinion, not a fact. Not one person can state one fact. I can state one fact (more actually). Eric Shenseki, then Chief of Staff of the Army, recommended we go into Iraq with 400,000 troops, give or take. But that was completely contrary to Rumsfield's vision (founded on ... what expertise ... I don't know)of a small and agile conquest. That was the end of Shenseki's career. Now he's on the golf course when he's not watching kids get their a$$es shot off on CNN. But the split of the country is kind of interesting to me. I remember not all that long ago - a few decades - when people didn't vote at all, and polls overwhelmingly showed that they didn't think it made any difference at all who you voted for for President. Because both guys were the same. Really. I know some of you remember too when it seemed like there was very little to truly distinguish two Presidential candidates. I don't like the split, but I think the genericism of 20 years ago was also unhealthy. Joann

Archive

10-21-2006, 11:25 AM

Posted By: Cobby33Contrary to what the "Typical Conservatives" want to believe, Clinton tried many times to stop Bin Laden and was BLASTED by the very people who are trying (unsuccessfully, I might add) to do the same thing.

Archive

10-21-2006, 11:38 AM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanJay wrote: "If you think the oil in Iraq had nothing to do with the decision to fight there, then you are truely cluess." [sic] This was in response to Adam's comment to which I responded. Adam wrote: "the reality is that Bush invaded Iraq for one reason and only one reason: oil." I responded: "[T]o suggest that we invaded Iraq solely for oil is really very Jimmy Carterish. ... But I also believe that a very large part of the reason Iraq was invaded was because Saddam was playing cat and mouse with the UN weapons inspectors, refused to cooperate, had fomented terrorism in the middle east, and had previously used chemical weapons against his own people." See, Jay, here is the problem with hair-trigger people such as yourself. You're so heavily emotionally invested in hating Bush and the current administration that your reading comp skills deserted you in reading the above comments. Clearly I did not suggest that oil "had nothing" to do with the war in Iraq. I merely suggested that there were other, very significant reasons for invading Iraq (mentioned above). This is the problem in America right now: people are so deeply invested in one side v. the other that they are unable to listen, reason, read intelligently and thoughtfully and instead are quick to demean, insult and attack (and even call someone "cluess" - whatever that means and I'm sure it's not a good thing). You can be conservative and be against the war. You can be liberal and be for an aggressive stance against terrorism that does not include appeasing. Really. But to simply shut off to the other side's way of thinking without rationally addressing it and listening to it is really dopey and harmful to all of us.

Archive

10-21-2006, 11:48 AM

Posted By: ScottIngoldCobby, I could be wrong . But i believe the only place i heard that was from Slick Willy himself <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Notice the smiley face. I still like Clinton for welfare reform though. Jay, I don't see how the tax cuts have not benifited the majority of lower middle class. If by know other means then the child credit alone. I in no way consider myself wealthy (commercial fisherman) But have seen a huge difference in my/our stock portfolio's in the past 4 years. For someone in the low 6 figures ( Which is only middle of the road nowaday's ) I for one see a change for the better since the tax cuts.

Archive

10-21-2006, 11:58 AM

Posted By: James FeaginJeff, One of your statements evoked memories of a 20/20 special hosted by Stephanopolous (sp?) It was a candid look at "America divided". There were profiles on a "Liberal" city in New Jersey and a "Bible Belt" city in Tennessee, and their world views. With voting patterns, certain districts have trended to becoming having more of a consensus with voting. The analysis was that in this country we tend to be more independently minded until we reach a "group" situation. The extremes in the group will neutralize minority views who can look at "both sides" of an issue. The thought is that as a country we tend to be very lazy mentally. The art of the debate is lost and the "shouting heads" reign supreme. Try rationally sticking up for your religion on a college campus (I did). Alternately, try rationally defending a ban of prayer at school in the bible belt; the lazy shouting head mentality will be victorious. As a country we have all of our media catered to what we believe, so much so, that we never have to test and analyze our beliefs, or attempt to listen to what the other person has to say. Tonight, I am going to dinner with a very good friend, a former president of the BYU Democrats (A Mormon democrat is very rare). We have a history of spirited debate, but it is never vitriolic, lazy, or knee-jerk. I have no problems with a person who believes the way they choose, even if different from my opinions. The only thing I ask is for them to have a well thought-out position, a reason, and in the end I will respect them more than ever.

Archive

10-21-2006, 12:02 PM

Posted By: James Feagin"For someone in the low 6 figures ( Which is only middle of the road nowaday's ) I for one see a change for the better since the tax cuts." I live in the third wealthiest county in the country. Medium income for a family of four is $90K (My family brought that figure down <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>. I seriously doubt for the vast, and I mean vast, portion of this country, that is "middle of the road". It might be for this board, but cut that figure by more than half, and we will truly see what "middle of the road" is. We do live in an era of "hyper-prosperity", but the gap between the haves and have nots is growing.

Archive

10-21-2006, 12:13 PM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisI respect your opinions and I simply want to respond to something you stated in your post....... ......."watching kids get their a$$es shot off on CNN." For those who are not aware, Anderson Cooper on CNN is showing actual video footage of fire-fights between our serviceman and the terrorists in Iraq. In it our soldiers are getting get hit by enemy bullets. This footage was not filmed by our military....but is video that the ENEMY has filmed......and the ENEMY is providing it to CNN. And, CNN has no qualms about showing it. Americans (who are unaware of this) and view it could possibly see their sons and daughters being wounded or even killed. This is what CNN has now resorted to, it is the most despicable programming by a "so-called" news network that has ever shown on TV. How do you feel about this.....JOANN ?

Archive

10-21-2006, 12:17 PM

Posted By: ScottIngoldJame's , I truly believe we get what we put out. I also have a family of 4 to support. We decided we wanted a certain lifestyle for ourselves. So we went out and worked our buts off to get it. All the while doing the normal family stuff (football,soccer and baseball ). Yes the day's are hard, But if you want it in this country . It's certainly there for the taking. Sometime's i feel that is whats missing from many people's thinking nowaday's. People like O'Reilly try to promote some self responsibility. This is not a knock on anyone. To each there own. But whether through hard work or education most of us control our own destiny's. On the other side we have the "take from the workers and give to the nonworker theory" Don't worry about anything the government will cover you. Or my favorite "It takes a village to raise a child" No thanks !!!!!!

Archive

10-21-2006, 12:27 PM

Posted By: Bob Pomilla"we rid this country of the Taliban and Al Queda. These band of warring terrorists were no match for our military might. We were victorious in just a few months (a feat that the Russians with all their might, could not achieve for many years)." Can hardly compare the Russian's inability to subdue the Taliban to our success against them. While we removed the Taliban government from Kabul, we eventually found ourselves in a situation analogous to what the Russians were faced with: fighting an insurgency in support of the Kabul government. A situation, judging by the resurgence of the Taliban (we've hardly "rid this country of the Taliban and Al Queda (sic)"), that we, nor the U.N., will soon pacify. An impossible situation for anyone, given the type of country it is. Recall also, that at the time the Taliban were "Freedom Fighters" and were aided by us in such tangible ways as being given stinger missiles in order to shoot down Russian helicopters. Missiles which they then turned into a quick profit by selling to the Iranians.

Archive

10-21-2006, 12:32 PM

Posted By: James FeaginScott, I also truly believe we get what we put out as well, but that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with money. I applaud folks who want to give their family financial support, I don't support materialism though. Everything we have is on temporary loan to us. As a former missionary, I've been to many places and visited many people in rural America, many of whom are much more talented and responsible than you and I, but also don't realize the possibilities that are out there. I don't believe in a system that trickles down, but rather helps people elevate themselves. However, any way you slice it, six figures is not "middle of the road". Maybe amongst us or our peers it is, but not for 95% of this country.

Archive

10-21-2006, 12:38 PM

Posted By: ScottIngoldI see this as a choice between Victory or appeasment/hostage. If we win the "war" on terror. Our future and childrens future looks fairly bright. Appeasment = Alway's looking over our backs ala Isreal. Just because we leave the middle east does not mean we will not have suicide bombers in our streets. Maybe simplistic but i believe this is the reality.

Archive

10-21-2006, 12:45 PM

Posted By: ScottIngoldJames, "but also don't realize the possibilities" I have a hard time seeing this as reality in today's world. How many programs are offered for just such people ? Educational, financial + many many more. In today's world what does being materialistic even mean ? And i have no problem with materialisim as long as you earn it . Spend your money how you like in other words. Just not mine.

Archive

10-21-2006, 12:46 PM

Posted By: Cobby33Hi Scott <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Point well taken, but if you go through the archives from Bubba's administration, you will see that there were efforts to put a stop to Bin Laden. It obviously wasn't as high-profile (or newsworthy) then (and obviously the efforts were not as high of a "priority" as they are now), but Clinton DID in fact make efforts to stop that faction and truly was criticized for it.

Archive

10-21-2006, 12:48 PM

Posted By: Kenneth A. CohenI think the "lazy shouting head mentality" was impeccably put on display further up the thread with "recent presidential popularity polls show that 1/3 of Americans are comeplete idiots." Yea right - everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot. That's the mentality that's done more than anything to poison the political climate.

Archive

10-21-2006, 12:52 PM

Posted By: ScottIngoldCobby, correct. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

10-21-2006, 01:12 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanScott is a smart guy and should be listened to. Personal responsibility is crucial. And he's also right about America being the land of opportunity and choice: if you want it you can get it if you're willing to work very hard. You can't decide that you don't want to work hard in order to have a stress-free lifestyle and also demand more financial breaks from the government. There's a reason why the welfare system doesn't work.

Archive

10-21-2006, 01:29 PM

Posted By: JimCrandellThis is the first time I have glanced at this thread and let me say from having spent my career involved with the oil industry that some of the theories espoused here are nothing short of ludicrous. We happen to be in a very tight supply/demand situation worldwide as low oil prices over the past 20-plus years have not created much of an economic incentive to find new supplies. Compound this with the green crew trying to resrict access to the vast tundra in Alaska known as ANWR and offshore the US coastline and that helps explain why we are in the tight situation we are in today. Oil should be $60-$70/bbl. Gasoline prices are of course directly linked to oil prices and the former results from the latter. As far as future remedies, we need to stop restricting access to prospective areas and realize that higher prices are going to be with us for some time to come. International oil companies, US independents and state-owned companies have ramped up exploration and production spending and we should see non-OPEC supplies steadily increase in the years ahead. I think everyone agrees (except it looks like a couple people from this board) that price controls and windfall profits taxes are recipes for disaster.

Archive

10-21-2006, 01:37 PM

Posted By: Anonymousdid we ever figure out why Jeff was on TV? What we need to do is demand higher mileage in vehicles, stop subsidizing the oil industries with our tax dollars (where are the free marketeers on that one) and properly subsidize energy saving measures (why the tax incentive for hybrid cars is capped at 60,000 of each model is beyond anyone's intelligence to fathom), and create a Manhattan Project type attitude about alternative renewable energy development. A modest increase in vehicle mileage would wipe out a large portion of our oil needs, yet the powers that be strenuously resist any effort to increase vehicle standards and to bring exempt vehicles like certain trucks and SUVs into the fold. The tax code has been written to incentivize the largest possible vehicles (under IRC 179) and actually limits tax incentives on higher mileage hybrid cars. Either our leaders are stupid or they are intentionally putting policy in place to drive up vehicular oil consumption. I happen to think many of those in power are astoundingly, breathtakingly stupid, but I recognize that they may not be complete idiots, in which case they are intentionally doing this. We the people pay the oil industry, the most profitable industry on earth, approximately $120 billion a year in tax credits, subsidides and other pork. You don't want windfall profit taxes? Fine. The oil patch can pay its own way without tax welfare. Where are the supposedly anti-government "conservatives" on this? It also astounds me to no end that seemingly intelligent people would rather destroy our oil supplies instead of conserving them for the future when they may be really important to the nation. Forget the wildlife, why on earth would you want to tap out our domestic oil supplies, depleting what oil we have on hand, when we can reduce consumption painlessly to ameliorate more domestic demand than the oil in those areas could fill? I say leave those areas to our kids and their kids and use up the rest of the world's resources now. The shortage argument is wrong. Oil is not in short supply. Cheap oil is in short supply. Once oil reaches a certain price lots of proven reserves become economically viable to tap into. There is enough oil sand in Canada and the US to supply our needs for generations provided it is economically feasible to extract it. Which it now is given the current price of oil.

Archive

10-21-2006, 01:42 PM

Posted By: ScottIngoldThanks for the compliment Jeff. Lawyers are A-OKAY in my book <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Adam. He was talking about the Lynn Stewart sentencing.

Archive

10-21-2006, 01:44 PM

Posted By: Kenneth A. CohenWell put Jim. The way I figure it, if Bush et al were powerful enough to repeal the laws of supply and demand, they'd have cleaned up Iraq ages ago.

Archive

10-21-2006, 01:48 PM

Posted By: ScottIngoldThis has really turned into a very diverse thread. Jeff, One of my issue's with the Dems is there apparent willingness to coddle the lazy. It seems like we are becoming a country of people who watch the media and expect to live the good life as seen on T.V. I am amazed by how the teens and young adults think they can live life like a rap video while not putting out any effort to earn the $'s needed to get the "Bling" as the youngens say.

Archive

10-21-2006, 02:01 PM

Posted By: JimCrandellJust what we need--more regulation and the government stepping in to impose their solution--anyone want to predict how this would turn out? There is no end in sight to supplies as long as the economic incentive is there and the industry is not restricted from deveoping them. Just look what the US industry has been able to do in deveoping coal-bed methane, oil shale and tight sands onshore. In Canada as was pointed out there is the great potential of oil sands--take the shackles off of the oil industry and watch how quickly our energy "problem" improves.

Archive

10-21-2006, 02:03 PM

Posted By: JKWhy is it that we can go on and on in off-topic threads (such as those on politics, bonds, etc) while actual on-topic threads get two or three responses and then die a slow death? That is really kind of pathetic.

Archive

10-21-2006, 02:13 PM

Posted By: Al C.risafulliIt's a way for people to get to know each other better. -Al

Archive

10-21-2006, 02:15 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanWell, Josh, I suppose in the end our security is more important than baseball cards. Hard to believe, but true. I am sad, however, to have to read about this stuff on this site. One of the reasons we come here is to AVOID thinking about these serious issues, even for a brief time.

Archive

10-21-2006, 02:16 PM

Posted By: Josh K.Going to the National is a way for people to get to know each other better. This seems more like a way for people to argue and take shots at one another. Not to mention, the same topic has been rehashed on countless other off topic threads. Heck, Im beginning to think there are more posts about politics lately than good old fashioned psa bashing. Jeff - no question our security is more important.

Archive

10-21-2006, 02:21 PM

Posted By: Bob Pomilla"Why is it that we can go on and on in off-topic threads (such as those on politics, bonds, etc) while actual on-topic threads get two or three responses and then die a slow death? That is really kind of pathetic." These threads allow everyone to vent in a way that on-topic discussions don't. They're reflective of and symptomatic of, the anger abroad that was alluded to earlier. Even we harmless baseball card collectors aren't immune.

Archive

10-21-2006, 02:27 PM

Posted By: Josh K.right, but last time I checked, this was a vintage bb card board. Im sure there are other more appropriate places to vent. Im not, by the way, saying that Im immune to occassional off-topic posts.

Archive

10-21-2006, 02:30 PM

Posted By: leonI am going to lock this thread around 8pm CST this evening. My motto of "moderation" is coming to an end for it. Please post what you want to on this subject until around then. I don't want anyone to implode from not getting to say what they want to. I have no issue with these threads every once in a while. It does get folks to know each other a little better (or worse <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>) .... It does distract from the board focus though and that is the only reason it will be locked later this evening. We can play again soon. We do have some very intelligent folks on the board. best regards

Archive

10-21-2006, 02:49 PM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisWe are 10 days short of a "Big Election"....and I guess some of us are just getting short on patience....whatever ? But, I have to correct you on this....."Why is it that we can go on and on in off-topic threads (such as those on politics, bonds, etc) while actual on-topic threads get two or three responses and then die a slow death? That is really kind of pathetic." In the past 6 monts we have had to very meaningful (and bashing-free) Threads. One that exceeded 100 posts (regarding the E90-1 set). And, the more recent EPDG....Thread which last time I checked was approaching 400 posts. It too, was free of any "bashing" and resulted in some new discoveries regarding T206 cards. T-Rex TED

Archive

10-21-2006, 02:58 PM

Posted By: Josh K.You are correct Ted - we have had a few meaninful on topic posts. Those with any significant discussion, however, come about almost as frequently as the off topic posts that reach into the 100s.

Archive

10-21-2006, 03:03 PM

Posted By: barrysloateI think the most interesting aspect of this thread is how passionate people are in their beliefs and more important how divisive America is. That in itself is sad. And there are too many people who feel if you share my ideas you are wise, but if you criticize them you are just an idiot. I think America has a very long way to go.

Archive

10-21-2006, 04:15 PM

Posted By: Al C.risafulliIt will certainly be a fun journey, though, won't it Barry? The thoughts in your post are exactly what I think is the very best thing about America. We're all allowed to have different opinions, we're allowed to debate them in a public forum, we're allowed to debate strongly and vocally. Republican or Democrat, one thing I'm sure we can agree upon is that the freedom to have this thread (aside from the issue of whether or not it should be on a baseball card board), and attach our names to our thoughts, is a beautiful, amazing thing. -Al

Archive

10-21-2006, 05:15 PM

Posted By: jay behrensJeff, I fully understand that oil is not the only issue, but it is THE driving issue. Terrorism, WMDs and other things are just a good cover to hide the fact that want to keep the cheap oil flowing. Do you think we would have ignored Afghanastan if they had the oil reserves that Iraq does? Scott, your stock portfolio increasing has little to do with middle class tax cuts. It ahs more to do with corporate welfare and tax cuts for the wealthy. Sit down and watch Lou Dobbs. He does a much better job of explaining it than I can. In a nutshell, since W took office, real wages are down 5% and the gap between the middle class has wider than ever. Jim, we saw what deregulation of the energy industry did to CA and what happened with ENRON. Sadly, becuase of corporate greed and malfecence there needs to regulations in place otherwise we will end like we were in the early industrial age with businesses showing no concern for damage to the environment or the health and saftey of the people that work for them. Lord knows given today's corporate climate they wouldn't be doing any of that becuase it cuts into the bottom line. They do it because they have to. They wouldn't if they didn't. What shackles do the oil industry have? They are making records profits. So what's their excuse for not developing better resources and alternative fuels? I agree that there should be a Manhattan Project for developing alternative energy sources. Just think, if we aren't dependent on oil we can tell everyone in the Middle East and Hugo Chavez to go take a flying leap and let them do what they will. Jay I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

Archive

10-21-2006, 05:48 PM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisJAY.....no wonder you are so "jaded" in your thinking.....tuning in to all that CNN "propaganda". But, that is your perogative. CNN is the worst Anti-American media outlet not only in the U.S.; but, you should hear the "B....S" they spew in Europe via their CNN International network. It's no wonder the Europeans hate us. And, ther have hated us....or more correctly put....are jealous of us way before GWB became President. I know this for a fact since I have traveled in Europe since the 1980's. Tune in to Anderson Cooper tonite and you might just see a friend of yours getting wounded or killed by terrorist in Iraq. That's the kind of despicable programing CNN has deterioated to. They have obtained enemy filmed videos of terrorist snipers shooting at our soldiers and showing them. Can a network get any sicker than that. T-Rex TED

Archive

10-21-2006, 06:01 PM

Posted By: Ryan ChristoffI don't think this thread should be locked until Zell officially challenges Jay to a duel. -Ryan

Archive

10-21-2006, 06:17 PM

Posted By: Gilbert MainesOk Ted, I gave you an extra day to play with your friends, but you have to come in now and clean up your thermonuclear devices which you keep leaving around, and all of those chemicals which end in "-ax". Your room is positively a hazard. And why did you put those big red Xs on the new topographical map of North Korea we just bought for you? And what is with these lists, and all of these wires and flashing lights?

Archive

10-21-2006, 07:02 PM

Posted By: jay behrensTed, the only show I watch on CNN is Lou Dobbs. I am about as far from a dupe of the liberal media as you can get. I don't rely on one single source for my information, unlike the dim bulbs that live and die for Rush Limbaugh and his ilk. The best line I ever heard from Rush was, Turn off you mind. I'll tell you what to think. I also had him as a passanger in a limo I drove. Very interesting to hear how little he actually thought of his listeners. Jay I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

Archive

10-21-2006, 07:46 PM

Posted By: ScottIngoldI could not agree more Jay. That is the part about Rush. What is it they call themselve's ? Ditto heads or some nonsense like that. Most of his followers are just that. But i do agree with Ted about CNN. For all of the bashing here regarding Fox. They do seem to present both sides on issue's being discussed. Sorry i started this thread. It was really just about Jeff in the beginning. But with such a bright community i guess this was inevitable. It is nice to see the opposing views though...... EVEN THOUGH YOU ALL ARE WRONG EXCEPT FOR TED AND I. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

10-21-2006, 07:59 PM

Posted By: jay behrensFox provides balanced reporting? They are about as far right in their reporting as CNN is claimed to be left leaning. The running joke I've heard about the 2 is Reps watch Fox and Dems watch CNN. About the only news show that I've seen with balanced reporting is the Lou Dobbs show. Jay I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

Archive

10-21-2006, 08:07 PM

Posted By: Gilbert MainesScott: for my money, you and Ted are not too far afield. But the guy who seems to really have it figured here (other than drc1) is Bryan Long.

Archive

10-21-2006, 08:14 PM

Posted By: Ryan ChristoffScott, I agree with you and Zell. It's absolutely outrageous that CNN got actors to portray soldiers and made up footage they filmed and then broadcast on air! In fact, I would think that sort of thing is illegal, isn't it? Why are we the only ones who are so upset about it? I mean, it's not like we're complaining about CNN showing actual footage of an actual war that's actually happening where American soldiers are actually dying. Right? I mean, that kind of footage would be considered newsworthy by truthseekers like us, right? Geez, kids today! It's a good thing we've got a fair and balanced news source like Fox News that will give us the straight story. The real deal. Unbiased and objective reporting with no affiliation to a policital party or administration, whatsoever. Ask Tony Snow. He'll tell you we're right. We're all progressive and modern men who are just as capable as the young kids in dealing with a changing world. I mean, we're practically technogeeks using cutting edge technology to get our Fox News not only from the television, but from the Fox News Website as well. We self-educate via the internet. THAT'S how modern we are! Why, when I was a kid I had to walk up hill both ways in the snow just to get objective news reporting, but I'm all the better for it. I have to admit, I thought we were pretty different, but through those insightful posts you've both made, you won me over. Hardcore right-winger forever, -Ryan

Archive

10-21-2006, 08:29 PM

Posted By: JimCrandellThere was a recent study done that showed that over 90% of the mainstream media were democrats. It influences how they all present the story. CBS, NBC, ABC,NY Times,Boston Globe, Washington Post, LA Times--they all are biased against Bush and the republicans Fox is the only ones who are fair and balanced. Its in their name. I like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly most of the time....and I love Ann Coulter..go get em Ann. Have never voted for a democrat in my life. Jim

Archive

10-21-2006, 08:48 PM

Posted By: ScottIngoldRyan, Some more tongue n cheek please. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Here here Jim...... Ann is a little over the top though.

Archive

10-21-2006, 08:48 PM

Posted By: leonI debated to myself, the locking of this thread or not. On one hand it's not that big of a deal. On the other hand folks start talking politics <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>. This isn't really a politics board but we do have opinions on the subject and it's nice to discuss them every once in a while. I always defer to core elemental aspects of collecting. Jefferson Burdick eloquently stated in the opening paragraph of the American Card Catalogue (ACC): "A Card Collection is a magic carpet that takes you away from work-a-day cares to havens of relaxing quietude where you can relive the pleasures and adventures of a past day- brought to life in vivid picture and prose". I am not sure politics fits in with what he was trying to convey....and with that we get back to our regularly scheduled programming... regards