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

[Archive]

Posted By: ScottIngold

I 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]

Posted By: Bryan Long

This 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]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

RE: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]

Posted By: leon

Not 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]

Posted By: Mike

OK, now I see how this has everything to do with vintage baseball cards and nothing to do with politics. Weak.

[Archive]

Posted By: James Feagin

Bryan,

Post of the thread, completely spot on. Arguing about such things is a complete waste of good energy.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Ted -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]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Ted, 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]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

EDIT:

Nah, I should shut up. This is a baseball card board.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Dan- 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]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Hey -- wasn't this thread about me? Can't we get back to that?

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]

Posted By: barrysloate

An 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]

Posted By: leon

Jeff- 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]

Posted By: Tom Boblitt

above...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]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

The 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]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

A 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]

Posted By: ScottIngold

Dan,

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.

Ted, I see great minds think alike

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Hey 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]

Posted By: ScottIngold

Dan,

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]

Posted By: Tom Boblitt

Oil 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]

Posted By: barrysloate

Scott- 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]

Posted By: ScottIngold

Barry,

Than i want in.

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]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Tom, 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]

Posted By: paulstratton

Twice 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]

Posted By: warshawlaw

I 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]

Posted By: barrysloate

Adam- thanks for that detailed and informed response. You just made me look a lot smarter.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

Yeah 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]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

Good 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]

Posted By: Cat

Warshaw:

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]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Thanks Adam. And even though I still look dumb I knew I was right.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

You 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]

Posted By: barrysloate

Adam 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]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

You 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]

Posted By: Ryan Christoff

Ted,

I assume you won't be answering me from earlier, correct?

-Ryan

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

We 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]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Your 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]

Posted By: Tom Boblitt

The 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]

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]

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]

Posted By: Ryan Christoff

Ted,

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]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Careful Ryan or Zell may challenge you to a duel.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

T-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]

Posted By: Cat

Ted has became my hero in this thread!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: Colt McClelland

then 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]

Posted By: warshawlaw

The 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.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm

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]

Posted By: Cobby33

The 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]

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]

Posted By: Ryan Christoff

Scott,

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]

Posted By: Lee Behrens

Holy Cow, My head is going to explode!!!!!!! My last view of this thread.

Lee

[Archive]

Posted By: ScottIngold

Adam,


The BBC ????? Are we from California ?