Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests Liberal Media Darling : Cindy Sheehan

Originally posted by chrisilversvt:

---

Originally posted by Davo:

---

Originally posted by AJ�³:

---

You must be in the grade that Bush was reading to that day.

---

Originally posted by AJ�³:

---

Another typical liberal. Resorting to personal attacks in an attempt to gain an edge in an argument. So juvenile!

---

---

wow is that a first being owned by your own comments...

---

Originally posted by AJ�³:

---

Originally posted by Davo:

---

Doesn't it now seem pretty ridiculous that the president was getting BJs in the Oval Office as terrorist attacks were being planned on us.

---

How could you go there, when Bush was reading children books while he knew we were under attack?

---

Originally posted by JaTo:

---

Couple of quick questions for you:

1) How did FDR react when he learned that Japan bombed Pearl?

2) How did Churchill react when he found out that the Nazis had a straight-shot into Paris?

3) How did JFK react when he learned that the USSR was setting up SS-4s less than 100 miles off the US coast?

Let's see if you paint everyone with the same brush after you do some reading...

---

Originally posted by Davo:

---

Originally posted by jerseycat10:

---

we weren't invading countries left and right, and the economy was brisk.

---

Kosovo = Left Somalia = Right Bill Clinton initiated military action against as many countries as George W. Bush. If you count lobbing missles at a Pepto Bismol factory in Sudan, he's +1.

---

1.Bosnia wasn't a unilateral movement that we went at alone. NATO with the US military in a main role went in and took care of business with a good plan. Case closed.

2. The factory getting blown up that had been out of the hands of actual terrorist is a reflection of the very poor intel, which is likely related to the budget cuts Clinton made. Also, it was in Afghanistan where the failed missile attacks on OBL took place which is another example of the very poor intel. Now do you see why it IS important to have a good grasp on who is attacking you and why?

President Bush Sr. is to blame for terrorist actions against Americans.
1. Bush Sr. placed our military in Saudi Arabia, which is what directly led to the 9/11 attacks.

IMO, Clinton and Dubbya are dealing with what was left for them for them from Bush Sr not getting re-elected to clean up after himself. Clinton failed by cutting back on our military, which was cutting our own necks. Bush failed by not directly combating WHO attacked us. But, I do hand it to Dubbya for taking the fight to Iraq rather than in America, and for taking out Saddam and sons at the same time. It's just not fair to the average Iraqi, but hopefully democracy sticks and they are better off as a whole.


On topic:
I feel badly for this lady, and she has her freedom of speech thanks to people like her son. BUT, her stance on the war has done a 180 since his death.

Quote:

---

So you are telling me that demand has increased worldwide 300% since Clinton was in office, when it was relatively steady before that for a decade! HAHAHAH

---

Originally posted by sigma:

---

Quote:

---

So you are telling me that demand has increased worldwide 300% since Clinton was in office, when it was relatively steady before that for a decade! HAHAHAH

---

Apparently you seriously need an economics lesson.

You see, price doesn't go up linearly with demand if supply is constant. If supply was just meeting demand before, and demand goes up even just 1%, suddenly everyone is faced with a shortage (albeit a small one) and so everyone tries to make sure that they get they're necessary amount, so they bid up the price they're willing to pay to make sure they get it.

It doesn't matter if think you demand for crude went up in the world, or demand for refined fuel went up in the US, the concept is exactly the same -- there's more demand for the product than the supply can meet. So what happens? The cost goes up until a point is found where it's so expensive that demand goes down enough to meet the available supply.

Does that mean that if the supply was short by 5% that the price would only go up 5%? Of course not. Would you cut out any gas usage if it went from $1.00 to $1.05? Nope. No one would. So the price would have to continue to go up until a price was reached where people cut 5% of their usage. And, yes, that could be a 300% increase in the price.

Is any of the that the reason why oil is so high? Yes, but there's also a lot of pure speculation. But that's beside the point. It's ignorant to believe that just because the price for crude oil has gone up some 300% that demand must have gone up something close to that.

---

Originally posted by Swazo:

---

President Bush Sr. is to blame for terrorist actions against Americans.

---

Originally posted by AJ�³:

---

All I know is what affects me.

---

Originally posted by bishop375:

---

Originally posted by AJ�³:

---

All I know is what affects me.

---

Of course that's all you know. You could care less about what any/everybody else has been pointing out to you.

You saying that previous leaders' reactions to MAJOR world disasters has no bearing on the current situation is completely unfounded.

What else should Bush have done? Screamed "$^@*ing towelheads are invading us! Everybody hide! EEEEEEK!" ?!?!

He did what he could to maintain calm, to finish what he was doing to the best of his ability, and then sorted it all out. NO small feat considering we were just assaulted on our own soil by a forein body, something unheard of until that day.

---