|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198 |
Originally posted by Swazo:
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.
Are you implying that Iraq is unilateral? To claim such is to ignore the facts.
Originally posted by Swazo:
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?
Originally posted by Swazo:
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.
That's a laugh. At least you're not listing talking points like some people. Even the Democrats aren't stupid enough to make those claims. I've never seen Bush Sr. as an attack target for the left.
Originally posted by Swazo:
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.
So it is Clinton's fault. Had he not run for president, and if the Democrats hadn't opposed him, Bush 41 would have been re-elected and terrorism would have been wiped out.
This brings a tear to my eye, admission that Bill Clinton and the Democrats are to blame for terrorism. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220 |
Originally posted by AJ�³:
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.
I am not the one who claimed that demand is what caused gas prices to go up 300%. Did you read my original post?
Yes I read your original post. Read all of them unfortunately. And you're not the one that claimed demand is what caused gas prices, you 'disputed' (I use that term loosely) that claim based on the ignorant assumption that since oil prices have gone up 300%, therefore demand must have gone up 300%. Which was the point of my entire post -- did you read what was posted? When posed with "Gas is more expensive because of increased demand, your response was, quote, "So you are telling me that demand has increased worldwide 300% since Clinton was in office"
2003 Mazda6s 3.0L MTX
Webpage
2004 Mazda3s 2.3L ATX
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,149
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,149 |
Originally posted by sigma:
Yes I read your original post. Read all of them unfortunately. And you're not the one that claimed demand is what caused gas prices, you 'disputed' (I use that term loosely) that claim based on the ignorant assumption that since oil prices have gone up 300%, therefore demand must have gone up 300%. Which was the point of my entire post -- did you read what was posted? When posed with "Gas is more expensive because of increased demand, your response was, quote, "So you are telling me that demand has increased worldwide 300% since Clinton was in office"
Damn logic; gets you every time doesn't it AJ? 
-- 1999 SVT #220 --
In retrospect, it was all downhill from here. RIP, CEG.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220 |
Quote:
So it is Clinton's fault. Had he not run for president, and if the Democrats hadn't opposed him, Bush 41 would have been re-elected and terrorism would have been wiped out.
Could have worked that way... If not for the fact that Bush 41 was at least as anti-military as Clinton. Virtually every military and intelligence cut made under the Clinton administration was made as a result of a plan laid-out under the Bush Administration.
Sure, one could say that Clinton could have reversed them and he was at fault for that. And in hindsight adding to them wasn't necessarily the greatest idea. But to claim that if Bush had been re-elected they wouldn't have happened is ignorant -- they were his plans.
2003 Mazda6s 3.0L MTX
Webpage
2004 Mazda3s 2.3L ATX
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 706
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 706 |
Wow, there's so much BS flying from the left, I don't know what to say... I could explain that Clinton's "economic success" was based around the Internet Boom, and had very little to do with anything he did, he was just in the right seat at the right time... I could go on to talk about how today's struggling economy is not the President's fault, but more-so a country attempting to regroup after a horrific attack on its soil. I could also explain how I was in the Military during the Clinton years, and had my pay and benefits cut, how I was forced into using substandard equipment. and how I was sent on missions on foreign soil under-equiped and under-manned. I guess I also could bring up that I've received 4 good pay raises in my military benefits since George Bush became President. Or I could talk about how the President has no influence in the global cost of oil, and that the left's fear mongering inflates the cost more-so than any other single factor. Then again, this is about the new anti-war poster child, isn't it? The woman who's own husband is divorcing her because she is disrespecting their fallen son, whom I regard as a hero. The same women who's family released a statement saying she is politically motivated now, and is seeking her own agenda, at the cost of her sons good name. Of course, the smart ones already know this, and the left won't listen.  E1
1999 Cougar - Supercharged 3L
1992 Talon TSi - AWD Turbo
1992 Eclipse GSX - AWD Turbo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489 |
it's fruitless trying to discuss this issue with the conservative extremist group (CEG). this lady is upset that she lost her son, but never said she didn't support the troops still over there. i'm sure she hopes they all get back safely - as we all do. i bet she's very salty that her son (a reserve) had to go fight in iraq for a war where the main objectives and goals have been a moving target from the time the bush admin admitted their intelligence was flawed. then they changed the reasons to something 'honorable' like iraqi freedom and democracy.  complete and utter bullsh!t. we could be fighting that cause all over the world in countries where it's more honorable than in iraq. something the conservative right wing will never admit to.
the iraq war has been a hallmark of nothing but bad management, planning, and decision making.
it's funny how anyone questioning why the bush admin's top 3 reasons for going to war in iraq were COMPLETELY wrong are immediately shouted down by the conservative right wing. you guys will never admit to the errors. and yes they knew before hand their top 3 reasons were shaky at best and came from an unreliable source - despite the chest puffing by saddam.
to say the war in iraq was always about creating iraqi democracy, regime change, and creating a better life for all iraqi's is so outrageously laughable i refuse to discuss those points any longer with you guys. that's what the reasons changed to after the bottom fell out from underneath the other scary reasons bush said we needed to go - remember the nukes, wmds, al qaeda links ?
i agree we cannot pull out now, things will definitely get worse if we leave before we give the iraqis a fighting chance to make it work. unfortunately seeing the way things are going now, they will probably get worse before they get better. civil war is most likely pending our troop pull out. would that leave them in a better or worse state...
oh and when all else fails for the conservatives blame clinton! 
'03 Saab 9-5 Aero
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,677
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,677 |
Originally posted by sigma:
on the ignorant assumption that since oil prices have gone up 300%, therefore demand must have gone up 300%.
Tell me where I made that assumption, because otherwise, your post makes no sense to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290 |
Originally posted by Swazo:
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.
I don't know about that... Bin Laden's been pretty pissed with America since we left him high & dry in Afghanistan in the late 80's. If anyone can be blamed for that it's probably Reagan. But IMO using today's reality as a basis of judgement for cold war actions is largely irrelevant. But of course it's relevant to Bin Laden, which I guess is all that matters.
E0 #36
'95 Ranger
'82 Honda CX500
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290 |
Originally posted by EternalOne:
Or I could talk about how the President has no influence in the global cost of oil, and that the left's fear mongering inflates the cost more-so than any other single factor.
I don't necessarily disagree with the rest of your post, but with all due respect, the above doesn't really make much sense. It's Chinese demand, maxed out refining capability, maxed out OPEC production, and rampant speculating that is driving oil prices right now.
I guess it's valid to say speculators are driven by the fear of a disruption in oil supply, but it would be difficult to link that solely to "the left." Plus it would ignore the other factors.
E0 #36
'95 Ranger
'82 Honda CX500
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220 |
Originally posted by AJ�³:
Originally posted by sigma:
on the ignorant assumption that since oil prices have gone up 300%, therefore demand must have gone up 300%.
Tell me where I made that assumption, because otherwise, your post makes no sense to me.
Dude, I spelled it out for you. I don't know how else to write it. Let me repeat it and see if it sinks in:
When posed with "Gas is more expensive because of increased demand", your response was, quote, "So you are telling me that demand has increased worldwide 300% since Clinton was in office."
So what exactly did you mean? Since apparently I and everyone else read it as something different than you meant.
2003 Mazda6s 3.0L MTX
Webpage
2004 Mazda3s 2.3L ATX
|
|
|
|
|
