BengalBacker Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 I moved this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rumble In the Jungle Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 hey, Rey Maualuga is in in Dubya too :party: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky151 Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 Biden is a gasbag. So far he hasn't been put in charge of anything, breaking a general trend since Carter of the President using the VP to handle some issue. Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush 43 were Washington outsiders whose VPs had served in Congress. Even Quayle was given a portfolio (space policy). Gore was used by Clinton for the reinventing government initiative, foreign policy advice (especially on nuclear proliferation), and environmental issues. Bush is sometimes portrayed as a moron duped by the evil genius Cheney, though that's wildly overplayed. I'm not sure why Obama chose Biden, I think Richardson and Clinton were offered the post before Biden. Kenneth will be disappointed to learn that Biden voted in favor of the Iraq war of 2003. He voted against Desert Storm in 1991. Anyway, who cares if Rey knows Biden or not. Biden just isn't very important. Rey, concentrate on somethign we can all agree on, laying out Hines Ward. Who dey! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|kennethmw| Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 [quote name='sparky151' post='772803' date='May 2 2009, 02:44 PM']Biden is a gasbag. So far he hasn't been put in charge of anything, breaking a general trend since Carter of the President using the VP to handle some issue. Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush 43 were Washington outsiders whose VPs had served in Congress. Even Quayle was given a portfolio (space policy). Gore was used by Clinton for the reinventing government initiative, foreign policy advice (especially on nuclear proliferation), and environmental issues. Bush is sometimes portrayed as a moron duped by the evil genius Cheney, though that's wildly overplayed. I'm not sure why Obama chose Biden, I think Richardson and Clinton were offered the post before Biden. Kenneth will be disappointed to learn that Biden voted in favor of the Iraq war of 2003. He voted against Desert Storm in 1991. Anyway, who cares if Rey knows Biden or not. Biden just isn't very important. Rey, concentrate on somethign we can all agree on, laying out Hines Ward. Who dey![/quote] I know Biden voted for the war resolution that gave the president the authority to go to war if neccessary, the problem I have is that it wasn't neccessary, and people in the administration KNEW IT ahead of time, but failed to provide that information. To be frank, it's similar to the torture trials for the service men and women at Abu Ghirab(sp). The administration KNEW that those servicemen and women were simply doing what they were told to do, but they allowed them to be convicted as if they were simply some rogue element. That's just fucked up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Go Tory Go! Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 [center]Congrats, everyone, you've managed to make this the worst thread I've ever seen!!!! :party: :party: :party: :party: :party: :party: [img]http://gallery.zabrigraphics.com/42/1190039274_congrats11.gif[/img] :party: :party: :party: :party: :party: :party: This is not a trivial accompishment, I might add. That said, I hope you all die in your sleep tonight. :party: [/center] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatScratchFever Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 Biden is the Democrat's version of Dan Quayle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Elflocko| Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 [quote name='CatScratchFever' post='772900' date='May 2 2009, 09:02 PM']Biden is the Democrat's version of Dan Quayle.[/quote] Except the press hasn't gone out of their way to deliberately destroy him. yet... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 [quote name='Jason' post='772763' date='May 2 2009, 01:10 PM']We removed a tyrant from power because he was not in compliance with the terms of a treaty. 14 UN resolutions weren't enough?[/quote] LOL yeah thats why we went in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 [quote name='oldschooler' post='772773' date='May 2 2009, 01:41 PM']So I guess we should have just let him thumb his nose at the terms of surrender, shoot at our pilots, kill and torture his people, starve his people while he pocketed billions, play games with weapons inspectors, not account for all of his weapons, ect ect ect. I don't think anyone is trying to justify "the clusterfuck". But I was, and am still all for going there and taking Saddam out. I just wish they would have done the "surge" from the get go.[/quote] Do you have any idea what goes on with the Saudi's who we have oil contracts with? Are you people really this nieve? How many people on both sides of the isle are going to have to directly tell you it was for oil before you believe it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 [quote name='Jamie_B' post='772991' date='May 3 2009, 01:01 AM']Do you have any idea what goes on with the Saudi's who we have oil contracts with? Are you people really this nieve? How many people on both sides of the isle are going to have to directly tell you it was for oil before you believe it?[/quote] Some of these folks won't get it until they approach the pearly gates, Jamie. There they'll be met by George Washington... ...who'll promptly go into one of his rare but infamous tirades... ...which he'll top off by a swift kick to the offender's balls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTBengalsFan Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 Our invasion had a lot more to do with Saddam wanting to deal in Euros than it did with anything oldschooler listed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTBengalsFan Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 [url="http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1095057.html"]http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1095057.html[/url] [quote]Iraq: Baghdad Moves To Euro [b][size=7]November 01, 2000[/size][/b] By Charles Recknagel Baghdad's switch from the dollar to the euro for oil trading is intended to rebuke Washington's hard-line on sanctions and to encourage Europeans to challenge it. But the political message will cost Iraq millions in lost revenue. RFE/RL correspondent Charles Recknagel looks at what Baghdad will gain and lose, and the impact of the decision to go with the European currency. Prague, 1 November 2000 (RFE/RL) -- Iraq is going ahead with its plans to stop using the U.S. dollar in its oil business in spite of warnings the move makes no financial sense. Baghdad this week insisted on and received UN approval to sell oil through the oil-for-food program for euros only after 6 November. Iraq had threatened to suspend all oil exports -- about 5 percent of the world's total -- if the body turned down the request. The move comes despite repeated cautions that Baghdad's departure from the oil industry standard of the dollar will cost the country millions in currency conversion fees. UN officials have said Iraq will have to reduce the price of its crude oil by about 10 cents a barrel in order to compensate buyers for the additional costs. And the UN has said moving to the euro will mean Iraq earns less interest on its oil revenues, which are held in a UN- monitored escrow account in New York. The UN also has warned that Iraq's switch will create cumbersome new administrative processes because Baghdad says it wants to keep its existing deposits in dollars for now. That means the oil-for-food program will have to maintain two accounts -- one in dollars and one in euros -- for the time being. With Iraq now set to begin oil transactions in euros as early as next week, President Saddam Hussein has clearly made up his mind that banning the dollar is worth flying in the face of financial logic. The euro reached record lows last week as it traded at 82 cents to the dollar, down 30 percent since its launch in January last year. Currency traders say they don't expect a rebound soon. The calculation has set analysts scrambling to find where Baghdad sees the payoff. Pierre Shammas, a Middle East expert at the Cyprus-based Arab Press Service, calls the move an emotional one impossible to understand on economic grounds. "As long as the euro goes down, you don't switch to a currency that goes down in value while the dollar goes up in value. Saddam has not spelled out his plan in detail. These are politicians talking. They are not experts, they are not central bankers, they are not even oil men." But he says Saddam may feel the strategy is worth the price because it allows him to draw a clear line between what Iraq sees as two camps in world opinion regarding the UN sanctions. One camp, led by the U.S. and Britain -- a country also outside the euro zone -- wants to maintain strict trade sanctions on Iraq until Baghdad proves it has no more weapons of mass destruction. The other camp, led by euro-user France -- along with Russia and China -- favors easing the sanctions on humanitarian grounds while still pursuing disarmament. Baghdad appears to be trying now to deepen that divide by rebuffing Washington as it takes a small part of the world's oil trade off the dollar. And it appears to want to encourage ties with states like France and Italy, which it sees as sympathetic, by embracing the euro. But analysts say the political message Baghdad is sending is largely symbolic because the currency switch offers no gains or losses for any of the states involved except Iraq. That is because the currency switch merely formalizes what is already a standard Iraqi practice of purchasing goods under the oil-for-food program exclusively from nations it views as potential allies. Baghdad currently buys a significant share of its humanitarian supplies from the euro zone, as well as from several Arab countries and China. Shammas says Saddam may also feel that rejecting the dollar is worth paying a financial price because he calculates the price as far lower than the UN does. Iraq has long complained that the oil-for-food program allows it to use only about a half of the money it earns from oil sales to purchase humanitarian goods. The rest of the money is used to pay for the UN's administrative expenses connected with the program and for war reparations in the wake of Baghdad's 1990 invasion of the emirate and the ensuing Gulf War. At the same time, Baghdad has said the UN sanctions committee routinely holds up contract approvals for purchasing goods, further limiting its access to the oil earnings. Iraq says the delays are a deliberate policy by Washington and London to keep sanctions tight. The U.S. and Britain say a long contract-review process is necessary to assure Iraq only acquires humanitarian products. But if Saddam sees a low price tag to playing with the oil-for-food program, Baghdad is still limiting its losses by saying it does not want any of the dollars currently in its escrow account to be converted. The account, kept at the New York branch of the French bank BNP Paribas, now totals some $10 billion. Analysts say Baghdad's decision not to convert that large sum means Iraq's switching currencies will have no effect on the embattled euro's fortunes. The untouched $10 billion are equivalent to several European bank interventions to prop up the weak currency and such a large conversion might have helped bolster investor confidence in it. Shammas says that in deciding to move to the euro, Iraq is dusting off a strategy which another state hit by U.S. sanctions -- Iran -- discussed as recently as last year. But talk of a conversion quickly ended in Tehran as the euro has plunged over recent months. Shammas: "In Iran, a presidential adviser -- now he is a presidential adviser -- proposed a switch to the euro last year in a newspaper editorial. But that was before the euro weakened. He said 'since our European trading allies have the balance tilted in their favor in our balance of trade, since the bulk of our investment is coming from the euro zone, and since it's likely to be a very stable currency, stronger than the dollar, why don't we switch to the euro?' But, of course, the reality proved different." Shammas says the idea of switching to the euro has appeal to Iran and Iraq because they feel if several major oil producers did it they could create a stampede from the dollar which would weaken Washington. He says another possible candidate for a changeover if the euro were strong might be Venezuela, whose relations with Washington have turned rocky as President Hugo Chavez has stressed ties with Cuba's Fidel Castro. But so far, no big stampede to the euro is on the horizon -- except in Baghdad. And that leaves Saddam once again charting a highly individual course that guarantees he keeps other capitals guessing what his next move will be.[/quote] Oh, look 10 months before 9/11. How convenient 9/11 happened. Or else Iraq could be trading oil in Euros. What a coincidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Elflocko| Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 [quote name='CTBengalsFan' post='773035' date='May 3 2009, 11:38 AM']Our invasion had a lot more to do with Saddam wanting to deal in Euros than it did with anything oldschooler listed. [/quote] Don't forget about the vendetta W had towards Saddam for dissing his daddy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 [quote name='CTBengalsFan' post='773035' date='May 3 2009, 11:38 AM']Our invasion had a lot more to do with Saddam wanting to deal in Euros than it did with anything oldschooler listed. [/quote] and they would never admit that, they would rather cheer the good ole us of a on than take an honest eye to it and be critical of it, these are the folks that the eliete love to play as pawns in their game for control and its saddening that they allow themselves to be used in that manner just for the purpose of showing love to their country. I submit those that really love their country and not just want to play the role of cheerleader to all it does, are the ones that are critical of it when it does wrong. Those that just dont turn a blind eye because its easier than admitting we are in the wrong. It's much easer to believe that your country would never go to war for propping up a dead ecnomic system than it is to believe it. Its much easier to be nieve and manuplulated to believe there were WMDs or that we went to be liberators or to rid the world of an evil dictator than it is to believe the truth, because the truth for those that are honest with themselves would dictate that maybe this economic system we have that people have so intertwined as "the american way" isnt all it's cracked up to be and that perhaps we should not have allowed the elite to manipulate us into believing such things a workers rights and a fair tax code allowing for those eliete to pay their fare share, are to be called things like "socialism" or "marxism". I submit that the eliete have had us so scared of the communist ideals of the 80s that they have played you people like a violin to continue down roads to keep money in their pockets while the rest are used and things such as unions blamed. I submit that those who really love their country would never allow for these eliete to manipulate them, using that fear, into believing such trite that our forefathers quite frankly didnt believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted May 4, 2009 Report Share Posted May 4, 2009 [size=7]WAKE UP!![/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTBengalsFan Posted May 4, 2009 Report Share Posted May 4, 2009 One huge contention I've had is this notion that we were going to spread "democracy." Why should we spread democracy? We are ourselves not a democracy. We are a constitutional republic. Democracy is a pretty shitty form of government if you're at all in the minority. In a constitutional republic, everyone has inalienable rights. As the old saying goes, "Democracy consists of two brigands and a traveller voting for whose purse should be looted." If you ask Americans on the street what form of government we're supposed to have, 90% would say a democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted May 4, 2009 Report Share Posted May 4, 2009 We spread democracy and we got hamas. How's that working out for you neocons now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Elflocko| Posted May 4, 2009 Report Share Posted May 4, 2009 [quote name='Jamie_B' post='773284' date='May 4 2009, 01:02 AM']We spread democracy and we got hamas. How's that working out for you neocons now?[/quote] That one gets filed under "Careful what you wish for"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccartman2 Posted May 4, 2009 Report Share Posted May 4, 2009 [quote name='kennethmw' post='772725' date='May 2 2009, 11:23 AM']After having the Matt Millen of politics run our country for the previous 8 years, forgive me if I don't respect your viewpoint on this. Especially when you use republican talking points about socialism, when the whole friggin' economy slid of a cliff during the "Trickle down" economic philosophy of true capitalism that occured over the past 8 years. Republicans seem to think that if you keep repeating something, it makes it fact, and if you keep doing the same thing over and over you will finally get a different result. Sorry my friend, that is just the definition of Insanity.[/quote] Nice try. My point was I want a choice beyond dumb and Dumber. Even if Obama could be a great president, he would be saddled with restrictions to follow party lines. Until the American Public grows a set of balls and votes all these idiots out of power it'll never get any better. So while I do lean to the right, I'm far from happy with the way Republicans do anything either and if you could have seen my ballot for the Ohio Govern race a few years ago and the presidential election, you would see I voted Libertarian in both. As for the the Socialism comment, what do you call it when the Government winds up owning part of the banks (probably all of them by the time he is done) and you have GM wanting to convert Government debt to stocks so they own part of that? I'd say when government takes ownership in business, then it nothing but socialism. See the definition below. So kiss his ass all you want, but open your eyes to what is going on around you instead of worshipping the ground your messiah walks on. so⋅cial⋅ism /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA –noun [b]1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. [/b] 2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory. 3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles. [url="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism"]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism[/url] And now you see why I don't visit the forum. My views don't match most in here, and stating an opinion or facts will not change what people believe. So you guys go on patting yourselves on the back on how great you guy is doing, or fighting over which side is right or wrong and keep failing to realize that both sides are wrong. And why you remain polorized for what ever reason, don't miss the fact that the country is being driven to hell by both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Elflocko| Posted May 4, 2009 Report Share Posted May 4, 2009 [quote name='ccartman2' post='773336' date='May 4 2009, 11:14 AM']Nice try. My point was I want a choice beyond dumb and Dumber. Even if Obama could be a great president, he would be saddled with restrictions to follow party lines. Until the American Public grows a set of balls and votes all these idiots out of power it'll never get any better. So while I do lean to the right, I'm far from happy with the way Republicans do anything either and if you could have seen my ballot for the Ohio Govern race a few years ago and the presidential election, you would see I voted Libertarian in both. As for the the Socialism comment, what do you call it when the Government winds up owning part of the banks (probably all of them by the time he is done) and you have GM wanting to convert Government debt to stocks so they own part of that? I'd say when government takes ownership in business, then it nothing but socialism. See the definition below. So kiss his ass all you want, but open your eyes to what is going on around you instead of worshipping the ground your messiah walks on. so⋅cial⋅ism /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA –noun [b]1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. [/b] 2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory. 3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles. [url="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism"]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism[/url] And now you see why I don't visit the forum. My views don't match most in here, and stating an opinion or facts will not change what people believe. So you guys go on patting yourselves on the back on how great you guy is doing, or fighting over which side is right or wrong and keep failing to realize that both sides are wrong. And why you remain polorized for what ever reason, don't miss the fact that the country is being driven to hell by both sides.[/quote] You're definitely not alone in a lot of your opinions here; particularly the "Burn it to the ground and start over" stance. Both sides are owned by the same special interests... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sois Posted May 4, 2009 Report Share Posted May 4, 2009 [quote name='ccartman2' post='773336' date='May 4 2009, 11:14 AM']And now you see why I don't visit the forum. My views don't match most in here, and stating an opinion or facts will not change what people believe. So you guys go on patting yourselves on the back on how great you guy is doing, or fighting over which side is right or wrong and keep failing to realize that both sides are wrong. And why you remain polorized for what ever reason, don't miss the fact that the country is being driven to hell by both sides.[/quote] Your views not matching is what makes this forum fun. Come back, I like what you have to say. PS I don't have a dog in the fight either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted May 4, 2009 Report Share Posted May 4, 2009 [quote name='Elflocko' post='773312' date='May 4 2009, 10:56 AM']That one gets filed under "Careful what you wish for"...[/quote] naw that one gets filed under "la la la I can't hear you, Go USA!!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted May 4, 2009 Report Share Posted May 4, 2009 [quote name='ccartman2' post='773336' date='May 4 2009, 12:14 PM']Nice try. My point was I want a choice beyond dumb and Dumber. Even if Obama could be a great president, he would be saddled with restrictions to follow party lines. Until the American Public grows a set of balls and votes all these idiots out of power it'll never get any better. So while I do lean to the right, I'm far from happy with the way Republicans do anything either and if you could have seen my ballot for the Ohio Govern race a few years ago and the presidential election, you would see I voted Libertarian in both. As for the the Socialism comment, what do you call it when the Government winds up owning part of the banks (probably all of them by the time he is done) and you have GM wanting to convert Government debt to stocks so they own part of that? I'd say when government takes ownership in business, then it nothing but socialism. See the definition below. So kiss his ass all you want, but open your eyes to what is going on around you instead of worshipping the ground your messiah walks on. so⋅cial⋅ism /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA –noun [b]1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. [/b] 2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory. 3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles. [url="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism"]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism[/url] And now you see why I don't visit the forum. My views don't match most in here, and stating an opinion or facts will not change what people believe. So you guys go on patting yourselves on the back on how great you guy is doing, or fighting over which side is right or wrong and keep failing to realize that both sides are wrong. And why you remain polorized for what ever reason, don't miss the fact that the country is being driven to hell by both sides.[/quote] We wouldnt be in this situation of having to temproarly allow that ownership had folks not thought deregulation was a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Elflocko| Posted May 4, 2009 Report Share Posted May 4, 2009 [quote name='Jamie_B' post='773362' date='May 4 2009, 12:44 PM']We wouldnt be in this situation of having to temproarly allow that ownership had folks not thought deregulation was a good idea.[/quote] I've said before that I used to be a full-bore free market capitalist. Turns out that total deregulation leads to fiscal rectum pounding on a grand scale. Unscrupulous people left to their own devices tend to be, well, unscrupulous... [quote name='Jamie_B' post='773361' date='May 4 2009, 12:41 PM']naw that one gets filed under "la la la I can't hear you, Go USA!!!"[/quote] :shh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted May 4, 2009 Report Share Posted May 4, 2009 [quote name='Elflocko' post='773366' date='May 4 2009, 01:54 PM']I've said before that I used to be a full-bore free market capitalist. Turns out that total deregulation leads to fiscal rectum pounding on a grand scale. Unscrupulous people left to their own devices tend to be, well, unscrupulous... :shh:[/quote] ditto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.