John Kerry and John Edwards

[Doug05257]

Just wondering if we should all, as Americans, remove John Kerry and John Edwards from politics.... FOREVER!!!! That'd be cool with me! 8)

If you don't want to select either because you don't care about the election, then you can pay all of our taxes, because if you don't care about who gets elected, what makes you think that those who get elected care about you? I'm sure they'd love to eliminate taxes on anyone who votes for them! PM me if you want to pay my taxes! (No debt lawyers, please... I don't need them)

[game-bot]

well no, bush will still beat them blindfolded!

[KiLLeR404]

well no, bush will still beat them blindfolded!They will not RRRRR

[Rambo]

well no, bush will still beat them blindfolded!

Technically, Bush's actions would imply that he IS trying to beat them blind-folded.

[DarkReality]

You opened a trapped topic:

Intelligence -1%
Tolerance for "americans" -70%

That's seriously what I was thinking right about now.

[manoftheman6]

So true, so true... :D

[game-bot]

really,what IF the jhons were xgen members ang they read this how would tht make them feel?

[DarkReality]

Well, if I were Kerry, I'd laugh and think to myself "hah, you have no life. You spend your time in an online forum. But I'll be president. And frankly, Bush isn't better. We both suck. And everyone's screwed. Hah!"

Yes... that's what I'd think right about then, but I'm not Kerry, nor Edwards, nor John, so I can't really be sure if that's the same thing they'd think.

[Vagrant]

You opened a trapped topic:

Intelligence -1%
Tolerance for "americans" -70%

That's seriously what I was thinking right about now.

BAH! That percentage so reminds me of Tropico's (a game) ruler designer... Hehe.

Silver Spoon
+50% Starting funds
-10% Intellectuals Faction

There's a lot more stuff than that, but still, that reminded me of Tropico. :-D

[Diamond187]

Yeah, Tropico is an awesome game.

My first reaction was, "why hasn't someone moved this to SpammerLand?"

[DarkReality]

Because that would be a political bias against Kerry. And anyone keen enough (and with too much time on their hands) would begin an official protest.

[Diamond187]

Actually, it would be a political bias for Kerry, unless I have totally misinterpreted the first post, which is a distinct possibility.

[ToKillAnATTICUS]

Well, if I were Kerry, I'd laugh and think to myself "hah, you have no life. You spend your time in an online forum. But I'll be president. And frankly, Bush isn't better. We both suck. And everyone's screwed. Hah!"

Yes... that's what I'd think right about then, but I'm not Kerry, nor Edwards, nor John, so I can't really be sure if that's the same thing they'd think.

3 Johns?

What a conspiracy.

[Doug05257]

Well, if I were Kerry, I'd laugh and think to myself "hah, you have no life. You spend your time in an online forum. But I'll be president. And frankly, Bush isn't better. We both suck. And everyone's screwed. Hah!"

Yes... that's what I'd think right about then, but I'm not Kerry, nor Edwards, nor John, so I can't really be sure if that's the same thing they'd think.

3 Johns?

What a conspiracy.

Having 3 Johns running for president would be scary and it would most likely suggest a conspiracy, too! lol :)

[Doug05257]

No, I didn't open a trapped poll, and this is why.

When you watch the news, signs that read "Flush the Johns" are all over the place. And, yes, as all of you have guessed, I do support Bush. But, the second answer, "Let 'em Float" was SARCASTIC!
I picked that as a contradiction to "Flush em!" and as a joke (more of a Joke.)

And do you know why this is not in Spam Land? Because the forum we are in is called Irrelevance, a topic for users to discuss anything that is completely off-topic to Xgen. Who wins the election and what you think about the candidates is definitely off topic and irrelevant to Xgen. I made sure that the post did not have anything annoying like excessive smilies (at this time there are only four smilies in fifteen posts, including this one) or repetitive characters. Also, this post involves a serious and personal topic, unlike any in spam land. This topic obviously belongs in Irrelevance because of its general nature.

And do you know why there is no "official protest"? Because there is no misstatement of any facts, no obscenities, but mostly because all this column deals with is personal preference. Any "official protest" would fall flat on its face.

And, as for being a political bias for or against Kerry to move this to Spam Land.... well, as long as the topic isn't removed altogether or made so the viewers must go through extensive difficulty to view these posts, I do not believe it would be a show of bias toward or against anyone, however it is plain and simply put that this column is an informational tool to observe other member's opinions and is, in fact, a pleasure to have on Xgen.

Put here in this column what you think of the candidates. You don't have to vote if you don't like your choices, and you don't have to vote to see what other people think (click "view results" below the "submit" button) so if you don't want to vote as some kind of protest, go ahead, but I will make it a point as to say, if you don't post against my position, whether you vote or not, I will not know if you are protesting or not.

doug05257

[Diamond187]

Well, you do realize there is no way to answer your poll and support Kerry-Edwards. The way you phrased the question is akin to the elementary school question: "Do your parents know you're gay?"

[DarkReality]

No, I didn't open a trapped poll, and this is why.

When you watch the news, signs that read "Flush the Johns" are all over the place. And, yes, as all of you have guessed, I do support Bush. But, the second answer, "Let 'em Float" was SARCASTIC!
I picked that as a contradiction to "Flush em!" and as a joke (more of a Joke.)

And do you know why this is not in Spam Land? Because the forum we are in is called Irrelevance, a topic for users to discuss anything that is completely off-topic to Xgen. Who wins the election and what you think about the candidates is definitely off topic and irrelevant to Xgen. I made sure that the post did not have anything annoying like excessive smilies (at this time there are only four smilies in fifteen posts, including this one) or repetitive characters. Also, this post involves a serious and personal topic, unlike any in spam land. This topic obviously belongs in Irrelevance because of its general nature.

And do you know why there is no "official protest"? Because there is no misstatement of any facts, no obscenities, but mostly because all this column deals with is personal preference. Any "official protest" would fall flat on its face.

And, as for being a political bias for or against Kerry to move this to Spam Land.... well, as long as the topic isn't removed altogether or made so the viewers must go through extensive difficulty to view these posts, I do not believe it would be a show of bias toward or against anyone, however it is plain and simply put that this column is an informational tool to observe other member's opinions and is, in fact, a pleasure to have on Xgen.

Put here in this column what you think of the candidates. You don't have to vote if you don't like your choices, and you don't have to vote to see what other people think (click "view results" below the "submit" button) so if you don't want to vote as some kind of protest, go ahead, but I will make it a point as to say, if you don't post against my position, whether you vote or not, I will not know if you are protesting or not.

doug05257

You know, that's nice and all. And gathering an opinion is perfectly fine, albeit pointless. but a comment like "ust wondering if we should all, as Americans, remove John Kerry and John Edwards from politics.... FOREVER!!!! That'd be cool with me!" COULD have been supported a bit more, before making an appeal to "all americans" to remove him out of office.

And to be really technical, a completely neutral poll would have been something like... "Bush or Kerry?" Not "Remove Kerry out of office or "let him float", which implies that he's a terd anyway..." Opinions are cool and all, and I'm all for opinions, but the point is that stating an opinion without backing it up generally makes you look like an idiot. I refer to the link in my sig which nicely shows common sense in forums. Point is: something like "OMGLIEK! Lets remove Kerry from office, as americans of course, because that would be cool" sounds incredibly stupid.

There. Done. Now watch the movie in my sig. It's funny, damnit. :-D

[Doug05257]

...the second answer, "Let 'em Float" was SARCASTIC!....

Just wanted to let you know what I said before. In case you weren't paying enough attention.

[The First]

Just wondering if we should all, as Americans, remove John Kerry and John Edwards from politics.... FOREVER!!!! That'd be cool with me! 8)

If you don't want to select either because you don't care about the election, then you can pay all of our taxes, because if you don't care about who gets elected, what makes you think that those who get elected care about you? I'm sure they'd love to eliminate taxes on anyone who votes for them! PM me if you want to pay my taxes! (No debt lawyers, please... I don't need them)

You've got it the wrong way. Kerry is way better.

[DarkReality]

...the second answer, "Let 'em Float" was SARCASTIC!....

Just wanted to let you know what I said before. In case you weren't paying enough attention.

I wasn't talking about that. I skimmed that, I know it was sarcastic, it's a cool play on words. Read my post again and then find out what I wanted to say.

[ScientistBlah]

Doug, I think you joined the wrong forums. I'm pretty sure most of the members here are Democrats.

[Doug05257]

Doug, I think you joined the wrong forums. I'm pretty sure most of the members here are Democrats.

Let em be democrats.... everyone has their own choice. mine happens to be bush, if yours is kerry, then fine, so be it....but you guys' positions are not going to deter me from posting anything, its my 1st amendment right. You have the ability and the right not to listen(or read, in this case), but it is my right to speak it. And speak it i will, even if im the only republican on Xgen!

[Diamond187]

Wait, does my right to freedom of belief mean I can believe that rights are invalid?

[Doug05257]

You can waive your own rights, but you can't infringe upon anyone else's even if you don't believe they exist.

[DarkReality]

Doug, I think you joined the wrong forums. I'm pretty sure most of the members here are Democrats.

Let em be democrats.... everyone has their own choice. mine happens to be bush, if yours is kerry, then fine, so be it....but you guys' positions are not going to deter me from posting anything, its my 1st amendment right. You have the ability and the right not to listen(or read, in this case), but it is my right to speak it. And speak it i will, even if im the only republican on Xgen!

Yee Haw! Thaaaaaas raighd pardnurr! Show 'em who's boss!

That speech was cornier than most movies that deal with the liberation of some people or another. You know, the speech at the end in which the hero glorifies freedom, makes completely one-sided arguments, and fanatically stands for anything that sounds good? Right. (I had the newest King Arthur movie in mind when I said that... ugh).

It's also almost as bad as people who own a gun just to prove that they have the right to.

Wait, does my right to freedom of belief mean I can believe that rights are invalid?

You could, but no one would listen to you. If you believed rights are invalid, you could always attempt to become an inmate in some russian prison. I've heard they aren't supposed to be all that nice and friendly :-p

[Doug05257]

So my posts are corny now.... oh well.

[DarkReality]

Not posts, just that one was.

[Doug05257]

Not posts, just that one was.Yeah, i guess it was. By the way your sig is funny, but it should really be shown to all the newbies before they're allowed to post...

Anyway i'll try to make them less corny so people will read 'em.

[Diamond187]

But if I believe rights are invalid, then you are infringing upon my rights when you tell me that I can't infringe upon your rights. Since you believe in rights, I have rights from your perspective, but you don't have any from mine.

[DarkReality]

Problem is, not you but the state you live in decides what rights you have. You have no executive power over anyone else, especially if you believe no one has rights.

Or said differently, whether I have rights or not out of your eyes is irrelevant. If you think no one has rights, you have no right to show me that I have no rights. You have no right to breathe and would have died within minutes of this realization :-D

[Diamond187]

Hooray for Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy logic!

I live in my state of mind, therefore I have the ultimate executive power.

[manoftheman6]

YAY! HGTTG! 42 RULES YOU ALL!!!!1111

[Doug05257]

Problem is, not you but the state you live in decides what rights you have. You have no executive power over anyone else, especially if you believe no one has rights.

Or said differently, whether I have rights or not out of your eyes is irrelevant. If you think no one has rights, you have no right to show me that I have no rights. You have no right to breathe and would have died within minutes of this realization.

You would breathe even if you did not have a right to; it is required of you to breathe. And he would have died long before that.[/quote]

[Diamond187]

Well, since we're here I feel I should actually give a reason behind my lack of belief in rights (yeah, I was serious, for the most part) and respond to RdD.

Rights are just a left over of social contract theory. The concept of a "right" was originally what the law makers believed everybody (originally everybody meant white male landowners, but has since been expanded to white males[/social commentary]) should always have. Since then the ethics department has moved more towards a metaphysical interpretation of what is right instead of passing off right as "whatever the guy in the suit says". However, they still believed that these "rights" thingies were mostly good so they re-interpreted them to be metaphysical entities that were actually devined by the guy in the suit rather than just made up. So, naturally, everyone since then has believed in this mythical, god-granted thing called a "right" which is promised to them by yet another guy in a suit who promises to devine more of these wonderful rights for them. OK, I guess I was lying when I said [/social commentary] before...

Anyways, for those of you who like the Cole's notes versions of things:

1. Rights are based on social contract theory.
2. Social contract theory is flawed because it defines ethical principles arbitrarily.
3. Therefore, rights are invalid.

I'm sure there will be plenty of counter arguments to this, but that's good. I'll prove you wrong then, too.

[Doug05257]

Well, since we're here I feel I should actually give a reason behind my lack of belief in rights (yeah, I was serious, for the most part) and respond to RdD.

Rights are just a left over of social contract theory. The concept of a "right" was originally what the law makers believed everybody (originally everybody meant white male landowners, but has since been expanded to white males[/social commentary]) should always have. Since then the ethics department has moved more towards a metaphysical interpretation of what is right instead of passing off right as "whatever the guy in the suit says". However, they still believed that these "rights" thingies were mostly good so they re-interpreted them to be metaphysical entities that were actually devined by the guy in the suit rather than just made up. So, naturally, everyone since then has believed in this mythical, god-granted thing called a "right" which is promised to them by yet another guy in a suit who promises to devine more of these wonderful rights for them. OK, I guess I was lying when I said [/social commentary] before...

Anyways, for those of you who like the Cole's notes versions of things:

1. Rights are based on social contract theory.
2. Social contract theory is flawed because it defines ethical principles arbitrarily.
3. Therefore, rights are invalid.

I'm sure there will be plenty of counter arguments to this, but that's good. I'll prove you wrong then, too.

"Rights" have been around a lot longer than that. Try the Magna Carta (1200's).

[Diamond187]

Which is a big, fat, whopping social contract.

[Doug05257]

ok ok but i'm sure that there were those who demanded "rights" and priveleges from the king and got them before any of that.

[Diamond187]

Anything which is granted by a ruler to any subject proceeds by way of a social contract. If you get a liquor license, you have a social contract from the government, which means you now have a right to sell liquor, but this has no bearing on ethics nor did you have this right beforehand which the government suddenly realized and then granted you.

I suppose my conclusion that rights are invalid is a bit strong. It would be more accurate to say, rights are not a basis for morality and don't exist in the conception most people have of them.

[Doug05257]

It is not a social contract if it is not documented. What i meant was that I'm sure that the king granted them rights and priveleges by word of mouth. By saying to them: "ok, I won't do this" or "ok you can do this". Same idea as the liquor license, but undocumented.

[DarkReality]

I wouldn't go as far as calling every social contract flawed, to be honest. "Social contracts" are, interestingly enough, nearly identical for the most part. They define ways a society can survive without destroying itself.

You also have to separate human rights from rights granted in a social contract. Human rights are the above mentioned and are absolutely necessary for a society to survive. If there are no rights, you have to force laws upon people to keep them organized.

The fact that these human rights popped up all over the place (europe as well as south america and in australian tribes, for example), speak for their necessity and... "non-arbitrarilyness"...

in short: certain "rights" have always been present in every community, no matter how small, assuming it survived a significant period of time. Even if these "rights" aren't written down and simply accepted due to moral ideas (such as "killing is wrong"), they're not invalid.

[Jonanin]

i say lets cut the bush and Chain Mr. Chainey. :D

[Doug05257]

i say lets cut the bush and Chain Mr. Chainey. :D

First time ive heard that one.

We'll see on tuesday.

[Jonanin]

i made it up... and yes... we'll see on tuesday.
Kerry n Edwards will OWN bush

[Doug05257]

Yeah, with all that ketchup money they've saved over the years

[DarkReality]

Yeah, with all that ketchup money they've saved over the years

*wont make comment on oil, won't make comment on oil*

>_<

:-D

[Doug05257]

how much of that oil do you think is coming to america? NONE.

How much is lining Bush's pockets? NONE.

So how can you say that Iraq is about oil?

But if we're on the topic of money....

John Kerry earned his money the old fashioned way. He married his money.

[Diamond187]

Yes and Bush earned his the new way, by inheritance...

[manoftheman6]

and btw, there is oil coming to america, just the oil companies are trying to say there isn't so they can higher there prices.

[DarkReality]

how much of that oil do you think is coming to america? NONE.

Well, I'm sure that was his intent. i mean, why in god's name would you attack Iraq as opposed to North Korea, or Pakistan, both of which have nuclear weapons... wait, North Korea has no oil.

And I seriously doubt none of that oil is coming to america. I'm sure once it's all settled, some american oil company will magically pop up there.

And if there really IS no oil coming to america, it's due to rebels destroying pipelines and so on. I mean, protecting one's own is fully legitimate if you ask me.

[Doug05257]

how much of that oil do you think is coming to america? NONE.

Well, I'm sure that was his intent. i mean, why in god's name would you attack Iraq as opposed to North Korea, or Pakistan, both of which have nuclear weapons... wait, North Korea has no oil.

And I seriously doubt none of that oil is coming to america. I'm sure once it's all settled, some american oil company will magically pop up there.

And if there really IS no oil coming to america, it's due to rebels destroying pipelines and so on. I mean, protecting one's own is fully legitimate if you ask me.There's an American oil company?

Bull.

[manoftheman6]

well, for one, theres texasco (sp?), and then there exxon mobil, and such, which are both american I think.

[Doug05257]

Those are convenience stores that buy their gas from out of the country (like everyone else).

They're not actually oil companies because they do not produce oil.

[Diamond187]

You do have some oil reserves (I think) somewhere in the mid-west. Somebody must be bringing those out.

[DarkReality]

There's an American oil company?

Bull.

Oh, I'm sure those companies mining texan oil are all arabian. Especially after events in 2001 during middle september. But then again, after seeing Fahrenheit 9/11, I don't know what Bush's attitude towards rich arabs is. Although that movie seemed like it was desperately trying to make things fit. You never know what to trust these days. So you might as well inform yourself. Which I did:

http://www2.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/About/OurActivities/Corp_OurActivities.asp

ExxonMobile is responsible for a variety of things. Under the point "Downstream" you will find refining of crude oil as an activity. I don't know if they actually drill it, but they speak of a supply organization as if they owned it. Or at least as if it had no own name.

http://www.texaco.com/texaco/abouttexaco/history.htm

Texaco began drilling for oil at the beginning of thr 1900s. I don't believe they would have stopped, as it's been a ludicrous business up until the late 1900s, when oil was suddenly becoming rare. They're now the fifth largest energy deliverer after their merge with Chevron in 2001.

Then there's that story with Enron, although I didn't get any smarter from enron.com. I only discovered that they own pipelines. I'll simply assume that they drill, or have drilled, as well.

Then there would be the companies that Bush had a say in. Like his own, if I remember correctly.

And as to "producing oil". If you define an oil company as one that "produces oil", you probably mean refining. There are various companies that deal with petrochemicals (which includes oil refinery and gasoline production). Should you mean actual drilling, which are the companies in question when it comes to oil delivery: those exist as well, otherwise the US would have no oil reserves. Which it does.

I discovered all this after 5 minutes of googling. And 5 minutes retyping this as I accidentally closed the window. I believe you belong to those people that should inform themselves before giving some whack statement from themselves like "How much is lining Bush's pockets? NONE." Because that's absolute nonsense. It might not be lining his pockets directly, but those rich companies sure as hell will support him. And the more they have, the more they can give. So technically, it does lline his pockets in a legitimate way.

Inform yourself, is what I attempted to say. Simply take the time and make yourself smarter instead of sounding like a smartass.

[Doug05257]

And i'm sure kerry doesn't get any corporate sponsorships.... Right.....

And so you think Exxon or Texaco are suddenly going to ship over to Iraq? That just won't happen.

[DarkReality]

And i'm sure kerry doesn't get any corporate sponsorships.... Right.....

I don't recall saying that. In fact, that's absolute nonsense. No one can sponsor a campaign. Those are costs that are in the millions. Well... Not everyone can fund it, or would with his own money. I was merely stating that your comment about "no oil money lining bush's pockets" is utterly false.

And so you think Exxon or Texaco are suddenly going to ship over to Iraq? That just won't happen.

You sound convinced they won't. Texaco is a multinational company.

http://www.texaco.com/texaco/worldwide/default.htm

And one look at the exxon homepage will already give you a drop down menu with the title "worldwide" in the top right corner. Which implies that they're a... *gasp* multinational company, just like every other oil company that's realized there's more to get in other countries than just america (and that wasn't necerrarily negative. I'm thankful for oil companies selling gasoline here in germany)

Before you make any more idiotic statements, you WILL inform yourself. This is getting absolutely ridiculous. It's like you desperately want to hang on to some perfect world you've created for yourself that makes everyone the rest of the world hates an angel on two feet. Ok, that was a bit drastic, but you get the drift of it. You don't exactly sound like someone who anyone with half a pea for a brain would want to hold a decent conversation with. But all can be changed! Knowledge is not, contrary to some beliefs, god given. We CAN pick up a book and read it. Or go to a website. Or google something. All's possible.

[Diamond187]

I prefer to sit in a dark room and arrive at conclusions a priori but some people aren't so keen on things like that...

[manoftheman6]

Before you make any more idiotic statements, you WILL inform yourself. This is getting absolutely ridiculous. It's like you desperately want to hang on to some perfect world you've created for yourself that makes everyone the rest of the world hates an angel on two feet. Ok, that was a bit drastic, but you get the drift of it. You don't exactly sound like someone who anyone with half a pea for a brain would want to hold a decent conversation with. But all can be changed! Knowledge is not, contrary to some beliefs, god given. We CAN pick up a book and read it. Or go to a website. Or google something. All's possible.

yeesh! dark! calm down! Its just a forum!

Ive never seen you flame this much when dogbert started being a bastard.
(not saying he is right now) And yes, I know that thats an improper sentance, but I have no idea what to fill it with and im to tired to think.

[Doug05257]

And i'm sure kerry doesn't get any corporate sponsorships.... Right.....

I don't recall saying that. In fact, that's absolute nonsense. No one can sponsor a campaign. Those are costs that are in the millions. Well... Not everyone can fund it, or would with his own money. I was merely stating that your comment about "no oil money lining bush's pockets" is utterly false.

And so you think Exxon or Texaco are suddenly going to ship over to Iraq? That just won't happen.

You sound convinced they won't. Texaco is a multinational company.

http://www.texaco.com/texaco/worldwide/default.htm

And one look at the exxon homepage will already give you a drop down menu with the title "worldwide" in the top right corner. Which implies that they're a... *gasp* multinational company, just like every other oil company that's realized there's more to get in other countries than just america (and that wasn't necerrarily negative. I'm thankful for oil companies selling gasoline here in germany)

Before you make any more idiotic statements, you WILL inform yourself. This is getting absolutely ridiculous. It's like you desperately want to hang on to some perfect world you've created for yourself that makes everyone the rest of the world hates an angel on two feet. Ok, that was a bit drastic, but you get the drift of it. You don't exactly sound like someone who anyone with half a pea for a brain would want to hold a decent conversation with. But all can be changed! Knowledge is not, contrary to some beliefs, god given. We CAN pick up a book and read it. Or go to a website. Or google something. All's possible.

Did they say on their website that they had ANY PLAN AT ALL to go to Iraq? Did they? NO THEY DON'T. Do they? MOST LIKELY NOT!

How's this for an idiot's statement? Most of our oil comes from countries that are in OPEC. Most of the rest comes from South America. To my knowledge, Iraq is not in OPEC. So even if there is a trickle of oil flowing into this country from Iraq (and Im not saying there is) then it's still not enough to make a significant impact on his finances, and definitely not enough to risk his reputation and his job on!

And by the way, i'm very intelligent, i have a very high IQ, and i score well on aptitude tests! So don't you be telling me how much of an idiot i am because that just makes you sound....stupid.

[Impulse]

And by the way, i'm very intelligent, i have a very high IQ, and i score well on aptitude tests! So don't you be telling me how much of an idiot i am because that just makes you sound....stupid.

There is a difference between the words "intelligent" and "ignorant". What you are is called 'ignorant'. Having a high IQ has nothing to do with this whole concept, so please refrain from being so arrogant as to bragging about how 'smart' you are. Also, he wasn't calling you an 'idiot', he was merely saying you were making idiotic statements, which, in a way, is also saying you are ignorant.

And on a side-note, I found it funny that you used proper grammar in your first few paragraphs, but in the last one, where you claim you are intelligent, you don't. :D

[Doug05257]

I'm also very well versed in current events, I know what's happening in the world, and why they happen.

And it was an attack on my intelligence. If you would be so kind, Impulse, as to read a portion of the last paragraph of his post:

You don't exactly sound like someone who anyone with half a pea for a brain would want to hold a decent conversation with. But all can be changed! Knowledge is not, contrary to some beliefs, god given.

So I'm not intelligent enough to hold a conversation? I don't really think that's what you meant, Dark. I think you're just frustrated because I don't have the same standpoint as you. Lots of people don't, and I'm one of them.

But you are right about ONE thing, Dark.

This is getting absolutely ridiculous.

Thank God it'll be all over in 36 hours or so.

[Impulse]

Sorry for missing that bit. And also, not to get into anyone's way-as I don't feel like reading a huge article on oil-but since Dark is using facts (I'll take what he says as them) to back him up, you can't blame him on flaming you as you persist in denying a few things you've said.

[DarkReality]

Did they say on their website that they had ANY PLAN AT ALL to go to Iraq? Did they? NO THEY DON'T. Do they? MOST LIKELY NOT!

Good. Effing. Lord. That is ONE of several companies. Of course they don't have it on their website. I don't know of any company that releases it's goddamned plans to the world so that other companies can beat them to it. 'sides, Iraq's still far too dangerous for a company to build there. And I'm willing to bet Bush's company has dibs already.

http://www.actionla.org/Iraq/IraqReport/life.html

And from said site:

U.S. occupational forces and the CPA have failed in their weak attempt to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure. Instead, they focus on catching Saddam and granting oil contracts to American oil companies in Iraq. Oil-services giant Halliburton, which has direct ties to U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, has won contracts worth more than US$1.7 billion and it stands to make hundreds of millions of dollars more under a no-bid contract awarded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, this according to the Washington Post. In the eyes of many Iraqis, this is sheer American arrogance and continued evidence of a U.S.-Israel conspiracy.

Does that make you effing happy? There, Texaco won't go, but American Oil companies will.

So even if there is a trickle of oil flowing into this country from Iraq (and Im not saying there is) then it's still not enough to make a significant impact on his finances, and definitely not enough to risk his reputation and his job on!

Iraq has plenty of oil, and being free of OPEC countries would allow Bush to determine oil prices himself. It's about time the OPEC had some world-wide competition anyway. The entire monopoly they have is really ugly and I'm sure price manipulation is a favourite game of theirs.

And I'm not talking about your goddamned IQ, I'm talking about your inability to inform yourself. Fool. I don't care how intelligent you are. It won't do you jack crap if you believe there are no american oil companies. So far I believe I've countered every one of your points by spending 5 minutes for each by searching through google.

Should I have attacked your intelligence, I'm sorry, I only meant to attack your absolute ignorance and idiocy, as Impulse already said.

Former US Secretary of Sate James Baker III knows it. Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century was prepared by The James Baker III Institute for Public Policy and the Council on Foreign Relations, and presented to US Vice President Dick Cheney in April 2001. This report recommended a radical review of US policy towards Iraq. At the time the Baker report was written, the USA was purchasing on average 800,000 barrels of Iraqi oil per day, making Iraq America's # 6 supplier.

from http://www.zmag.org/weblinks/kerr_endofoil.htm, as well as this:

Bush knows it, but he won't tell us about the real "mission accomplished" in Iraq. Presidential Directive 13303 holds American oil companies in Iraq immune from prosecution for their actions in Iraq, and in effect seizes Iraqi oil revenue for dispensation as the White House sees fit. Halliburton and other US oil concerns are now the beneficiaries of un-tendered Iraq contracts, and their profits are already soaring - and indemnified from lawsuits. This is about as free from investment restrictions as it gets.

I haven't found the official site for presidential directives, but there are enough pages claiming this which make me think it actually says so. Makes you wonder, no? That oil companies can do whatever the hell they please to get to oil?

You don't exactly sound like someone who anyone with half a pea for a brain would want to hold a decent conversation with. But all can be changed! Knowledge is not, contrary to some beliefs, god given.

I claimed that you don't know enough to hold a decent conversation because you're absolutely incapable of backing up your ideas. I have not one piece of proof for your whacked ideas yet, and all I've been doing is using google and found something reliable to contradict your theories. That's sad. Really, really sad. So much for being intelligent, you're even incapable of interpreting two lines that I wrote. I'm not so frustrated that you have the same standpoint, but that you have no way to back it up.

You are the embodiment of an ignorant Bush voter who has not the slightest idea as to what is going on but still voting for bush because he promises you some crud about patriotism and freedom and the american people.

I repeat myself, you are ignorant, the embodiment of a stupid Bush voter, and you deserve to be locked into a cave with enough newspapers and food to last you for two years.

j00 = Idiot^42.
j00 = "absolute disgrace"

There, now I'm going to stop, I'm getting a bit carried away. But PLEEEEEEEAAAAAAASE Inform yourself a bit more? Please? That would do us all a favor and would at least give me the illusion that mankind has a chance?

[Doug05257]

And which one is Bush's company... I can't think of their name.... Can you? And don't tell me Halliburton. Cause that's just not true.

Dick Cheney was involved with Halliburton and was their chairman during the late 90's. Before the 2000 race for the White House, he quit his job at Halliburton to run for office.

Mr. Cheney's financial disclosure statements from 2001, 2002 and 2003 show that since becoming vice president-elect, he has received $1,997,525 from the company: $1,451,398 in a bonus deferred from 1999, the rest in deferred salary. He also holds options to buy Halliburton stock.


From:
http://www.halliburton.com/news/archive/2004/article_092804.jsp


you deserve to be locked into a cave with enough newspapers and food to last you for two years.

Nope. Thats where Osama is. Don't lock me in a cave with that barbarian!

[Alexar]

Ok, what a conspirancy, another poll for who wants to win, and the president will be elected tomorrow, and the news is giving us alot of crap (sorry for the mildly bad word, but it is true) and there is nothing that most xgenians can do about it who are under 18. Seriousley, this is getting nowhere, but another fight. Remember that topic I made??? Brings back memories huh?

[Diamond187]

Nope. Thats where Osama is. Don't lock me in a cave with that barbarian!

Heehee, you called him a barbarian. If that doesn't set off some irony buzzers somewhere, I don't know what does.

[DarkReality]

I was about to say something along those lines, but thank you for doing that :-)

But it's incredible, doug, how you apparently ignore an entire list of arguments, only to come with something as pathetic as doubting Bush has an oil company.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbusto_Energy

The incredible irony is, you were speaking of bin Laden being a barbarian. That same barbarian's eldest brother funded Arbusto Energy through James R. Bath (sounds like some villain, if you ask me. Seriously...)

Then he was CEO of Spectrum 7 and on the board of directors of Harken Oil and Gas.

Pwned. At least you said you can't think of it rather than it doesn't exist.

But we're making progress! You actually have a link to support your claims, however pointless that link was, but it's a step in the right direction. We might yet teach you how to back up an argument decently. Shouldn't they teach that in school? Or do they no longer bother with that in the states?

[Doug05257]

At least you said you can't think of it rather than it doesn't exist. But we're making progress! You actually have a link to support your claims, however pointless that link was, but it's a step in the right direction.

Exactly. I did have a link there, but it wasn't pointless. That article clearly stated Cheney's entire history at Halliburton. I just pulled out and quoted a paragraph that I found to be particularly important, for those who don't like to read all that much.

Go to:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/3atab.html

to find out just how many barrels of oil is Iraq actually producing to TIE for 6th place in oil production.

BTW, Iraq is in OPEC, but:

OPEC 10 refers to all OPEC less Iraq. Iraqi production and exports have not been a part of any recent OPEC agreements.

Aha! So Iraq hasn't had a part in their agreements.... Some member Iraq is to OPEC.

And to your question about education in America: They try, but somehow, no matter who is President, they just aren't able to teach like they should. It was like that when the democrats were in office, too.

[DarkReality]

Hmm...

sucks to be american.

... well, not really. I can't think of what would be better. It sort of sucks to be human nowadays...

:-D

[Diamond187]

Actually, it always has, you just weren't around to realize it before.

[DarkReality]

There's a good point as well.

*points and laughs at us all*

...