 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / General Car Topics / April 2004Saudis to lower oil prices for Bush's re-election
Reuters 4/19/04 - Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, promised President Bush the Saudis would temporarily cut oil prices before November to ensure the U.S. economy is strong on election day, journalist Bob Woodward said in a television interview on Sunday... > Reuters 4/19/04 - Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, > Prince Bandar bin Sultan, promised President Bush the Saudis would > temporarily cut oil prices before November to ensure the U.S. economy > is strong on election day, journalist Bob Woodward said in a > television interview on Sunday... Cool! I could use lower gas prices for my SUV! It is sad that people choose to distribute stuff like this without first researching its veracity. Like many of the things Woodward wrote in his book and he said on TV including the false statement attributed to Powell, this too has proven to be incorrect. Just another effort by international terrorist and their supporters in the US to destroy the President mike hunt Tyros wrote: > > Reuters 4/19/04 - Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, > > Prince Bandar bin Sultan, promised President Bush the Saudis would [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Cool! I could use lower gas prices for my SUV! > Reuters 4/19/04 - Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, > Prince Bandar bin Sultan, promised President Bush the Saudis would > temporarily cut oil prices before November to ensure the U.S. economy > is strong on election day, journalist Bob Woodward said in a > television interview on Sunday... Isn't November way past the summer driving season and gas prices drop anyway? Sounds like another Woodward-ism, he also claimed in that interview that two people went into a room and shut the door, but he knows exactly what those two people behind closed doors said. If he can hear conversations through shut doors, he must have extremely big ears, he didn't look that way on TV. Seems to me that the more people talk about his interview on TV, the more lies come out. When some of his statements are obvious lies, it makes me skeptical about anything else he said. Now the crude oil price drop (without mentioning prices usually drop in fall/winter anyway), makes me wonder if he was lying about that too. > Sounds like another Woodward-ism, he also claimed in that interview that two > people went into a room and shut the door, but he knows exactly what those > two people behind closed doors said. If he can hear conversations through > shut doors, he must have extremely big ears, he didn't look that way on TV. The President told Woodward what was said in the room with 2 people there. Woodward has the tapes. He played them for 60 minutes - eventually you will hear them too. Harry Woodward is a cheap reporter who makes up whatever sells. TS > > Reuters 4/19/04 - Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, > > Prince Bandar bin Sultan, promised President Bush the Saudis would [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > mentioning prices usually drop in fall/winter anyway), makes me wonder if he > was lying about that too. >Woodward is a cheap reporter who makes up whatever sells. >TS I don't believe you are looking at the big picture here. It seems that even Bush admits that "most" of the book is accurate. that tells me that even the stuff he says about the Saudis and anything else the whitehouse disagrees with is also accurate. It is just that they are not happey with some of what he wrote and so they say he is mistaken. This is the exact same thing they say about anyone and everyone that they disagree with. Nothing new at all. ________________________________________________________________________________ "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." ~~Theodore Roosevelt ________________________________________________________________________________ I didn't say anything was new. TS > >Woodward is a cheap reporter who makes up whatever sells. > >TS [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > This is the exact same thing they say about anyone and everyone that > they disagree with. Nothing new at all. ____________________________________________________________________________ ____ > "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to > stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but > is morally treasonable to the American public." > > ~~Theodore Roosevelt ____________________________________________________________________________ ____ >>Woodward is a cheap reporter who makes up whatever sells. >>TS > > It seems that even Bush admits that "most" of the book is accurate. URL? >Reuters 4/19/04 - Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, >Prince Bandar bin Sultan, promised President Bush the Saudis would >temporarily cut oil prices before November to ensure the U.S. economy >is strong on election day, journalist Bob Woodward said in a >television interview on Sunday... the saudis, nor any other producer controls the price of oil, what they do control is the level of production which in turn can cause price movement. Bob Woodward like you, doesn't have a clue --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Because of the current email spam attacks my email account is not included, reply via the newsgroups or ask for a valid email address. > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Actually the Saudi's have for a long time charged USA $1/barrel less than the bechnmark price they charge Europe. Conversely they charge Asian/African customers $2/barrel more than the benchmark price. This insures that USA imports a disproportionate amount of its imported oil from Saudi Arabia (since other suppliers don't have any special USA discount) and exhaggerates the importance of Saudi Arabia to the US economy. This is effectively a $600 million/year bribe to the USA. Without commenting on the veracity of Bod Woodward's story, there is nothing preventing Saudi Arabia from temporarily increasing their special USA discount, though they couldn't do make a discount too large for too long, otherwise enterprising US importers will just reship the oil to Europe or Asia for a risk free profit. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >for too long, otherwise enterprising US importers will just reship the >oil to Europe or Asia for a risk free profit. where did you dig this sh.t up? most of the world's oil is sold via set contracts or on the open markets --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Because of the current email spam attacks my email account is not included, reply via the newsgroups or ask for a valid email address. Sorry but I have no use for Woodward and wouldn't believe anything that sob said on a stack of Bibles. TS > Reuters 4/19/04 - Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, > Prince Bandar bin Sultan, promised President Bush the Saudis would > temporarily cut oil prices before November to ensure the U.S. economy > is strong on election day, journalist Bob Woodward said in a > television interview on Sunday... > Sorry but I have no use for Woodward and wouldn't believe anything that sob > said on a stack of Bibles. > TS You'd b e hard put to find anyone that had a use for you! Not at all but I wouldn't piss up your a.s if your guts were on fire. TS > > Sorry but I have no use for Woodward and wouldn't believe anything that > sob > > said on a stack of Bibles. > > TS > > You'd b e hard put to find anyone that had a use for you! > Not at all but I wouldn't piss up your a.s if your guts were on fire. > TS What a strange thing to say! Why would you be....ah.......er......doing that sort of thing up anybody's ........ Hmmm........! Your a strange fellow TS! > Sorry but I have no use for Woodward and wouldn't believe anything that sob > said on a stack of Bibles. > TS Sticking your head in the sand or up your a$$ just changes your viewpoint, not the facts. You might consider Woodward's previous book on the Bush administration and the fact that he was welcomed to the Whitehouse to gather interviews for this book. Or you can find out what you're supposed to think by tuning into O'Reilly or Rush. > > Reuters 4/19/04 - Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, > > Prince Bandar bin Sultan, promised President Bush the Saudis would > > temporarily cut oil prices before November to ensure the U.S. economy > > is strong on election day, journalist Bob Woodward said in a > > television interview on Sunday... I dont find out what to think from Rush or Woodward or politicians who will do strange things when dealing with the press or especially yourself. TS > > Sorry but I have no use for Woodward and wouldn't believe anything that > sob [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > > is strong on election day, journalist Bob Woodward said in a > > > television interview on Sunday... > Or you can find out what you're supposed to think by tuning into I don;t need any pundit of any political stripe to tell me that woodward is full of sh.t on this one. only fools like you swallow the crap fed to them --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Because of the current email spam attacks my email account is not included, reply via the newsgroups or ask for a valid email address. >>Or you can find out what you're supposed to think by tuning into > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Because of the current email spam attacks my email account is not included, > reply via the newsgroups or ask for a valid email address. Hey! It doesn't take much to fool liberals. > I don;t need any pundit of any political stripe to tell me that > woodward is full of sh.t on this one. only fools like you swallow the > crap fed to them If Woodward is incorrect, why has there been absolutely no Bushie denial or criticism of any statement in his book? Why did the Bushies agree to let Woodward interview Bush twice? >> I don;t need any pundit of any political stripe to tell me that >> woodward is full of sh.t on this one. only fools like you swallow the >> crap fed to them > >If Woodward is incorrect, why has there been absolutely no Bushie denial >or criticism of any statement in his book? you haven't been paying attention, eh? powell yesterday said that woodward had it all wrong >Why did the Bushies agree to let Woodward interview Bush twice? why not, politicians crave exposure, they can't control the crap he printed. you're not too bright are you? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Because of the current email spam attacks my email account is not included, reply via the newsgroups or ask for a valid email address. James Chamblee wrote: >>If Woodward is incorrect, why has there been absolutely no Bushie denial >>or criticism of any statement in his book? > > you haven't been paying attention, eh? > > powell yesterday said that woodward had it all wrong Of course he did. Powell is the Bushie's Uncle Tom, who even destroyed his own credibility when he lied to the U.N. What the hell does Powell know? He wasn't even involved in the decision to attack Iraq, and was only told what the decision was. >>Why did the Bushies agree to let Woodward interview Bush twice? > > why not, politicians crave exposure, they can't control the crap he > printed. What a shallow answer. Politicians don't give interiews to people who thewy think are going to criticize them. > you're not too bright are you? The typical ignorant response. Attack the messenger when you can't discuss the message. Anytime you wish to compare IQs, I'm ready. > James Chamblee wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Powell is the Bushie's Uncle Tom, who even destroyed his own credibility >when he lied to the U.N. When I hear someone make snide comments using material that targets the vicitms race/skin color/religion, I fail to see anymore creditiblty in the comments and stop reading. doomed >What the hell does Powell know? He wasn't even involved in the decision >to attack Iraq, and was only told what the decision was. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Anytime you wish to compare IQs, I'm ready. Seems we can end the discussion with you on this subject. Your premise is faulty since you obviously do not read the newspapers or watch TV. One is entitled to their own opinion but NOT their own facts and on this subject. As with many others you choose to comment, yours are incorrect. I for one will not waste my time trying to bring you up to speed, Bye. mike hunt James Shamble wrote: > James Chamblee wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Anytime you wish to compare IQs, I'm ready. > >> I don;t need any pundit of any political stripe to tell me that > >> woodward is full of sh.t on this one. only fools like you swallow the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > you're not too bright are you? Nor or you, it seems...it'll be interesting to see the actual text of the book and the transcripts of the taped interviews...obviously the Bushies liked the hatchet job Woodward did on the Clinton whitehouse and the first book he did on the present administration...Powell reported that he was told to talk to Woodward by his Boss...I don't know what you infer from that...I infer that the administration was expecting to get a favorable "report"...obviously another mis-reading of the situation. Glass houses and all that... >> >> I don;t need any pundit of any political stripe to tell me that >> >> woodward is full of sh.t on this one. only fools like you swallow the [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >Glass houses and all that... Yep. it seems that Bushy's whitehouse only likes something when it makes them look good. Whay childish people we have in there now.  Signature________________________________________________________________________________ "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." ~~Theodore Roosevelt ________________________________________________________________________________ I was just looking at a list of the inflation adjusted cost of oil through the past 20 years. The lowest cost was during the Clinton administration. The highest cost is at present. This does not exactly show any favorable treatment of the present administration by the oil suppliers. At present most nations are supplying oil near their production capacity. Saudi Arabia is one nation that still has unused production capacity and therefore they have the unique ability to control prices. They have recently made it very painful for US economic interests. Even a modest reduction in price would not be considered favorable treatment. It would only be fair treatment. Dick >> I don;t need any pundit of any political stripe to tell me that >> woodward is full of sh.t on this one. only fools like you swallow the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Why did the Bushies agree to let Woodward interview Bush twice? You haven't been paying attention to the loudspeakers from the black helicopters, For the last day or so many of the cable news channels have constant interviews with people saying he was lying and making stuff up, what was claimed in the book never happened. Perhaps you don't read the newspaper or watch TV. Both the Saudis and the White House have denied there was any such deal. mike hunt James Shamble wrote: > > I don;t need any pundit of any political stripe to tell me that > > woodward is full of sh.t on this one. only fools like you swallow the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Why did the Bushies agree to let Woodward interview Bush twice? > Perhaps you don't read the newspaper or watch TV. Both > the Saudis and the White House have denied there was any > such deal. Too bad Mike - Woodward has it on tape. That is NOT what he said on TV last night. mike hunt Harry Ever hart wrote: > > Perhaps you don't read the newspaper or watch TV. Both > > the Saudis and the White House have denied there was any > > such deal. > > Too bad Mike - Woodward has it on tape. >Perhaps you don't read the newspaper or watch TV. Both >the Saudis and the White House have denied there was any >such deal. > >mike hunt I'm consonfused, wouldn't cheaper oil during the election season, be a non-Republican election ploy? Give me a sec, under President Bush, the Saudi's have been getting more and more pressure to work with Us to elimate terrorism. Forcing the Saudi's to stretch their two faces further apart. Under the Dems, terrorism and national defense would fall back to the back burners, and our relations with the Saudi's would return to the Clinton era. I'm guessing anything the Saudi's do, would be focused on getting Bush out of Office, and getting America out of Iraq. Democracy on their borders is a threat to the Saudi's Royal Family. Just a quick side-note, I heard an "unofficial" endorsement for Kerry was give by Aljazeera? Is the Arab world the 'foriegn leaders' endorsements Kerry's been anouncing? Go read the article, the Arab world is pro-Kerry. Confused. >James Shamble wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> >> Why did the Bushies agree to let Woodward interview Bush twice? Oil prices will go down when kids are drafted and sent off to war... WASHINGTON (AFP) - A senior Republican lawmaker said that deteriorating security in Iraq may force the United States to reintroduce the military draft. "There's not an American ... that doesn't understand what we are engaged in today and what the prospects are for the future," Senator Chuck Hagel told a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on post-occupation Iraq. "Why shouldn't we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility and pay some price?" Hagel said, arguing that restoring compulsory military service would force "our citizens to understand the intensity and depth of challenges we face." ... > Oil prices will go down when kids are drafted and sent off to war... > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > military service would force "our citizens to understand the intensity > and depth of challenges we face." ... Next time clip the whole story, Hagel, like Charles Rangle, wants the draft not because the military is short of manpower, it isn't, but because they feel the wrong people are volunteering, e.g. no rich kids: The Nebraska Republican added that a draft, which was ended in the early 1970s, would spread the burden of military service in Iraq more equitably among various social strata. "Those who are serving today and dying today are the middle class and lower middle class," he observed. I dont think a draft will "catch" a lot of rich kids. Between influence and governmental loopholes the well to do kids will be draft proof if they want to be. TS > > Oil prices will go down when kids are drafted and sent off to war... > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > "Those who are serving today and dying today are the middle class and > lower middle class," he observed. >I dont think a draft will "catch" a lot of rich kids. Between influence and >governmental loopholes the well to do kids will be draft proof if they want >to be. see clinton and bush service records, clinton evaded any service and bush "hid" in the national guard. not that anything they did was wrong , it just shows how the well off can dodge any conscription --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Because of the current email spam attacks my email account is not included, reply via the newsgroups or ask for a valid email address. > >I dont think a draft will "catch" a lot of rich kids. Between influence and > >governmental loopholes the well to do kids will be draft proof if they want > >to be. > see clinton and bush service records, clinton evaded any service and > bush "hid" in the national guard. not that anything they did was wrong > , it just shows how the well off can dodge any conscription Clinton was by no means 'well off' when he was of draft age. About his only asset was his Rhodes Scholarship. Mark Borgerson >Clinton was by no means 'well off' when he was of draft age. About his >only asset was his Rhodes Scholarship. and it was his political connections that got him there, did you know that there is no record of his ever showing up there? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Because of the current email spam attacks my email account is not included, reply via the newsgroups or ask for a valid email address. > >Clinton was by no means 'well off' when he was of draft age. About his > >only asset was his Rhodes Scholarship. > > and it was his political connections that got him there, did you know > that there is no record of his ever showing up there? It is my understanding that he did attend some classes before he started demonstrating against the US polices. He did not complete the study so I don't know if you can call him a Rhodes Scholar or not. Ed >> >Clinton was by no means 'well off' when he was of draft age. About his >> >only asset was his Rhodes Scholarship. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >don't know if you can call him a Rhodes Scholar or not. >Ed theoretically he is one in spite of the fact that he never completed any classes --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Because of the current email spam attacks my email account is not included, reply via the newsgroups or ask for a valid email address. >>> >Clinton was by no means 'well off' when he was of draft age. About his >>> >only asset was his Rhodes Scholarship. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >theoretically he is one in spite of the fact that he never completed >any classes More of a Rhodes drop-out, then. > >>> >Clinton was by no means 'well off' when he was of draft age. About his > >>> >only asset was his Rhodes Scholarship. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > More of a Rhodes drop-out, then. I checked the Rhodes web site and they say that to be a Rhode's Scholar you only have to be awarded the scholarship. Also I didn't know that they pay each one a stipen of about 735 British pounds per month in addition to their other college expenses. Ed Well we know he couldn't afford a haircut altho I suspect he could afford pot. TS > > >I dont think a draft will "catch" a lot of rich kids. Between influence and > > >governmental loopholes the well to do kids will be draft proof if they want [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Mark Borgerson >>>I dont think a draft will "catch" a lot of rich kids. Between influence and >>>governmental loopholes the well to do kids will be draft proof if they want [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > only asset was his Rhodes Scholarship. > + That would make him southern white trash then. I suspect the "Draft" proposal was an attempt at social engineering by Congressman Wrangel and maybe a couple of others. Before he went public, the military had already leaked that enlistments were way up, even with the way things are going in Iraq. I read an article this morning saying the Pentagon doesn't feel a need for a draft at this time, just some reorganizing of what they already have. > >>>I dont think a draft will "catch" a lot of rich kids. Between influence and > >>>governmental loopholes the well to do kids will be draft proof if they want [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > That would make him southern white trash then. >That would make him southern white trash then. now tell us something that we didn't know! --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Because of the current email spam attacks my email account is not included, reply via the newsgroups or ask for a valid email address. >I dont think a draft will "catch" a lot of rich kids. Between influence and >governmental loopholes the well to do kids will be draft proof if they want >to be. >TS Which proves that not everyone is equal in this country and never has been. >> > Oil prices will go down when kids are drafted and sent off to war... >> > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >> "Those who are serving today and dying today are the middle class and >> lower middle class," he observed. Signature________________________________________________________________________________ "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." ~~Theodore Roosevelt ________________________________________________________________________________ >I dont think a draft will "catch" a lot of rich kids. Between influence and >governmental loopholes the well to do kids will be draft proof if they want >to be. The idea is to have zero loopholes. Your number is up, you report. Hell, make everyone of age report, so no-one gets an advantage. Let the military doctors sort out the 1As and 4Fs. And the 4Fs should be forced to serve in some capacity. > >I dont think a draft will "catch" a lot of rich kids. Between influence and > >governmental loopholes the well to do kids will be draft proof if they want [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the military doctors sort out the 1As and 4Fs. And the 4Fs should be > forced to serve in some capacity. "everyone"----do you mean to draft women also? Mark Borgerson >> >I dont think a draft will "catch" a lot of rich kids. Between influence and >> >governmental loopholes the well to do kids will be draft proof if they want [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >"everyone"----do you mean to draft women also? what not, women wanted full equality, now they to can share the pain of being inducted in service of their country --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Because of the current email spam attacks my email account is not included, reply via the newsgroups or ask for a valid email address. >> >I dont think a draft will "catch" a lot of rich kids. Between influence and >> >governmental loopholes the well to do kids will be draft proof if they want [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >"everyone"----do you mean to draft women also? Everyone. If keeping women out of combat is a concern, there are other things they could do in service to their country. The point is: why should anyone get a jump start on their career when others are forced to serve their country? >>>I dont think a draft will "catch" a lot of rich kids. Between influence and >>>governmental loopholes the well to do kids will be draft proof if they want [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Mark Borgerson why not, have you something against equal rights for women? Sorry. The government never does anything with no loopholes. They are the very foundation of wanting to be a politician. TS > >I dont think a draft will "catch" a lot of rich kids. Between influence and > >governmental loopholes the well to do kids will be draft proof if they want [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the military doctors sort out the 1As and 4Fs. And the 4Fs should be > forced to serve in some capacity. >>Perhaps you don't read the newspaper or watch TV. Both >>the Saudis and the White House have denied there was any >>such deal. >> >>mike hunt What I want to know is just because someone says they didn't do something then you believe that? That is too funny. Signature________________________________________________________________________________ "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." ~~Theodore Roosevelt ________________________________________________________________________________ >>>Perhaps you don't read the newspaper or watch TV. Both >>>the Saudis and the White House have denied there was any [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >What I want to know is just because someone says they didn't do >something then you believe that? That is too funny. just because someone said someone else did something then you believe it? you're quite funny yourself --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Because of the current email spam attacks my email account is not included, reply via the newsgroups or ask for a valid email address. >>>>Perhaps you don't read the newspaper or watch TV. Both >>>>the Saudis and the White House have denied there was any [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >just because someone said someone else did something then you believe >it? you're quite funny yourself because someone calls you on a ridiculous statement and you have a hissy. Thanks for playing. Signature________________________________________________________________________________ "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." ~~Theodore Roosevelt ________________________________________________________________________________ Not anymore than you choose to believe someone said there WAS such a deal. The fact remains Woodward said on Larry King's show that he DIDN'T say there WAS a deal as has been reported. One must stay current on the news, don't you know? mike hunt Maniac wrote: > >>Perhaps you don't read the newspaper or watch TV. Both > >>the Saudis and the White House have denied there was any [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > ~~Theodore Roosevelt > ________________________________________________________________________________ >Not anymore than you choose to believe someone said there >WAS such a deal. The fact remains Woodward said on Larry King's >show that he DIDN'T say there WAS a deal as has been reported. >One must stay current on the news, don't you know? > >mike hunt But you see I* never said that I believed one way or the other. That came strictly from you. You would do best to stop trying to put words into people's mouths. I never said I believed either one in this bunch of lies. But I will tell you this. If they are a politician or work for a politician then they LIE. >Maniac wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> ~~Theodore Roosevelt >> ________________________________________________________________________________ Signature________________________________________________________________________________ "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." ~~Theodore Roosevelt ________________________________________________________________________________ > Sorry but I have no use for Woodward and wouldn't believe anything that sob > said on a stack of Bibles. > TS Tom - If Woodward is such an SOB - why did the President give him a three hour exclusive interview? If he is such an SOB - Bush would be smart enough not to meet with him. Harry PS - We have to find Dick :-) I inferred an explanation for that in my previous post. All politicians will lie down with snakes if it is politically expedient...that includes ALL politicians. Please excuse the capitals but I dont know if italics work in ngs. TS > > Sorry but I have no use for Woodward and wouldn't believe anything that sob > > said on a stack of Bibles. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Harry > PS - We have to find Dick :-) > Please excuse the capitals but I dont know if italics work in > ngs. They don't. And don't even think about posting in html if you want your posts to be taken seriously. Capitals are OK, at least as far as I'm concerned, if confined to emphasis on a select few words. It may be noted that people who compose an entire message in capitals are too stupid to figure out how to to make small letters and there's no point in reading anything they have to say. (Hint for those who don't want to stay stupid: it's a toggle, probably involving your left little finger.) SignatureCheers, Bev ----------------------------------------- There's something wrong with my keyboard. Whenever I type x I get x. > Sorry but I have no use for Woodward and wouldn't believe anything that sob > said on a stack of Bibles. You must be one of those right-wing nuts I keep hearing about. I would trust Woodward much more then the proven liar Bush. PJ Your basis for trust is laughable. You dont know Woodward and you dont know Bush. You are basing your trust on the statements of people who have axes to grind. Accordingly you dont know sh.t. TS > > Sorry but I have no use for Woodward and wouldn't believe anything that sob > > said on a stack of Bibles. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > PJ > Your basis for trust is laughable. You dont know Woodward and you dont know > Bush. You are basing your trust on the statements of people who have axes > to grind. Accordingly you dont know sh.t. > TS Face facts. Anyone that says anything against the Bush administration must inherently have an axe to grind or simply be crazy. You'd never be convinced otherwise, I'm sure. Ben That's what I said. The Bush critics and the Bush supporters both have axes to grind but you dont think the latter do. TS > > Your basis for trust is laughable. You dont know Woodward and you > dont know [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Ben > Your basis for trust is laughable. You dont know Woodward and you dont know > Bush. You are basing your trust on the statements of people who have axes > to grind. Accordingly you dont know sh.t. > TS You really are a right-wing nut, aren't you. I do know that Woodward was instrumental in bring down the crooked Richard Nixon and I trust him to do the same again with Bush. I do know some of the evil that Bush has done and I suspect that there is much more to come. PJ Woodward was instrumental in making a fortune out of "bringing down Nixon". Actually if you want to lie enough and have the floor you can bring down anybody. Can you say Clarke? TS > > Your basis for trust is laughable. You dont know Woodward and you dont know > > Bush. You are basing your trust on the statements of people who have axes [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > PJ Clarke didn't bring down anybody, made himself look like an idiot. The latest polls show Bush maintains a lead over Kerry, despite the Clarke attack at the partisan 9/11 hearings: http://usatoday.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=USATODAY.com+ -+Poll%3A+Bush+support+holds+despite+Iraq%2C+9%2F11+hearings&expire=&urlID=99700 10&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fnews%2Fpoliticselections%2Fnation%2F polls%2F2004-04-19-gallup-poll_x.htm&partnerID=1660 Poll: Bush support holds despite Iraq, 9/11 hearings By Susan Page, USA TODAY WASHINGTON — President Bush has maintained his lead over Democrat John Kerry in the USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll despite two weeks dominated by a deteriorating security situation in Iraq and criticism of his administration's handling of the terrorism threat before the Sept. 11 attacks. <snip> Another poll: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/US/iraq_election_poll_040419.html same results. Looks like Kerry's negative campaigning isn't working. > Woodward was instrumental in making a fortune out of "bringing down Nixon". > Actually if you want to lie enough and have the floor you can bring down [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > >>PJ >> Sorry but I have no use for Woodward and wouldn't believe anything that sob >> said on a stack of Bibles. > >You must be one of those right-wing nuts I keep hearing about. > >I would trust Woodward much more then the proven liar Bush. then you're two peas in a pod, because woodward apparently has no clue --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Because of the current email spam attacks my email account is not included, reply via the newsgroups or ask for a valid email address. I believe you are confused, the only President ever PROVEN to have lied to the American people was Bill Clinton. He lost his license to practice law for lying under oath. ;) mike hunt > > Sorry but I have no use for Woodward and wouldn't believe anything that sob > > said on a stack of Bibles. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > PJ > I believe you are confused, the only President ever PROVEN to > have lied to the American people was Bill Clinton. He lost his > license to practice law for lying under oath. ;) You must be one of the must gullible people on earth,name a politian that hasn't lied about almost everything..just name one? BTW, Clinton lied to protect his family from a minor sexual indiscretion whereas Bush's lies (WOMD?) are getting people killed everyday. DUH! I very much doubt that Clinton's family, and certainly not Hilary, were not well aware of his "minor sexual discretions" long before he took to getting blow jobs in the oval office. His lying, IMO, had much more with his concern for his political position, the Democratic Party, and his legacy. TS > > I believe you are confused, the only President ever PROVEN to > > have lied to the American people was Bill Clinton. He lost his [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > protect his family from a minor sexual indiscretion whereas Bush's lies (WOMD?) > are getting people killed everyday. DUH! > I very much doubt that Clinton's family, and certainly not Hilary, were not > well aware of his "minor sexual discretions" long before he took to getting > blow jobs in the oval office. His lying, IMO, had much more with his > concern for his political position, the Democratic Party, and his legacy. For all those who hate either Clinton or Bush, or Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Socilists, Communists, etc. How can you tell if a politician is lying? His/her mouth is moving. Politics is said to be the art of compromise, and sometimes compromise involves telling lies. >> I very much doubt that Clinton's family, and certainly not Hilary, were not >> well aware of his "minor sexual discretions" long before he took to getting [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Politics is said to be the art of compromise, and sometimes compromise >involves telling lies. Exactly right. I can't believe that anyone would honestly expect anyone to believe that Clinton was the only President to tell lies. Signature________________________________________________________________________________ "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." ~~Theodore Roosevelt ________________________________________________________________________________ > Exactly right. I can't believe that anyone would honestly expect > anyone to believe that Clinton was the only President to tell lies. It really is *almost*laughable,all he need's to do is turn on the boob tube every night at 6pm or C-Span 24/7. I still have a Bush question though,why did Bush fly all those Saudis out on 9/11 especially since we were just attacked by Saudis? Curious behavior indeed. I have yet to hear an explanation on this and it's been asked many times. > I still have a Bush question though,why did Bush fly all those Saudis out on > 9/11 especially since we were just attacked by Saudis? Curious behavior indeed. I > have yet to hear an explanation on this and it's been asked many times. I'd even settle for link to an explanation,at the very least..extremely questionable behavior for any president. | > I still have a Bush question though,why did Bush fly all those Saudis out on | > 9/11 especially since we were just attacked by Saudis? Curious behavior indeed. I | > have yet to hear an explanation on this and it's been asked many times. | > | I'd even settle for link to an explanation,at the very least..extremely | questionable behavior for any president. I happened on this in misc.consumers (why it is here I do not know) but anyway, in general aviation all one has to do is file a flight plan. Now maybe, after 9/11, the FAA will question flight plans, but as far as I knew they were screened only to preclude flight (not political) conflicts. "Doctors Without Borders" fly all the time between US and Mexico and points south. Should they be screened? Well, after 9/11 it seems we should look more closely. But at 9/11 the FAA system was not looking for these political or defense things, just route scheduling. Do you live in the real world with the rest of us, or in one of you own delusions? You must, if you believe the President lied about Iraq having WMD. IF you believe he did than you must believe so did every intelligence agency in the world and so di every ambassador to the UN that voted for the resolutions to remove them from Iraq and so did Sadam when he listed of of his weapons as part of the cease fire agreement he signed at the end of the first gulf war. Can you possible be that naive' to believe ALL of those people lied? That may be your opinion but do some research before you post on something of which you obviously have little or no knowledge. Like I said the ONLY President ever PROVEN to have lied to the American people was Bill Clinton. mike hunt Orlando upland wrote: > > I believe you are confused, the only President ever PROVEN to > > have lied to the American people was Bill Clinton. He lost his [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > protect his family from a minor sexual indiscretion whereas Bush's lies (WOMD?) > are getting people killed everyday. DUH! >Do you live in the real world with the rest of us, or in one of >you own delusions? You must, if you believe the President lied [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >mike hunt You seriously think that Clinton was the only President to lie? What a joke. Nixon resigned over his lies and such. Reagan lied about Iran/Contra and that is fact. In our lifetimes there has never been a President who didn't lie. To think otherwise shows how ignorant one is about politics. >Orlando upland wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> protect his family from a minor sexual indiscretion whereas Bush's lies (WOMD?) >> are getting people killed everyday. DUH! Signature________________________________________________________________________________ "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." ~~Theodore Roosevelt ________________________________________________________________________________ You are free to believe a President has lied but none except Clinton has even been ((((PROVEN)))) to have lied, big difference. You may choose to believe the President and all of those others in the UN and in the intelligence community have lied but that has yet to be proven. And just like you, simply stating something you believe to be true that them turns out not to be true does not mean you lied. A lie is a deliberate utterance of something one knows not to be true, look it up. mike hunt Maniac wrote: > >Do you live in the real world with the rest of us, or in one of > >you own delusions? You must, if you believe the President lied [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > ~~Theodore Roosevelt > ________________________________________________________________________________ >You are free to believe a President has lied but none except >Clinton has even been ((((PROVEN)))) to have lied, big [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >mike hunt You mean lied under oath. That is the only difference though and you know it. if you want to continue to be delusional in the fact that you believe that Clinton is the only person in the whole wide world that ever lied about sex, then that is your right. personally, I would love to have some president that actually cared about the people and the Constitution of this country. Neither Clinton or Bush has or ever will. And anyone that follows blindly either one proves that they don't care about their own country. >Maniac wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >> ~~Theodore Roosevelt >> ________________________________________________________________________________ Signature________________________________________________________________________________ "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." ~~Theodore Roosevelt ________________________________________________________________________________ >>You are free to believe a President has lied but none except >>Clinton has even been ((((PROVEN)))) to have lied, big [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >will. And anyone that follows blindly either one proves that they >don't care about their own country. Just a quick poke, Clinton confessed to perjury, falsification of evidence, and obstruction of justice. To be fair, he never admitted to tampering with a witness, so the count I got was only three crimes he confessed to. hope this helps! >>Maniac wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >>> ~~Theodore Roosevelt >>> ________________________________________________________________________________ >>>You are free to believe a President has lied but none except >>>Clinton has even been ((((PROVEN)))) to have lied, big [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >hope this helps! He is still a liar and no different than any other President in that they all lie about something. Billy Boy couldn't keep his pants zipped, which was sick. > >>>You are free to believe a President has lied but none except > >>>Clinton has even been ((((PROVEN)))) to have lied, big [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > they all lie about something. Billy Boy couldn't keep his pants > zipped, which was sick. Because for a large portion of guys, the little head does all the thinking. If one were to audit our oh so sanctimonious congress critters I'd bet we'd find that many of the male members were guilty of the same behavior. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. > Because for a large portion of guys, the little head does all the > thinking. If one were to audit our oh so sanctimonious congress critters > I'd bet we'd find that many of the male members were guilty of the same > behavior. > > People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. I think you're right. According to the author of "Fraud: the strategy behind the Bush lies and why the media didn't tell you", a big reason why the senate didn't act on Congress's impeachments of Clinton was that Larry Flynt, of Husler fame, had dug up enough dirt about members of congress to make them reconsider. As it was, I recall, one senior guy resigned after his adulterous affair of 20 years earlier was revealed. >> >>>You are free to believe a President has lied but none except >> >>>Clinton has even been ((((PROVEN)))) to have lied, big [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > >People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Hey I haven't commited perjury, falsified evidence, or obstructed justice, and I have a big ol'bucket of stones, so start ducking! :-P > You are free to believe a President has lied but none except > Clinton has even been ((((PROVEN)))) to have lied, big [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to be true does not mean you lied. A lie is a deliberate > utterance of something one knows not to be true, look it up. $70 Million U.S. will certainly buy enough proof. >>I believe you are confused, the only President ever PROVEN to >>have lied to the American people was Bill Clinton. He lost his [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > protect his family from a minor sexual indiscretion whereas Bush's lies (WOMD?) > are getting people killed everyday. DUH! Clinton lied under oath, committing felony perjury. No proof that Bush lied about anything. If you have provable charges, bring them. LZ > >>I believe you are confused, the only President ever PROVEN to > >>have lied to the American people was Bill Clinton. He lost his [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > If you have provable charges, bring them. We'd like to but the Republican controlled congress won't let us. >Reuters 4/19/04 - Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, >Prince Bandar bin Sultan, promised President Bush the Saudis would >temporarily cut oil prices before November to ensure the U.S. economy >is strong on election day, journalist Bob Woodward said in a >television interview on Sunday... What good will that do for Bush? We all know that while wholesale price increases show up instantaneously at the pump, it takes weeks to even see a penny decrease after a sudden drop in wholesale prices, and then months for retail prices to float downward. Seems Prince Bandar bin Sultan is unaware on how the retail market works in the USA. It's simply too late in the election season for this move to affect the election. You are exactly right, I watched Woodward on sunday night. My truck was empty of fuel and I decided to fuel up today I hoped that all the service station operators had watched the show as well and Prince Bandar had sent his instructions 'cause if the economy is to be affected favorably by election time the prices should have dropped today. But not so, the price of diesel had gone up $0.20 a gallon from last week. It's got to be that those darn liberals are in charge of pricing that oil. Prince Bandar doesn't have a thing to do with it. So just look forward to paying through the nose for the foreseeable future. In the mean time I'll buy some oil company stock and make a little extra money to offset the price I pay at the pumps. Stu > >Reuters 4/19/04 - Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, > >Prince Bandar bin Sultan, promised President Bush the Saudis would [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > works in the USA. It's simply too late in the election season for > this move to affect the election. debunked ! http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html, hahahahahaah! WOODWARD, SAUDIS, BUSH SAYS NO SECRET DEAL FOR LOWER OIL PRICES Here we go now with more nonsense about the Bob Woodward book. If you've been listening to the media frenzy over Woodward's book since Sunday, you undoubtedly came away with the idea that the Saudis made a cozy little deal with Bush to lower the price of crude oil just before the election ... just to help Bush get reelected. Not so. Bob Woodward went on Larry King last night to set the record straight. "What I say in the book is that the Saudis hoped to keep oil prices low during the period before the election, because of its impact on the economy." Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan, also on the same program, said that characterization was accurate. He said he hoped that the oil prices would stay low because that benefits the U.S. economy as well as the international economy. He also said that every President since Carter asked him to keep the prices down. Well ... there goes another big conspiracy theory. > Reuters 4/19/04 - Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, > Prince Bandar bin Sultan, promised President Bush the Saudis would > temporarily cut oil prices before November to ensure the U.S. economy > is strong on election day, journalist Bob Woodward said in a > television interview on Sunday... I live up here in Oregon and our gas is from $1.87 to $2.09 and the bad thing is none of our gas comes from overseas. It comes from Alaska pipe line refined in Washington State. Does that tell you we are being ripped off and lied to. FWIW notmyname > I live up here in Oregon and our gas is from $1.87 to $2.09 and the bad > thing is none of our gas comes from overseas. It comes from Alaska pipe > line refined in Washington State. Does that tell you we are being ripped > off and lied to. I believe that most Alaska crude is sold to Japan. >> I live up here in Oregon and our gas is from $1.87 to $2.09 and the bad >> thing is none of our gas comes from overseas. It comes from Alaska pipe >> line refined in Washington State. Does that tell you we are being ripped >> off and lied to. > >I believe that most Alaska crude is sold to Japan. Alaska North Slope (ANS) crude is sold 100% on the domestic market. It is all refined on the west coast. He is quite correct that his gasoline is from ANS refined in Washington State, but I'm hard pressed to understand how he is being "ripped off and lied to", much less how anything he said demonstrates it. -- Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@barrow.com >> I live up here in Oregon and our gas is from $1.87 to $2.09 and the bad >> thing is none of our gas comes from overseas. It comes from Alaska pipe >> line refined in Washington State. Does that tell you we are being ripped >> off and lied to. > > > I believe that most Alaska crude is sold to Japan. http://www.dced.state.ak.us/trade/japan/japan.htm# Energy Exports Crude oil: " North Slope oil producers have announced they will not export crude oil overseas in 2001, but instead will ship all North Slope crude to U.S. West Coast refineries." You believe every rumor floated by your fellow evirokooks. LZ >>> I live up here in Oregon and our gas is from $1.87 to $2.09 and the bad >>> thing is none of our gas comes from overseas. It comes from Alaska pipe [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >You believe every rumor floated by your fellow evirokooks. >LZ When it comes to the US government, I dont believe anything they say, particularly the current administration. So far we have had 111 Americans killed in Iraq, since April 1. In case you forgot, that is the war to secure the Ieaq oil. We can all see how that is paying off at the gas pumps. THE MOST CORRUPT ADMINISTRATION IN U.S. HISTORY IS CURRENTLY IN THE WHITEHOUSE. >I live up here in Oregon and our gas is from $1.87 to $2.09 and the bad >thing is none of our gas comes from overseas. It comes from Alaska pipe >line refined in Washington State. Does that tell you we are being ripped >off and lied to. the origin of the crude used to make your fuel has nothing to do with the price of the fuel --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Because of the current email spam attacks my email account is not included, reply via the newsgroups or ask for a valid email address. >>I live up here in Oregon and our gas is from $1.87 to $2.09 and the bad >>thing is none of our gas comes from overseas. It comes from Alaska pipe >>line refined in Washington State. Does that tell you we are being ripped >>off and lied to. >the origin of the crude used to make your fuel has nothing to do with >the price of the fuel That isn't quite true, but close enough for government work. There are in fact (small) differences in the price of crude oil, depending on a number of factors which include shipping costs, production costs (wellhead cost), and grade of oil. The origin of the oil determines the characteristics of the refinery, and it is not just a simple matter to buy a ship loaded with crude oil from just anywhere and feed it into any given refinery. The processes are different for different grades of oil, and the by products are vastly different. There has to be a reasonable means to dispose of the byproducts, which generally means a petro-chemical industry in the immediate area of the refinery. That industry will be able to use the specific by products from a given crude oil. (The only exceptions to that happen to be refineries in Alaska which put the by products right back into the Trans Alaska Pipeline!) -- Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@barrow.com |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message