How many times...

Discussion in 'Politics and Religion' started by Thorn, Aug 13, 2006.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. Thorn


    Well guess what... I'm rubber and your glue and whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.

    [makes at least as much sense as your response above]

    I have one hyphenated word for you: "Counter-point"
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2006
  2. Mr. User Name

    Mr. User Name

    Every one of these three points is in error !!!!Point #3) is so stupid that even an eleven year old chlid would laugh at the ignorance.
  3. Thorn


    What if someone told you that it was in your best interests to lower the price so that the folks who hold the power that allow you to sell that cookie for $10 can maintain a voting majority, which is in your specific best interests.

    Thorn Predicts: Oil prices will continue to decline well past the margins usually seen in the after summer "driving season" [usual a max of 10%, we have already seen near 20%] and will, after a brief interlude past the November elections to give it credibility, say around the beginning of December 06 or January 07, start to increase again.

    Gawd, if they didn't know that some of us are incredibly gullible and the rest totally distracted by our toys, personal turmoils, our own petty greed, and the rest that makes us "disinterested stock holders" in the public company known at "The United States of America" [that would be USA on your stock tickers].
  4. Thorn



    Except that in this instance the $10 being offered is a manipulation by interested parties in the oil futures game, to promote huge profits for themselves [which directly enhances the profits of big oil whose BoD's are filled with, surprise, people who profit in the oil futures game].

    I am sorry, but that pull you feel at your wallet is attached to your chain that is being yanked.

    Trust me, some one ought to be going to jail for SEC violations on this one.

    Too bad the SEC doesn't have more teeth to it, and that our laws governing futures speculation are so weak as to not be able to make a dent in the wilful manipulation that is taking place.
  5. Wowie69


    Poor Argleby,

    He is in deep denial about what Wolfowitz said. I must have really touched a nerve.

    All because Wolfowitz made a statement that I said showed OIL was a factor in our decision to attack Iraq.

    Did you know that our own government says he said it? They have it posted on the Department of Defense website.

    I guess some folks just don't want to see the truth no matter how obvious it is.
  6. DaveNJ



    I think Wolfowitz has been hanging around Bush too long. What the hell is the primarily difference anyway? Isn't it the primary difference? As in the primary difference between Wolfy and someone who speaks correctly is sentences like this...
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2006
  7. argleby


    No, he didn't. Here's the full transcript of the remarks in question.

    "Look, the primarily difference -- to put it a little too simply -- between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq. The problems in both cases have some similarities but the solutions have got to be tailored to the circumstances which are very different."

    You could have easily found that yourself with a couple of minutes' work. If you'd bothered.

    You did omit it. Honest to God, are you retarded?

    And the sentence you omitted is the Guardian saying their story was wrong. Kind of a key point.

    I never said it was what Wolfowitz said. In fact, I said it was, "the next sentence from the Guardian correction."

    100% dead wrong, again. As another writer (incidentally, apparently a liberal) explained Wolfowitz's meaning, "In other words, the US has economic leverage over North Korea because that country is just about down the tubes anyway. But the US can't sweat Iraq economically because they're independently wealthy due to all that oil."

    Which is exactly the meaning I described.

    That's it, period. If you can't see that, there's no helping you. You're not smart enough.

    No, he didn't say either. You're dead wrong again. See above.

    Uh... no it doesn't. You even got that wrong. Someone who can't see the forest for the trees is unable to see the entirety of a situation because they're too focused on small details. It has nothing to do with "overwhelming truth" or being "blinded by your own views."

    Got it? You really ought to try to know what cliches mean before you use them, never mind define them for others.

    And you go on and on with your usual nonsense, as usual riddled with dopey conspiracy theories.

    Btw, another article on the Guardian site goes into more detail about the retraction of the Wolfowitz story. It opens as follows. Struggle to comprehend the last sentence, wowie.

    "On Wednesday, ****nalists on the Guardian's website were alerted to a story running in the German press, in which the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, was said to have admitted, in effect, that oil was the main reason for the war in Iraq. The German sources were found, translated, and at 4.30pm that day a story sourced to them was posted on the website under the heading, 'Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil'.

    "Mr Wolfowitz, in fact, had said nothing of the kind...",3604,972482,00.html

    Got that, Wowie? "Mr Wolfowitz, in fact, had said nothing of the kind..." That's from the Guardian, the source of the story that you "stand by." They're not standing by it anymore.

    What's really unbelievable is that I'm having an argument with a moron who "stands by" a story that was retracted by the newspaper that published it three years ago.
  8. Rokin


    Please back up your statement that the oil companies have no ability to adjust the price and that it is out of their control.
    Also, is it not true that the price of gas is made up of many components in addition to the cost of crude, inclduing refining and transportation etc... and is it not true that companies temporarily manipulate the allocation of costs and revenue in order to look good for the stock market so why couldn't oil companies do the same.
  9. Thorn


    P.S. : This market is being strategically manipulated for the profit of a small handful of money people.

    The fact that some others are making, comparatively, much smaller profits in the speculation of oil futures on the open market, not withstanding.

    A major investigation is called for, because at the end of the day the criminal activity taking place in this industry will make the Enron and other corporate scandals pale by comparison.

    P.S.S. It isn't like this is the first time this has happened in this market and there is nothing to hang a hat on, historically, in presuming it is possible that it is happening again.
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2006
  10. Thorn



    Thanks for putting a little "Economics 101" on that for us all.
  11. Thorn


    That isn't precisely true. Many professional political ****nalists who regularly report in the mainstream press have reported that the pharmaceutical industry is, specifically, a benefactor of the Bush administrations policies.

    The, again specifically, point to the Bush supported drug program for seniors, which profits the pharmaceutical companies greatly, as a prime example of this.

    The truth of the matter is though that special interest own both political parties. Lock, stock and barrel.
  12. Thorn


    They operate on a 7% margin because they:

    1) Cook the books.

    2) Use shell companies to pipe profits into that make it seem that they have invested larger amounts than they actually have into R&D.

    3) Pay out dividends to share holders that art not counted against their bottomline in math you use above.

    The totality of the situation is the profit reported in the quarterly reports.

    The have been posting not record breaking, but record shattering profits. How they fix it so that, in the end, some rigged math can so that it is only 7% above their expenses is simply having their cake and eating it to... at our expense, I might add.
  13. njman2



    I would do number 1 - depending on how short the period was.
    Do you see this happening?
  14. justbill_redux

    justbill_redux King Missile


    Wrong again, as usual.

    Pharmaceuticals/Health Products
    PAC Contributions to Federal Candidates, 2005-2006


    Total Amount: $7,267,286
    Total to Democrats: $2,043,887 (28%)
    Total to Republicans: $5,165,399 (71%)
    Number of PACs Making Contributions: 80


    Total Amount: $8,459,510
    Total to Democrats: $2,496,427 (30%)
    Total to Republicans: $5,956,083 (70%)
    Number of PACs Making Contributions: 75

    Total Amount: $6,832,882
    Total to Democrats: $2,087,049 (31%)
    Total to Republicans: $4,735,833 (69%)
    Number of PACs Making Contributions: 63


    You get the picture.
  15. Wowie69


    Hey Dave, it's obvious that Argleby has no idea what the word misconstrued means.

    Argleby just doesn't get it.

    Wolfowitz DID say what I said he did.

    Argleby, unable to read carefully, says I omitted:

    "The sense was clearly that the US had no economic options by means of which to achieve its objectives, not that the economic value of the oil motivated the war."

    Pay attention Argleby... this is not what Wolfwowitz said. This is THEIR interpretation, THEIR commentary.

    I stand by my original quote. Wolfowitz was saying THERE ARE ECONOMIC REASONS involved in our attack on Iraq. He did not say it WAS THE ONLY REASON we went to war. Just a factor... which brings me back to my "you can't see the forest because of the trees" statement which you obviously need explained to you.

    It means the overwhelming truth is right in front of you but you are so blinded by your own views that you cannot see it.

    The Wolfwitz statement was just one piece of the FOREST of immoral Bush motivations for the war in Iraq.

    Finally, Argleby, this thread is about OIL. I thought it was appropriate to post something about oil.

    So, how's about this one:

    “In terms of the American taxpayers contribution, [$1.7 billion] is it for the US. The rest of the rebuilding of Iraq will be done by other countries and Iraqi oil revenues…The American part of this will be 1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this.” – USAID Director Andrew Natsios, 4/23/03

    or this one:

    “The oil revenues of Iraq could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” – Paul Wolfowitz, [Congressional Testimony, 3/27/03]

    Of course, we all need to remember that Condi was originally with Chevron before she joined the Bushies. As a matter of fact, Chevron had their largest tanker named after her:


    Or how's about this from Newsweek, May 16, 2006:

    Halliburton, Vice President Dick Cheney’s old company—which is all about both oil and defense—has seen its stock rise from about $12 a share to about $80 a share under this administration. ExxonMobil, which has contributed mightily to the Republican Party, has seen its stock soar from about $32 to $64 since Bush took office.

    Share prices in both companies, and in their industries, were plunging before the Bush administration came to office in early 2001. Oil prices were low, the defense business slow (and the lower and slower they got in the 1990s, the more these sectors increased their contributions to the Republican Party, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics).

    Then 9/11 happened and the United States went to war in Afghanistan, as it should have done, to eliminate Al Qaeda’s safe haven. By early 2003 virtually all of the operational planners responsible for the 9/11 attacks had been caught and spirited away to secret interrogation centers, where they languish to this day. Osama bin Laden might still be at large, but the war on those terrorists who attacked New York and Washington was won. In fact, it was all over so quickly that it provided no argument for vast increases in defense spending, and oil prices remained low. In December 2001, they were running between $17 and $20 a barrel. A year later, they’d edged up to the $25 a range.

    It was only in 2003 as the Bush administration committed irrevocably to invade and occupy Iraq, that you started to see the stock of Halliburton and ExxonMobil climbing dramatically month after month, and now year after year, fueled by the soaring price of oil (currently more than $70 a barrel) and the hundreds of billions of extra dollars pumped into the defense industry.
  16. DaveNJ


    Do you even know what misconstrued means?
  17. argleby


    The oil companies have no such choice, and the idea that they do is a liberal fantasy.

    The price is determined by the market, and no one controls it. One entity - OPEC - controls more than 40% of world oil production and even they can't fix the price, much as they would like to.

    Again, the idea that the oil companies are temporarily lowering oil prices to influence the American elections is ludicrous and idiotic. They couldn't do it if they wanted to. Anyone who tells you anything different doesn't know what they're talking about.
  18. argleby


    You don't even know what that cliche means. We're talking about the simple accuracy of the quote you posted. There's no forest and no trees. You were wrong. Period.

    No, it wasn't. It's saying it's story was wrong. "A report which was posted on our website on June 4 under the heading 'Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil' misconstrued remarks made by the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, making it appear that he had said that oil was the main reason for going to war in Iraq. He did not say that."

    Got it? "He did not say that" They're not retracting an interpretation, they're saying their story was wrong.

    His point was that because of its oil reserves, Iraq had a virtually inexhaustible source of funds, and thus was not vulnerable to economic pressures in the same way North Korea was. If Iraq had equal diamond reserves, or cash reserves, or whatever, his point would've been the same.

    Honest to God, this has to be explained to you? Can't you see that?

    What's obvious is that you've decided what you're going to think no matter what the facts are. The next sentence from the Guardian correction (which you conveniently omit) directly contradicts your point: "The sense was clearly that the US had no economic options by means of which to achieve its objectives, not that the economic value of the oil motivated the war."

    Got that? "...not that the economic value of the oil motivated the war. That's the opposite of what you're saying.

    You post a quote that is dead wrong, it's pointed out and proven to you that it's dead wrong, and you still don't get it.

    This is, btw, the second post you've put up recently which has proved not only dead wrong, but dishonest; the other being your bogus post about a terrorism spike that Ozzy thoroughly debunked. You're establishing quite a track record.
  19. Wowie69



    Sorry Argleby,

    You are another one who can't see the forest for the trees.

    The newspaper was retracting it's interpretation of Wolfowitz statement.

    His statement still reveals that oil was certainly a factor in our decision to go to war with Iraq.

    He still said "The ... difference between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq."

    Seems obvious to me.
  20. Rokin


    What if someone said to you to pick one of the following alternatives:
    1. Lower the price of the cookie to 9 dollars for a short period of time to insure that you can continue to sell the cookie for 10 dollars plus; or
    2. Don't lower the price and pretty soon someone will be lowering the price for you or heavily taxing your profits.

    What do you think they might do?