Post #168,495
8/10/04 5:01:47 PM
|
I am not stupid and I am sticking to my statement
if you do not agree with it, then you have that right.
Yes I feel that the war in Iraq was justified, to free the Iraqi people. We just gained an ally in an unstable Middle-East with the new Iraqi government, and a new market to trade with. If these facts trouble you, then you are the one who needs to pull his head out. You after all, only see the negative, and listen to biased partesian pollitics too much and don't really think for yourself. Try looking at the postive for a while, and see the benefits. Look at the other side of the issues if you dare.
Your fallacy of personal attacks on me or President Bush do not impress me, and only goes to show how bad your character is and how biased you really are.
"When a true genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in confederacy against him." - Jonathan Swift
[link|http://www.xormad.com:4096/district268|I am from District 268].
|
Post #168,497
8/10/04 5:07:16 PM
|
Re: I am not stupid &c
Yes you are. We just gained an ally in an unstable Middle-East with the new Iraqi government, and a new market to trade with. Did I say "shit-for-brains"? Shit's smarter than that.
|
Post #168,739
8/11/04 4:52:02 PM
|
Ah yes
I see it now, you are unable to grasp facts and concepts. You've obviously started slipping some time ago. This is natural, and part of life and aging. Soon you will end up in a nursing home, and then go the way of the dinosaur.
Only shit is in your depends.
"When a true genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in confederacy against him." - Jonathan Swift
[link|http://www.xormad.com:4096/district268|I am from District 268].
|
Post #168,740
8/11/04 4:53:57 PM
|
Now that's an LRPD!
Did I say "shit-for-brains"? Shit's smarter than that.
lincoln
"Windows XP has so many holes in its security that any reasonable user will conclude it was designed by the same German officer who created the prison compound in "Hogan's Heroes." - Andy Ihnatko, Chicago Sun-Times
[link|mailto:bconnors@ev1.net|contact me]
|
Post #168,499
8/10/04 5:39:47 PM
|
WTF are you talking about, moron?
We just gained an ally in an unstable Middle-East with the new Iraqi government, and a new market to trade with.
Lemme see. They may be nominally an ally, but right now we are providing them with troops and support rather than vice versa. The imbalance is rather large, and shows no signs of abating in the forseeable future.
Lemme see. They are nominally a market for us to trade with, but most of the business to be done in Iraq right now is with the US government. In other words we are the ones paying for war profiteering.
Lemme see. The big export that everyone cares about from Iraq is oil. Oil exports from Iraq have dropped from 2.5 million barrels a day (pre-invasion) to an average of a million barrels a day (post-invasion). With wide fluctuations. For instance in the last few days renewed fighting just dropped Iraq from 1.9 million barrels a day to back to 1.1 million barrels a day. This means that we have worse exports from that market than we did before! (Even if they were not exporting directly to us before, their exports helped depress world-wide prices for petroleum.)
Lemme see. Throughout the Middle-East our support has dropped like a rock. For instance Jordan went from 70% approval of the USA 2 years ago to under 10% per day. That means that people who were our allies now either aren't, or else they are but are going to be forced to do a lot less because of internal discontent. That's a net loss in terms of numbers of allies. And those were allies that we didn't have to spend many our dollars and lives to retain!
Let's see if I can make this simple for you. One way to measure Bush's success is by the gas prices that you see at the pump. Please do so. After all his regime started by mismanaging an energy crisis in California. I wouldn't mind seeing it end on the shoals of a world-wide energy crisis that he and Dick Cheney helped contribute to.
Regards,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
|
Post #168,757
8/11/04 5:48:10 PM
|
No, WTF are you talking about moron?
Based on 1945 prices and given a rate of 4% inflation, gas should be a lot higher today than it should be.
Gas prices are based on oil prices, availability of oil refineries and how much they can produce. You have to look at the whole market of oil:
A transcript from the Washington Post on an Interview with Guy Caruso, Administrator of the Energy Information Administration, shows that gas prices have hit a 23-year high (Washington Post, 2004, p. 1). Mr. Caruso states \ufffdThere are two main reasons why gasoline prices have risen this year. First, the price of crude oil, from which gasoline is refined, has increased from about $30 per barrel in early December to more than $40 in recent days. This increase alone would explain about 25 cents a gallon of the increase in gasoline (Washington Post, 2004, p. 2).\ufffd Mr. Caruso continues, \ufffdThe second main reason gasoline prices are higher is that our growth in gasoline demand this year has outpaced our growth in supply. As a result, our inventories are very low, which reduces flexibility throughout the U.S. gasoline market system. Thus, any problems with supply or unexpected increase in demand are met with higher prices (Washington Post, 2004, p. 2).\ufffd Apparently the two main factors are an increase in oil prices, and an excess demand.
What major factors have caused the excess demand for oil in the world? Mr. Caruso answers, \ufffdEconomic development in Asia, particularly China and India, has been robust in recent years. As the Chinese economy has grown, their appetite for oil has increased such that China is now the second largest oil consuming country in the world. Oil demand growth in China currently represents a large share of global oil demand growth. Global oil demand has outpaced growth in supply, contributing to the current tightness in oil markets (Washington Post, 2004, p. 4).\ufffd
Washington Post (2004, May 27, 2004). Transcript Rising Gas Prices. Retrieved August 11, 2004, from [link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46044-2004May21.html|http://www.washingto...44-2004May21.html]
So the price of oil can accout for a 25 cents increase per gallon, yet gas has raised up more than that. So what is the other factor? Demand for oil and gas, and economics teaches us that as demand rises, and supply does not keep up, that prices rise also. So this can account for the remaining price hikes in gas.
So then your argument that involvement in Iraq was the only factor of the gas price hikes is a fallacy. You've obviously ingored the rising demand for gas in the world.
Ok, now many non-government US citizens were attacked or beheaded by terrorists. They were there because a corporation sent them there to do business with Iraq. Truck drivers, business consultants, teachers, and other non-military types. There is, indeed US corporations doing business with Iraq, and not just the US government. Hence you have committed another fallacy. US companies continue to sell to Iraq, when once Iraqis had to smuggle US goods in, for example. There are services being sold to Iraq as well, to help stuggling businesses, one of my past instructors runs a company that does just that for Iraq and other parts of the world. So there is evidence of trade.
Jordan was a loss to begin with, before the 9/11 attacks, they didn't like us because of our support of Israel. Iraq was a lost cause, no support of the US and very hostile to the US in viewpoints. What exactly did Jordan do for us? How many terrorists did they turn in, what aid or help did they give us to recover from the 9/11 attacks? So I question just how good an ally they've been. I do believe it was more of a pollitical thing than a real world thing. Apparently we traded Iraq for Jordan, and gained a real ally.
As Iraq grows and recovers, so will their economy and military. Once they are able to pump more oil and refine more gas, they can grow their economy and help to lower gas and oil prices. Yet you turn a blind-eye to this, and only see the short-term effect, and not the long-term effect and the payoff.
"When a true genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in confederacy against him." - Jonathan Swift
[link|http://www.xormad.com:4096/district268|I am from District 268].
|
Post #168,772
8/11/04 6:52:12 PM
|
Watch Norm attempt his hand at facts
Unfortunately he's picking the wrong ones.
First of all I never said that Bush is the only factor in current oil prices. I did say that you could choose to judge him that way. But those statements are different.
On top of your other factors for prices of oil, another that is frequently cited is uncertainty about the stability of the Middle-East. I've seen estimates that this contributes about $10/barrel to the cost of crude. Is that the only factor in price increases? Of course not - in fact you correctly label some others. But it is a big component (by the above estimate about 1/3 of the rise from 1999 to the present) and it is a component largely caused by this administration.
As for our popularity in the Middle-East, I just doublechecked and I'd named the wrong country. Jordan didn't like us much in 2002, we only got a favourable rating from a third of them. Of course that was a darned sight better than the 15% we're at now. There are lost causes and really badly lost causes. One of our traditional friends there is Egypt - and why not, when we give them $4 billion/year? Well 98% of them dislike us these days. Our best ally is Saudi Arabia, you might remember them as the people who you said would never support attacking us because it isn't in their interest. Our support there dropped from 12% to 4%. When 96% of a country that we really depend on dislikes us, we've got a problem.
Now you don't seem to see this as a problem. You're willing to write off the support that we had in the Middle East. You're willing to ignore the fact that our wars have caused uncertainty which is bad for oil. You're willing to not think about how we get out of this mess.
But then again, you're an idiot.
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
|
Post #168,877
8/12/04 10:31:46 AM
|
Watch Ben go down in flames
You didn't say any other factors, and implied that was the only factor. In fact, you blamed Bush for the high oil prices due to the war in Iraq. Yet there are other factors that Bush is not responsible for like the growing demand in other countries.
The middle-east has been unstable long before the Iraqi War. The source I cited, which has more credibility than you, said there was only a 25 cent rise in gas price due to the $10 increase in a barrel of oil, which as you claim, is due to the unstability of the middle-east. You also claim that this source is wrong, and instead of 25 cents increase it is more like 1/3rd the price, yet you have no source to cite this, unlike me.
Confusing Jordan with another country is just the start of your mistakes. Apparently you cannot tell the difference between one or another. US support has been dropping long before the Iraqi War, in fact the Hatred of the US spreads through the would and even Canada has dropped in support. This AntiAmericanism has reached even you, it is being spread by the terrorists and enforced by people like Michael Moore. This AntiAmericanism existed before Bush even took office, and has been growing since the past 30 years or so. How soon you forget the Iranian Hostage crisis? Yet I suspect you've obviously confused that with something else as well?
"When a true genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in confederacy against him." - Jonathan Swift
[link|http://www.xormad.com:4096/district268|I am from District 268].
|
Post #168,991
8/12/04 5:33:31 PM
|
While. You're. Raving.
Strive for, at least [link|http://maddox.xmission.com/tictacs.html| consistency].
Your Controlling-Psyche finds you in contempt of Courtesans.
Meanwhile, have a Tic-Tac\ufffd and cool out. In a few days, you'll be back to.. whatever.
(We still love-you-but-hate-the-bad-meds you've been overdosed with)
|
Post #170,956
8/25/04 4:03:06 PM
|
Ah Ashton, yet you don't understand
you want me to commit plagerism and copy everything Maddox says?
[link|http://maddox.xmission.com/plagiarism.html|http://maddox.xmissi...m/plagiarism.html]
So I take a different position, use different words, etc. On Slashdot this is seen as funny and I am considered a Comic Genius there. My karama is excellent there.
You've made the Maddox = Orion Blastar fallacy. Shame on you!
"When a true genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in confederacy against him." - Jonathan Swift
[link|http://www.xormad.com:4096/district268|I am from District 268].
|
Post #168,509
8/10/04 6:06:16 PM
|
"Jane, you ignorant slut.."
|
Post #168,513
8/10/04 6:25:22 PM
|
Norm's calculus:
Gain one "ally" in the ME with a propped-up government in Eye-rack that will not survive 2 weeks when the last U.S."Coalition" troups pull out.
Lose just about all our NATO allies, whose backing has meant a whole lot more over the decades than any puppet govenrment we can install to expidite the extradition of all the [oil].
Brilliant math, dude! Hey, Know what? I got this bridge....
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #168,533
8/10/04 10:17:17 PM
|
On that...we may agree.
They don't fit the def of ally anyway. More like puppet, puppet.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #168,514
8/10/04 6:30:22 PM
|
I vaguely remember a quote from Chesterton
to the effect that a strong man never says "I am not weak".
--
"...was poorly, lugubrious and intoxicated."
-- Patrick O'Brian, "Master and Commander"
|
Post #168,561
8/11/04 2:28:00 AM
|
But a US President said, "Your President is not a crook!"
|
Post #168,562
8/11/04 2:32:16 AM
|
Re: I vaguely remember a quote from Chesterton
Having just read the memoir of a death camp 5-year survivor, I can say that he attributes his survival precisely to lack of weakness, to sharp instinct for survival and physical robustness. So the quote is of doubtful value. Perhaps better - "I am strong enough."
-drl
|
Post #168,610
8/11/04 11:07:23 AM
|
Precisely
A strong person either keeps his/her peace, or says something like "I [hope I ] am strong enough". But never "I am not weak". The way I understand Chesterton on this, you need two elements to produce "I am not weak": external evidence of weakness that leads to the question, and the internal lack of confidence that produces the answer.
--
"...was poorly, lugubrious and intoxicated."
-- Patrick O'Brian, "Master and Commander"
|
