TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Read This: $7.00 gallon gasoline???
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Read This: $7.00 gallon gasoline??? - Page 4

post #91 of 123
6/25/10 at 4:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty's Mom View Post
Exaggerate much?

History has proved that when taxes go down, tax revenue goes up. Economics 101.
And what has history shown politicians to do with increased Tax revenue?

eta: Actually, I decreased the number of troops from the actual calculation. I forgot we just wanted to "increase security", not "secure".
Reply
post #92 of 123
6/25/10 at 4:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carolina View Post
Yeah, I agree... Like Bush - we finally agree on something
As an advocate for truth and reason, I need to point out that the exhaustive study of the 2000 election, done by a consortium of newspapers (including the Washington Post and the New York Times) found that, had the Florida recount continued as it was set up, Bush would still have won.

Oddly enough, they found that doing the recount by the rules Gore wanted would have resulted in Bush winning, and doing it by the rule Bush wanted would have resulted in Gore winning.

And, at any rate, Bush won by a very decisive amount in 2004.

Most historians concede that the 1960 election was stolen for Kennedy by Chicago politicians. LBJ's election to the Senate is believed to have been fraudulent.

And there are plenty of instances where such things have happened, on both sides.

Very few states have secure enough ID to ensure that those who are voting are actually citizens (or even alive, in such places as Chicago and New Orleans). I hope that such ID is forthcoming. (And by the way, however you proved your US citizenship when you last got your Texas driver's license, you are going to have to prove it again next time, since the database computer with all the info on it crashed a year or so ago.)
Reply
post #93 of 123
6/25/10 at 5:23pm
Oh yeah, California is one of those states where you don't have to show your ID when you show up at the polling place and get your real ballot - just sign your name on the line and away you go!
Reply
post #94 of 123
6/26/10 at 10:33am
$7 is that it its roughly £6 a gallon here so what would that be in dollers hmmmm a few (i cant open 2 pages at once) at a cheap petrol station we are paying £1.17 petrol and £1.20 for diesel

bearing in mind minimum wage is for over 21's £5.80 and its less for unded 21's that drive cars to its not cost effective to run a car here. myself and blaine spend roughly £170 in fuel every month, when we had 2 cars it was just over £300 and we have/had economical cars not gas gusslers
Reply
post #95 of 123
6/27/10 at 3:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
And what has history shown politicians to do with increased Tax revenue?
If it is Obama and his Democratic congress, the answer is obvious. SPEND, SPEND, SPEND.
Reply
post #96 of 123
6/27/10 at 3:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carolina View Post
Yeah, I agree... Like Bush - we finally agree on something
Ten years laters and still many Democrats are upset that their boy lost the 2000 election. He lost, let it go.

One has to wonder what Al, the sex Poodle, would have done after 9-11. Probably attacked them with carbon emissions or something.
Reply
post #97 of 123
6/27/10 at 6:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Ten years laters and still many Democrats are upset that their boy lost the 2000 election. He lost, let it go.

One has to wonder what Al, the sex Poodle, would have done after 9-11. Probably attacked them with carbon emissions or something.
Yes, because we are still paying a dear price for that mistake.
I find hard to believe that Al Gore, or Anybody else, for that matter, could done worse than Bush after September 11 and that ridiculous, unnecessary blood bath called Iraq war.
Reply
post #98 of 123
6/27/10 at 8:39pm
I'm glad Sadaam isn't committing genocide anymore and no more rape rooms and torture chambers.

"Mistake"? Your opinion and you are entitled to it.
Bush won that election fair and square, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled it so, it's time to move on, it was ten years ago, long past the time for sour grapes.

Besides, by the time Barack is done people will be kicking themselves that they did not elect a patriot as President.
Reply
post #99 of 123
6/28/10 at 8:15am
If they raise gas prices that high Im scraping my car. I can only afford to fill my gas tank once a month and I rarely drive anywhere as it is. Its bad enough that I do my grocery shopping at an expensive store just to get gas points to try and save money at the most expensive gas station in our area. If gas goes as high as $7 or even over $4 Im getting rid of my car and taking the tractor with the trailor to the store. Atleast I dont have to pay for the gas for that thing, the farm keeps diesel tanks for all their farm trucks and tractors!
Reply
post #100 of 123
6/28/10 at 12:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I'm glad Sadaam isn't committing genocide anymore and no more rape rooms and torture chambers.

With all due respect, "The end justifying the means" is in fact an admission that the means - the Iraqi invasion and all the pleasantries that went with it - judged independently, were unjust.

Sadaam Hussein seemed like a pretty bad guy. So I heard. I've also heard of a lot of other bad guys and circumstances worldwide, that, for whatever reason, the U.S. seems to take no interest in. Odd.
Reply
post #101 of 123
6/28/10 at 1:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keycube View Post
With all due respect, "The end justifying the means" is in fact an admission that the means - the Iraqi invasion and all the pleasantries that went with it - judged independently, were unjust.

Sadaam Hussein seemed like a pretty bad guy. So I heard. I've also heard of a lot of other bad guys and circumstances worldwide, that, for whatever reason, the U.S. seems to take no interest in. Odd.
***sigh*** I know.
Reply
post #102 of 123
6/28/10 at 3:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carolina View Post
Yes, because we are still paying a dear price for that mistake.
I find hard to believe that Al Gore, or Anybody else, for that matter, could done worse than Bush after September 11 and that ridiculous, unnecessary blood bath called Iraq war.
"Mistake?" Which "mistake?"

My guess is that we would have been no better off, had Gore been elected. In fact, subsequent events seem to show that, as a leader, he is more than just slightly flawed.

To some extent, the broad sweep of history makes the decisions of the President fairly inconsequential. Remember, FDR was elected as a pacifist/isolationist, interested only in solving the economic problems of the U.S. Truman said he had learned all he needed to know about war during WWII and would not let the US be drawn into another one. JFK, too, said that his WWII experiences showed him the folly of war, and LBJ, as a former Navy officer, knew full well the consequences of war. George H.W. Bush had war experience, too, and I'm sure he was as reluctant as any of them to put our men and women in harm's way.

The day Colin Powell gets up and says, "I knowingly told a lie to the U.N., Congress, and the Senate about WMD," is the day I may buy in to the bashing about the Iraq war (which I think was run pretty poorly, but that's a whole different discussion).
Reply
post #103 of 123
6/28/10 at 3:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keycube View Post
Sadaam Hussein seemed like a pretty bad guy. So I heard.
He was also violating the terms of his cease-fire, to the extent the U.N. and the U.S. House and Senate agreed to using force on him again.

He wasn't just nasty. He was world-class nasty, in the way he treated Kuwait and their country.
Reply
post #104 of 123
6/28/10 at 7:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I'm glad Sadaam isn't committing genocide anymore and no more rape rooms and torture chambers.
That was not the reason for the war, was it now? The reason we were told (hum-hum lied to)was Weapons of Mass Destruction. The only Weapon of mass destruction I've seen so far on that deal was Bush himself
Reply
post #105 of 123
6/28/10 at 8:22pm
"Lied to?"

There is a big difference between being mistaken, and lying. After all, all the major intelligence services of the world (and Saddam's own generals) believed Iraq had WMD. And their scientists have said they were only waiting for the inspections to end to start up their WMD and nuclear programs.

So...were we "lied to?"

I'll say it again: When Colin Powell says he intentionally lied, then I'll buy it...maybe. Not before.
Reply
post #106 of 123
6/28/10 at 9:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
"Lied to?"

There is a big difference between being mistaken, and lying. After all, all the major intelligence services of the world (and Saddam's own generals) believed Iraq had WMD. And their scientists have said they were only waiting for the inspections to end to start up their WMD and nuclear programs.

So...were we "lied to?"

I'll say it again: When Colin Powell says he intentionally lied, then I'll buy it...maybe. Not before.
Oh please, yeah Bush was Mistaken... Sure..., and I am Santa Claus... Nice to meet ya!
Opsy, I am "mistaken"! My name is actually Carolina, Sorry.
Reply
post #107 of 123
6/28/10 at 9:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
"Lied to?"

There is a big difference between being mistaken, and lying. After all, all the major intelligence services of the world (and Saddam's own generals) believed Iraq had WMD. And their scientists have said they were only waiting for the inspections to end to start up their WMD and nuclear programs.

So...were we "lied to?"

I'll say it again: When Colin Powell says he intentionally lied, then I'll buy it...maybe. Not before.
Thank you for that intelligent response. Makes much more sense than irrational name-calling and non-sequitur arguments.

I'm not a big fan of the war either, but my objection is that we apparently didn't have a winning strategy going in, and now we are bogged down, because we didn't devise a strategy of winning before we engaged. And what does "win" mean anyway? Has anyone defined it in the context of THIS war?
Reply
post #108 of 123
6/28/10 at 9:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty's Mom View Post
And what does "win" mean anyway?
Reaaaaalllyy? So you go into a war, and you do not know what winning that war means? Nice! You have no goals?
IMO think this is a nice little sentence the republicans learned after this humongous failure.
Reply
post #109 of 123
6/28/10 at 9:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty's Mom View Post
I'm not a big fan of the war either, but my objection is that we apparently didn't have a winning strategy going in, and now we are bogged down, because we didn't devise a strategy of winning before we engaged. And what does "win" mean anyway? Has anyone defined it in the context of THIS war?
I thought they defined it sometime after the campaign started, that it was to "liberate the Iraqi people". Yawn.

When you look at a complete timeline of the events leading up to the bombing/invasion, with the weapons inspections, the detailed written Iraqi declaration of having no WMD's, and so on, it's just pathetic. Are people actually still buying the "bad intelligence" line? I thought it was established by witnesses aplenty that any "intelligence" was a Cheney contrivance; that all of the necessary damning intelligence was essentially a fabrication during meetings with the CIA, and that Bush was pretty much left out in the cold.
Reply
post #110 of 123
6/28/10 at 10:06pm
I wanted to parade around with Saddam's head on a stake back in 1991, but we weren't prepared to go to Baghdad and only had a mandate to push them out of Kuwait. The Republican Guard divisions we engaged were decimated while the rest cut and ran. They were totally outmatched. We could have rolled into Baghdad almost unopposed.

I really didn't see a need to invade Iraq. I don't believe that Saddam was a credible threat to our interests and the no-fly zones kept his military movements to a minimum. The focus should have stayed in Afghanistan. I have to admit I was surprised that no WMDs were found.
Reply
post #111 of 123
6/28/10 at 11:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carolina View Post
Reaaaaalllyy? So you go into a war, and you do not know what winning that war means? Nice! You have no goals?
IMO think this is a nice little sentence the republicans learned after this humongous failure.
Actually, I have to side with Dusty's Mom on this one. There were goals going in, but what was missing badly, totally, was an understanding of the people they were going to "liberate". The typical Joe Iraqi on the street and the typical US Politician have completely different ideas about "liberation".

From my limited experience in that part of the world, I'm going to guess that most Iraqis looked at being liberated as "the Americans will arrest Saddam and his son's, drag them from the palace, and then we will put our favorite Clerics in his place and they will tell us what to do every waking moment of our lives!"

To many Iraqis, putting people like engineers, lawyers and school teachers in the government just doesn't make the least bit of sense at all.
Reply
post #112 of 123
6/28/10 at 11:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Actually, I have to side with Dusty's Mom on this one. There were goals going in, but what was missing badly, totally, was an understanding of the people they were going to "liberate". The typical Joe Iraqi on the street and the typical US Politician have completely different ideas about "liberation".

From my limited experience in that part of the world, I'm going to guess that most Iraqis looked at being liberated as "the Americans will arrest Saddam and his son's, drag them from the palace, and then we will put our favorite Clerics in his place and they will tell us what to do every waking moment of our lives!"

To many Iraqis, putting people like engineers, lawyers and school teachers in the government just doesn't make the least bit of sense at all.
But that was not the goal when the war was declared, was it? Wasn't the war declared because of WMD?
So, the goal was to find, apprehend, and destroy, them, right? IF they actually existed?
You don't go into other people's country pointing guns into their heads, forcing your belief into their lives without an invitation, speaking of/in the name of "liberation". I am sorry, but you just don't.

And by the way, I was referring to Dusty's Mom "And what is to win a war anyways?" If you go into a war, you better have very clear reasons for it, clear goals, and know what is win and what is to lose - I am sure whoever is fighting that war will appreciate that bit of knowledge.
Reply
post #113 of 123
6/28/10 at 11:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carolina View Post
But that was not the goal when the war was declared, was it? Wasn't the war declared because of WMD?
So, the goal was to find, apprehend, and destroy, them, right? IF they actually existed?
You don't go into other people's country pointing guns into their heads, forcing your belief into their lives without an invitation, speaking of/in the name of "liberation". I am sorry, but you just don't.
But you didn't ask if the goals were right...you just asked if there were any
Reply
post #114 of 123
6/28/10 at 11:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
But you didn't ask if the goals were right...you just asked if there were any
exactly - clearly, they were not right... (IMO not only that but lies too, but that is not the point...)

My point was: when she said:
"And what does "win" mean anyway"?

It means you are going in with no goals? Because if you have goals? Either you achieve them, or not. And in a war, you better have them. That was my point.

So, after hell broke lose, the direction of the war completely turned, this sentence started to show up quite a bit.... And I don't agree with it. That war was a complete failure. The goal was to bring back WMD - where are they? Besides that there was no plan for anything else - nada. Disaster.

Don't tell me that there was a plan for liberation, because that was an afterthought - we all saw that as it happened. That was NOT the initial goal.
Reply
post #115 of 123
6/29/10 at 1:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carolina View Post
exactly - clearly, they were not right... (IMO not only that but lies too, but that is not the point...)

My point was: when she said:
"And what does "win" mean anyway"?

It means you are going in with no goals? Because if you have goals? Either you achieve them, or not. And in a war, you better have them. That was my point.

So, after hell broke lose, the direction of the war completely turned, this sentence started to show up quite a bit.... And I don't agree with it. That war was a complete failure. The goal was to bring back WMD - where are they? Besides that there was no plan for anything else - nada. Disaster.

Don't tell me that there was a plan for liberation, because that was an afterthought - we all saw that as it happened. That was NOT the initial goal.

Actually, there had been a plan for regime change in place for over 5 years when the war began. Bill Clinton signed either an act or a resolution for regime change in Iraq in 1998. That same act (or resolution) was referenced in 2002 as a justification to use military might to enforce UN resolutions.

I can't look it up from here, but I'll find it for you as soon as I get home.
Reply
post #116 of 123
6/29/10 at 6:26am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3CatsN1Dog View Post
If they raise gas prices that high Im scraping my car. I can only afford to fill my gas tank once a month and I rarely drive anywhere as it is. Its bad enough that I do my grocery shopping at an expensive store just to get gas points to try and save money at the most expensive gas station in our area. If gas goes as high as $7 or even over $4 Im getting rid of my car and taking the tractor with the trailor to the store. Atleast I dont have to pay for the gas for that thing, the farm keeps diesel tanks for all their farm trucks and tractors!
I was recently cleaning out the garage and noticed our bicycles that we haven't been on in a while. When I suggested selling them, hubby said "nope they are a ride without gas. We are keeping."
Reply
post #117 of 123
6/29/10 at 6:34am
Thread Starter 


Boy did this thread ever get off the subject.
Reply
post #118 of 123
6/29/10 at 6:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueyedgirl5946 View Post
I was recently cleaning out the garage and noticed our bicycles that we haven't been on in a while. When I suggested selling them, hubby said "nope they are a ride without gas. We are keeping."
I've been checking the prices on Gore-Tex coveralls. I'm going to see just how deeply into winter one can ride a motorcycle.
Reply
post #119 of 123
6/29/10 at 8:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carolina View Post
That was not the reason for the war, was it now? The reason we were told (hum-hum lied to)was Weapons of Mass Destruction. The only Weapon of mass destruction I've seen so far on that deal was Bush himself
No need for the condescending tone, I don't believe I ever said it was the reason, did I?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carolina View Post
Oh please, yeah Bush was Mistaken... Sure..., and I am Santa Claus... Nice to meet ya!
Opsy, I am "mistaken"! My name is actually Carolina, Sorry.
Great post.
Reply
post #120 of 123
6/29/10 at 10:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
No need for the condescending tone, I don't believe I ever said it was the reason, did I?



Great post.
Not everything is about you.... I was rolling my eyes at Bush, at the war, and at the WMD, but now.....
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Read This: $7.00 gallon gasoline???