Iran says oil too cheap

[JoeMerchant]

Nice!!

I notice Edwards property has a barn, so he probably writes everything off in farm credits.

In Gore's defense, he uses carbon offsets, which is kind of like saying "I'm gonna rape your older daughter, but I'll put the younger one through college so we're all even"

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[Soverytired]

No question whether or not he "served" on paper. That's not what I'm talking about, and you know that. I'm not questioning anyone else's service. I'm questioning the validity of W's "service".

Still not sure what "validity of service" is supposed to mean either. Service is service.

I had an Uncle who was drafted for the Vietnam war who spent his time playing in a band in New Mexico . . . was his service "valid?"

The ratio of "boots on the ground" vs. support structure is always pretty glaring. Something like 10:1 now, 20 or 30:1 in WWII and so forth.

There's all kinds of things both sides critics from both sides of the aisle can gripe about ole G.W. But when anyone starts with this non-starter, it kinda comes across as deranged, spittle dripping nutter hatred, that's all.

 

[Soverytired]

...no argument here...I agree on this point...It's the Dems who are pandering to the idiots who made these bad decisions.....

Speaking of big houses...how about these....

John Edwards 28,200 sq. foot home
http://carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=3848

or..

Al Gore who spent 30,000 dollars on utilities for his house in 2006
http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367

Hypocrites?

You know, the funny thing is that G.W.'s ranch in Texas was built to be quite eco-friendly and "green." And he doesn't wear it on his sleeve, either.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

Too bad he's been such a terrible leader when it comes to a unified national energy policy. Among other things. Many (!) other things.

 

[JoeMerchant]

Too bad he's been such a terrible leader when it comes to a unified national energy policy. Among other things. Many (!) other things.

I agree...Bush and the Republicans haven't taken a leadership position on energy and rising health care costs....That is leaving an opening for the left to push through their "vision"......which will not be good for us...

 

[Exskydiverdrivr]

Iran is simply pushing our buttons. Kicking us when we're down! The troops are in the neighborhood, let's go beyotch slap their ass! Not an occupation- just a not so subtle reminder to mind their own f-ing business!

Irag was in the news cutting oil and gas deals with Europe. I think they need to fill a couple of tankers and send em our way first.

And finally- yes , I have zero f-ing sympathy for someone who is soccer momming in an SUV and just lost their $270.000 home and has $60.000 in credit card debt. Your idiot ass is one of the many reasons we're in this mess. But go ahead charge that 40 inch flatscreen for your new apartment. (It's helping the economy) rant over.

 

[LJDRVR]

No question whether or not he "served" on paper. That's not what I'm talking about, and you know that. I'm not questioning anyone else's service. I'm questioning the validity of W's "service".

People who never served their country a single day lack any sort of gravitas when it comes to criticizing the military service of others.

Our President raised his right hand, went to boot camp, was subject to the UCMJ, served on active duty for a year while in UPT, graduated - based on his own merits as an aviator and an officer, and checked out as an interceptor pilot on an F-102, no mean feat.

What did you do?

That's what I thought. Nothing

There are plenty of things to criticize President Bush and his administration about. Yet you choose to Question the validity of a guardsman's service, effectively questioning the honor, courage and veracity of thousands who choose to serve their country in the Guard or Reserve, simply because you don't like the politics of a specific individual and lack the eloquence, intelligence, integrity or are simply too intellectually lazy to bring your argument to the table couched in anything other than the terms of some pathetic WalMart soundbite of partisan politics you parrot from the media.

How's that for a run-on sentence?

Have a nice day.

 

[C-150ETOPS]

No question whether or not he "served" on paper. That's not what I'm talking about, and you know that. I'm not questioning anyone else's service. I'm questioning the validity of W's "service".

"Validity" of his service?

You need to do a little risk analysis between GWB and Al Gore's job as a Army reporter with personal bodyguards in Vietnam.


It has always amused me reading comments that GW Bush "hid out" in the ANG because he was scared of harming his pink little self. Even with my little knowledge as a civvy pilot, I would bet that "hiding out" in a 1950's century series fighter was far more dangerous than most of what Gore faced as a reporter.

 

[Soverytired]

"Validity" of his service?

You need to do a little risk analysis between GWB and Al Gore's job as a Army reporter with personal bodyguards in Vietnam.

.

Service is service, and as I recall, Gore was discharged honorably. Good for him.

Now . . .when you start using it to pad your resume, well . . . then you invite comparisons.

 

[FlyFastLiveSlow]

People who never served their country a single day lack any sort of gravitas when it comes to criticizing the military service of others.

Sigh.....whether I served in the military or not does not exclude me from forming an opinion. Sorry for you on that one.

Our President raised his right hand, went to boot camp, was subject to the UCMJ, served on active duty for a year while in UPT, graduated - based on his own merits as an aviator and an officer, and checked out as an interceptor pilot on an F-102, no mean feat.

I didn't say he didn't do ANYTHING. It just would have ben nice if he had COMPLETED his obligation.

What did you do?

That's what I thought. Nothing

Irrelevant to this conversation. I'm not the "leader" of the free world. I am not under the public's scrutiny for each and every action I take. He is.

There are plenty of things to criticize President Bush and his administration about. Yet you choose to Question the validity of a guardsman's service, effectively questioning the honor, courage and veracity of thousands who choose to serve their country in the Guard or Reserve, simply because you don't like the politics of a specific individual and lack the eloquence, intelligence, integrity or are simply too intellectually lazy to bring your argument to the table couched in anything other than the terms of some pathetic WalMart soundbite of partisan politics you parrot from the media.

Why do righties insist upon making a criticism of an INDIVIDUAL a blanket statement about the whole when it comes to this?

How's that for a run-on sentence?

Rather nicely done.

 

[FlyFastLiveSlow]

"Validity" of his service?

You need to do a little risk analysis between GWB and Al Gore's job as a Army reporter with personal bodyguards in Vietnam.


It has always amused me reading comments that GW Bush "hid out" in the ANG because he was scared of harming his pink little self. Even with my little knowledge as a civvy pilot, I would bet that "hiding out" in a 1950's century series fighter was far more dangerous than most of what Gore faced as a reporter.

Again, why do you have to turn this into a comparison? I never said, "Bush went AWOL and Gore is a hero", as a matter of fact I never mentioned his name. Typical FoxNews response...."it must be Clinton's fault!" uke:

 

[Soverytired]

Again, why do you have to turn this into a comparison? I never said, "Bush went AWOL and Gore is a hero", as a matter of fact I never mentioned his name. Typical FoxNews response...."it must be Clinton's fault!" uke:

Well, what did you expect? The thread is supposed to be about oil costs and energy policy, but for some reason someone (ahem) turned it into a "sly" dig about G.W.

Only it wasn't particularly clever. To even know what you were talking about requires that the reader be familiar with that whole sorry mess that was Gore v. Bush. And part of that was the very real insinuation during the campaign that:

• Guard servicemen were weekend warriors avoiding "real" service -- completely untrue both then and now
• The ridiculous fake CBS documents (forged) story regarding GW's supposed AWOL
• All of this was brought up to compare Gore's honorable service in the "real" Army, and GW's "fake" service in the ANG

Yeah, Gore served, but got early when accepted to a post graduate divinity school . . . and then promptly flunked out. A 100% legal way to get out of an enlistment back then, but not exactly impressive.

Anyhoo . . . criticism of Bush is richly deserved, both from the left and the right. Starting with ANG "validity" isn't a good place to start.

Why not criticize GW's energy policy, and/or failure to take any real leadership in this very important area? Or the current 3 stooges running for the job who aren't even talking about it because they're too busy trying to make our children and grandchildren an indebted nation?

 

[FlyFastLiveSlow]

Well, what did you expect? The thread is supposed to be about oil costs and energy policy, but for some reason someone (ahem) turned it into a "sly" dig about G.W.

Only it wasn't particularly clever. To even know what you were talking about requires that the reader be familiar with that whole sorry mess that was Gore v. Bush. And part of that was the very real insinuation during the campaign that:

• Guard servicemen were weekend warriors avoiding "real" service -- completely untrue both then and now
• The ridiculous fake CBS documents (forged) story regarding GW's supposed AWOL
• All of this was brought up to compare Gore's honorable service in the "real" Army, and GW's "fake" service in the ANG

Yeah, Gore served, but got early when accepted to a post graduate divinity school . . . and then promptly flunked out. A 100% legal way to get out of an enlistment back then, but not exactly impressive.

Anyhoo . . . criticism of Bush is richly deserved, both from the left and the right. Starting with ANG "validity" isn't a good place to start.

Why not criticize GW's energy policy, and/or failure to take any real leadership in this very important area? Or the current 3 stooges running for the job who aren't even talking about it because they're too busy trying to make our children and grandchildren an indebted nation?

Refer to post #23. "brainhurts" chose to turn it into liberal bashing.

 

[LJDRVR]

Sigh.....whether I served in the military or not does not exclude me from forming an opinion. Sorry for you on that one.

You are correct, you can form whatever opinion you want and share it as you see fit. My point is that without the background of somebody who both made the sacrifice and understands military service, you should (and we'll agree to disagree here) remain silent.

You should not be questioning the validity of someone else's service. Really.

Irrelevant to this conversation. I'm not the "leader" of the free world. I am not under the public's scrutiny for each and every action I take. He is.

Who you are criticizing is irrelevant. Somebody who never served (You) should not be questioning the validity of another's service. Again, if you want to bash President Bush for the way he ran the country, please - be my guest. Why, with so much source material there, do you feel compelled to wag your finger on the Internet about a subject you know nothing of?

Why do righties insist upon making a criticism of an INDIVIDUAL a blanket statement about the whole when it comes to this?

Two separate issues here. I believe you're labeling me because you believe I took umbrage with your anti-Bush comments. You would be mistaken on both counts. (Both my motives and your assessment of my political philosophy.)

What I attacked was your criticism of his ANG service, the validity of which is not up to the likes of you to determine. I would have done so whether or not it was the President you were Monday-morning quarterbacking from the comfort of your civilian peacetime chair.

As far as labeling me a a "righty"?



Is your discourse so dry and unimaginative that you feel the need to color it with such profoundly uninspired monikers as "righty"?

Is your experience with the world and those in it so insulated that you find yourself compelled to stereotype based on simplicities such as the fact that I served in the military - therefore I *must* be "conservative"?

You'd be surprised by my politics.

 

[atrdriver]

Refer to post #23. "brainhurts" chose to turn it into liberal bashing.

No, what he said was that liberals don't need facts to back up their emotional arguments. You turned it into a slam Bush fest the very next post. Simple fact is that many of us were pointing out one posters lack of "facts" as he stated it, when he obviously had not done any research. You decided to call into question someone's patriotism that did in fact serve honorably in the ANG.

 

[LJDRVR]

I didn't say he didn't do ANYTHING. It just would have ben nice if he had COMPLETED his obligation.

He was issued an Honorable Disharge. He completed his obligation.