News-Record.com

Don't forget that he caused the war in Liberia, the famine in Africa, all them wild fires, the Hurricanes (the windy ones, not the Stanley Cup ones), Mayor Ray Nagin’s choice of chocolate over vanilla, the sand storms in the dessert, the snow in the mountains, Aunt Minnies gout, Uncle Oscars bad back, etc...

Thanks Jo, I needed a good laugh after that long weekend...

Forget the fluoride, we need to put prosac in the water supply.

WAJ,

Do you deny what Ms. Boykin writes? With the exception of the reserves/draft comparison, I think she's hit pretty close to every target. Yet all you do is trot out the familiar "Here you go again, Bush is to blame for everything" tactic. Once your laughter subsides, you might want to consider whether there is merit to her claims, and how inept a president has to be before you start to question his decisions. What's it going to take for the few remaining loyalists to recognize that this experiment is a failure?

Howie, some will never look at the facts nor admit the mistakes of the president and his chosen leaders. It is too scary for them. It is easier to keep saying things are going great. Unless you listen to NPR, you never hear how many soldiers have died in Iraq this month. It should be the opening of every news program. The 2500 the letter mentioned are closer to 2700 and rising.

Was eating breakfast at the beach and a guy came in and picked up the paper and said "I want to see what the Democrats are whining about today" That is the new spin. Whining Democrats. Facts or reasonable discussion are not being used.

Got some real "cheap" gas...2.58. Could the lowering of gas prices have anything to do with the coming elections?

Sensible people do not blame Katrina on the current administration. Sensible people do see that the evacuation and help to those in need were not handled properly, the waste of millions of dollars which were misued and a total lack of federal help those in need are receiving. Volunteers have done more to help with the rebuilding than the government, both local and federal.

Howie,

It is only human to have a hard time admitting you are wrong. The Republicans I know and respect no longer defend Bush. I believe a combination of pride and fear motivate the continued support of this Administration.

Only a small minority of people are hanging on to the lies. It's not because they really believe them. It's because they can't stand admitting they were duped. I can relate. It's a hard thing to admit.

It is also hard to give up faith in the powers that be in general. If they really admit the truth to themselves, they may see the world situation for what it is. I definitely feel that some are too afraid to face reality. They prefer to be wrapped in a blanket of lies. It gives them a false sense of security.

Everyone knows Bush is an incompetent President. It is totally obvious. I would not consider any defense offered for Bush as being motivated by anything other than pride or fear. Lately, the administration’s rhetoric totally proves my point. Fear and nationalism (not patriotism) is all they have left.

No, Carol, gas prices don't have anything to do with the elections.

Katrina wasn't handled properly. Certainly can't argue with that. But if people really expect an operation of that magnitude to come off flawlessly, they are not being sensible. Do the Democrats have more experience handling the complete flooding of a major American city? Or do Democrats effortlessly cut through beaurocracy?

And yes, I think the Democrats are very whiney right now.

I am very upset with the political spectrum and really hope that an ultimatum gets delivered to the GOP this November, that they better shape up their act. I think many things are going badly and they need to do something.

Unfortunately, I haven't seen a whole lot of options other than what I just posted. Things are going bad, lets cause change. Great, but what are some solutions, other than voting Democrat?

Anyone? Hello, anyone there?

The way I see it, the Democrats are excellent, just as I am, of being critical and knowing what isn't right. But what is right? What is their proposal? War? Immediate withdraw? Structured withdrawal? Set a timeline? Government subsidies of gas? The Feds building power plants in NO? The Feds giving every single former NO resident a hug and a hundred grand?

Offer alternatives. For the love of all that is good and holy, please offer me some alternatives! I want my vote to count. I want to send a message. But I want to vote FOR something, not just AGAINST something.

It is easy to say things are going great and ignore problems. It is just as easy to point out problems and not offer a solution.

The first candidate, of any political affiliation, that offers me viable alternatives that I think can constructively solve problems will get my vote.

I know it is unsolicited, but here is the basis of my problems over Iraq. We went in, on what I believe was incorrect intelligence. I do not believe anyone who says it was made up and fabricated, I believe that we were just wrong on WMD's. Not being privy to State secrets, I know no more than anyone else, though. If someone believes the intelligence was made up, neither one of us can prove squat and we must just agree to disagree on this one.

Anyway, many years ago (and many inches on the waiste-line ago) I was a young Lance Corporal in the Marines. We (my platoon-mates and I) were discussing the US going to war in the Middle East, taking over Iran, Iraq, toppling those guys, etc. Anyway, Gunnery Sergeant Sancrant overheard us and opted to opine. He said that we (the US) would have a hell of a time doing such a thing, because once we went in, everyone there would hate us and the only way to keep order was to have a pair of American boots on every street corner in that country. We all decided that that is not a situation we would want to be in.

My point, (yes, I do have one) is why, if old Gunney Sancrant envisioned such a situation so many years ago, were we so seemingly caught offguard about our current situation? Where was the planning? The plan B? Level with us. If mistakes were made, level with us. We deserve as much.

Also, if we went in to get WMD's, and we were wrong, level with us there too. Don't try to change the objectives, expost facto, to Saddam, torture rooms, an American vassal state in a sea of trouble, etc. It comes across as shady and dishonest, to me, anyway.

Whew, apologies on the length and slighly off subject matter. Feel free to critique, bash, flame or whatever.

Deny what the author of the letter writes? Absolutely!

President Bush lost the World trade Center? I blame that attack on the previous administration, whose lackluster response to terrorist attacks emboldened the terrorists. Started a war based on lies? It has been shown that while our intelligence may not have been perfect, facing down Iraq and the terrorist training camps there has made the terrorists weaker. Recent (foiled) plots show they are still active, but not nearly as effective.

I guess the LTE writer missed the report of the nerve gas that was found in Iraq several weeks ago, and I believe that weapons capable of much worse were shipped out of Iraq in the days leading up to our attack in 2003.

As for hurricane Katrina, after all the media hoopla died down, it was show that the storm was an equal opportunity destroyer, affecting blacks and whites about the same. It has also been shown that the ball was dropped on the local and state level, and that FEMA actually got to the area faster than they did when hurricane Andrew devastated south Florida.

I do agree that comparing a draft with the call up of reservists is ridiculous. But there are people who will make any statement to try and bash our President.

Apologist for George W. Bush?? Not on your life. While I don't agree with all of his policies (most notably immigration), I do not feel there is anything at all to apologize for while I support this administration. All I have to do is think who would be holding the office if the Democrats had won either the 2000 or 2004 election, and I know I can sleep better knowing that George W. Bush won.

Howie,

LOL, yes I deny it! The statement is asinine...

Swanks,

Semper Fi...

"I guess the LTE writer missed the report of the nerve gas that was found in Iraq several weeks ago, and I believe that weapons capable of much worse were shipped out of Iraq in the days leading up to our attack in 2003."

No respectable military analyst considers this finding as being substantial. You are a fool if you buy into that crap!

If a child in a Southeast Asian country stepped on an old land mine, would you consider that evidence of a renewed threat from communist China?

Only Rick Santorum, a crack-pot aided by Fox News, considered this "proof" of the kind of WMD's we were supposedly looking for. Try that lame argument on someone without a brain!

N.O. was (is) a microcosm of what the welfare state can do to a population, left unchecked. An incompentant mayor and a population largely dependant on government were (are) helpless when confronted with a problem of this magnitude and the umbilical cord of government was cut.

As the 9/11 commission said, there was a failure of imagination when it came to terrorist attacks. I think the administration is guilty of the same thing when it comes to Iraq. Bush rushed in there without considering the intractable problems that exist in the Middle East. George H.W. Bush had looked at those problems and decided not to go into Iraq and clean house because he didn't know how he was going to get out. Dubya wanted to show his daddy that he would be able to clean up over there, but he didn't think it through and didn't do enough planning.

See, there are no easy answers in Iraq. Dubya went in and messed it up and now he and the other Republicans are complaining about Democratic "whining." When they come up with a viable plan, they can complain that all the Dems do is whine. Until they do, I hope the whining continues and the Dems hold their feet to the fire.

Personally, I think it's time to poop or get off the pot. We've got to start moving toward letting the Iraqis have the place and clean up their own messes. Bush is the "decider." He's got to decide to do something different because we're losing too many men and women to this war.

I thought some of Boykin's points were dead-on but then she hinted that Bush is making a concerted effort to make Louisiana a whiter, richer Republican state?

That accusation and blaming him for the loss of the WTC destroyed any credibility she might have had.

Of course, if you've been posting here awhile, you'll recognize Jo Boykin's name and realize that it is synomymous with bashing Bush.

Carol,

I hate to admit it, but I thought the exact same thing when I got gas for 2.55 a gallon out in the country. I actually said to my wife "Look, gas prices are going down. Must be election time. We re-elect them and gas prices will be well over $3 a gallon after Christmas"

Yeah, we might be paranoid, but a look at recent history makes our paranoia seem justified.

I may be wrong in my label of you phillipa. But, I think you just proved my point. Respectable, intelligent conservatives no longer pretend to support Bush.

Howie & Stevie, you guys response is typical of what I hear: A few remaining Bush apologists in denial with their security blankies pretending everything is peachy king. Ain't so.

This country (and world) has serious problems and I believe most people recognize it who even take the time to think about it. As Swanks duly noted, I hear no message from the Democratic side other than Bush is bad, a failure, etc. etc. I would call that whining. What is the message from Democrats? Who are their leaders? Hillary? Howard Dean? What ideas do they have for our country and the world other than Bush is bad? Please tell me who you support this November and in '08 and why. I have noted before that I would vote for a Democrat if he/she would convey a clear plan to effectively combat militant Islam, cut spending, and stop illegal immigration. I'm not holding my breath.

Granted, the Republicans are lacking in leadership too. Bush lacks leadership (and speech) qualities. I really yearn for a leader with the direction, charm, and charisma of Reagan. Republicans have become just like Democrats with out of control spending, got a problem then throw money at it with no accountability. Anyone read about the IRS tossing out $318 million due to a computer glitch? I don't think it even made front page news because everyone was fixated on some kook who claimed he killed Jon-Benet. Neither party will do squat about illegal immigration.

Sean Hannity does a clip on his radio program called "Man on the street". He sends out an assistant who randomly interviews passersby on the street, usually young people, and Sean asks them some questions.

All of them know who Larry, Moe, and Curly are. None of them could identify three current supreme court justices (some said O'Connor). When asked what the three branches of govt. were, one replied Republican, Democrat, and independent!! Most did not know who Condi Rice is but all could identify who won the last American Idol. When Sean asked two young females who they would vote for president in '08, both replied Hillary. When asked why, they both replied because she is a woman, no other reason. It went on and on, pretty scary.

So Howie and Stevie, I don't see the elections as me versus you. I see it as two parties who cannot get along for the betterment of this country and it's people, both of which lack true leadership. Find me those people and I will consider voting for them.

I also see it as an uphill battle with the populace, particularly young people who learn nothing about our goverment, history, or politics in schools.

BTW Carol, Cheney did give the order to Big Oil to lower gas prices until after the election. Stock up now because it will go through the roof time you go visit your Aunt Edna for Thanksgiving.

Dan,

Like you, I don't have a lot of faith in either party. But, I do think the "Democrats have no proposals" line is just an echo chamber comment. The Democrats, as they argue, have a website and you can go see their plan any time you want. Again, I'm not sure it's anything but rhetoric, but the no ideas smear is a little contrived. Can you back up that they have no ideas or is it just that Fox News has not covered them?

carol,
hope you enjoyed the labor day weekend at the beach. when big oil has you saying "$2.58 is cheap gas" then they have you (and i) EXACTLY where they want you ..... if you'll pay attention you will see the m.o. that big oils uses....drive the prices to the breaking point and then ease off until most everyone say 'this is cheap gas', then repeat over and over again. wish i hadn't sold that stanley steamer two years ago )lol).
it has been 'speculation/speculators' that has driven up crude prices not supply & demand. when it get back to a $1.50 i'll be happy ( yeah right ! )

Absolutely Buz! The rise in prices is not even remotely based on basic laws of supply and demand. They have risen because of a self-created fear of future scarcity, brought on by our invasion of Iraq and tensions with Iran. What a scam! I don't see how oil executives can look at themselves in the mirror. I would bet everything I own that the recent lowering of prices is an attempt to protect Republicans in November.

To be fair though, I have heard that oil companies are coming up dry on oil expeditions more frequently. They are punching dry holes more and more. But, as far as supply and demand right now, their excuses don't hold water.

OK Stevie, I decided to follow your advice and checked out the DNC website http://www.democrats.org/ to look for Democratic "proposals" for our country.

The two lead articles:

1) "You can't trust Republicans to defend America".

followed by

2) "GOP moves away from Bush's Iraq strategy".

Both articles begin instantly with Bush bashing and prove my point to a tee. No message except Bush is bad.

I don't see why they spend so much time bashing a president who isn't even running in '08.

If I were leading the DNC, the articles would read "Why you can trust Democrats to defend America" and "Democrat Iraq strategy".

Problem is I can't think of any current Democrats I would trust to defend America now that Zell has retired and Lieberman got kicked out of the party. The only strategy for Iraq I hear is pull out, although some say immediately and others give a timetable.

Look at DNC comments from Dean, Pelosi, & Reid about the Katrina anniversary.

Dean: "We need a new direction on the Gulf Coast." Sounds nice but what is the direction?

Pelosi: "One year later, neither the tragedy Katrina caused – the flooding of New Orleans and the devastation of the Gulf Coast; nor the tragedy that it exposed – the extent of the federal government’s failure to provide a life of security and dignity to all of our citizens – have been adequately addressed."

It's the Federal govt's responsibility to provide a life of security and dignity for all citizens? Security from foreign enemies yes, but security from natural disasters? That's a tall order.

Pelosi: "We must recover the sense of urgency and common purpose that Katrina evoked and we must answer, finally, the challenge it placed upon our national conscience.” Code for "we need to outspend Bush on hurricane relief".

Reid: “One year later, it is time for a new direction. Too many across the Gulf Coast still have not seen the reconstruction they deserve, and across America, too many are still waiting for the real security they demand. Now is the time for the government to keep the promises it made after the hurricanes. It is time to put aside the failure and incompetence of the last year and change the destruction and despair across the Gulf Coast to a new spirit of hope and recovery.”

Ahh, that "new direction" again....what is it for cryin out loud? Notice the "S" word again? Security. Vote for us and we will keep you secure from evil hurricanes.

Here is an excellent post from the DNC website from a Democratic blogger under the Katrina piece. It underscores my point. Democrats could win elections with ideas, not Bush/Republican bashing. Whenever they lose it's due to voting fraud, not their lack of ideas, just ask Cynthia McKinney.

Here 'tis:

The Democratic Party must come together over the coming months and be unified in a vision for the future of this country. Stop listening to polls and consultants and listen to your hearts. You have done a great job of communicating all of the blunders, lies, and broken promises of this Administration. You have yet to give us hope and a plan for a new future with a clear Democratic vision for our country. Republican bashing is not the way to win the hearts of American's. While we must hold our current leadership accountable we are neglectful if we do not offer a clear alternative path out of the terrible situation our country is in. We must live up to our role as a world leader by our example. Katrina is a shining example of what is wrong with our country and frankly makes me embarrassed to be an American. Seeing the horrible images that still exist a year after Katrina shows that there is no voice or justice for the poor and down trodden. We (Democrats) must quit whining and start acting. All of the Democratic leader’s responses make broad statements about eliminating poverty and getting the help to the victims of Katrina. Stop pointing out the obvious shortcomings of the current administration unless you are going to give us a plan and use the positions we have given you to be catalysts for change. How are you different than the current administration if all you give us are sound bites? Even without majorities in the House and Senate we must rally together as a unified voice to bring about change in America. Our history is a living legacy of overcoming great difficulties as a free society and lifting those in need up to extinguish their plight. If the Democratic Party wants to get us all out with our vote they must create a vision that will unite us for the greater good. We are all waiting for that leadership. Posted by markandjanel on August 30, 2006 at 12:41 AM

Be fair Dan, I told it would all be rhetorical didn't I? I just don't know why you level this criticism against Democrats more strongly. The RNC website is the same..blah blah blah!

I understand that we are in agreement on this but why do you give Democrats a harder time for this weakness? It is a weakness, inherent in politics.

Are you saying the good idea Republicans proposed was war with Iraq? Has that worked? As for Katrina and all that, you have never heard me criticize anyone for a natural disaster. Why? Because I am not a politician.

WAJ:

... the war in Liberia ??? you mean Lebanon?

... famine in Africa - no but he has ignored it, along with Darfur; so much for being a Compassionate conservative. Well he's not conservative, so maybe that exempts Compassionate too.

... all them wild fires - actually yea; obviously WAJ you know nothing about forestry.

... the Hurricanes - maybe not the actual winds and rain, but under his leadership we spent 100 Billion getting ready got emergencies, and the response to Katrina is what we bought.

Stevie D.:

Bush is an incompetent President - but he and his partners are incredible at winning elections. Look for "more of the same" in November, or a least a surprisingly strong finish.

Too bad the Dem's don't solicit my opinions (wink)

Swanks:
No one expected Katrina to be handled flawlessly - but four days into it, you'd think Secretary Cherkoff would be a little more informed ...

Read the Assassin's Gate - you'll be surprised at the planning disconnects for going into Iraq. AFAIK, it paints a fairly accurate picture of the planning.

Nic Danger:

No, President Bush didn't lose the World trade Center, but neither did the previous administration. If you want to talk about lackluster response to terrorist attacks - you'd better go back to Ronnie Reagan. Read some history, dude.

Neocon:

I agree N.O. was and is a microcosm of what the welfare state can do - but America has lost a huge opportunity in the rebuild - let the local lifetime welfare'ers learn how to drive a nail and spread spackle. "Teach them to fish", as Jesus would say. No - over this past year we have blown a golden opportunity to cut the umbilical cord of government. See above about "Too bad the Dem's don't solicit my opinions."

Nitpicker:

There is evidence a concerted effort is being made to make Louisiana a Republican state.

Dan:

What is the message from Republicans? All I hear is "Stay the course" and "Democrats are Whiners".

BTW - I have expressed several time a clear plan to effectively combat militant Islam, cut spending, and stop illegal immigration. I'll be looking for you vote in November.

In defense of Democrats, their proposals in the actual form of legislation gets shot down all the time. Why? Republicans control the government now. Again, it’s politics as usual.

I would like to see consensus on whether we pull out, create a real timeline for withdrawal and other issues. Your note that Democrats are not committing to any of these is a good criticism. Do you likewise agree that "stay the course" is rhetoric and not a plan?

Speaking of Gas Prices, BP shut down their Alaska in early August (this pipeline accounts for 8% of America's oil).
http://money.cnn.com/2006/08/07/news/international/oil_alaska/index.htm?cnn=yes

Meanwhile, gas prices have been going down over the past few weeks.

I love cheaper gas, but this is not consistant with Supply v/s Demand.

Just how much control does the Oil Mafia and Washington have?????

Stevie,

Republicans proposed a war with Iraq and many Democrats signed on (just in case you forgot about that small detail). The gutless ones conveniently forget their votes and backpedal away from it for nothing other than political expediency. Those who stand by their decision cannot serve in the Democratic party, aka Independent Joe.

Take a look at the RNC website, you won't find a headline with "You can't trust Democrats to defend America".

I always hear two options for Iraq: Stay the course or pull out. There is a third option I rarely hear and actually favor: winning the war. I'm not a military strategist but I believe wars are won by using overwhelming force against an enemy, killing as many of the enemy as you can, forcing the remainder to surrender, and then dictating the terms of the surrender. Staying the course with our PC strategy isn't going to win this war.

JDR, read the 3rd paragraph of my 11:05 post.

I don't think I would vote for you as you would outlaw eeeeeeevvvvvvviiiiilllllll corporations. I would miss Hampton Inns and WalMarts too much.

For all you conspiracy theorists regarding gas prices, read this:

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/gas-price.htm

A non-political explanation of how gas prices work.

I couldn't find a reference to Dick Cheney or eeeeeeviiiiillll Big Oil companies anywhere.

James,

I'd say put up the evidence of the concerted effort to keep blacks out of Louisiana so that it would be a Republican state.

I guess if Louisiana is becoming Republican, then all the states those folks immigrated to will suddenly swing to the blue. That is if the Republicans will allow them to vote.

“Republicans proposed a war with Iraq and many Democrats signed on (just in case you forgot about that small detail).”

And your point is? Why would you bring that up to me? I have made it clear that I don’t trust either party. I give you credit for your intelligence but you give me no credit for mine. You know I realize Democrats voted for the war. With that said, why would you say that in a debate with me? It’s called grabbing at straws. It’s the Fox News tactic of making it a draw. If I can come back with something, anything then it’s a draw, right?

“Take a look at the RNC website, you won't find a headline with "You can't trust Democrats to defend America".”

I did look at the RNC website and I saw a flash presentation showing various alternating pictures of our exalted leader. I saw enough faux patriotic imagery to make me want to puke.

“I'm not a military strategist but I believe wars are won by using overwhelming force against an enemy, killing as many of the enemy as you can, forcing the remainder to surrender, and then dictating the terms of the surrender.”

I can’t say I disagree with you there. The problem is that we have already won that war. The exalted leader said so in the most disgusting display of propaganda the world has ever seen. Ya know, “Major combat operations are over” (just in case you forgot about that small detail).

In all seriousness, Bush was right on that. The conventional war to defeat Iraq’s army was over. That’s the problem.

Who is the entity that is supposed to surrender to us in the “War on Terror”? How do you propose they do it? Would a coalition of Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda and every other terror group have to sign the same document of surrender? Your inability to distinguish the difference in fighting a war and fighting terrorism really baffles me.

PC strategy? Just what in the Hell does that mean? You are so wrapped up in the name calling; you don’t even make sense sometimes. Dan muh-man! You are a smart guy. You know we don’t live in a black and white world. Why do you act as though we do?

Oh to answer your question Guilford Native. Washington has control over 18.4 cents of every gallon you pump. Raleigh has even more control, almost 30 cents. According to the site mentioned above, taxes represent 20% of the the cost of a gallon. I doubt the oil companies make 20% profit margins on a gallon.

Stevie, I hope I don't ever see you talking bad about anyone else using rhetoric.

Bush landing on an aircraft carrier proclaiming the end of major hostilities was the most disgusting use of propoganda the world has ever seen, huh?

Come on, muh-man, you know good and well that isn't even close to being true. Not in the same ball-park.

Ever seen any WW2 propoganda? The American cartoonists' rendition of the Japanese- made them all into small, monkey-like creatures with thick glasses and buck-teeth. What about the Nazi's rendetions of Jews? What about Klan propaganda pamphlets? Vile renditions of those who they view as "inferior". I also seem to recall Soviet propaganda that was pretty bad as well. Parading all the tanks, missiles and troops through Red Square.

So he landed on a carrier. Who cares? What was that you mentioned above about grasping for straws?

To move on, please tell me who, besides you, uses the term "exhaulted leader" for Bush? His picture is on the GOP's website? Well, call me a rocket scientist, but that's probably because he is a member of the GOP, who also happens to hold the position of President. When the Democrats regain control of the White House, I fully expect the picture of that President on their website. And it won't even make me want to puke. Amazing how that works, huh?

Stevie D, which lable was that? Sorry, I'm getting up there and misrembers what you're referring to.

Also, I think it's niave to think that we can bring peace to the Middle East in anything less than 500 years. There are problems there that we can't fathom, that we have no reference point for. Although I'd like to see the US forces start to stand down and be re-deployed back to the states, I don't think that's going to happen. What is more practical is that we start looking at ways to hand more of this mess back to the Iragis and get out of there. So I guess I'm in favor of establishing a timeline. That's not going to happen until the "decider" decides to listen to people he doesn't necessarily agree with. I'm not holding my breath.

Swanks,

“Stevie, I hope I don't ever see you talking bad about anyone else using rhetoric.”

Why? Are you gonna beat me up? You are attacking me as if I were a partisan. I am not. The thread clearly indicates that, to anyone who reads it with an open mind.

As to the “worst propaganda remark”, Ok maybe I was being a little overly zealous. But again, this is part of a long and civil debate I am having with Dan. Maybe you have not read it all. Dan and I light each other up sometimes, but I think it’s because we are both energized by heated debate. That’s what blogging is all about. We keep it real but generally respectful.

And last, I don’t remember using the term, "exhaulted leader".

Phllipa,

Hee Hee! I think I got into a religious debate with you once. The label I feared I was giving you was “conservative”. I hate the idea that people, rather than ideas, are considered liberal or conservative. If you are more conservative, then you are one of the conservatives I discussed earlier, who no longer support Bush. If my label was incorrect, I sincerely apologize.

I'm swamped today so I haven't been able to keep up with the action. Lots going on that I don't have time to respond to, but a couple of fish in the barrel that I just have to take a shot at.

First, Dan, I realize how gas prices work. But your link does nothing to explain how the price of gas drops the month before the election, even though the price of crude is up, and as recently as two weeks ago was predicted to climb because of the escalating tension with Iran. A more cynical observer might suggest that Evil Oil, Inc. is willing to sacrifice some profits for the next month so the party that has helped them rake in the dough can use the price drop as an election tool. They are, after all, the ones who voted for a ten billion dollar gift for Big Oil (which none of you has ever explained to me).

The second is along the same lines. Guilford Native references the BP pipeline fiasco that caused our prices to rise last month. For all of you folks who hold onto the crackpot theory that environmental regulations are in place only to make it tough for the poor old big companies who are just trying to earn an honest billion for their CEO's, please justify BP's actions for me. They were told years ago to increase the anti-corrosion protection in these lines, yet they opted against this request to keep costs down. The result? Corrosion and spills. Who foots the bill? You, me, and everyone we know. I have a hunch that BP's CEO will end up okay in this deal. With all the hand-wringing about NC taxes, those same folks have no problem with the gouging that these corporations get away with.

Well, I'm Chicago-born and a Democrat. However, until my 13yo son gets through the rocky straits of teenage sexuality, I am conservative, only because I've seen what can happen to young lives when kids start having sex too young.

No, I am not going to beat you up. I don't even know who you are. A bit of a stretch there to take that sentence as a physical threat. Had I used the words "better not" instead of "hope I don't" perhaps that might be a bit threatening. But I didn't. And it wasn't a threat.

If you want me to completely break it down for you, what that meant was that I found your little rant more full of rhetoric than most any other rant. Therefore, if I ever see you railing against rhetoric, I will remember this and your railing will ring hollow to me.

Attacking you as a partisan? No, I was pointing out instances where you were simply wrong.

But you are correct in one thing, you never did use exhaulted leader. It was actually exalted leader. The h and u appeared because I misspelled the word.

Dan: I read your third paragraph - Are you saying I lack the charm and charisma of Reagan (wink)?

btw - I'll bet the gas companies DO make a 20% GM; remember they are vertically integrated, so every portion is it's own profit center.

Nitpicker:

Maybe "concerted effort" is too strong - but I've heard analysis-type editorials about the impact of, for example, the ninth ward in NO not being rebuilt, disperseing a large pool of voters.

That sounds like a legit' thought - and we all know that Gerrymandering is real.

I personally have an issue with Gerrymandering, and would expect several Founding Brothers are moaning in their graves over the sad state of national politics.

Dan - were you doubting the 20% margin? Add a zero.

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_4105814#

http://www.1stmillionat33.com/2006/08/yes-on-87-oil-companies-price-gouging/

" .. the profit margins ... at the latest quarterly report from ExxonMobil (XOM), the gross profit margin is about 26% ... "

How about these guys (a little dated, but hey ...):

http://www.turn.org/turnarticles/Williams.htm

"Williams Energy Services is a Tulsa, Oklahoma-based energy trader recently spun off from the Williams Companies. According to Williams, the company is the second largest power provider in the Los Angeles Basin. WES has four operating units: Energy Marketing & Trading, Exploration & Production, Midstream Gas & Liquids and Petroleum Services."

2000 GPM = 36%

BTW - I do not have a problem with these margins - frankly they are realistic, and needed for a sustainable company. My issues lay in the huge salaries that are paid to the exec's - who frankly do little to earn it, and to the huge contributions that are paid to potlticians and lobby firms that get laws written in the company's favor. I want to see that money spent on polution control, new made-in-america equipment, rigorous maintenance programs, and fair wages for employees like the secretaries and grunts (the rough-necks are really well paid, but brother do they work for it!).

Looks like another great LTE as it brought out all the "APOLOGISTS" for Bush. Same old song...

Howie G. is right on about the Republicans who have his respect---I have found the same thing with my GOP stalwarts...they are EMBARRASSED by Bush and his war. They are embarrassed by his response to Katrina and his foray into Iraq, which by the way was authorized as a last resort, not a first resort.

Let's look at the morphing of the Iraq debacle:
1. Saddam has WMD
2. Saddam is a "bad" man and should be gone
3. We are "liberating" Iraq
4. Fighting Terrorism in Iraq
5. Iraq: democracy in the middle east
6. Fight them there or they'll follow us home!

....and number 7, the absolute funniest of all reasons given, came from HUGH who proffered that Bush planned this all along as a staging ground for the war with Iran!!!

I saw a great bumper sticker on Elm Street today that said, "Time for a Kinder, Gentler Impeachement".
7.

Let's look at some of the great moments of the Bush White House:

"We will be greeted as liberators"

"The insurgents are a bunch of 'dead enders'".

"The insurgency is in its last throes"

"Mission Accomplished"

"We didn't realize the levees were in danger of being breeched"

For those who find this President such a delightful leader, you need to check in at Charter Hills, Dorthea Dix, or Broughton!

AGAIN:

WHAT EXACTLY HAS THIS PRESIDENT DONE TO DESERVE THE RESPECT OF THE NATION?

Swanks,

I was not seriously thinking you were threatening me. I was just talking a little junk. If I thought that was what you were really saying, I would have arranged a meeting place. I am not limp-wristed, like we liberals are accused of being.

I am not offended or sensitive either. I just felt like you were not taking every thing I said into account before flaming me over something I said to Dan. I feel like you were not considering the totality of what I was saying when you jumped in. Maybe you had, I don’t know. It just seemed that way to me.

So I rant ay? I have never said any such thing about you. I have forcefully expressed my views but never insulted you like that. If you want to marginalize me to the conservative minority in these blogs, I have news for you. They don’t like me anyway.

I make intelligent arguments. I don’t make the same ones over and over again either. You can criticize my ideas all you want, but if you think I rant, STFU and don’t respond to my posts! After all, would that not encourage more ranting?

In all fairness, I have been a bit wordy today. Time for a profundity break for sure! I have been procrastinating doing some work. Good night everyone!

JDR, I can't give you an "A" in charisma, you are an engineer after all. I just wouldn't vote for you because I wouldn't be able to buy cheap goods at Wal Mart anymore.

Glad you don't mind evil oil making a profit. At least they work for the profit, all the Feds and state have to do is rake in the profits without exploring, drilling, refining, transporting, marketing and selling.

Howie, if you have any factual proof that gas prices are dropping because of the elections (to help Republicans) please forward it on. Otherwise, you, Buz, and Carol are doing just what you noted, providing "cynical" speculation.

BTW, if find it amazing, what should be good news is seen in a negative light. Gas is going down, that's good news. But to you guys, it's a conspiracy, Halliburton, evil oil helping Republicans, etc. etc. Dems were calling for congressional investigations when gas was rising. By golly they should call for congressional investigations now that prices are falling because it's just an election plot funded by BP, Shell, Exxon, Amans Mini Mart. Call inspector Clouseau!

Stevie

I do consider your statement about propoganda a rant. A small one, perhaps, but a rant none-the-less. We have both already established it's lack of truth. But, if my use of the word "rant" has you so upset, then I am sorry. I could have used position, supposition, assertion or anything like that. I didn't know that "rant" would bother you so bad and make you think I was insulting you. That wasn't my intention.

If you think I want to marginalize you to anyone, you are mistaken. And reading way, way too much into this.

If you are so intelligent, then why are you talking about fighting me, suggesting I STFU, and getting so defensive about me attacking you? I don't feel that I have. Those are the tools of the brute, not the intellectual.

And no, Stevie, I am not saying that you are not intelliegent. I think you are. I just think that you came out with increadibly over the top comments and I called you on them. And you got a bit pissy about it.

Later today I think I'll bathe a bushel of housecats, tape it and play it back as a soundtrack while I re-read the above comments.

Good debate, a little nasty at times, but still an interesting read.

Dan,

In case you check back in, just a quick follow-up. Of course I have no evidence that these oil company execs collude for the benefit of the Republicans. Nor do I have any proof that the flag burning amendment was, as Orrin Hatch said, the most important issue we face, and I call that an election year ploy as well. I'll challenge you and some of your crowd to the converse. Can you prove that environmentalists' only goal is to tax big corporations? Or better yet, how about some proof of the collusion between virtually every climatologist and atmospheric expert on global warming -- get me the minutes of those meetings and I'll send an apology to the big oil companies. If you're suggesting that I stop with the cynical speculation and hyperbole, I will if you will.

And while your suggestion that we simply take the price of gas dropping as pennies from heaven, I'll again turn that around to your side. A year ago, I was disgusted by the sanctimony of our friends at Fox News when reporting on the Katrina aftermath. The mayor of NO had done some quick math and said there may be as many as 10,000 dead. When the numbers were coming in well short of that, the smarmy, slimy, scumbag reporting the news took the opportunity not to say Thank God it's "only" 1,000 or so. Rather, he used his position only to bash the mayor. And this was still within the first 7 or 8 days. I read some of the same comments on this blog, and have in the months since. So it cuts both ways.

Maybe you did bring out the male posturing in me a bit. But, how can compare calling my statement a rant to calling it an assertion or whatever? "Little Rant" is clearly an insult. It’s like calling me stupid and irrational at the same time. If YOU are so intelligent, you would know that.

I'm not a brute. Sorry if I came across that way. If you don't like it, be a little nicer to people. I'm just trying to let you know that not all liberals are wimps who you can be mean to without consequence. Insulting crap like that has become second nature to you guys.

"We have both already established it's lack of truth."

WHAT!!!??? You really need to learn the difference between statements of fact and statements of opinion. You cannot disprove an opinion, and that is where we clashed.

I admitted my Bush statement was a "bit overly zealous". That is not the same as me agreeing with you that I am a liar. If you like debating with me, can the name calling and criticize my ideas, not me personally. I don’t rant. If you had said, “over the top” originally instead of “your little rant” we would not be having this conversation.

I’m done with this topic. Maybe we can start over and debate something else later on.

Alright Stevie,

I think I see where the problem is.

When I said your little rant, I meant your small rant. It was small as in short. Not little as in patronizing. I can see how you got that, though. I shall be more careful in the future.

It isn't nor was it my intent to personally insult you or anyone else. If you feel that I singled you out and unfairly insulted you, I sincerely apologize. I really do. I have never tried to be mean to you or anyone else on these blogs. A bit flippant, perhaps, but not mean or insulting.

I'm not going to argue any of these points with you anymore. Any valid points either of us may have once had on propoganda, Bush, the GOP's website or anything else has devolved into a personal slug-fest between the two of us. I could have done without the "second nature to you guys" comment, though :).

"Dan, Of course I have no evidence that these oil company execs collude for the benefit of the Republicans."

The question was if you have factual proof that gas prices are dropping to help Republicans in the elections. You answered it as quoted above, thank you, that was all I needed.

I have no idea what my question about dropping gas prices has to do with flag burning (reminds me of DD), enviromentalists, global warming, and the death count in New Orleans, or Fox News.

Your response is like firing a shot gun into the air and hoping something falls out of the sky.

Thank you Swanks. I appreciate it. I am sorry about generalizing with the "second nature" comment. I don't want to be a hypocrite either. I say some real peppery things in here sometimes but I try to be careful about criticizing or patronizing people.

I don't believe that was your intention either. Isn't it horrible how the nation's division does this to people? We are like SO divided and conquered these days. Like Dan and I, you and I probably have more in common than we do differences. I look forward to substantive debate with you. Peace!

Dan,

You seemed a bit "holier than thou" in your claim that all I was providing was cynicism and conspiracy. I was just offering examples that your side does the same. Sorry I exceeded the requirements of the assignment, Professor. I'll try to limit myself to only what you ask for when you give me my next task.

The goverments of Afghanistan and Iraq have already been reformed, the Goverments of Iran and Syria are next.

Check some other news sources, Hugh. Whoever you're reading or listening to isn't giving you the whole story. Afghanistan is worse than when we went there over four years ago.

Thanks Howie, I appreciate that.

Howie is right Hugh, Katie Couric led off her CBS anchor debut with a story of how bad Afghanistan is. They even got access to some Taliban terrori....er...freedom fighters for an interview. They showed about 50 or more praying before their weapons, how nice. What they should have done is given the coordinates to the US military so a fighter jet could have leveled the place.

Watch CBS news tomorrow night, Katie is going to have Rush Limbaugh on. That ought to be interesting. Rush calls her "The Perky One", doubt he'll do it tomorrow.

Stevie & swanks, glad you two are buddies again. I thought your barbs were on the lighter side personally. Hell DD has called me an a**hole, little tin horn flag waver, and numerous other things.

rant - pompous or pretentious talk or writing

I prefer "tirade" from it's French roots - a speech of violent denunciation. That's what Howard Dean, Murtha, Kerry, Reid, Hillary, Jesse, Al (Gore&Sharpton) & the like do almost daily.

"Afghanistan is worse than when we went there over four years ago."

Total crock. There's far flung provinces that are experiencing a resurgence of Taliban activity becuase we and Afghan army are not there in force to control it. A few Ops to clean house are in order and will remove the problem.

Much like ants in the kitchen, only we can't use DDT to wipe them out. For PC we have to step on them.

"They showed about 50 or more praying before their weapons, how nice"

Can you imagine any of the legendary broadcasters of WWII or Korea visiting German or Japanese troops to show their side of the story?

"far flung"?

Try within ten miles of a US base, and less than 2 hours from the nearest "occupied" city (from the CBS report that Dan referenced). Afghanistan is once again the leader in opium exports, and from what I understand, you have it backwards. The few pockets where we still occupy are safe. The rest of the country is in the hands of warlords (not from CBS news report). And while we're on the topic, when you talk of how "soft" the Dems are, why do you never bring up the war in Afghanistan? This was the war on terror that I was in favor of. Instead of seeing it through, we opted to do what? Cut and run.

Howie, there's a military maxium called "economy of force".

We routinely clean up a Taliban insurgents in forces up to 1,000 in Afghanistan with relatively small forces hitting in air supported special-op strikes.

There's no need to keep 100,000 troops there.

I understand economy of force. But I also understand that we went to fight the War on Terror, and the first theater was Afghanistan. We had to unseat the Taliban, as they harbored terrorists and supported the attack on the US. We eradicated the Taliban. They were essentially gone. Then we diverted our attention to an impotent non-threat, and now the Taliban is back, and stronger than ever.

And from what I've heard, we're trying the same thing in Iraq that hasn't really worked in Afghanistan. We clean up a city like Fallujah, then pull our troops out to go firefight in another city. So then Fallujah gets overrun again by insurgents, and we have to go back to Fallujah. We've had to take and re-take the same areas several times over and we're not securing anything.

Are you suggesting that Afghanistan is a success?

"They were essentially gone"

Yes the were, ran into Pakistan and the other "Stans" to the north. Now they're back in groups of less than 1000 with no interior supply lines. Special forces will eat them for lunch, they're no match for laser guided bombs and close air support.

The entire WOT is regional, from Sudan to Afghanistan. We hold Iraq and Afghanistan with troops in Kuwait and the AES. This puts us right in the thick of things when it comes time to take on Iran and Syria.

Pakistan is a player that the we must use as an ally at this time even though their country harbors terrorists. The one good thing about their President is that he's kept his country's nukes out of the the hands of the Jihadists.

Hugh - are you living in la la land?

Do you really think GWB & Co. can "free" Afganistan with "a few small forces hitting in air supported special-op strikes"? Why hasn't he done that?

Dude - stop smoking that stuff!

JDR,

Amen brother! I think the history of Afghanistan should be noted as well. The terrain of Afghanistan is one of the worst in the world in terms of hiding snipers, etc. Just ask the British and the Russians. Let’s not forget that Afghanistan was The Soviet Union’s Vietnam, one of the pivotal events leading to their downfall. Oh wait, silly me! The Soviet Union only fell because of Reagan.

These tribes have been fighting for so long, against each other and outside invaders, they have made an art form out of guerilla warfare. You could nuke every city and still have snipers shooting at you from every mountain top. "Win" against that? Good luck.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Afghanistan is free! Radioactive for the next thousand years, but free!