In Bush's State of the Union address, he stated that Americans are overly dependant on Middle Eastern Oil. Why would he say this, since it's an absolute lie? Coming from an oil family, it's even more perplexing he'd say such a thing, since he must know better. Does anyone have any ideas? Is this fear mongering against the Middle East? The US dependance on Middle Eastern oil is always around 20-25%, and of that total, a full 90% of that comes from a single country...Saudi Arabia. Here is the order of where your exports come from. These 10 countries provide 87% of your oil. Here's the latest data for monthly imports in barrels per day.


1) CANADA 1.776 million
2) MEXICO 1.658 million
3) SAUDI ARABIA 1.267 million
4) NIGERIA 1.163 million
5) VENEZUELA 1.009 million
6) ANGOLA 641 thousand
7) IRAQ 572 thousand
8) COLOMBIA 281 thousand
9) KUWAIT 273 thousand
10) ALGERIA 265 thousand

It's interesting to note that the 3 African countries provide nearly identical amounts of oil as the 3 Middle Eastern countries. So why doesn't he say you're dependant on African oil? The bulk of your oil comes from the "Americas". I'm not hating on Bush. I thought his state of the union addy was pretty good with many positives....as long as he follows through on what he said he would do. So why is the Middle East demonized? Is this to try to get Americans to think of the Middle East as "bad" so he has an easier time with his plans for Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc?? Anybody have thoughts on this??

In Bush's State of the Union address, he stated that Americans are overly dependant on Middle Eastern Oil. Why would he say this, since it's an absolute lie? Coming from an oil family, it's even more perplexing he'd say such a thing, since he must know better. Does anyone have any ideas? Is this fear mongering against the Middle East?

Nah, can't possibly be THAT. Republicans NEVER fear monger. :rolleyes:

Dictators always do.

No seriously...anyone have a reasonable explanation?

No seriously...anyone have a reasonable explanation?

Well, in all honesty, he didn't *technically* like, he used the words "foreign oil, much of which comes from unstable countires" (or something to that effect). Lie or no lie, this was a clear reference to the Middle East.

Smoke and mirrors.

i WOULD HAVE TO AGREE,HE WAS TALKING ABOUT THE 'MIDDLE EAST'

He stated that we were overly dependent on ME oil. Not that we were solely dependent on ME oil. Quit grasping for straws.

Dictators always do.

How many dictatorships do you have experience with? Ever been to one? Ever seen firsthand what happens to people who live under a totalitarian government?

IF we don't need the Middle East's oil, why are we over there fighting for it?

I guess I'll just sit back and watch all your heads spin round and round. Keep sipping the koolaid. We'll make more.

IF we don't need the Middle East's oil, why are we over there fighting for it?

I guess I'll just sit back and watch all your heads spin round and round. Keep sipping the koolaid. We'll make more.

:D :confused: :D :confused: :D :confused:

Here is Bushs' actual quote for those who didn't have their hearing aid turned up last night.

"America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world," Bush said.

Not a lie, not a half-truth, just a fact. Live with it or do something about it.

He stated that we were overly dependent on ME oil. Not that we were solely dependent on ME oil. Quit grasping for straws.

Uh, RRocket used the word "overly", not "solely". Who's grasping for straws now?

So the next question is, how does BuSh define "overly" <edit: "addicted" / "often">?? This is a very subjective term to use, which at face value, most people get the impression that "overly" <edit: "often"> means >50%. But since that is NOT the case (as RRocket was pointing out), what could BuSh possibly mean?

Like I said, smoke and mirrors. Vague half-truths intent on misleading people. The man is incapable of precise, specific, concrete terminology in his speech.

IF we don't need the Middle East's oil, why are we over there fighting for it?


Good question. Ask your fear-mongering leader.

:D :confused: :D :confused: :D :confused:Steve, not to worry. I am being facetious.

It has always been the Lefty's contention that this is a war for oil, and now they want to spin it in another direction. Such entertainers are the Left Wing Wackos.

Good question. Ask your fear-mongering leader.The hook has been set, time to pull in the lunker.

3) SAUDI ARABIA 1.267 million

7) IRAQ 572 thousand

9) KUWAIT 273 thousand




Anwar oil can be recovered at a cost of $25 barrel. Anwar's volumes can replace that of Saudi Arabia at 1.35 million barrels/day.

The California coastline replaces Iraq and Kuwait with some left over.

Am I missing something. If the Lefties would get their heads out of their rectums, the answers to our problems would hit them right in their faces.

Uh, RRocket used the word "overly", not "solely". Who's grasping for straws now?

What?!?!

So the next question is, how does BuSh define "overly" <edit: "addicted" / "often">?? This is a very subjective term to use, which at face value, most people get the impression that "overly" <edit: "often"> means >50%. But since that is NOT the case (as RRocket was pointing out), what could BuSh possibly mean?


Overly means more than is necessary...more than required...more than usual...to an excessive degree. In other words...we don't need as much as we use.


Like I said, smoke and mirrors. Vague half-truths intent on misleading people. The man is incapable of precise, specific, concrete terminology in his speech.


When you choose to only hear what you want to hear it is easy to feel misled. Just keep covering your ears. That train whistle doesn't mean a thing...

No seriously...anyone have a reasonable explanation?

Yes.

By your own statistics, 20-25% of our oil comes from the Middle East. Think we could sustain our economy if 20-25% of our oil was suddenly cut off? Know what that would do to gas prices?

That makes "we are too dependent on Middle Eastern oil" a true statement. We could not presently make up the difference from other sources if Middle East oil was cut off.

If we got 100% of our oil from friendly, less unstable countries, or from our own internal sources, instead of 75%, we'd be better off. And I fail to see how stating this obvious fact is "demonizing the Middle East."

Funny, how I hear all of this from a Democratic President 30 years ago.

Anwar oil can be recovered at a cost of $25 barrel. Anwar's volumes can replace that of Saudi Arabia at 1.35 million barrels/day.

The California coastline replaces Iraq and Kuwait with some left over.

Am I missing something. If the Lefties would get their heads out of their rectums, the answers to our problems would hit them right in their faces.

And when that oil is gone, then what? Shrub and the Repugs are the rectum heads here, touting their latest energy bill as a great work, but giving 10-15 billion to the oil companies is not going to help our energy needs. That money and more needs to go to developing alternative energy sources. Raising CAFE standards would be a step in the right direction, but they didn't do that either. More patting themselves on the back for doing a (nonexistant) great job. Stinks as bad as the prescription plan.:mad:

And when that oil is gone, then what? Shrub and the Repugs are the rectum heads here, touting their latest energy bill as a great work, but giving 10-15 billion to the oil companies is not going to help our energy needs. That money and more needs to go to developing alternative energy sources. Raising CAFE standards would be a step in the right direction, but they didn't do that either. More patting themselves on the back for doing a (nonexistant) great job. Stinks as bad as the prescription plan.:mad:

I like this guy!!!:D

And when that oil is gone, then what? Shrub and the Repugs are the rectum heads here, touting their latest energy bill as a great work, but giving 10-15 billion to the oil companies is not going to help our energy needs. That money and more needs to go to developing alternative energy sources. Raising CAFE standards would be a step in the right direction, but they didn't do that either. More patting themselves on the back for doing a (nonexistant) great job. Stinks as bad as the prescription plan.:mad:

I could ask you a similar question.

"What are we saving the oil for?"

Why shouldn't we use it while it's there?

Duh.

I could ask you a similar question.

"What are we saving the oil for?"

Why shouldn't we use it while it's there?

Duh.

One of Car&Driver's editors wrote a good column this month, where he stated that the US does in fact have an "energy policy". Although it's not stated explicitly, it's "We have the right to cheap energy as long as possible".

I've long contended that the US's real energy policy, is (or should be) in fact along those lines. In short, its "The last country with oil under their feet wins". It also all comes down to money, where can we suck it from cheaply? I see no fault in draining the beach in the middle east of their oil reserves first and keeping whatever oil is under our soil "in the bank" as long a possible.

What is really disturbing to me though is, at a time when our country faces many crisis, rising energy costs being one of the major ones, profits that the big oil companies are raking in are growing disproportionately w/ the price of crude and have hit all time record highs. This stinks of corruption. Is it just a coincidence that a "oil-man" is sitting in the oval office while this happens? I think not.

BuSh and his oil buddies are nothing but WAR PROFITEERS. People have been lynched for less.

One of Car&Driver's editors wrote a good column this month, where he stated that the US does in fact have an "energy policy". Although it's not stated explicitly, it's "We have the right to cheap energy as long as possible".

I've long contended that the US's real energy policy, is (or should be) in fact along those lines. In short, its "The last country with oil under their feet wins". It also all comes down to money, where can we suck it from cheaply? I see no fault in draining the beach in the middle east of their oil reserves first and keeping whatever oil is under our soil "in the bank" as long a possible.

What is really disturbing to me though is, at a time when our country faces many crisis, rising energy costs being one of the major ones, profits that the big oil companies are raking in are growing disproportionately w/ the price of crude and have hit all time record highs. This stinks of corruption. Is it just a coincidence that a "oil-man" is sitting in the oval office while this happens? I think not.

BuSh and his oil buddies are nothing but WAR PROFITEERS. People have been lynched for less.

Man, this is scary, because I agree with your first two paragraphs. I would add as a qualifier though, that we need to have drilling begun on our own reserves, in case the Middle East oil gets shut off abruptly.

Oil is a fuel, it serves no other purpose.

But then in paragraph 3, you lose me. Profits are not at record highs. You need to look at the profit margins. And of course, all your posts have to find a vast conspiracy with Bush at the center....how does someone you fancy is so stupid manage to run all these conspiracies??

Ben Stein, of all people, had a great take on oil company profits...


Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Wednesday, Feb. 1, 2006 4:48 p.m. EST
Ben Stein: Pelosi's Hot Air Can't Power My Car


"I don't blame Exxon for making the profits ... it's a business; it's owned by pensioners and widows and retirees. It's fine if they get the money because it's going back to the American stockholders."

So said Ben Stein, Economist, author of "Yes, You Can Become a Successful Income Investor! Reaching for Yield in Today's Market," actor and former Nixon speechwriter on "Your World with Neil Cavuto."

"The amount of profit on each gallon of gasoline is between six and eight cents. If you cut out all the profit so that Exxon/Mobil went out of business, and Conoco went out of business next year, you'd only save a few cents per gallon.

"It's just nonsense that they're bleeding America white. They don't set the price - the price is set on world markets. It's good if they make a profit becuase then they can have more money to explore for more oil and more energy sources.

"I just am sick of people knocking the oil companies," Stein said.

For good measure, he added, "I've never been able to power my car with envy, or with the hot air out of Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid."

Stein also had an observation about President Bush's State of the Union speech last night: "I'll tell you something that struck me as very interesting. Almost everything in the president's speech about alternative energy sources, I wrote about in a speech for Richard Nixon in 1973.

"Every pitch, every single thing and a great, great deal more, and that was 32 or 33 years ago!"

Cavuto said that the special interest groups are saying oil companies "should give some of it back; what do you say?"


"Absolutely not!" Stein insisted. "It's already been given back ... they're paying something like 40 percent of their profits in taxes ... the next biggest chunk [of profits] goes back in dividends and the rest of it goes for exploring more oil."


Cavuto said that Bill O'Reilly and others say the oil companies are gouging. Stein said there is no evidence of that. "There has not been a successful price-fixing case against an oil company in a hundred years. It's just total nonsense."

Stein added that the price is set on the "world market by young traders who drive Ferraris. Exxon, Conoco Philips, Chevron ... they are not fixing the price. That's just total nonsense."

How many dictatorships do you have experience with? Ever been to one? Ever seen firsthand what happens to people who live under a totalitarian government?

FF, while I know this was directed at Barry, I've had some experience with Dictatorships. I grew up in such an environemnt.

I refer you to a little out of the way country called Romania, under a Dictator by the name or Nicolae Causescu.

Our rights were SLOWLY taken away one by one there by all sorts or fears being instilled on the people... Something similar I fear is happening in the States.

Well stated with first-hand knowledge and astute observation. Here's someone that has experienced a BuSh-like power grab.

Well stated with first-hand knowledge and astute observation. Here's someone that has experienced a BuSh-like power grab.
So vote him out of office (can't) or impeach him (won't) as you so desperately desire.

Well stated with first-hand knowledge and astute observation. Here's someone that has experienced a BuSh-like power grab.

Baloney. Romania was a Communist state run by a Soviet puppet. Nicolae Ceausescu took office in 1965, was executed in 1989. There weren't any rights in Romania when he took office. He wasn't elected in a Democratic election. He wasn't term limited to eight years. The Eastern European communist governments fell in conjunction with the fall of the Soviet Union, brought about by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

The parallels between Romania and Bush are non-existent. Being from somewhere doesn't mean you have any special understanding of how things really are, as far too many Americans demonstrate.

Like BuSh isn't a puppet of the RWWs.

But then in paragraph 3, you lose me. Profits are not at record highs. You need to look at the profit margins. And of course, all your posts have to find a vast conspiracy with Bush at the center....how does someone you fancy is so stupid manage to run all these conspiracies??


Well, it's hard to not get that impression when I read news like this........

Published on Friday, May 2, 2003 by the Guardian/UK
War Propels Exxon Profits to Record $7 Billion
by Terry Macalister

ExxonMobil, the world's biggest privately owned oil group and a target of street protesters, celebrated May Day by reporting the largest quarterly corporate profits in history at $7.04bn (£4.4bn).

The company, whose petrol stations around Europe are subject to boycotts by StopEsso campaigners angry about its stance on global warming, made £2.2m an hour - double that of rival BP.

Crucial to the surge in profits was the rising global price of oil, which averaged record highs across the three-month period, buoyed by fears of a supply gap due to the war in Iraq.

The net income figure of $7.05bn included special items and compared with last year's figure of $2.09bn. The company has rewarded shareholders with an 8% rise in dividend.

Fadel Gheit, oil analyst with New York brokerage Fahnstock & Co, said groundbreaking profits had been driven by the Iraq war and strikes in Venezuela and Nigeria. "They [Exxon] had a very strong wind in their sail and they happened to have a very big sail. But if you look at the detail, the US refining and marketing figures fell from the fourth quarter and the US chemicals results were also very disappointing," he said.

The StopEsso campaign denied that the huge Exxon profits suggested its boycott was not working. "All you are seeing is the oil industry getting its first benefits from the war in Iraq. Our action has now spread to nine countries and in terms of brand damage we are winning," said a spokeswoman for the campaign.

Exxon has been pilloried by environmentalists for taking a sceptical stance on global warming and has been blamed by them for encouraging US president George Bush not to sign the Kyoto treaty.

Analysts believe the record first-quarter figures from the top oil companies, including Shell today, will not be repeated because oil prices have already started to fall as the conflict in Iraq comes to an end.

© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003


Or this........

Exxon Mobil posts largest quarterly profit ever
U.S. oil giant reports quarterly sales of $100 billion; Shell profit also soars


Updated: 1:35 p.m. ET Oct. 27, 2005
IRVING, Texas - High prices for oil and natural gas propelled Exxon Mobil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell PLC to their best quarterly results ever on Thursday, with Exxon becoming the first U.S. company ever to ring up quarterly sales of $100 billion.

To put Exxon’s performance into perspective, its third quarter revenue was greater than the annual gross domestic product of some of the largest oil producing nations, including the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait. The world’s largest publicly traded oil company also set a U.S. profit record with net income of almost $10 billion, according to Standard & Poor’s equity market analyst Howard Silverblatt.

Both Exxon and Shell said their performances were buoyed by higher crude-oil and natural-gas prices, even as output suffered due to a busy hurricane season in the Gulf of Mexico.

Exxon’s net income ballooned 75 percent to $9.92 billion, compared with $5.68 billion a year ago. The previous oil-industry earnings record was Exxon’s 2004 fourth-quarter profit of $8.42 billion. Revenue grew to $100.72 billion from $76.38 billion in the prior-year period.

At Shell, third-quarter net income attributable to shareholders grew 68 percent to $9.03 billion, compared with $5.37 billion a year earlier. Including income attributable to minority interests, profit rose 67 percent to $9.39 billion at the Anglo-Dutch company. Revenue rose 8 percent to $76.44 billion, in spite of an 11 percent decline in oil and natural gas output.

“We are capturing the benefits of high oil and gas prices and refining margins,” Shell Chief Financial Officer Peter Voser said, referring to the profit margin on each barrel of crude that is refined into gasoline, diesel and jet fuel.

Excluding certain items, Exxon’s profit was $8.3 billion, or $1.32 per share, or slightly below the $1.38 per share expected by analysts polled by Thomson Financial.

Shell said adjusted earnings on a current cost of supplies basis — a measurement that strips out the fluctuating value of the company’s oil and gas inventories — was $7.37 billion, sharply higher than analysts’ forecasts.

Exxon said the hurricanes slashed U.S. production volumes by 5 percent from a year ago, while global daily production slipped to 2.45 million barrels of oil equivalent from 2.51 million barrels.

Well, it's hard to not get that impression when I read news like this........




Or this........

Well, then I guess you didn't read too carefully. The first article says Exxon's profits fell in the US, but were boosted by overseas earnings. It also says it was a temporary uptick and not likely to repeat. Neither mentions what the profit margin (the return on investment) was. :D

Like BuSh isn't a puppet of the RWWs.

Being from somewhere doesn't mean you have any special understanding of how things really are, as far too many Americans demonstrate.

Thanks for proving my point. And so quickly too.:)

Baloney. Romania was a Communist state run by a Soviet puppet. Nicolae Ceausescu took office in 1965, was executed in 1989. There weren't any rights in Romania when he took office. He wasn't elected in a Democratic election. He wasn't term limited to eight years. The Eastern European communist governments fell in conjunction with the fall of the Soviet Union, brought about by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

The parallels between Romania and Bush are non-existent. Being from somewhere doesn't mean you have any special understanding of how things really are, as far too many Americans demonstrate.


How little you know... It's not the form of government I refer to, but rather the big man in charge. Do you seriously think he preserved the rights his subjects had when to took office? No, he did not. He slowly pecked at them until they were virtually non existent.

Romania had economic ties to the Soviet Union, because it switched sides from the NAZIs to the Soviet Union in the WWII. Yes, it shared the same form of government, but that's about all.

The people of that country had no rights In Romania before Ceasescu? Once again, how little you know.

With all respect sir, anyone can use google, but first walk in my shoes before you tell me how it was over there under a dictatorship, OK? Ok. Been there, lived through it. I really don't think you have a leg to stand on, telling me the "parallels" between the two are non existent.

Well, then I guess you didn't read too carefully. The first article says Exxon's profits fell in the US, but were boosted by overseas earnings. It also says it was a temporary uptick and not likely to repeat. Neither mentions what the profit margin (the return on investment) was. :D

From Exxon's own website:

EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION
FOURTH QUARTER 2005
-------------------------
(millions of dollars)


Fourth Quarter Twelve Months
-------------- ---------------
2005 2004 2005 2004
------- ------ ------- -------
Capital and Exploration Expenditures

Upstream
United States 542 520 2,142 1,922
Non-U.S. 3,852 2,774 12,328 9,793
Total 4,394 3,294 14,470 11,715
Downstream
United States 213 175 753 775
Non-U.S. 535 496 1,742 1,630
Total 748 671 2,495 2,405
Chemical
United States 61 79 243 262
Non-U.S. 108 177 411 428
Total 169 256 654 690

Other 20 12 80 75

Worldwide 5,331 4,233 17,699 14,885


Exploration expenses charged to income
included above
Consolidated affiliates
United States 54 41 157 192
Non-U.S. 278 268 795 891
Equity companies - ExxonMobil share
United States 0 9 0 9
Non-U.S. 0 16 17 27
Worldwide 332 334 969 1,119


Attachment VI


EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION
NET INCOME
------------------------


$ Millions $ Per Common Share
---------------- ------------------

2001
--------------------
First Quarter 5,000 0.72
Second Quarter 4,460 0.66
Third Quarter 3,180 0.46
Fourth Quarter 2,680 0.39
Year 15,320 2.23

2002
--------------------
First Quarter 2,090 0.30
Second Quarter 2,640 0.40
Third Quarter 2,640 0.39
Fourth Quarter 4,090 0.60
Year 11,460 1.69

2003
--------------------
First Quarter 7,040 1.05
Second Quarter 4,170 0.63
Third Quarter 3,650 0.55
Fourth Quarter 6,650 1.01
Year 21,510 3.24

2004
--------------------
First Quarter 5,440 0.83
Second Quarter 5,790 0.89
Third Quarter 5,680 0.88
Fourth Quarter 8,420 1.31
Year 25,330 3.91

2005
--------------------
First Quarter 7,860 1.23
Second Quarter 7,640 1.21
Third Quarter 9,920 1.60
Fourth Quarter 10,710 1.72
Year 36,130 5.76

$17.7 million hardly puts a dent in $10.7 billion. ~0.16% of their profits "reinvested"?? Pretty damn lame IMO.

From Exxon's own website:



$17.7 million hardly puts a dent in $10.7 billion. ~0.16% of their profits "reinvested"?? Pretty damn lame IMO.

They'd be delighted to invest more if the Liberals would allow them to build new refineries and drill new wells.

From Exxon's own website:



$17.7 million hardly puts a dent in $10.7 billion. ~0.16% of their profits "reinvested"?? Pretty damn lame IMO.


CORRECTION!! I misread the decimal place, that is $17.7Billion invested, not Million. So obviously, the $10.7B "net income" (profit) must already have the $17.7B "Capital and Exploration Expenditures" taken out / accounted for.

Not as "lame" as I had thought, but the point still stands. These ARE record profits that already account for any expenditures / reinvestment.

Also note that only 17.8% of their "Capital and Exploration Expenditures" in 2005 were spent in the US. They don't appear to have the US's interests at heart.

Yeah, I do agree they need to build more refineries. However, I don't feel it's the "liberal" lawmakers who are to blame, all they are doing is voicing their constituents' concerns. It really comes down to a battle over coastline. The oil companies want it because its the best place to build refineries (to get tankers in-and-out), and all the yuppy, rich, selfish coastal dwellers want their sandy beaches and fresh smelling air. Meanwhile the government (again led by the oil-man) is reluctant to give the oil companies any incentives to invest in clean refinery technology because that'd cut into their profit margins.

How little you know... It's not the form of government I refer to, but rather the big man in charge. Do you seriously think he preserved the rights his subjects had when to took office? No, he did not. He slowly pecked at them until they were virtually non existent..

They were largely non-existent to begin with. It was a communist dictatorship. And dictators, unlike Presidents, can pretty much do what they please.

Romania had economic ties to the Soviet Union, because it switched sides from the NAZIs to the Soviet Union in the WWII. Yes, it shared the same form of government, but that's about all..

And once again, that form of government was a communist dictatorship wherein individual rights were suborned to the state.

The people of that country had no rights In Romania before Ceasescu? Once again, how little you know.

With all respect sir, anyone can use google, but first walk in my shoes before you tell me how it was over there under a dictatorship, OK? Ok. Been there, lived through it. I really don't think you have a leg to stand on, telling me the "parallels" between the two are non existent.

And for your information, I didn't just use Google. Do you have any idea how many trips I've made to Eastern Europe? Are you aware that I've known, and have trained, Romanian government officials? I have spent many (happy) hours with many former communist government officials from all over the former iron curtain countries and the "'stans" that were formerly part of the Soviet Union; and I have discussed with them their lives under the communist regimes.

You are offering YOUR opinion. It is NOT shared by everyone from your country or from Eastern Europe. And I know that because I've been there and talked to them. And you still fail to see the difference between an elected President and a Communist Dictator.

It is obvious from your posts that you are just another Bush hater. Lucky for you, that won't get you shot in the US, as hating the dictator might have once upon a time in Romania. Can you see that difference?

Also note that only 17.8% of their "Capital and Exploration Expenditures" in 2005 were spent in the US. They don't appear to have the US's interests at heart.

And again, how can more be spent in the US until drilling is allowed, or new refineries are allowed to be built?

And again, how can more be spent in the US until drilling is allowed, or new refineries are allowed to be built?

No argument there (see edited post above)

How little you know... It's not the form of government I refer to, but rather the big man in charge. Do you seriously think he preserved the rights his subjects had when to took office? No, he did not. He slowly pecked at them until they were virtually non existent.

Romania had economic ties to the Soviet Union, because it switched sides from the NAZIs to the Soviet Union in the WWII. Yes, it shared the same form of government, but that's about all.

The people of that country had no rights In Romania before Ceasescu? Once again, how little you know.

With all respect sir, anyone can use google, but first walk in my shoes before you tell me how it was over there under a dictatorship, OK? Ok. Been there, lived through it. I really don't think you have a leg to stand on, telling me the "parallels" between the two are non existent.


Before any Libbies jump on any sort of bandwagon here...remember that Ceausecu was a Communist...i.e. Left winger. So now that we have that out of the way.

While I have been to dictatorships and former dictatorships and seen what that type of government can do to a people I have never actually lived under one. Therefore I can highly respect your position. You have an intimate knowledge of what totalitarianism is like. So I will not argue your experiences.

However your interpretation of the Bush administrations polices is where I feel you are at fault. The possibility of a democratic society falling into a dictatorship via the free will of the people has and will happen again. There is no group of people more apathetic towards freedom than the free. This threat is constant and pervasive. The United States, while being a Federal Republic (mishmash of Republic and Democracy), was formed with the idea that it's sovereignty resided with the people and that the government existed for the people. A quality quite unlike any other democratic form of government before. It required the people to police the government via their representatives. Something very different from Post WW2 Romania. The freedoms handed over to governmental control were already lost at that point. The people just didn't know it.

There is a spirit in America that would make this very difficult to replicate here. Americans have a different "new-world" view that very nearly prohibits the restriction of freedom. People like us, both LW and RW, quibbling on even a small level like this forum are actually feeding this spirit. It's funny how few people actually see how much we need each other.

People on this site keep placing the office of the President on a pedistal that it does not deserve. Power in this government resides in the Congress. These are not puppets or shadowy figures...they are your neighbors. They live in your towns and listen to your voices. Bryan was right when he said "vote him out"... That's the difference between a Romania/U.S. Comparison. We have real true power over the government.

Food for thought: The only head of government in the United States who failed to follow George Washington's example and cede power after eight years was...Franklin Delano Roosevelt...a Democrat.

And again, how can more be spent in the US until drilling is allowed, or new refineries are allowed to be built?You have to crawl into the mind of a liberal RB. The 'intent' is more important than the 'result'. As long as they are drilling 'dry holes', that would show intent and they would be happy. We are not supposed to be drilling where we know oil to be, only in places where 'they' feel it is ecologically acceptable. And forget the thought of building another refinery.

I had a friend tell me the other day the dangers posed by the new electric hybrids. Even opening the hood can endanger your life. But once again the libs will lead us down the path of 'feel good' vs 'do good'. Results have never mattered to out lefty brethren.

It is obvious from your posts that you are just another Bush hater. Lucky for you, that won't get you shot in the US, as hating the dictator might have once upon a time in Romania. Can you see that difference?

I see your point, but I still think you're full of :q:q:q:q. :D

So, unlike in a communist regime, (where I agree, such opinions would earn you one ounce of lead between the eyes), someone states their opinion of a president, and all of the sudden they are a "hater"? Dear lord, in that case, following your logic, I hate ALL humans.

I really don't care who you've "trained" in Romania. You did NOT live there, oppressed and rightsless (is that even a word? :D). The government officials you "trained" were happy and secure in their lives. Practically everything was subsidized for them by the government. I'm sure they just opened up to you, and didn't fear any reprisals should thy have told you how they felt. My point is simple. LIVE there before you tell me what your "trainees" told you about the wonderful, happy, rights laden citizens living there.

That is all.

I see your point, but I still think you're full of :q:q:q:q. :D

So, unlike in a communist regime, (where I agree, such opinions would earn you one ounce of lead between the eyes), someone states their opinion of a president, and all of the sudden they are a "hater"? Dear lord, in that case, following your logic, I hate ALL humans.

I really don't care who you've "trained" in Romania. You did NOT live there, oppressed and rightsless (is that even a word? :D). The government officials you "trained" were happy and secure in their lives. Practically everything was subsidized for them by the government. I'm sure they just opened up to you, and didn't fear any reprisals should thy have told you how they felt. My point is simple. LIVE there before you tell me what your "trainees" told you about the wonderful, happy, rights laden citizens living there.

That is all.

And my point is that having lived in Romania does not give you the right to claim there is no difference between Bush and a Communist Dictator. And yep, that claim makes you a Bush hater in my view.

Furthermore, you have it the opposite of what the Eastern Europeans told me...they told me they lived in a Dictatorship devoid of rights. And that is NOTHING LIKE America under Bush; and you of all people should realize that and stop drawing such outlandish parallels.

Bryan was right when he said "vote him out"... That's the difference between a Romania/U.S. Comparison. We have real true power over the government.

Food for thought: The only head of government in the United States who failed to follow George Washington's example and cede power after eight years was...Franklin Delano Roosevelt...a Democrat.


Sorry for the doublepost. Last one, I promise. Then I have to go get ready for a weekend trip to sunny AZ.

FF, I appreciate your level headed response. "We" did "vote Ceausescu out. Ok, executed his ass, but nevertheless, he was out of office. As far as Voting Bush out... That's most likely not going to happen even if the people tried.

I agree with what you said about the "spirit" of this country. Hell, I fought for it. I would rather be proven wrong than right about this whole "Dictator Bush" thing, believe me. After all, Republicans, Democrats, etc, we're all in this together, should something like a dictatorship ever emerge.

Yes, our society will not stand for the complete removal of its' rights. At least not all at once. I beg you to look at how our rights are slowly being taken away, one by one. Once a specific right has been taken away from us, and since we don't quibble, because after all, it's in the name of Patriotism, and anti-terrorism, another will be taken away... then another, then another.

It's already begun, good sir.

Rightsless? I think you mean Disenfranchised... :biggrin:

FF, I appreciate your level headed response. "We" did "vote Ceausescu out. Ok, executed his ass, but nevertheless, he was out of office. As far as Voting Bush out... That's most likely not going to happen even if the people tried.

Worked with Gray Davis :D

I agree with what you said about the "spirit" of this country. Hell, I fought for it. I would rather be proven wrong than right about this whole "Dictator Bush" thing, believe me. After all, Republicans, Democrats, etc, we're all in this together, should something like a dictatorship ever emerge.

Yes, our society will not stand for the complete removal of its' rights. At least not all at once. I beg you to look at how our rights are slowly being taken away, one by one. Once a specific right has been taken away from us, and since we don't quibble, because after all, it's in the name of Patriotism, and anti-terrorism, another will be taken away... then another, then another.

It's already begun, good sir.

What freedoms are you saying are being taken away?

I point again to the Roosevelt administration during WW2 and it's blatant restriction of freedom and use of propaganda. Given, everything worked out for the best but how can a person demonize one and not the other. We live in a society with freedoms unimagined even 40 years ago. We have access to information that our founding fathers could not have even comprehend...so I ask again...what freedoms are we losing?

We have never been more free.

If world market prices continue to rise,
and the cost of doing business remains the same.
Of course you will see profits.

But I don't remember the liberals calling for federal benefits for Oil companies during the 90s when they were losing money.

Also note that only 17.8% of their "Capital and Exploration Expenditures" in 2005 were spent in the US. They don't appear to have the US's interests at heart.

Yeah, I do agree they need to build more refineries. However, I don't feel it's the "liberal" lawmakers who are to blame, all they are doing is voicing their constituents' concerns.

These liberal lawmakers talk out of both sides of their mouths, and that doesn't bother you. They complain about high oil prices and dependence upon foreign oil, yet vote against drilling and building.

What a bunch of hypocrites.

Monkey see, monkey do. Keep following your leaders.

These liberal lawmakers talk out of both sides of their mouths, and that doesn't bother you. They complain about high oil prices and dependence upon foreign oil, yet vote against drilling and building.

What a bunch of hypocrites.

Monkey see, monkey do. Keep following your leaders.

'Tis better to follow one who talks out both sides of their mouth, than to follow someone who talks out their a s s, or craps out their mouth. :D

'Tis better to follow one who talks out both sides of their mouth, than to follow someone who talks out their a s s, or craps out their mouth. :D

Thank you for acknowledging the veracity of my point.

I could ask you a similar question.

"What are we saving the oil for?"

Why shouldn't we use it while it's there?

Duh.
Gasoline and diesel are not the only products derived from oil. Plastics, chemicals and pharmaceutical industries would be affected by total depletion of oil. Imagine what your life would be like, fossten, without your ritalin, or for others whose meds are no longer available. Use it at full tilt till it's gone is a foolish and selfish plan of action, figures you and the other RWW would endorse it.

More Bu:q:q:q:q!!!


Administration backs off Bush's vow to reduce Mideast oil imports
By Kevin G. Hall
Knight Ridder Newspapers
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/13767738.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_nation
WASHINGTON - One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally.

What the president meant, they said in a conference call with reporters, was that alternative fuels could displace an amount of oil imports equivalent to most of what America is expected to import from the Middle East in 2025.

But America still would import oil from the Middle East, because that's where the greatest oil supplies are.

The president's State of the Union reference to Mideast oil made headlines nationwide Wednesday because of his assertion that "America is addicted to oil" and his call to "break this addiction."

Bush vowed to fund research into better batteries for hybrid vehicles and more production of the alternative fuel ethanol, setting a lofty goal of replacing "more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025."

He pledged to "move beyond a petroleum-based economy and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past."

Not exactly, though, it turns out.

"This was purely an example," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said.

He said the broad goal was to displace foreign oil imports, from anywhere, with domestic alternatives. He acknowledged that oil is a freely traded commodity bought and sold globally by private firms. Consequently, it would be very difficult to reduce imports from any single region, especially the most oil-rich region on Earth.

Asked why the president used the words "the Middle East" when he didn't really mean them, one administration official said Bush wanted to dramatize the issue in a way that "every American sitting out there listening to the speech understands." The official spoke only on condition of anonymity because he feared that his remarks might get him in trouble.

Presidential adviser Dan Bartlett made a similar point in a briefing before the speech. "I think one of the biggest concerns the American people have is oil coming from the Middle East. It is a very volatile region," he said.

Through the first 11 months of 2005, the United States imported nearly 2.2 million barrels per day of oil from the Middle East nations of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq. That's less than 20 percent of the total U.S. daily imports of 10.062 million barrels.

Imports account for about 60 percent of U.S. oil consumption.

Alan Hubbard, the director of the president's National Economic Council, projects that America will import 6 million barrels of oil per day from the Middle East in 2025 without major technological changes in energy consumption.

The Bush administration believes that new technologies could reduce the total daily U.S. oil demand by about 5.26 million barrels through alternatives such as plug-in hybrids with rechargeable batteries, hydrogen-powered cars and new ethanol products.

That means the new technologies could reduce America's oil appetite by the equivalent of what we're expected to import from the Middle East by 2025, Hubbard said.

But we'll still be importing plenty of oil, according to the Energy Department's latest projection.

"In 2025, net petroleum imports, including both crude oil and refined products, are expected to account for 60 percent of demand ... up from 58 percent in 2004," according to the Energy Information Administration's 2006 Annual Energy Outlook.

Some experts think Bush needs to do more to achieve his stated goal.

"We can achieve energy independence from the Middle East, but not with what the president is proposing," said Craig Wolfe, the president of Americans for Energy Independence in Studio City, Calif. "We need to slow the growth in consumption. Our organization believes we need to do something about conservation" and higher auto fuel-efficiency standards.

It really would be great though to just go ahead and take Iraq's oil as part of the cost of removing Hussein. (just kidding) Those people have lived in that area full of natural wealth for centuries and the majority of people still live in mud huts. Do they really need to be in charge of 25% or more of the worlds oil supply. Same for Africa. There might be a problem when the general intelligence of the people is so little that they cant even take advantage of the natural wealth sitting in front of them for centuries. I guarantee that there wouldnt be as many natives living in mud huts and tents if we were to manage it. We cant trust anyone over there. Those arabs are so stupid they honestly cant tell that we are actually trying to help them the right way. (and the only way that benefits us as well)

Gasoline and diesel are not the only products derived from oil. Plastics, chemicals and pharmaceutical industries would be affected by total depletion of oil. Imagine what your life would be like, fossten, without your ritalin, or for others whose meds are no longer available. Use it at full tilt till it's gone is a foolish and selfish plan of action, figures you and the other RWW would endorse it.


I see. And are you going to take the lead, Phil, Mr. Personal Attacker? You gonna go buy a (gasp) Honda Prius? No, I don't think so. You are going to keep "selfishly and foolishly" driving that gas-guzzler Mark VIII, aren't you? Figures you and the other LWW hypocrites on this site will continue the same path. You need to practice what you preach, and sadly, nobody on your side wants to be the first to make a sacrifice. So shut up until you can say something without being a total hypocrite.

*owned*

I see. And are you going to take the lead, Phil, Mr. Personal Attacker? You gonna go buy a (gasp) Honda Prius? No, I don't think so. You are going to keep "selfishly and foolishly" driving that gas-guzzler Mark VIII, aren't you? Figures you and the other LWW hypocrites on this site will continue the same path. You need to practice what you preach, and sadly, nobody on your side wants to be the first to make a sacrifice. So shut up until you can say something without being a total hypocrite.

*owned*


Forget your Ritalin today fossten? :p

Forget your Ritalin today fossten? :p


You might as well have said, "Your points are too strong, fossten, so I'm going to resort to the usual horse's a$$ method of attacking you personally."

http://wizbangblog.com/images/horses_ass.jpg

Best pic I've seen of GWB!!!

Censoring Truth
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/09/opinion/09thu2.html
Published: February 9, 2006

The Bush administration long ago secured a special place in history for the audacity with which it manipulates science to suit its political ends. But it set a new standard of cynicism when it allowed NASA's leading authority on global warming to be mugged by a 24-year-old presidential appointee who, quite apart from having no training on that issue, had inflated his résumé.

In early December, James Hansen, the space agency's top climate specialist, called for accelerated efforts to reduce industrial emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases linked to global warming. After his speech, he told Andrew C. Revkin of The Times, he was threatened with "dire consequences" if he continued to call for aggressive action.

This was not the first time Dr. Hansen had been rebuked by the Bush team, which has spent the better part of five years avoiding the issue of global warming. It was merely one piece of a larger pattern of deception and denial.

The administration has sought to influence the policy debate by muzzling the people who disagree with it or — as was the case with two major reports from the Environmental Protection Agency in 2002 and 2003 — editing out inconvenient truths or censoring them entirely.

In this case, the censor was George Deutsch, a functionary in NASA's public affairs office whose chief credential appears to have been his service with President Bush's re-election campaign and inaugural committee. On his résumé, Mr. Deutsch claimed a 2003 bachelor's degree in journalism from Texas A&M, but the university, alerted by a blogger, said that was not true. Mr. Deutsch has now resigned.

The shocker was not NASA's failure to vet Mr. Deutsch's credentials, but that this young politico with no qualifications was able to impose his ideology on other agency employees. At one point, he told a Web designer to add the word "theory" after every mention of the Big Bang.

As Dr. Hansen observed, Mr. Deutsch was only a "bit player" in the administration's dishonest game of politicizing science on issues like warming, birth control, forest policy and clean air. This from a president who promised in his State of the Union address to improve American competitiveness by spending more on science.