REPUBS should PAY if they kill Healthcare

In article ,
David Spain wrote:

This is OT for sci.space.policy AFAICT...
Does anyone note follow-ups anymore?


The logical thing to do would be to address the original cross poster.

--
Neolibertarian

"[The American People] know that we don't have deficits
because people are taxed too little; we have deficits
because big government spends too much."
---Ronald Reagan

On Mar 22, 10:06*pm, Neolibertarian wrote:
In article
,





*American wrote:
On Mar 21, 10:32*am, Neolibertarian wrote:
In article
,
*Siobhan Medeiros wrote:

This isn't even a coherent straw man argument, dummy.

It's not an argument, it's a threat.

The Constitution reads "We the People..."

Right. President Bush/Cheney became obsessed with Iraq
and forgot about the American people.

The Khobar Towers attack was in response to the sanctions against Iraq.

Surrreeeee....

It's pretty easy to look up.

"On 25 June 1996, a terrorist truck bomb exploded outside the northern
perimeter of the US portion of the Khobar Towers housing complex,
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. The US controlled portion of Khobar Towers was a
facility housing US Air Force, US Army and British and French allied
forces supporting the coalition air operation over Iraq, Operation
SOUTHERN WATCH. The explosion killed 19 Air Force service members and
injured hundreds more. It also injured many Saudi Arabian citizens and
third country nationals."

http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/khobar_af/part1.htm

The dead were all serving in the US Air Force 4404th Air Wing.

The target wasn't chosen at random.

The personnel attacked were in Saudi Arabia enforcing the No-Fly zones
in Iraq.

I see, let Saddam massacre from the air all the Kurds and Shiites he
wants.

The sanctions imposed on Iraq in 1991 were, perhaps, the most severe in
history, especially given their length.

In 1995, the Food & Agriculture Organization of the UN released a study
claiming as many as 500,000 Iraqi children had died as a direct result
of the sanctions.

In 1998 three UN officials responsible for coordinating the sanctions
resigned in as many months, claiming that the sanctions were a "totally
bankrupt concept."

Enforcement of the "no-fly zones" didn't really stop Saddam's actions
against the Kurds. His security police, along with elements of HAMAS,
were active in the Kurdish territories throughout the sanctions period,
only ending with the 2003 invasion.

Sanctions are not an alternative to war. Sometimes they can be a
deliberate march to war.

This was the case when they were first tried by Athens in 432 BC, this
was true with the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, and it was still
painfully evident with UN Security Council Resolution 687 in 1991.

Bin Laden explained that the 1998 African Embassy bombings were in
response to the intractable situation in Iraq. He compared the sanctions
in Iraq to the terrible, intractable situation in the Occupied
Territories.

I call bull****. *Cite?

This is even easier to look up--how is it you haven't done so?

Your nation has been at war for 9 years, you've lost almost 8,000
citizens to it, spent nearly $1 trillion, yet you've never looked into
it? Shame on you.

"Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by
the Crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those
killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans
are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they
are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious
war or the fragmentation and devastation.

"So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to
humiliate their Muslim neighbors. Third, if the Americans' aims behind
these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the
Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem
and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness
to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their
endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq..."

* * * * * * * ---Osama bin Laden
* * * * * * * * *Fatwa of War, 1998

In 2000, the USS Cole was attacked. She was in the Gulf as part of the
task force charged with enforcing the sanctions against Iraq.

Uh huh.

"On August 8, 2000 the USS Cole departed the Norfolk Naval Station for a
five-month deployment to the Persian Gulf to participate in the US-led
operation enforcing UN sanctions against Iraq. It was scheduled to
return to the United States on December 21, 2000."

* *http://www.answers.com/topic/uss-cole

The target wasn't chosen at random.

When America was attacked on 9/11, Osama bin Laden made it clear the
jihadis had attacked America in response to the suffering of the Iraqis.

I call bull**** on you. *OBL despised Saddam Hussein.

Salafist jihadis despise all rulers who claim to be secular. While the
pall of secularism continued for a time to surround Saddam's regime, the
last time the Iraqi Revolutionary Council would declare itself secular
was way back in 1990. In 1991, as he faced down the west over his
invasion of Kuwait, he would assume the mantle of Islamic King. This was
viewed with suspicion at the time, of course. Many observers believed
his change only cosmetic.

By 1993, Saddam had fully converted to Salafism. He instituted the
famous "Return to Faith Campaign" inside Iraq, which required all
Ba'athist party members to pass periodic exams on the Qu'ran. Meetings
were begun and ended with prayers. From that point on, it is well known
(to everyone but Americans) that Iraq was no longer secular.

"Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation
with Iraq, even though Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an
Islamist agenda-save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the
faithful against "Crusaders" during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin
Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi
Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army.

"To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an
agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against
Saddam."

No coincidence that all this occurred in 1993. Saddam also used his new
"born-again" credentials to broker rapprochement with Syria. Iraq and
Syria would reopen their borders to each other in 1997, and they
reopened an old oil pipeline that they used to circumvent the UN "Oil
for Food" restrictions.

No coincidence that by 1998, Saddam felt secure enough to end all
cooperation with the UN inspectors.

Sooooooo....let me get this straight...sanctions are bad, but invading
for nonexistent reasons is just ducky.

The statement being responded to is this:

"President Bush/Cheney became obsessed with Iraq and forgot about the
American people."

I was merely pointing out that the American people were only mystified
by the "obsession" with Iraq, because they mostly let "experts" do all
their thinking for them.

Sooner or later, the "experts" understand this all too well.

--
Neolibertarian

"[The American People] know that we don't have deficits
because people are taxed too little; we have deficits
because big government spends too much."
* * * * * * * * * ---Ronald Reagan

Sooner or later, the "experts" understand this all too well.

Picture former president Bush holding hands with Sheik Abdullah,

Photographs are emotional things.

Some people think that US military forces skedaddled out of Vietnam
because they saw a picture of helicopters being pushed off the deck of
an Aircraft Carrier.

Because of a video, some people think the LA police were brutalizing a
black guy a couple of decades ago.

Some people think the US Marines were planting a flag on Sirubachi
because they'd just won the Island of Iwo Jima--just because of a silly
photograph.

Some people think the Exxon Valdez at Prince William must have been the
worst ecological disaster in the history of mankind because they saw a
picture of an oil drenched seal.

The point is, don't argue feelings. Don't let your feelings about a
photograph color your intellectual understanding.

That photograph of Abdullah and Dubya was placed before you because some
people anticipated how you would feel about it.

and
anyone can come to understand why the "U.N. "food for oil" program
seemed to bleed itself through to the states - we seemed to have had
our oil market upset a bit in the world oil scene, in contrast to
being a perpetual world supplier.

Oil for food.

"Our" oil market wasn't upset. By far, the US gets most of its imported
oil from Canada.

The US never really pretended to be a "perpetual world supplier." Now it
forbids itself to be anything but an importer.

Capitalism must die. It's just too damn embarrassing to keep around any
longer.



To admit that oil (particularly gasoline, derivatives) and oil
producing technology is still under the sole proprietorship of western
"technocracy" is patently absurd.

To admit to anything so patently false would be equally absurd.



The whole world now wants to duplicate it and mass produce it for
their own use - price controls and markets seem to fluctuate with day-
to-day, international and diplomatic maneuvering, with a little
geopolitics mixed in.

Best thing that could happen. Type One Markets.





What we need are revolutionary technologies that self-destruct upon
examination - if no one's

...

read more »- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

: Photographs are emotional things.

So are lessons.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...c4450d2a?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...631bf011?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...eae7c5e3?hl=en

Rrrrriiiiiggggghhhhhtttt, and since a picture is worth a thousand
words, words don’t mean things.

Don’t give me that malarkey …

: Some people think that US military forces skedaddled out
: of Vietnam because they saw a picture of helicopters being
: pushed off the deck of an Aircraft Carrier.

That’s an exception, not a reason for anyone who was still serving in
Vietnam – you’re blaming the ignorant and trying to further spin it
here.

: Because of a video, some people think the LA police were
: brutalizing a black guy a couple of decades ago.

There’s an exception again, not the reason.

: Some people think the US Marines were planting a flag on
: Sirubachi because they'd just won the Island of Iwo Jima—
: just because of a silly photograph.

Why are you bringing up all of these exceptions?

To my knowledge, oil prices DID elevate during the highest occupation
in Iraq – I can distinctly remember Bush asking OPEC to raise
production, after a controlling remark from the Saudi oil minister:

“The Saudi oil minister, Ali Naimi, said the U.S. economy is
significant to the oil market and demand. "All our effort is to
maintain prosperity and growth in all countries, particularly the
number one consuming nation in the world," he said.

But, the minister said, "The concern for the U.S. economy is valid,
but what affects the U.S. economy is more than the supply of oil."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,322746,00.html

: Some people think the Exxon Valdez at Prince William
: must have been the worst ecological disaster in the history
: of mankind because they saw a picture of an oil drenched
: seal.

No doubt that your sort of excuse for willing accomplices for an EPA
madness (communist inspired?) is being projected into the mainstream.

: The point is, don't argue feelings. Don't let your feelings
: about a photograph color your intellectual understanding.

Yet none of the excuses you list above contain any reasonable or
intellectual wiggle room to justify you making this statement – how
convenient.

: That photograph of Abdullah and Dubya was placed before
: you because some people anticipated how you would feel

: about it.

The feeling I had was in no way mutual to someone else’s understanding
of where the solution to our energy needs “outside the box” of the
transnationalist mindset are being reported and understood with
clarity.

Yours sounds like just another smoke and mirrors campaign, to say the
least.

and anyone can come to understand why the "U.N. "food
for oil" program seemed to bleed itself through to the
states - we seemed to have had our oil market upset a bit
in the world oil scene, in contrast to being a perpetual
world supplier.

: Oil for food.
: "Our" oil market wasn't upset.

It wasn’t?

Then what do you call almost $5 / gallon at the gas pump?

A free lunch?

: By far, the US gets most of
: its imported oil from Canada.

Probably most from Canada, as well as the Gulf of Mexico, and, uh,
Saudi Arabia.

: The US never really pretended to be a "perpetual world
: supplier." Now it forbids itself to be anything but an
: importer.

It was only a “pretense” if you add all of the taxes and costs in
order to assume manipulation and control over people in order to
fabricate an imaginary crisis.

Nationalization of companies cause slavery and domination, smothering
the spirit of entrepreneurialism, privateering, and capitalized
promise markets.

Seems like I’ve made this point before, in regard to the proven oil
reserves (e.g. Prudhoe Bay, etc.), in comparison to the
transnationalist forces within the Federal government itself which
helped to shut down the Alaska pipeline – and that’s a whole separate
story.

: Capitalism must die. It's just too damn embarrassing to
: keep around any longer.

You are in league with the devil.

What an embarrassment to this nation you, and every single crony that
has lined up to do back room deals with the scum in healthcare,
because they want to destroy America.

Here’s 20 different ways that Obamacare will destroy free market
enterprise:

1. You are young and don’t want health insurance? You are starting up
a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that
is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually
for the “privilege.” (Section 1501)

2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that
reflects that status? Tough. You’ll have to pay for premiums that
cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day,
drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That’s
because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on
the basis of a person’s health status. (Section 2701).

3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with
lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no
longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers
prefer. (Section 2711).

4. Think you’d like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn’t cover
preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough.

5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that
doesn’t allow your employers’ slacker children to stay on the policy
until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714).

6. You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services,
emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care,
mental health and substance use disorder services, including
behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and
habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and
wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services,
including oral and vision care.

You’re a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover
pediatric services. You’re a woman who can’t have children? Tough,
your policy must cover maternity services. You’re a teetotaler? Tough,
your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own
violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302).

7. Do you want a plan with lots of cost-sharing and low premiums?
Well, the best you can do is a “Bronze plan,” which has benefits that
provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 60% of the full
actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan. Anything
lower than that, tough. (Section 1302 (d) (1) (A))

8. You are an employer in the small-group insurance market and you’d
like to offer policies with deductibles higher than $2,000 for
individuals and $4,000 for families? Tough. (Section 1302 (c) (2) (A).

9. If you are a large employer (defined as at least 101 employees) and
you do not want to provide health insurance to your employee, then you
will pay a $750 fine per employee (It could be $2,000 to $3,000 under
the reconciliation changes). Think you know how to better spend that
money? Tough. (Section 1513).

10. You are an employer who offers health flexible spending
arrangements and your employees want to deduct more than $2,500 from
their salaries for it? Sorry, can’t do that. (Section 9005 (i)).

11. If you are a physician and you don’t want the government looking
over your shoulder? Tough. The Secretary of Health and Human Services
is authorized to use your claims data to issue you reports that
measure the resources you use, provide information on the quality of
care you provide, and compare the resources you use to those used by
other physicians. Of course, this will all be just for informational
purposes. It’s not like the government will ever use it to intervene
in your practice and patients’ care. Of course not. (Section 3003 (i))

12. If you are a physician and you want to own your own hospital, you
must be an owner and have a “Medicare provider agreement” by Feb. 1,
2010. (Dec. 31, 2010 in the reconciliation changes.) If you didn’t
have those by then, you are out of luck. (Section 6001 (i) (1) (A))

13. If you are a physician owner and you want to expand your hospital?
Well, you can’t (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B). Unless, it is located in a
country where, over the last five years, population growth has been
150% of what it has been in the state (Section 6601 (i) (3) ( E)). And
then you cannot increase your capacity by more than 200% (Section 6001
(i) (3) (C)).

14. You are a health insurer and you want to raise premiums to meet
costs? Well, if that increase is deemed “unreasonable” by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject to review
and can be denied. (Section 1003)

15. The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from
the pharmaceutical industry. If you are a pharmaceutical company what
you will pay depends on the ratio of the number of brand-name drugs
you sell to the total number of brand-name drugs sold in the U.S. So,
if you sell 10% of the brand-name drugs in the U.S., what you pay will
be 10% multiplied by $2.3 billion, or $230,000,000. (Under
reconciliation, it starts at $2.55 billion, jumps to $3 billion in
2012, then to $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018, before
settling at $2.8 billion in 2019 (Section 1404)). Think you, as a
pharmaceutical executive, know how to better use that money, say for
research and development? Tough. (Section 9008 (b)).

16. The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from
medical device makers. If you are a medical device maker what you will
pay depends on your share of medical device sales in the U.S. So, if
you sell 10% of the medical devices in the U.S., what you pay will be
10% multiplied by $2 billion, or $200,000,000. Think you, as a medical
device maker, know how to better use that money, say for R&D? Tough.
(Section 9009 (b)).

The reconciliation package turns that into a 2.9% excise tax for
medical device makers. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how
to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough.
(Section 1405).

17. The government will extract a fee of $6.7 billion annually from
insurance companies. If you are an insurer, what you will pay depends
on your share of net premiums plus 200% of your administrative costs.
So, if your net premiums and administrative costs are equal to 10% of
the total, you will pay 10% of $6.7 billion, or $670,000,000. In the
reconciliation bill, the fee will start at $8 billion in 2014, $11.3
billion in 2015, $1.9 billion in 2017, and $14.3 billion in 2018
(Section 1406).Think you, as an insurance executive, know how to
better spend that money? Tough.(Section 9010 (b) (1) (A and B).)

18. If an insurance company board or its stockholders think the CEO is
worth more than $500,000 in deferred compensation? Tough.(Section
9014).

19. You will have to pay an additional 0.5% payroll tax on any dollar
you make over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you
file an individual return. What? You think you know how to spend the
money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9015).

That amount will rise to a 3.8% tax if reconciliation passes. It will
also apply to investment income, estates, and trusts. You think you
know how to spend the money you earned better than the government?
Like you need to ask. (Section 1402).

20. If you go for cosmetic surgery, you will pay an additional 5% tax
on the cost of the procedure. Think you know how to spend that money
you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9017).

To admit that oil (particularly gasoline, derivatives) and oil
producing technology is still under the sole proprietorship
of western "technocracy" is patently absurd.

: To admit to anything so patently false would be equally
: absurd.

Oh it is? Have I missed something about the price of oil in Argentina
or Saudi Arabia as NOT being more of a sole proprietorship?

Your statements are becoming awkward.

The whole world now wants to duplicate it and mass
produce it for their own use - price controls and markets
seem to fluctuate with day-to-day, international and
diplomatic maneuvering, with a little geopolitics mixed in.

: Best thing that could happen. Type One Markets.

Worst thing. You can’t predict where the struggle for independence
occurs while forcing economies in complete unison over something as
primitive as “gasoline”.

Either the price must remain low to stay competitive, or independent
dominions will continue to become established outside the box of the
transnationalist energy markets.

What we need are revolutionary technologies that self-
destruct upon examination - if no one's interested in how
the thing works, then don't give either the image-maker or
duplicator an opportunity to mechanically or electronically
copy the patent-protected idea!

: Naw. Sorry. Capitalism must die. That's already been firmly :
established.

Then you, a product of capitalism, are already dead in the spirit of
free market enterprise. There is a place for you alongside those
fallen angel pre-deluvian “kings” within Solomon’s brass vessel that
will be also be destined for the lake of fire in the end time.

How sad.

: No personal property of any real value is acceptable any
: longer. Certainly not INTELLECTUAL property, which is the
: most valuable of all.

Rrrrrrrrriiiiiiiggggghhhhhhttttttt, and the galaxy belongs to the NOW,
as far as I can tell.

: If a personal property becomes valuable, it turns out that

: all of society owns it. Hence, the Health Care Reform Act.

HR 3200 will never make it into practice. Too many Americans are
already rejecting the proposal, with 13 states already in line to sue
the government, and the case is likely to go to the Supreme Court.

The people’s voice WILL be heard.

Protect the inventor and you protect the nation - smear

the inventor's idea to the four winds of transnationalism,

"meter" the technology, and you ruin the whole nation in

the process.

: Look chum, it's not "transnationalism" you're decrying.

: It's corporatism.

You’re just pettifogging the semantics.

Corporate transnationalism, transnationalist corporations, it’s still
the same monopolistic practice that’s selling this country short.

You need to check into what Soros has done through short-selling with
his MFA’s and offshore accounts – He’s the one who wants to destroy
America while pulling Obama’s strings, and Obama knows it.

That’s why Congress is betraying the voice of the tea parties –
because most of Congress, including those who stood with the STUPAC
amendment over abortion – eventually traded in their own honor and
priviledge as representatives for the American people - for a lie –
STUPAC himself got a $700K back-room deal for an airport project in
his district.

: Get your terms straight.

Depends on what values are becoming crooked

: --
: Neolibertarian

: "[The American People] know that we don't have deficits
: because people are taxed too little; we have deficits
: because big government spends too much."
: ---Ronald Reagan

“We are at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced
mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars… If we lose
freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand
on Earth…”

“…You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so
sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If
nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin—just in the
face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel
to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the
cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their
guns and refused to fire the shot heard ’round the world? “

- Ronald Reagan

In article
,
American wrote:

: Photographs are emotional things.

So are lessons.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...c4450d2a?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...631bf011?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...eae7c5e3?hl=en

These aren't lessons--these are long posts from Usenet.

Rrrrriiiiiggggghhhhhtttt, and since a picture is worth a thousand
words, words don¹t mean things.

Don¹t give me that malarkey Š

Silly straw man arguments won't advance your case.

: Some people think that US military forces skedaddled out
: of Vietnam because they saw a picture of helicopters being
: pushed off the deck of an Aircraft Carrier.

That¹s an exception, not a reason for anyone who was still serving in
Vietnam * you¹re blaming the ignorant and trying to further spin it
here.

No, I'm illustrating the intellectual paucity, but simultaneous
emotional /saturation/, of the photographic image (especially when mass
produced). Perhaps it has to do with the large portion of the brain
devoted to visual function. But it's very real, and expertly used by
politicians, advertisers, and "news" media. Anyone with something to
sell, and a little market savvy.

Perhaps a more important factor than how the brain processes visual
data, is Americans' intellectual laziness. Something that's easy to
count on, especially ever since logic was removed from the curriculum.

The helicopters were ARVN, not US. They were being pushed off the decks
in order to make room for the deluge of refugee-filled ARVN helicopters
still coming in from South Vietnam.

All US military forces had left South Vietnam 2 years before those
pictures were taken.

Try to tell this to someone who is already convinced that's a picture
showing the US military leaving Vietnam in disarray.

Heh.

Ergo, when someone begins an argument: "Consider this photograph..." you
can rest assured you're arguing an emotion.


: Because of a video, some people think the LA police were
: brutalizing a black guy a couple of decades ago.

There¹s an exception again, not the reason.

It's not an exception, silly. Video has exponentially more
emotional/psychological impact than a still image. It's such a powerful
tool that businesses spend many 100's of billions of dollars a year on
it. And their sales from tv commercials prove beyond a shadow of doubt
that video is very, very, very effective.

Ergo, when someone here at Usenet begins an argument by saying:
"Consider this video..." you can rest assured that you're being invited
to subject yourself to a sales pitch, not an intellectual argument.

: Some people think the US Marines were planting a flag on
: Sirubachi because they'd just won the Island of Iwo Jima‹
: just because of a silly photograph.

Why are you bringing up all of these exceptions?

They aren't exceptions.

Anything visual is designed to sell you an emotion:

http://tinyurl.com/y9apema

A Hockey Stick that isn't can still knock out all your front teeth.

To my knowledge, oil prices DID elevate during the highest occupation
in Iraq

That doesn't even pretend to establish cause.

When an AFC team wins the Superbowl, the stock market takes a dive; when
an NFC team wins it, stocks go up. In other words, concurrence isn't
necessarily cause.

You also neglected to mention that at price per barrel peak, there was
an "Operation Allied Force" style invasion of Georgia going on.

And occurred while the UN was releasing ever more damning assessments of
Tehran's nuclear weapons project.

I can distinctly remember Bush asking OPEC to raise
production, after a controlling remark from the Saudi oil minister:

³The Saudi oil minister, Ali Naimi, said the U.S. economy is
significant to the oil market and demand. "All our effort is to
maintain prosperity and growth in all countries, particularly the
number one consuming nation in the world," he said.

But, the minister said, "The concern for the U.S. economy is valid,
but what affects the U.S. economy is more than the supply of oil."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,322746,00.html

An extremely honest, logical and factual assessment--He's not their Oil
Minister for nothing.

: Some people think the Exxon Valdez at Prince William
: must have been the worst ecological disaster in the history
: of mankind because they saw a picture of an oil drenched
: seal.

No doubt that your sort of excuse for willing accomplices for an EPA
madness (communist inspired?) is being projected into the mainstream.

If you're gonna construct a string of straw man arguments, you should at
least have the courtesy to construct coherent ones.

: The point is, don't argue feelings. Don't let your feelings
: about a photograph color your intellectual understanding.

Yet none of the excuses you list above contain any reasonable or
intellectual wiggle room to justify you making this statement * how
convenient.

Bush holding hands with Abdullah isn't pertinent to any of your
subsequent "points."

If you don't want your President to meet with foreign leaders to discuss
commerce, you mustn't have the slightest notion of what went on in the
presidencies of, say, John Adams or Thomas Jefferson.

: That photograph of Abdullah and Dubya was placed before
: you because some people anticipated how you would feel

: about it.

The feeling I had was in no way mutual to someone else¹s understanding
of where the solution to our energy needs ³outside the box² of the
transnationalist mindset are being reported and understood with
clarity.

Yours sounds like just another smoke and mirrors campaign, to say the
least.

Thinking "outside the box" in your case seems to make you a
"shadow-boxer."

You need to define "transnational mindset."

If a "transnational mindset" is some vague, looming evil, you should be
able make your case.

I have to tell you here, that even the internet is an example of a
"transnational mindset."

and anyone can come to understand why the "U.N. "food
for oil" program seemed to bleed itself through to the
states - we seemed to have had our oil market upset a bit
in the world oil scene, in contrast to being a perpetual
world supplier.

: Oil for food.
: "Our" oil market wasn't upset.

It wasn¹t?

Then what do you call almost $5 / gallon at the gas pump?

A commodity bubble.

....one that burst, btw.

A free lunch?

Ain't no sech animal, chum.

: By far, the US gets most of
: its imported oil from Canada.

Probably most from Canada, as well as the Gulf of Mexico, and, uh,
Saudi Arabia.

Close enough.

: The US never really pretended to be a "perpetual world
: supplier." Now it forbids itself to be anything but an
: importer.

It was only a ³pretense² if you add all of the taxes and costs in
order to assume manipulation and control over people in order to
fabricate an imaginary crisis.

Nationalization of companies cause slavery and domination, smothering
the spirit of entrepreneurialism, privateering, and capitalized
promise markets.

Not only that, it almost always results in severe shortages and under
production in both the near and long term. For instance, when Mossedeq
nationalized the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, production fell so sharply
and so far that it almost ceased to exist.

Luckily, Kermit Roosevelt came to the rescue.

Seems like I¹ve made this point before, in regard to the proven oil
reserves (e.g. Prudhoe Bay, etc.), in comparison to the
transnationalist forces within the Federal government itself which
helped to shut down the Alaska pipeline * and that¹s a whole separate
story.

Excuse me for interrupting your ramblings, but the above paragraph, were
you to actually flesh it out, might be the most pertinent and germane
argument you've offered so far.

Maybe it's not "a whole separate story," after all?

: Capitalism must die. It's just too damn embarrassing to
: keep around any longer.

You are in league with the devil.

You've been talking to my ex-girlfiends.

What an embarrassment to this nation you, and every single crony that
has lined up to do back room deals with the scum in healthcare,
because they want to destroy America.

Of course they want to destroy America--but America doesn't care enough
to figure that out.

As long as mommy keeps putting the food on the high chair tray...what do
they care? If they don't like it, they just push the bowl on the floor,
and smirk while mommy cleans up the mess...

Here¹s 20 different ways that Obamacare will destroy free market
enterprise:

1.

[snip]

It's far worse than what you've listed here, dummy.

The bill isn't in its final form, and the courts haven't had a chance to
bend it to their will. The Democrats are still a viable political party
(whose stock just happens to be down for the time being). They can add
to the provisions...well, forever.

And they will.

Where's the Dental Patients' Bill of Rights? What about optometry? 25%
or us need glasses and contact lenses, don't we? And where's the health
care insurance for our pets?

We've only begun to give you Bread and Circuses!

To admit that oil (particularly gasoline, derivatives) and oil
producing technology is still under the sole proprietorship
of western "technocracy" is patently absurd.

: To admit to anything so patently false would be equally
: absurd.

Oh it is? Have I missed something about the price of oil in Argentina
or Saudi Arabia as NOT being more of a sole proprietorship?

The price of oil is extraordinarily reasonable. World markets are a boon
to mankind everywhere, everywhen.

Your statements are becoming awkward.

Pot, kettle, black.

The whole world now wants to duplicate it and mass
produce it for their own use - price controls and markets
seem to fluctuate with day-to-day, international and
diplomatic maneuvering, with a little geopolitics mixed in.

: Best thing that could happen. Type One Markets.

Worst thing. You can¹t predict where the struggle for independence
occurs while forcing economies in complete unison over something as
primitive as ³gasoline².

You can't predict the rain, either.

Lack of prediction isn't an argument against world markets. Lack of the
ability to predict is never an argument against markets. If you want a
stable, predictable word market, I'm afraid you'll have to send your
president overseas to hold hands with ruthless dictators. Just like you
always have.

And if you refuse to, then the Chinese, Russian, and Iranian presidents
will no longer be tripping over you, Over There, Over There.

That's a good thing?

And, btw, there's nothing primitive about gasoline. If you don't believe
me, try to distill some from crude oil sometime.

In this context, the only relevant adjective for gasoline would be
"useful."

Either the price must remain low to stay competitive, or independent
dominions will continue to become established outside the box of the
transnationalist energy markets.

Could you rephrase that so that it actually makes sense?

What we need are revolutionary technologies that self-
destruct upon examination - if no one's interested in how
the thing works, then don't give either the image-maker or
duplicator an opportunity to mechanically or electronically
copy the patent-protected idea!

: Naw. Sorry. Capitalism must die. That's already been firmly :
established.

Then you, a product of capitalism, are already dead in the spirit of
free market enterprise. There is a place for you alongside those
fallen angel pre-deluvian ³kings² within Solomon¹s brass vessel that
will be also be destined for the lake of fire in the end time.

The death warrant for capitalism wasn't issued by me, silly.

How sad.

Well, you never inherit your civilization. At most, you only inherit its
ruins. Beginning with yourself. And you can't afford the heating bill
for either.

Being sad about it won't get you anywhere.

: No personal property of any real value is acceptable any
: longer. Certainly not INTELLECTUAL property, which is the
: most valuable of all.

Rrrrrrrrriiiiiiiggggghhhhhhttttttt, and the galaxy belongs to the NOW,
as far as I can tell.

Now you sound like Jean Paul Sartre.

: If a personal property becomes valuable, it turns out that

: all of society owns it. Hence, the Health Care Reform Act.

HR 3200 will never make it into practice. Too many Americans are
already rejecting the proposal, with 13 states already in line to sue
the government, and the case is likely to go to the Supreme Court.

Taking this legislation to the Supreme Court is gonna "fix" it...how
again?

Dred Scott. Kelo. Roe. Plessy. Korematsu.

Heh.

If you're depending on the Supreme Court to pull your chestnuts out of
the fire...well, good luck with that.


The people¹s voice WILL be heard.

We can expect them to raise their voices to answer this question, anyway:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsqJFIJ5lLs

Protect the inventor and you protect the nation - smear

the inventor's idea to the four winds of transnationalism,

"meter" the technology, and you ruin the whole nation in

the process.

: Look chum, it's not "transnationalism" you're decrying.

: It's corporatism.

You¹re just pettifogging the semantics.

No, I'm not engaging in anything of the kind.

You don't have a discussion about transnationalism if you first
eliminate corporatism.

On the other paw, if you don't eliminate corporatism, you'll perpetually
be whining about transnationalism.

Corporate transnationalism, transnationalist corporations, it¹s still
the same monopolistic practice that¹s selling this country short.

Monopolies can't really maintain their existence outside the framework
of a corporatist state.

All innovations in the market produce monopolies for a time. Innovation
is a good thing.

The innovator has a monopoly, until everyone else sees there's money to
be made. Then they all jump on the band wagon. The only way to prevent
this is for the monopoly to join forces with the government--to utilize
the instrumentalities of government to institutionalize and protect
their monopoly.

Which is where all your monopolies came from in the first place.

The government, after all, is the only REAL monopoly.

You need to check into what Soros has done through short-selling with
his MFA¹s and offshore accounts * He¹s the one who wants to destroy
America while pulling Obama¹s strings, and Obama knows it.

Limit and reduce the power of the federal government, and Soros is just
a harmless mumbler with a giant bank account. Like Howard Hughes at the
end.

That¹s why Congress is betraying the voice of the tea parties *
because most of Congress, including those who stood with the STUPAC
amendment over abortion * eventually traded in their own honor and
priviledge as representatives for the American people - for a lie *
STUPAC himself got a $700K back-room deal for an airport project in
his district.

What the hell were you expecting, you naive little fool?

They're all populist-bureaucrats. Their allegiance has long been firmly
established.

Even those who vote for them know their "representatives'" true
allegiance--and they know it ain't THEM. It ain't "We the People,"
either.

Those who vote for them have figured out how to profit from what they
really hold allegiance to. And they'll continue voting for them as long
as their interests intersect.

That's how the universe works.


: Get your terms straight.

Depends on what values are becoming crooked


Your argument almost entirely depends upon your command of the
definitions.

: --
: Neolibertarian

: "[The American People] know that we don't have deficits
: because people are taxed too little; we have deficits
: because big government spends too much."
: ---Ronald Reagan

³We are at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced
mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the starsŠ If we lose
freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand
on EarthŠ²

³ŠYou and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so
sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If
nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin‹just in the
face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel
to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the
cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their
guns and refused to fire the shot heard ¹round the world? ³

- Ronald Reagan

Obviously, it's time for the revolution.

And, as Scott-Heron might remind you: "The Revolution will not be
Podcast..."

--
Neolibertarian

"[The American People] know that we don't have deficits
because people are taxed too little; we have deficits
because big government spends too much."
---Ronald Reagan