then don't confuse your feelings for logic

too late

that's sad

and following your guilt by association platform..

http://www.campaignwatch.org/more1.htm

i know, it's not in the 9/11 report, so we can't take it too seriously.

http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/jphuck/Book10Ch.7.html

http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/sep2...004/oped/o4.htm

okay, so the new popular justification for invading iraq is that there is a financial connection between saddam and bin laden. yet these same financial ties bring together our president's family with saddam and bin laden.

is propoganda what brings this evidence together, or is it what is used to make us ignore branches of the same tree?

but our president didn't buy chemical weapons with his illegal funds. he didn't gas millions of his own people. what he did do was use his family connections to sieze power and change fiscal policies to allow for companies like enron to bankrupt california.

http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmc...alifCrisis.html

good 'ol kennie boy. thanks for the contributions. now don't get caught. shit, ken who?

Dubya did the exact same kind of insider trading that lay was guilty of when Bush sold out of Harken eight months after the federal deadline for insider trading.

http://www.buzzflash.com/perspectives/bush_harken.html

The same group of people who claim that moral integrity is important in the oval office when refering to blow jobs say that the greater evil must be fought by Bush, regardless of his scruples.

I say that the morality of our leadership reflects upon us in our attempts to conduct foreign policy and fight a war against terror. If we're led by crooks, the world will see us as a nation of crooks. How can we win a war on terror on that platform?

I don't feel that electing a new administration will make us any more susceptible to acts of terrorism than we already are. In fact, i would even wager that if we remove these unprosecuted criminals from office, we may even earn some respect back as being the model of freedom and democracy in the world. Take that Osama!

quote:

Originally posted by ResonantDrag and following your guilt by association platform..

all i can say to this is start another thread.

quote:

i know, it's not in the 9/11 report, so we can't take it too seriously. [URL=http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/jphuck/Book10Ch.7.html]http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/jphuck/Book10Ch.7.html http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/sep2...004/oped/o4.htm

well , your right its not the 9/11 commission report but any fool can post garbage on the web. It takes an even bigger fool to actually use it and convince others its true.

quote:

okay, so the new popular justification for invading iraq is that there is a financial connection between saddam and bin laden. yet these same financial ties bring together our president's family with saddam and bin laden. is propoganda what brings this evidence together, or is it what is used to make us ignore branches of the same tree?

in truth, it's oil that links all of these parties together. from Bush's vague and benevolent ties. to Osama's psychotic and hereditary ties. but i really don't think Bath's $50,000 stake in Arbusto in '77 can justify anything more than a coincidence.

quote:

what he did do was use his family connections to sieze power and change fiscal policies to allow for companies like enron to bankrupt california.

WOW! now thats more than reaching. thats almost liable.

quote:

good 'ol kennie boy. thanks for the contributions. now don't get caught. shit, ken who? Dubya did the exact same kind of insider trading that lay was guilty of when Bush sold out of Harken eight months after the federal deadline for insider trading.

The real story http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york071002.asp

quote:

The calls for SEC disclosure are the latest tactic in the Democrats' attempt to tie Bush to the issue of "corporate greed." While such statements are intended to suggest that Bush is covering up his role in the Harken matter, they ignore one important fact: There are already many SEC documents about Harken available to the public. The documents deal with the critical issues raised by Bush's stock sale, and they reveal the reasoning behind the SEC investigators' decision not to take any action against Bush or Harken. A close review of the documents supports statements made by the president and answers most, if not all, of the questions raised by his Democratic critics. Together with other publicly available information on Bush's business career, they suggest that Bush was correct when he told the press that as far as Harken is concerned, "there's no there"

quote:

http://www.buzzflash.com/perspectives/bush_harken.html The same group of people who claim that moral integrity is important in the oval office when refering to blow jobs say that the greater evil must be fought by Bush, regardless of his scruples. I say that the morality of our leadership reflects upon us in our attempts to conduct foreign policy and fight a war against terror. If we're led by crooks, the world will see us as a nation of crooks. How can we win a war on terror on that platform? I don't feel that electing a new administration will make us any more susceptible to acts of terrorism than we already are. In fact, i would even wager that if we remove these unprosecuted criminals from office, we may even earn some respect back as being the model of freedom and democracy in the world. Take that Osama!

i believe that morality should reflect upon us also, in the face of our leadership. i believe it has since 2000. but i also believe that this president has been torn down and villified every step of the way because of his nature and background regardless of whether he made $800,000 as a three time failed Texas oil man. he's been demonized and lied about because there is a political party that had an agenda during the Clinton years to bring this country closer to the European model and they feel they were robbed and put on hold as a result of the 2000 election and they have been doing everything in their power to regain not only the office but every majority in government that they have lost fair and square.

ask yourself which one is it? is Bush the maniacle mad genius that personally orchestrated the war on terror by using his ties with the Saudi's and the Bin Laden family to kill thousands of people all over the world and monopolize the world oil market more than it already is within the window of opputunity before the inevitable OPEC turndown 20 yrs. from now?
or is he bumbling illiterate fool that has no integrity and wants to destroy the American dream?
IMO if you have to think about it...then neither are true.

Oh pity poor George W. Bush, I'll remember to shed tears for him . His policies, his approach to foreign policy and his arrogance in dealing with others is his ticket to international hatred. George Bush is the victim of no one, I so often like to remind others that I was a supporter of him, indepth examination of the issues has led me to believe he caters to a grouping that I do not care for guiding this nation aka NEOCONS. You can put your sense of trust in a President and also lose that sense of trust for innumerable reasons, George W. Bush has given me plenty to lose trust in him, starting with WMDs or lack thereof, a reason which I will never let down when it comes to the Iraq war, thus my vocal critic.

___________________
Trance = Heart, Mind, Body and Soul all in 1

Current fav. Global Experience = Madras

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan Oh pity poor George W. Bush, I'll remember to shed tears for him . His policies, his approach to foreign policy and his arrogance in dealing with others is his ticket to international hatred. George Bush is the victim of no one, I so often like to remind others that I was a supporter of him, indepth examination of the issues has led me to believe he caters to a grouping that I do not care for guiding this nation aka NEOCONS. You can put your sense of trust in a President and also lose that sense of trust for innumerable reasons, George W. Bush has given me plenty to lose trust in him, starting with WMDs or lack thereof, a reason which I will never let down when it comes to the Iraq war, thus my vocal critic.

i got a question for ya.

if Bush knew the WMD's were not gonna be there, why didn't he just have some planted? just the mere fact that we haven't found any, rejects the notion that he lied about it.

if all of these soldiers had to die for what you said the war was all about (which it wasn't) and all the bullshit he should have known he'd have to put up with, knowing what the French and the Brits and the Russians knew, why didn't he just plant some. anything

that sounds like something the George Bush some of you guys are describing would do.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo i got a question for ya. if Bush knew the WMD's were not gonna be there, why didn't he just have some planted?

no shit. and according to our Bush haters here, he's lied before right?
so why didn't he plant the WMD's there, in his favor?

man the USA will be in trouble if Kerry gets into office, but I guess we don't have to worry. No grassroots liberal movement will undermine the conservative viewpoint and morale. People care about the tasks at hand, and the tasks is one that the majority of American people don't think Kerry can handle.

>JM<

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo all i can say to this is start another thread.

sorry, i'm having too much fun in this one

quote:

well , your right its not the 9/11 commission report but any fool can post garbage on the web. It takes an even bigger fool to actually use it and convince others its true.

thanks for proving your point

quote:

in truth, it's oil that links all of these parties together. from Bush's vague and benevolent ties. to Osama's psychotic and hereditary ties. but i really don't think Bath's $50,000 stake in Arbusto in '77 can justify anything more than a coincidence.

i was just giving an example of another coincidence that compromises your belief system. You did in fact state that you believed that funds gathered by saddam were used to finance terrorist organizations, didn't you? or was that just a poor reaching example? sorry if i seem confused by your ability to ignore some evidence while embracing other evidence. please tell me how to filter reality as a good god-fearing bush supporter. then we'll be on the same page (i may need a frontal lobotomy as well).

quote:

WOW! now thats more than reaching. thats almost liable.

well, let's play a little game called connect the dots. have a pen ready? never mind, i'll keep it nice and simple for you.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic.../08/LAYBUSH.TMP

quote:

It won't be easy for the president to ignore his ties to Lay, who has been a friend and supporter of the Bush family for years. Lay was co-chairman of President George H.W. Bush's 1992 re-election campaign and was a leading fund-raiser for the current president's 2000 campaign. Enron and its executives contributed more than $3 million to GOP causes between 1998 and 2002

okay, now i'm going to make an assumtion that they were friends. now stay with me.

kenneth lay now is given the opportunity to help draft a new energy policy.

now, this stuff wasn't in the state of the union address, so you may not have heard about it. that's okay, here's some little snips of what actually happened.

http://www.ucan.org/law_policy/energydocs/bushed.htm

quote:

California, Oregon and Washington were told, in diplomatic but clear terms, that the Bush administration will not offer any meaningful assistance with its short-term energy problems. None of the help needed by the state was offered by the President. For example, temporary price caps were not mentioned. Mandatory requirements that generators sell power were not offered. Financial relief was not proposed.

now, what's a temporary price cap?

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/temporary

quote:

Temporary: 1. [adj] lacking continuity or regularity; "an irregular worker"; "employed on a temporary basis" 2. [adj] not permanent; not lasting; "politics is an impermanent factor of life"- James Thurber; "impermanent palm cottages"; "a temperary arrangement"; "temporary housing"

okay, i'll stop with the belittling remarks, so stay with me.

a temporary price cap is something that the government can impose to protect consumers when demand begins to reach a point where the price of a good begins to skyrocket. an small example would be protecting victims of a hurricane from people who think they can get $100 for a bag of ice. in this particular case, it's not hurricane victims, rather the government of the state of california. The bags of ice is electricity. still with me? good.

now the citizens actually had regulated price caps on electricity (we all do, that's what keeps my bills within reason). so let's get to the meat on how california still owes money due to our president's buddies' policies.

http://powermarketers.netcontentinc...gt%3EEvbfej%5B!

quote:

Is it an outrage or is it fair play? That's the question Californians and the rest of the nation are asking in light of the fact that federal regulators have ruled that the state of California owes energy companies about $270 million for overpriced power that it procured and sold during the energy crisis of 2000-2001. It's not likely that the refunds will be forthcoming for at least a while. That's because California's policymakers plan to keep the demands set by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission tied up in court. While many of the state's citizens say that the requirement is laughable, regulators and other power marketing groups say that because the state bought and sold power at that time, it too must comply with the same pricing restrictions that were placed on them. In a motion filed with the commission, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer says that regulators have insulted the state and the ruling would compensate “the sellers a second time for their market manipulation activities and predatory pricing.” FERC has already said California is due about $3 billion in refunds but the state has only received about $100 million to date. California continues to assert that the amount should total $9 billion. FERC found in 2003 that the market had been seriously gamed. It therefore set a limit for what electricity should have cost. It then ordered sellers, or power marketers, to refund any amount over that benchmark. The state bought power and is entitled to refunds. It also sold power to the California Independent System Operator (ISO). But the price of the power the state sold to the ISO exceeded the FERC-set limit and therefore California is supposed to refund the difference. “No one is exempt,” says Gary Ackerman, executive director of the Western Power Trading Forum, in an interview with Dow Jones. The refunds are upsetting enough to most Californians, but the intended recipients—notably Enron—of any such refunds are even more appalling, they say. The list: Enron is owed $23 million; Reliant is due $33.7 million; Williams has $25 million coming; Mirant is owed $26.7 million; Duke is to get $33.2 million and Dynegy is owed $16 million. Most of the state's power was purchased for San Diego Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas & Electric Co. Resuscitate Investment The issue of settlements is just another subcomponent of how the California experiment with deregulation could have gone so wrong. Who is to blame is debatable. But, according to federal regulators who studied the issue at length, it is a combination of poor regulation and crooked traders. Those with ill intent were able to capitalize on supply shortfalls and a fatally flawed market design that had curtailed power generation development and required utilities to buy from volatile spot markets. Meanwhile, regulators had capped prices to consumers, which left the state's utilities unable to recoup all of their costs, which skyrocketed with exorbitant wholesale prices. By insulating customers with fixed prices the situation was further exasperated because there was no price signal encouraging customers to conserve during high price periods. Both FERC and California regulators understand the need to resuscitate the level of investment in infrastructure there. Policymakers also know that killing off the suppliers will not aid in the goal to build more generators, pipelines and wires. At the same time, they are under pressure to uncover wrongdoing and extract justice. Some traders have pled guilty to wire fraud and others are under investigation. Additionally, companies have admitted to “round trip” trades that were intended to inflate volume and drive up short term prices, forcing some of them to pay fines, enter settlement talks and fire workers. The overall abuse is apparent to California regulators, who say that they are dismayed that FERC cannot connect the dots and force the renegotiation of long-term contracts as well as award them greater damages. “FERC is increasing what had been a high burden of proof for consumers to an extraordinarily high, amazing burden of proof,” says Eric Saltmarsh, attorney for the California Electricity Oversight Board in an interview with the San Diego Union-Tribune. “We believe this is a real misapplication of the law.” Others, meanwhile, acknowledge that unethical traders manipulated prices but still place most of the fault on regulators. Take Enron's "Ricochet" strategy, which could not be repeated in most formal markets that involve independent system operators and regional transmission organizations, says Brett Kruse, an energy analyst in Houston. They have "capacity markets" that compensate generators for availability, and require them to economically make power available to their day-ahead energy markets. The PJM Interconnection, for example, has the ability to curtail system exports from generators that are considered "capacity resources" during high peak periods. “California chose not to learn from successful systems like PJM when they designed their market, and the results are what they are,” says Kruse. The discussion will go on. And, the immediate subject is just whether the state of California ought to refund $270 million to power marketers that actually helped create the crisis. It's likely that the roar now being heard at the thought of that will overpower the demands to give the money back.

so if california believes it is owed $9 billion, that isn't exactly helping them get out of debt, now is it?

quote:

The real story

yep

quote:

i believe that morality should reflect upon us also, in the face of our leadership. i believe it has since 2000. but i also believe that this president has been torn down and villified every step of the way because of his nature and background regardless of whether he made $800,000 as a three time failed Texas oil man. he's been demonized and lied about because there is a political party that had an agenda during the Clinton years to bring this country closer to the European model and they feel they were robbed and put on hold as a result of the 2000 election and they have been doing everything in their power to regain not only the office but every majority in government that they have lost fair and square.

laughable

quote:

ask yourself which one is it? is Bush the maniacle mad genius that personally orchestrated the war on terror by using his ties with the Saudi's and the Bin Laden family to kill thousands of people all over the world and monopolize the world oil market more than it already is within the window of opputunity before the inevitable OPEC turndown 20 yrs. from now? or is he bumbling illiterate fool that has no integrity and wants to destroy the American dream? IMO if you have to think about it...then neither are true.

ask yourself. is bush a post turtle placed by people with enough verbal eloquence to convince enough morons to vote for the "good 'ol straight talker"? IMO if you think about it, it is true.

delete

Last edited by Q5echo on Sep-27-2004 at 07:46

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo your not a real good debater are you?

And you're not a very good punctuator, are you?


Honestly though, while you don't appear to be able to refute many of the facts laid forth here in regards to Bush and the current administration, you do seem very proficient in your ambiguity.

Do you truly agree with everything that Bush and Company stands for? I just can't fathom how ANYONE (besides his sycophants) could consider Dubya to be so beyond reproach.