[Thursday], the major American oil companies came back into Iraq by getting… you guessed it… no-bid contracts! In fact, the four major oil companies that were thrown out by Saddam Hussein 36 years ago made their triumphant return to occupied Iraq.
Former chief executive of Exxon, Lee Raymond, explained the history behind it. “There is an enormous amount of oil in Iraq,” he said. “We were part of the consortium, the four companies that were there when Saddam Hussein threw us out, and we basically had the whole country.”
Well, congratulations, you now have it back! Mission accomplished!
One of the principal problems with American media now is that they have become far too credulous. They take government slogans and propaganda and print it in their papers and repeat it on their networks as if they have some golden touch of credibility. It’s not just that they can’t see that the government might be lying about its real aims, it’s that they view the government as the most legitimate source of news. This turns the point of the press on its head. You’re supposed to challenge the government, not help it by printing out its press releases.
There is a reason to challenge the government. It isn’t to be unpatriotic. It’s to help the country by keeping a check on government power. It doesn’t hurt the country to be a watchdog on power, it helps it.
One of the best examples of this new credulous model of journalism is how the motivation for this Iraq War has been shamelessly left unchallenged. Yes, we now see plainly in front of our face that there were no weapons of mass destruction and that there were no links between Iraq and Al Qaeda (although this was evident before the war). But the press couldn’t ignore this if they tried. But what they haven’t asked is — if those weren’t the real reasons we went into Iraq, then what were?
And one of the verboten topics is oil. Do you notice how it is almost never mentioned in the press as a real reason we went into Iraq. When is the last time you heard any major media outlet talking about it? Was there ever a magazine cover that asked — Was it About the Oil? Can you imagine Wolf Blitzer asking this question of a government official?
Do Americans realize that the whole rest of the world, including Iraq, is absolutely convinced we went in for the oil? That doesn’t mean it’s true, but maybe we might want to look into it.
And now Exxon-Mobil is sitting back on top of its perch. Saddam is gone, and they once again control the oil in Iraq. And they got there through no-bid contracts. In case, you’re wondering if there was a shortage of companies who wanted to bid on these projects, there were over 40 of the largest oil companies in the world who wanted to bid and were not allowed. Gee, I wonder if we should consider whether this war was about the oil.
This is how the American people have become some of the most naïve and gullible folks in the world. Because their press enables it, almost encourages it, with its undue and sycophantic deference to the government.
Finally, this isn’t even about answering questions, it’s about asking them. Was oil a factor in making the decision to go into Iraq after 9/11 even though that country had nothing to do with 9/11? Was it the main factor? How would that effect administration decisions? Was it contracts that administration officials one day might get with these companies or had at what one point with them? Is it campaign contributions from these companies? Or was it earnest but misguided desire to have boots on the ground in an oil producing country because administration officials were legitimately concerned about the rising demand and pinched supply of oil?
For the love of God, at least ask these questions. Are we sure that the people in the American press are even aware of these questions? And if they are, is it a matter of courage to ask these obvious and fundamental questions? Or should we be wondering about their motivations as
well?
Cenk Uygur
SaintJimmy
no-bid oil contracts
hmmm
who could've seen that coming?
:rolleyes:
Oz
We have an administration mired in oil. We attack a country with the 2nd largest reserves. Oil companies get no bid contracts. Cheney's former company gets no bid contracts to contract the war effort. Gas is nearing 5 / gallon in some areas and is hovering around 4.35/gallon average. I'm sure this is all just a coincidence.
fastfingersfunk
now that we know oil was the reason for war, :rolleyes:, at least we are making sure iraq isn't allowed an environment to house binladen confidants such as al-zarqawi. at least a brutal dictator and his more brutal sons who were next in line are finished. at least iraq won't be invading it's neighbors and our allies anymore.
NCMike06
:bigclap:
Hopefully production will be increased.
SaintJimmy
Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk now that we know oil was the reason for war, :rolleyes:, at least we are making sure iraq isn't allowed an environment to house binladen confidants such as al-zarqawi. at least a brutal dictator and his more brutal sons who were next in line are finished. at least iraq won't be invading it's neighbors and our allies anymore.
hello, dum-dum.
Oz
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06 :bigclap:
Hopefully production will be increased.
Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk now that we know oil was the reason for war, :rolleyes:, at least we are making sure iraq isn't allowed an environment to house binladen confidants such as al-zarqawi. at least a brutal dictator and his more brutal sons who were next in line are finished. at least iraq won't be invading it's neighbors and our allies anymore.
those rings in your noses don't hurt do they?
gee, SA raised its production today and oil still went up - perhaps mike is dumber than he thinks :scratch:
fastfingersfunk
i see my post was quoted twice, great responses. LMFAO.
btw, it was primarily our country that ousted saddam and planted ourselves in the center of that region to curb terrorism in the future, why would you be opposed to the iraq oil ministry giving US companies the contracts??? the other offers were from companies in china, russia and india.
and don't get confused, like i said above, these are decisions by the iraq oil ministry, i think some of you are in the belief that these are US government no-bids contracts.
zimmie
sure they do....they think Iraq said they can have the oil too....
mingmen
Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk and don't get confused, like i said above, these are decisions buy the iraq oil ministry, i think some of you are in the belief that these are US government no-bids contracts.
the subliminal mult :rolleyes:
Oz
Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk i see my post was quoted twice, great responses. LMFAO.
btw, it was primarily our country that ousted saddam and planted ourselves in the center of that region to curb terrorism in the future, why would you be opposed to the iraq oil ministry giving US companies the contracts??? the other offers were from companies in china, russia and india.
and don't get confused, like i said above, these are decisions buy the iraq oil ministry, i think some of you are in the belief that these are US government no-bids contracts.
you understand the "reason" they were getting these no bid contracts was that the reps from big oil were consulting the oil ministry for "free" for the past two years? dope
zimmie
whats wrong with that? sounds like a smart move on Iraq's part.... we have the best technology in the world for getting oil out of the ground
fastfingersfunk
Quote: Originally posted by Oz you understand the "reason" they were getting these no bid contracts was that the reps from big oil were consulting the oil ministry for "free" for the past two years? dope
along with consultants from 60 other countries.
and what's your point? is your point that you would rather see russia, china and india companies get the contracts?
mingmen
Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk along with consultants from 60 other countries.
and what's your point?
maybe that this is the real reason for the war :bigthink:
PayYa2MeetCha
its-just-a-ride
Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk now that we know oil was the reason for war, :rolleyes:, at least we are making sure iraq isn't allowed an environment to house binladen confidants such as al-zarqawi. at least a brutal dictator and his more brutal sons who were next in line are finished. at least iraq won't be invading it's neighbors and our allies anymore.
Do you think there's more terrorists in Iraq now or before the invasion?
It wasn't just about oil but controlling the oil was a big part of it. Don't take my word for it, take Alan Greenspan's, the leading Republican economist for a generation, appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1987 and retired after serving four presidents:
“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,”
Britain and America have always insisted the war had nothing to do with oil. Bush said the aim was to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and end Saddam’s support for terrorism. They say this because to invade a country to take control of its natural resources is an International Crime of Aggression, much worse than an act of terror.
WillowGlen
How was it a mystery for so long that there are so many closeted homosexuals in the Rep party when they constantly prove that they enjoy getting fucked in the ass.
fastfingersfunk
Quote: Originally posted by its-just-a-ride Do you think there's more terrorists in Iraq now or before the invasion?
It wasn't just about oil but controlling the oil was a big part of it. Don't take my word for it, take Alan Greenspan's, the leading Republican economist for a generation, appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1987 and retired after serving four presidents:
“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,”
Britain and America have always insisted the war had nothing to do with oil. Bush said the aim was to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and end Saddam’s support for terrorism. They say this because to invade a country to take control of its natural resources is an International Crime of Aggression, much worse than an act of terror.
the amount of terrorists in the region is not the problem, there will never be a shortage, although these are not sophisticated "terrorists" running around iraq. the real problem is that syria, iraq and iran are all sponsors of terrorism and all have the money to develop or fund major weapons programs and they have all spoken hatred against america and it's allies for decades. the goal is to stop the advancement of these weapons being developed and getting into the hands of the terrorists organizations they sponsor.
its-just-a-ride
Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk the amount of terrorists in the region is not the problem, there will never be a shortage, although these are not sophisticated "terrorists" running around iraq. the real problem is that syria, iraq and iran are all sponsors of terrorism and all have the money to develop or fund major weapons programs and they have all spoken hatred against america and it's allies for decades. the goal is to stop the advancement of these weapons being developed and getting into the hands of the terrorists organizations they sponsor.
I'd agree with you if Saddam had actually had the weapons we were told about by our governments.
In the UK we were getting front page articles with mushroom clouds and headlines saying Saddam could launch missiles within 45 mins to attack us.
We had "sexed up" dossiers that proved to be false... millions protested before the invasion to give the weapons inspectors more time but we were told Saddam was too much of a threat to our country... its was false... facts were exagerrated with other intel removed if it didn't back up their campaign for an illegel invasion. They hid conflicting evidence to sell the war.
if our countries' act outside the law how can we ask other countries to act lawfully?
The WMD was an excuse... Iraq was on the top of the Neo-Cons' to-do list before Bush even got into office. 9/11 was the catalyst they needed and it was used to their full advantage.
Oz
Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk along with consultants from 60 other countries.
and what's your point? is your point that you would rather see russia, china and india companies get the contracts?
from 60 countries? source please.
Billyfromsphily
Quote: Originally posted by Oz from 60 countries? source please.
hm, yeah - oil prices up after SA raises production - the exact opposite of what all you dipshits said would happen - good news is Haliburton stock is way up :tu:
JTProcess
by the way... I love the arguement that "would you rather see russia or china get Iraq?"
YES! I WOULD... let them have the energy source of the past that will be worthless in a few years dispite the stranglehold that big oil has on the US economy.
We're being left in the dust by the rest of the world because we are fucking pwned.... period.
If we had invested the $530,787,480,466 and counting that we're dumping into Iraq into fine tuning and mainstreaming alternative technologies we wouldn't haev to depend on those backwards third world fucks and their black gold...
fastfingersfunk
Quote: Originally posted by its-just-a-ride I'd agree with you if Saddam had actually had the weapons we were told about by our governments.
In the UK we were getting front page articles with mushroom clouds and headlines saying Saddam could launch missiles within 45 mins to attack us.
We had "sexed up" dossiers that proved to be false... millions protested before the invasion to give the weapons inspectors more time but we were told Saddam was too much of a threat to our country... its was false... facts were exagerrated with other intel removed if it didn't back up their campaign for an illegel invasion. They hid conflicting evidence to sell the war.
if our countries' act outside the law how can we ask other countries to act lawfully?
The WMD was an excuse... Iraq was on the top of the Neo-Cons' to-do list before Bush even got into office. 9/11 was the catalyst they needed and it was used to their full advantage.
the fact that we did not find WMDs in iraq does not negate the fact that he used them in the past, had the money and capacity to make them again, along with syria and iran, and that they all sponser terror organizations. 9/11 was the catalyst, and a damn good one. imo, hunting a guy in caves is ignoring the next "catalyst", which proven by time, will be bigger than 9/11.
fastfingersfunk
Quote: Originally posted by JTProcess Meanwhile in OTHER countries....
what do you drive?
WillowGlen
Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk the fact that we did not find WMDs in iraq does not negate the fact that he used them in the past, had the money and capacity to make them again, along with syria and iran, and that they all sponser terror organizations. 9/11 was the catalyst, and a damn good one. imo, hunting a guy in caves is ignoring the next "catalyst", which proven by time, will be bigger than 9/11.
Well if were going to use the "what happened in the past" argument
Must be nice to have it both ways
zimmie
Quote: Originally posted by JTProcess by the way... I love the arguement that "would you rather see russia or china get Iraq?"
YES! I WOULD... let them have the energy source of the past that will be worthless in a few years dispite the stranglehold that big oil has on the US economy.
We're being left in the dust by the rest of the world because we are fucking pwned.... period.
If we had invested the $530,787,480,466 and counting that we're dumping into Iraq into fine tuning and mainstreaming alternative technologies we wouldn't haev to depend on those backwards third world fucks and their black gold...
a few years?....lmao.......you'll be shitting your pants in a nursing home before we have a unversal alternative to use daily......
fastfingersfunk
Quote: Originally posted by WillowGlen Well if were going to use the "what happened in the past" argument
Must be nice to have it both ways
that's his opinion, not mine. and btw, this was pre 9/11. i can post a ton of videos of dems and reps agreeing with my views after 9/11.
WillowGlen
Thanks I just made 5 bucks from the guy in the next office. He said there was no way you could be such a talking point spouting retard that you would use the "before 9/11" excuse.
fastfingersfunk
Quote: Originally posted by WillowGlen Thanks I just made 5 bucks from the guy in the next office. He said there was no way you could be such a talking point spouting retard that you would use the "before 9/11" excuse.
great way to ignore facts.
Billyfromsphily
Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk that's his opinion, not mine. and btw, this was pre 9/11. i can post a ton of videos of dems and reps agreeing with my views after 9/11.
Yeah Based on Faulty and Doctored intelligence!
Billyfromsphily
Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk great way to ignore facts.
Mistruths and lies is more like it than facts.
NCMike06
Quote: Originally posted by zimmie a few years?....lmao.......you'll be shitting your pants in a nursing home before we have a unversal alternative to use daily......
Exactly....these idiots actually believe that in a few years, you will put a solar panel on your car, and thats all you will need...
We are going to be using oil, and LOTS of it, for decades to come... And guess what? The evil oil companies might make evil profits all that time too...... So my advice is...INVEST in Exxon....
fastfingersfunk
Quote: Originally posted by Billyfromsphily Yeah Based on Faulty and Doctored intelligence!
saddam sponsered terrorism and has used WMDs and had the capacity to make them. that is not faulty nor doctored.
Oz
Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk along with consultants from 60 other countries.
and what's your point? is your point that you would rather see russia, china and india companies get the contracts?
still waiting for my source
fastfingersfunk
Quote: Originally posted by Oz still waiting for my source
let me find it again hold on, it was an AP article. also, what is your answer regarding the contracts being given to russia and chinese companies instead? i was looking for your point, but it seems you are avoiding it.
also, let's see your source that we consulted iraq's oil ministry "for free" as you said.
mingmen
Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk saddam sponsered terrorism and has used WMDs and had the capacity to make them. that is not faulty nor doctored.
too bad those weren't used as justification for the iraq invasion
fastfingersfunk
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen too bad those weren't used as justification for the iraq invasion
too bad you are wrong on that.
mingmen
Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk too bad you are wrong on that.
nope and nope
fastfingersfunk
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen nope and nope
the fact that he used WMDs and the fact that he had the equipment to produce WMDs was absolutely part of the case. back to the drawing board.
bskwizzle
Quote: Originally posted by Oz We have an administration mired in oil. We attack a country with the 2nd largest reserves. Oil companies get no bid contracts. Cheney's former company gets no bid contracts to contract the war effort. Gas is nearing 5 / gallon in some areas and is hovering around 4.35/gallon average. I'm sure this is all just a coincidence.
I'm seeing gas prices of 4.75 (for the cheap stuff) a gallon out here in LA. I would blow someone for 4.35 gallon. that would be awesome.
mingmen
Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk the fact that he used WMDs and the fact that he had the equipment to produce WMDs was absolutely part of the case. back to the drawing board.
not for the imperative to invade. that was based on lies. :gwave:
fastfingersfunk
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen not for the imperative to invade. that was based on lies. :gwave:
so you agree that evidence was used? you said they weren't used. liar.
and what lies did they base the invasion on?
Oz
Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk let me find it again hold on, it was an AP article. also, what is your answer regarding the contracts being given to russia and chinese companies instead? i was looking for your point, but it seems you are avoiding it.
also, let's see your source that we consulted iraq's oil ministry "for free" as you said.
hm, I could only find the foxnews reference that was they were consulting and offering advice since last december - I think the article I read was on msnbc.com - foxnews said it was 40 companies - not 60 countries -
mingmen
Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk so you agree that evidence was used? you said they weren't used. liar.
back with your brain dead mult arguments :rofl:
"I never said that you said that I said that you said that I said..."
just get your source for the 60 nations, dickhead :burst:
it is on AP, remember?
fastfingersfunk
Quote: Originally posted by Oz hm, I could only find the foxnews reference that was they were consulting and offering advice since last december - I think the article I read was on msnbc.com - foxnews said it was 40 companies - not 60 countries -
40 not 60, my bad. lol
so are you going to answer my question about if you would rather see russia and china get the contracts? this will be the third time now.
and btw, these are two year contracts for service and technical information on six refinery sites. you guys are making it seem like they just won control of all of the oil in iraq or something.
fastfingersfunk
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen back with your brain dead mult arguments :rofl:
"I never said that you said that I said that you said that I said..."
just get your source for the 60 nations, dickhead :burst:
it is on AP, remember?
and what lies did they base the invasion on?
mingmen
Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk 40 not 60, my bad. lol
countries or companies, liar?
mingmen
Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk and what lies did they base the invasion on?
iraq's active nuclear program
fastfingersfunk
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen iraq's active nuclear program
who said they had an active nuclear program? and then how do you know they were lying and not basing the info on intel?
mingmen
Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk who said they had an active nuclear program?
:burst:
Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk and then how do you know they were lying and not basing the info on intel?
:burst: :burst:
fastfingersfunk
i'm still looking for the article i read but here is one showing that 60 foreign oil companies were invited to brainstorm. if i was wrong on the amount of countries, not companies, that's my bad, but certainly the US wasn't the only consultant to the iraq oil ministry.
and this still ignores my orignal point of if oz would rather have companies from russia and china get the contracts.
fastfingersfunk
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen :burst:
:burst: :burst:
that's what i thought. as soon as facts are involved from you, AVATAR TIME!!! WEEEE!!!!
and btw, iran has an active nuclear program. so you agree we should invade iran?
Abba
Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk the fact that we did not find WMDs in iraq does not negate the fact that he used them in the past, had the money and capacity to make them again, along with syria and iran, and that they all sponser terror organizations. 9/11 was the catalyst, and a damn good one. imo, hunting a guy in caves is ignoring the next "catalyst", which proven by time, will be bigger than 9/11.
You're so dim. EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY IN THE WORLD CAN MAKE WMD'S.
Holy fuck. Anyone can manufacture pesticides if they saw fit, and what kills bugs can also be used to kill people. If not the same substance, than something very similar that needs only a tweak or 2. Hell, you could explode a bleach bomb, aerosolize it, and kill everyone in the area by making their lungs bleed.
Enough with this WMD garbage. Notice how the non oil producing countries in the Middle East are the bad guys, while the one with oil are the good guys?? :rolleyes:
Grow the fuck up. The only reason we went into Iraq was for Oil. If you want a peaceful Syria, reign in Israel, make them sue for a just peace, and syria will go away without a single shot fired, but then no one gets paid for all the bombs and ammo and spare parts and the endless profits of war....
Abba
Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk who said they had an active nuclear program? and then how do you know they were lying and not basing the info on intel?
Condoleeza:
smokin gun= mushroom cloud.
I have never seen a chemical weapon make a mushroom cloud, have you?
NCMike06
Quote: Originally posted by Abba
Enough with this WMD garbage. Notice how the non oil producing countries in the Middle East are the bad guys, while the one with oil are the good guys?? :rolleyes:
Grow the fuck up. The only reason we went into Iraq was for Oil. If you want a peaceful Syria, reign in Israel, make them sue for a just peace, and syria will go away without a single shot fired, but then no one gets paid for all the bombs and ammo and spare parts and the endless profits of war....
:lol:
Lets see.....if we went to Iraq for the oil, but only the good guys have oil.... you are saying Saddam Hussein was a good guy??
And have you ever heard of Iran?? Are they the 'good guys' too?? Seems to me they are like 3rd or 4th in known oil reserves.....
Maybe you better clear that head of yours, and rethink this post... or have someone read it to you S-L-O-W-L-Y
Billyfromsphily
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06 :lol:
Lets see.....if we went to Iraq for the oil, but only the good guys have oil.... you are saying Saddam Hussein was a good guy??
And have you ever heard of Iran?? Are they the 'good guys' too?? Seems to me they are like 3rd or 4th in known oil reserves.....
Maybe you better clear that head of yours, and rethink this post... or have someone read it to you S-L-O-W-L-Y
\
So your point is?
You continue to amaze everyone with your stunning lack of intellect.
Oz
Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk 40 not 60, my bad. lol
so are you going to answer my question about if you would rather see russia and china get the contracts? this will be the third time now.
and btw, these are two year contracts for service and technical information on six refinery sites. you guys are making it seem like they just won control of all of the oil in iraq or something.
you said 60 "countries" - and I would rather russia or china did not, but the point is the appearance of impropriety - it stinks - you don't get it apparently
mingmen
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06 :lol:
Lets see.....if we went to Iraq for the oil, but only the good guys have oil.... you are saying Saddam Hussein was a good guy??
And have you ever heard of Iran?? Are they the 'good guys' too?? Seems to me they are like 3rd or 4th in known oil reserves.....
yeah, everybody has heard of iran. especially cheney. btw - it is right next door to iraq. true story
Rush Has AIDS
Well somebody thought Saddam was a good guy....
NCMike06
Quote: Originally posted by Rush Has AIDS Well somebody thought Saddam was a good guy....
Yeah, there's a lot of that going around..... :rolleyes:
Rush Has AIDS
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06 Yeah, there's a lot of that going around..... :rolleyes:
Hmmm... strange.... we didn't bomb those guys
But I agree to this, there is too much of it going around....
NCMike06
Quote: Originally posted by Rush Has AIDS Hmmm... strange.... we didn't bomb those guys
But I agree to this, there is too much of it going around....
yeah...been going on for a long time..... see how that works?
JTProcess
Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk what do you drive?
one of those old timey petrol powered models that are being phased out in more technologically advanced countries like ....Brazil ?!?
Quote: Originally posted by JTProcess one of those old timey petrol powered models that are being phased out in more technologically advanced countries like ....Brazil ?!?
right. i bet you don't even drive a prius, you drive a truck or an SUV. and btw, i agree we can do better but at the same time i'm sure you wouldn't take advantage of it, just like you don't drive a prius.
JTProcess
Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk right. i bet you don't even drive a prius, you drive a truck or an SUV.
Like I said... I drive what's available to me. Why is the make or model important... you and I both know there aren't any viable alternatives available on a large scale here in the US...
wonder why that is? It's not because the science isn't there... if 3rd world countries like Brazil have already made the switch.
(for the record I own 2 cars... a honda and a toyota...)
JTProcess
(and I drive them both at the same time with tons of anti government anti oil industry bumper stickers just to look ultra hypocritical to conservative apologists)
fastfingersfunk
Quote: Originally posted by JTProcess (and I drive them both at the same time with tons of anti government anti oil industry bumper stickers just to look ultra hypocritical to conservative apologists)
since you are anti-government, should the government step in and mandate that all light cars be ethanol fueled? after all, that's what brazil did. and we are the largest ethanol producer in the world, according to your link.
i'm trying to gauge your level of hypocracy.
JTProcess
the anti oil / anti gov thing was a joke... settle down. I'm not the cartoon liberal character your boy sean hannity paints with a broad brush for you every night...
I think the gov't should definitely regulate or mandate something... that's what the government is for. "free market" is great in theory but without regulation it doesn't work... because this human nature thing called "Greed" comes into the picture... if you believe otherwise... that "the free market" can operate without regulation... you are far more naive than any liberal is.
as for fuel the bottom line is people are only able to use what's available to them... if ethanol was available on a wider scale more people would use it.
I'm not even saying a mandate is the ultimate solution... even incentives would work... maybe giving those bush tax cuts ONLY to oil companies who spend a good portion of their budgets developing that japanese steam engine to a point where it can power the body of a Lincoln Navigator.
the technology is out there but instead of investing in that, we let the unregulated "free market" ala enron use our government to secure it's own interests... we could've invested that what is it now... 6 billion dollars into a new infrastructure and never have to give terrorist regimes another dime for their oil...
but that doesn't jive with people who want to cling to the old way...
fastfingersfunk
nobody has to paint you out as cartoon liberal character, you kind of do it yourself. i believe that's why you made the joke about the oil / anti gov isn't it? because you realized how you were coming off.
Rush Has AIDS
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06 yeah...been going on for a long time..... see how that works?
Yeah... a very long time....
uhohhotdog
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06 Yeah, there's a lot of that going around..... :rolleyes:
Fuck you you fucking hillbilly. Here's a news flash: BUSH IS FRIENDS WITH THE SAUDIS. THE SAUDIS ARE THE WORST PEOPLE IN THE WORLD.
Oooh, big deal, you posted a picture of a Secrtetary of State with another world leader.
Mike, you're a fucking loser. Everyone hates you. Just kill yourself. I wish I could have met your parents so I could have beat them so badly that your cunt mom would have miscarried you.
This website is not affiliated with the Howard Stern Show. It is produced by fans for fans. We share no connection with Howard Stern, Sirius Radio, On Demand, CBS Broadcasting, E! TV or Infinity Broadcasting.
All posts and attachments are the responsibilities of their owners and not of this site.
