Saturday, December 02, 2006
  Political Speculation 11-30-06
What Will W Do?

Political Speculation 11-30-06


Today is the first day of the rest of W's political/meaningful life. The much anticipated release of the ISG's; (Iraq Study Group); report doesn't help W in the least.


The report recommends that the US pullback 'combat' troops. Like there are very much of any other. Out of the approx' 150,000 troops, how, many are training?


Bush has rejected the call to disengage our troops from what would seem to be a civil war.


Civil war definition: MerrionWebster

Function: noun

: a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country


We, the citizens of the USA, are currently witnessing the most embarrassing meltdown of what was once thought to be a political dynasty...the Bush Family.


Funny how W doesn’t get it. W still doesn't like to listen or learn; and that’s a lesson from history.


Unfortunately this political meltdown has consequences. Our military people are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan.


When is someone going to declare W brain-dead and remove him from something he doesn’t grasp...the survival of the US.


I predict as of 11-30-06:

·      W will reject timelines in his Iraq policy.

·      W will accept Maliki as his Iraqi other choice.

·      W will continue to pursue ‘neocon’ strategy of domination.

·      W will then accept Rice’s opening for peace. 12-10 thru 12-20-06



Tuesday, November 28, 2006

is this working

Thursday, September 28, 2006
  Election 06

Questions for the Election...

...or, how to win in 06

Scene: White House press briefing.

Q: Is the President doing all that he can do to win in Iraq?

A: The President doesnt micromanage the war. He listens to advice from the Generals on the ground.

Q: Does the President have confidence in the Generals on the ground in Iraq?

A: Theyre still there.

Q: Is Iraq still the most important front in the GWOT?

A: Yes

Q: So, is this the best, which the most expensive military in the world can do in the most important front in the GWOT?

A: (sounds of Snow, shitting his pants)

Wednesday, April 26, 2006
  Oil Prices and Oil Profits
I want to know why there's no distinction between prices paid for oil and oil profits.

If an oil company paid $35/barrel and made $X profit...

...wouldn't they make the same profit if the oil cost $70/barrel?

I think the assumption is put out that the oil companies PAY the going rate for the oil. If there was a true relationship between the price paid/price sold...then there wouldn't/couldn't be an increase in profit.

What am I missing?

The only thing that I can think of is that the oil companies "buy" the oil for $X amount and then re-sell the oil at a pre-set price above the buy price. This is usual. But, it doesn't justify their price.

5 years ago:

Buy oil:

$25/barrel.....resell oil at $50/barrel...make money. Make $25.


Buy oil:

$50/barrel...resell oil at $100/barrel...make money. Make $50

$70/barrel...resell oil at $140/barrel...make money. Make $70

The idea of a 'windfall tax' applies to the concept that the oil companies costs haven't's just been their ability to multiply the original cost of the oil.

Anyone who believes the spin of oil company profits of .09/gallon of gas is guilty of Enron's, Ken Lay denial of knowledge.

I think people put too much emphasis on the 'profit', which is always manipulated for tax purposes.
Monday, April 24, 2006

yea or nea?

  The Generals Revolt...cont

The revolt continues and those usually associated with the R, like Max Boot from the LAT, are having a hard time with their arguments. On April 19th, 2004, Boot presents a winning and losing argument at the same time.

Some examples:

Well, the Generals are retired. And if Max really doesnt like retired Generals influencing politics and or policy, then he should have spoken up before the war when many retired Generals, serving as media advisors, did their best to support the administrations position.

And also this:

Well, I agree with him regarding the blunders. But isnt that precisely the point. And what about the conduct of Gen Tommy Franks? Isnt Rumsfelds or Bushs job to evaluate the effectiveness of their Generals?

I had to bold that just in case boredom had set in.

Max Boot, telling it like it is...just shaded to the right...sometimes more, sometimes less.

Vote for Competence in 2006 and 2008

Thursday, April 20, 2006
  Ann Coulter and Pleas

Ann Coulter lectures the world about life choices, while condemning some choices of strippers and lacrosse players.


Is it necessary to be lectured about choices in life by someone with the resume of Ann Coulter? She wrote:

“The liberal charge of "hypocrisy" has so permeated the public consciousness that no one is willing to condemn any behavior anymore, no matter how seedy.”


This is the same Ann Coulter who votes illegally, ...allegedly.


According to The Brad Blog, Ann Coulter is a felonious voter.


Luckily for her she has an excuse:

“The Christian answer is: I can never pay this back, but luckily that Christ fellow has already paid my debt.”


Isn’t nice to be able to write a column condemning the personal behavior of other people, while at the same time her personal behavior is protected by a special...get out of jail free card, courtesy of Christ.


Talk about hypocrisy.


  non post

does this work

Wednesday, April 19, 2006
  Effective Govt?

Talk about prescient vision. During the 80s and 90s the GOP rant was to minimize govt because its incompetent. Clinton might have challenged that perception over his 8 years of governing, even while he had to fend off the Right Wing Noise Machine practically the whole time.

Now, after 5 plus years of Bush Co its amazing how self-fulfilling the GOP vision was. Its your turn to run the country and you confuse that with run the country into the ground. We need effective and competent govt.

Vote for competence in 2006 and 2008.

Tuesday, April 18, 2006 guru or blowhard?

Today, in the WH press briefing, McClellan described the increase in oil prices as being related to increased demand of energy by China and India. How fortunate for them that the price of oil has nothing to do with the war in Iraq. I’ll have to check the oil demand calendar to see how their demand has gone up by the equivalent of 45 cents, in the last 10 days. Their economies must be on a roll.

Doing a little research into oil prices and the admin I was drawn to Bush’s ‘Jawbone’ comment while running for president. We get a great preview of our future (blowhard) Pres, basically implying that Clinton is impotent but that W would change oil prices by sheer personality. (We all missed the messianic warning). These quotes might make some squeamish: (emphasis mine)

"Ours is a nation that helped Kuwait and the Saudis, and you'd think we'd have the capital necessary to convince them to increase the crude supplies," he said.

Asked why the Clinton administration had not been able to use the power of personal persuasion, Mr. Bush said: "The fundamental question is, 'Will I be a successful president when it comes to foreign policy?' "

He went on to suggest, as he did in answer to other questions, that voters should simply trust him.

"I will be," he said in answer to his own question about whether he would be a successful president. "But until I'm the president, it's going to be hard for me to verify that I think I'll be more effective."


I know that it may seem unfair to some to just pull a quote from a guys past...well...think of all the quotes that Kerry got hammered Bush.


So what we have now is an admin that is impotent. It can’t effect oil prices in any significant way, except up. (Maybe W’s jawbone is tired, due to all his jawboning in support of his failed policies).


Of course the situation has changed since W made his remarks. What we need to realize is that W was the major influence in the changes we now have to deal with. It is the obvious negligence that is owned by his admin, it was his positive choices, Afghan and Iraq that have exposed the weaknesses of his policies. Katrina, Harriett Miers, post Katrina and the Dubai ports deal are all just boils on an incompetent, egotistical, obviously Republican govt.


It is no small chance that a govt supported and corrupted by the same people who believe that the Federal govt should be small enough to drown in a bathtub, might not be up to the task of effectively running the Federal govt. What is odd and opposite their stated beliefs, is that their taste for Federal dollars to support their earmarked pork projects only increased as their power increased.


What a reality. The same party that previously supported less govt, was now actively and frantically spending their borrowed Federal money as fast as their congress could slip it through to W to sign.


Spending borrowed money is much easier than fiscal responsibility.


Whatever happened to ‘No Taxation without Representation’? How could the glory of the Republican Party, (less taxes, less govt), fall so completely?



Guesses concerning politics and life.

March 2005 / May 2005 / August 2005 / September 2005 / October 2005 / November 2005 / December 2005 / January 2006 / February 2006 / April 2006 / September 2006 / November 2006 / December 2006 /

Powered by Blogger