Trent

Oh I listened to what that 49% said, I just didn't agree with it. Just because there's a lot of people with one opinion doesn't make it right. Yes, that goes both ways. Similarly, the 49% should not discount what the 51% say either. And I did speak my opinion. I am free to consider anyone acting or speaking out with the "popular Hollywood" opinion, just because it's trendy... an idiot. THAT is my right, and for you to consider THAT unAmerican is just stupid. If these self-important stars would start using more than just bumper-sticker politics, it'd make them easier to listen to. Notice how they never really offer any alternatives other than, "Just do the opposite of what Bush did!"? How about, what do we do now? Silly stars. As for whoever it is that says "she's rich, she can't be that stupid"... is your only value on success how much money someone makes? Oh, hello again!

Now you're just talking crazy!! How can their views be discounted like that!? 49% of the US agrees with them, so it must be legit! She, like the other Hollywood dolts, should just STFU and stick to what they do best... er, well better than most.... er... what they get paid to do. Oh, hello again!

We've had this out a few times here at SC. Even if you use the IBC to count "innocent" civilians... you will see that MANY of the people killed were killed by insurgents/terrorists and not the coalition forces. Furthermore, the IBC counts iraqi police as well. Going EVEN further, you can read the likely causes and situations surrounding the deaths and determine that many of them might not have been so innocent. Keep reading, a lot of the IBC's numbers come from generalized accounts from hospitals and morgues, which seem to thing everyone is innocent since they're not clutching weapons in their dead hands. Their count is not 100% solid of course, but even if you like it for a ballpark number, there are problems with labeling all the deaths counted as "innocent" civilians. Take a close look and see. Oh, hello again!

I didn't see them supporting the US using "any means" to stop the Iraqi government from doing it either. They better be careful over there. It's a shame. I have a few friends from the Ivory coast and they had to leave because it got so bad. Oh, hello again!

Yes, but if you don't run the chance of profiting from ending the activities... you DEFINITELY won't act to stop them. Your argument here is silly, you're trying to say what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and that's not the case. It is most certainly a valid idea that they would not want to see any intervention because of the profit motive... especially when there are governments selling things like jets, weapons and other items that the government itself profits on. I thought "we" have shown that he did have a WMD program with intentions to re-start it, but was not currently active. Just wanted to clarify that. The WMD was not the ONLY reason to not want Saddam in power. It's a shame that either the administration made it seem like the only issue, or the opponents clung to it as if it was the only issue. In my opinion, Saddam-family regime would have had to be removed at some point or another. I think you'll probably see that too, if you think about it for a while. Oh, hello again!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/africa/11/07/ivorycoast.mobs/index.html EXCERPT: Good for them for standing up for their people. They didn't seem to mind when our planes and troops were getting shot at during the "No Fly" times in Iraq though. At least we can understand them on this issue. Oh, hello again!

even when many of the same religions held the same beliefs about slaves and other 'lesser' races? prejudice and persecution are not rights... It is absolutely the right of anyone to believe anything they want, be it racist, sexist, homophobic... or whatever! We have the right to beleive whatever we want, don't even try to argue that! Persecution is not okay. Some people just don't think that denying homosexuals "marriage" is persecution. That's what the whole argument is about. Oh, hello again!

THAT'S IT, IT'S CONFIRMED... F911 was all true. OBL just confirmed it. I believe it so much, I'm voting for Kerry! Do MAYBE think that he has seen or has been told what conspiracy theories the movie contains and wants to play on it to further divide a nation? Just maybe? Nah, that's outside the realm of possibility, he wouldn't lie to us!! It's our friend OBL! When will anyone learn that the very fact that Americans, who are anything but Muslim, exist is one of the jihad-tards' primary reasons for wanting us exterminated. Add to that the fact that we do not, and will not stand to live under islamic government, and POW!!!, we become the great satan. Israel, Palestine, Iraq, these are all just pet causes that serve an ego-maniac's agenda because it gets people to listen to him. It was wierd when I heard the transcript on the radio. I figured that so many people would begin to realize that islamic fundamentalists will do anything to hurt the US, and nothing we can ever do will change that. Apparently, some realities are so warped that they think it gives us more reason to "understand" these people to a victory. Oh, hello again!

Interesting read. Worth people looking into since actual price-fixing with competitors is illegal. I saw that this came up, but an oil company can reduce supply to suit their needs and maximize profit. The problem is that the other companies follow suit, de-facto price-fixing. (whether or not it's pre-arranged is another story). At current wholesale prices, the 1-3 cent profit increase that was repeatedly mentioned, makes up just around 1% of the price or less. OPEC has a much more powerful influence over the actual prices at the pump. They're the reall shady ones when it comes to production limitations. Oh, hello again!

Not necessarily. To be successful at doing that, they'd have to have an industry (global) agreement with other oil companies because just one company willing to make "normal" profits would ruin it for everyone. From what I've seen in economics and oil practices, the gas prices moves closely with that of oil and the bottleneck is more often OPEC restrictions rather than refineries. Oh, hello again!

Now I see. I just wanted to throw my .02 in to make sure people saw how it most often works in cases like this. As it is... you're right, now. They'll most likely be right, later. Oil companies will profit no matter what, but over time, the ups and downs almost cancel each other out... ceteris paribus. Oh, hello again!

If you're not going to read all of what I write, or selectively respond to parts of a sentence. There's not much I can do here. Like I said, no matter what you change the title to.. the first 2 reflect your attempt to stereotype everyone in a group for what was said by one person. You know what you were trying to do, debate it with yourself if it helps. Oh, hello again!

Cry me a river. RIGHT! And who said it? Republicans, or was it just Giuliani. When one person says something, wouldn't it be more honest just to say they did? Or did you just want to generalize about all republicans? You're being shady about this and you know it. I don't give a shit what you change the title to, you've shown your colors already. Those of us who know, always see the spin in your anti-Bush posts anyway. ...now come back with the but but but... THEY did it over here!! excuse. Then we'll have the discussion about how we don't really want to stoop to "their" level. Blah blah blah. Oh, hello again!

... and how does that change what my comment is getting at? You're still doing it. Now instead of the official GOP, you're stereotyping Republicans. Like someone mentioned. Being HONEST would be to say that Giuliani says... But that's not what you were going for, was it? Oh, hello again!

Just to let you know... The reason oil companies are showing huge profits right now is because they're selling gas at TODAY'S price when they've purchased the futures contract at the 6 month to 1 year ago price. Didn't I explain this to you in an older thread? If the price for crude doesn't drop, then the oil companies will be forced to buy at the higher prices and their profits will shrink. Unless they time it right and they can make it by on their current futures contracts until the price (maybe) lowers again. This is normal so far. Not that the oil companies aren't in it for the profit or anything... Oh, hello again!

Because, like most of the left, he'd rather stereotype a large group of people for what one person has said. This is EXACTLY the type of bullshit reporting that we see in many of the media outlets. The headline says one thing (so Kerry has something to talk about) and the details say something else (so he can look stupid when people intelligent enough to read take a closer look). Oh, hello again!

Until proven otherwise, they still don't even know if those ABC reporters... from your own quoted article... were really even at the same facility in question. Didn't you read the rest of the article you posted previously, or did you just find what you wanted to? Until the world is flipped upside down, "APPEARED TO CONFIRM" and "CONFIRMED" are 2 different things. At the outset, this article APPEARED TO BE NEW until it was discovered that old news was being used as a breaking story to undermine the elections too. Oh, hello again!

I'll just respond to your posted articles since you Michael Moore-ized them. Also states, but you didn't quote... "5 EYEWITNESS NEWS has determined the crew embedded with the troops may have been on the southern edge of the Al Qaqaa installation, where the ammunition disappeared." and "On Wednesday, 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS e-mailed still images of the footage taken at the site to experts in Washington to see if the items captured on tape are the same kind of high explosives that went missing in Al Qaqaa. Those experts could not make that determination. The footage is now in the hands of security experts to see if it is indeed the explosives in question." Not to mention the fact from the IAEA report directly... http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/alqaqaa_documents.pdf Which could explain the fact that inspectors returning in March, who found the seals intact but did not look inside the bunkers, thought that it was all still there. All the reports of what the troops found, that I've seen, do not mention there was a large amount of explosives lying around. Oh, hello again!

Where did I say I support regulations that violate rights? huh? Nice try, professor. I guess you're for the judges being able to tell someone they can't listen to music or own stereo equipment? I didn't enter the thread bashing the ASBOs, just the people telling PJ to mind his business since it was a British domestic issue. I thought that was funny in a hypocritical sort of way. I wouldn't support a US judge telling someone what they can or cannot say or listen to either. I merely explained how some of the sodomy laws were used here in the US. Stop trying to sum up other people's arguments when you don't even bother to read through them. Oh, hello again!

Quade says: BUT The fact that a story about another story being published doesn't mean the VOA has any opinion on the subject. In fact, it looks like it almost ridicules the claim a bit. Even you must have a hard time believing that civilian casualties went from 10,000 or 30,000 to 100,000. Oh, hello again!

I had a much nicer reply to this, but the internet ate it. So tell me... how did they secure the shit in the first place? So I guess the notion that the UN "secured" anything is bull? Again, having people tag and count then lock up explosives in my own garage wouldn't keep me or someone who wanted to steal them away. That isn't "secure". If you call that secure, then you shouldn't blame the US for the shit going missing after the inspectors left. You think they were sitting on the explosives, armed to the teeth? I thought they were civilians... I saw the reporter who was embedded with the unit on TV this morning saying how, when they arrived, there were no explosives in the place. You're going to have to quote sources for this info, bill. For both you and Kallend... Nope, I wouldn't volunteer to guard explosives. Apparently neither did the inspectors... because they didn't guard shit. In fact, it doesn't sound like they "secured" anything at all. Counting and tagging explosives doesn't mean they're under control. If it were me, I'd put in a call to the US strategy guys and request they blow the place to shit after we left. But kallend, if you insist on attacking my argument by telling me to volunteer and then talk about it... I'll attack your argument by saying you don't have a leg to stand on here. The shit was never really "secured" and it isn't the US's fault that it went missing. Oh, hello again!

What I'm saying is that sodomy laws are often used to add on to charges for rape, murder, and molestation. We have some stupid laws like... you can't put an icecream cone in your front pants pocket in public. But they're not used at all. ASBOs mentioned in the article seemed to blatantly diminish peoples' fundamental rights. Why not just punish the people according to the "real" laws in Britain instead of telling them that they cannot listen to their radio and confiscating their CDs? Good thing that happened in Britain, because that's downright un-American! Oh, hello again!

Whoa... now I'm really confused. First it was a "secured" site by the UN, which ,according to Kerry, the NYT, CBS, and many of you, means that the explosives were under UN control and NOT at risk of being stolen or used. THEN, the people "securing" the explosives are described as civilian weapons inspectors, so now I'm wondering how these explosives were secured. Were they counted, then left alone under the promise that they'd be "checked on" from time to time? Were they counted and put in Saddam's own bunkers at the facility under UN lock and key (sounds real "secure" to me)? Or were they guarded by armed UN troops to ensure their security? It's starting to sound like they weren't really all that secure to begin with. NOW, you're saying that we were planning to bomb the facility? Did we? If we did, that might explain why there aren't any explosives left. If we didn't, why didn't we? Was it because the UN had "secured" the place? And yes, I think that the UN is not above pulling people out, leaving explosives unguarded (or whatever their status was) in order to say "fuck you" to the US. They should be above it, but I don't think they are. Oh, hello again!

Well, should we take the tactics of the guys in this post who say, "Mind your own business because you don't live here and it's a domestic issue so shut up"? Or should we educate you as to the fact that that law is rarely used, most often in cases of rape or molestation. It is used as an addition charge to people who already did something despicable. Not to ruin your saturday night. If you're gonna throw stuff like that out, be intellectually honest about what it really does. Oh, hello again!

Apparently, you're as much a reader as I am a mind reader. I merely asked you to be reasonable about what you might think their expectations of safety would be. If it were me in their shoes, I'd pretty much bet that it wouldn't be as safe as going to church. So, instead they were to sit on the explosives while the country was run by a dictator who was overtly hostile to UN forces? Again, you make it sound like these "inspectors" who had "secured" this site were actually just civilians taking inventory. So my question is, was this site EVER secure? Or had it just been marked as having explosives and then the inspectors moved on? Be honest. You still contradicted yourself. Oh, hello again!