PDA

View Full Version : We Would Be OFF Foreign Oil Completely IF



Gayle in MD
05-31-2011, 06:35 AM
Only Jimmy Carter, had been re-elected, and David Stockman, hadn't rolled back Carters Plan, to break our dependence on foreign oil, not to mention, how many more American Soldiers, would still be alive, and how many more people in the world, wouldn't have died from the toxic pollution, and climate change, caused by the corporate energy polluters of the world, who have been protected by the Repiglican Grand Oil Party.

Scientists are saying that the heated atmosphere, is also a cause of more severe tornadoes.

Seems to me I read last week that some ignorant republican said we should burn the trees in the rain forest, to fight the effects of global warming!!!!

OMG, how many more of the terminally ignorant, and corrupt in the Grand Oil Party, will it take, for people to wise up about Repiglicans!!!!

G.

LWW
05-31-2011, 06:49 AM
We Would Be OFF Foreign Oil Completely IF ... people like yourself wouldn't have went insane when Reagan/Bush actually tried to enact the critical element of Jimmuh Cahtuh's energy plan ... developing our own natural resources.

Truth be known Charlotte ... you have done everything you could do to block his energy plan, although I have no doubt you supported it when he proposed it and would blindly support it again if proposed by dear leader, and would then oppose the same plan when a non democrook attempted to continue it later.

pooltchr
05-31-2011, 07:31 AM
Just make sure your tires are properly inflated, and we will be fine.

Oil?????? We don't need no stinking oil!!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Steve

eg8r
05-31-2011, 08:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Only Jimmy Carter, had been re-elected</div></div>You are right. The reason is because inflation would have been so high that no one could afford anything that used foreign oil. Thank goodness that terrorist appeaser is building houses for the needy now instead of ruining our country.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
05-31-2011, 09:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Only Jimmy Carter, had been re-elected</div></div>You are right. The reason is because inflation would have been so high that no one could afford anything that used foreign oil. Thank goodness that terrorist appeaser is building houses for the needy now instead of ruining our country.

eg8r </div></div>

The inflation was driven by oil costs.

Gayle in MD
05-31-2011, 09:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Only Jimmy Carter, had been re-elected</div></div>You are right. The reason is because inflation would have been so high that no one could afford anything that used foreign oil. Thank goodness that terrorist appeaser is building houses for the needy now instead of ruining our country.

eg8r </div></div>

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=drill-for-natural-gas-pollute-water

LWW
05-31-2011, 10:49 AM
Inflation is driven by monetary policy.

Economics 101 Charlotte.

eg8r
05-31-2011, 11:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thank goodness that terrorist appeaser is building houses for the needy now instead of ruining our country.
</div></div>

eg8r

Soflasnapper
05-31-2011, 12:02 PM
We'd be far less dependent, but I doubt we'd be totally independent, had Carter's plans been followed.

But we could have been much further along. Even this past year, we actually produced more of the domestic need than we imported (although we imported more than needed, because we also exported our domestic production).

Soflasnapper
05-31-2011, 12:52 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We Would Be OFF Foreign Oil Completely IF ... people like yourself wouldn't have went insane when Reagan/Bush actually tried to enact the critical element of Jimmuh Cahtuh's energy plan ... developing our own natural resources.

Truth be known Charlotte ... you have done everything you could do to block his energy plan, although I have no doubt you supported it when he proposed it and would blindly support it again if proposed by dear leader, and would then oppose the same plan when a non democrook attempted to continue it later. </div></div>

Pretty incorrect. When Reagan accelerated the phase-out of price controls on domestic production, domestic drilling went wild. Unfortunately, the world wide recession tanked the oil price to below $10 a barrel, and many of these new wells drilled were capped and permanently closed because they were not profitable at such a low price level.

Soflasnapper
05-31-2011, 12:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Only Jimmy Carter, had been re-elected</div></div>You are right. The reason is because inflation would have been so high that no one could afford anything that used foreign oil. Thank goodness that terrorist appeaser is building houses for the needy now instead of ruining our country.

eg8r </div></div>

Startling lack of knowledge on display here. Foreign oil is the same price as domestic oil, thanks to the deregulation in that market Carter started to phase out, and which Reagan accelerated.

pooltchr
05-31-2011, 01:04 PM
And at $100 bbl, they would be very profitable.

Can you give one logical reason why we are better off allowing other countries to produce oil, while restricting our own production?

The left loves to tell us how the shifting of manufacturing (production) overseas is killing our economy. Is oil production not a form of manufacturing? Would it not help our economy to increase our own production, even if we end up selling it overseas?

Steve

eg8r
05-31-2011, 01:39 PM
Actually it appears you forgot to actually read what I posted. The inflation on products I am referring to have absolutely zero to do with the foreing oil and or its price. Next time before you jump out there with a knee-jerk response take a few minutes to digest what you just read.

eg8r

sack316
05-31-2011, 02:02 PM
reply to nobody in particular:

But correct me if I'm wrong (and forgive me, I was all of 1 year old in 1980), but didn't Ted Kennedy's personal aspirations have as much to do with Carter (and certain policies) going down?

Seems to me I recall something written by Carter himself to that effect about Kennedy and the "liberal left"...

Sack

Sev
05-31-2011, 03:12 PM
So why is the United States has no comprehensive energy plan.

The department of energy is as useless as tits on a bull and should be dissolved.

pooltchr
05-31-2011, 03:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So why is the United States has no comprehensive energy plan.

</div></div>

Perhaps because any real leadership in Washington is virtually non existent!

Steve

Soflasnapper
05-31-2011, 03:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And at $100 bbl, they would be very profitable.

Can you give one logical reason why we are better off allowing other countries to produce oil, while restricting our own production?

The left loves to tell us how the shifting of manufacturing (production) overseas is killing our economy. Is oil production not a form of manufacturing? Would it not help our economy to increase our own production, even if we end up selling it overseas?

Steve </div></div>

No, oil production is not manufacturing. No commodity sector thing is manufacturing.

As to why we'd possibly prefer other oil used first, that seems obvious-- we could use up all the reasonably available oil here, and be left only with the unreasonable (i.e., costly, cumbersome, environmentally damaging, etc.) oil, more reliant than ever on foreign sources of the good oil.

People don't talk about it, but the slurry style prospecting necessary for getting out the shale and tar sands oil, and probably the coal, requires a lot of water that is in dwindling and near term short supply.

Soflasnapper
05-31-2011, 03:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually it appears you forgot to actually read what I posted. The inflation on products I am referring to have absolutely zero to do with the foreing oil and or its price. Next time before you jump out there with a knee-jerk response take a few minutes to digest what you just read.

eg8r </div></div>

If the point was that oil would be unaffordable, that would be true of both domestic and foreign sourced oil, as there is no difference in price (which is the world market price).

To whatever degree I didn't get your point, perhaps there wasn't one?

Soflasnapper
05-31-2011, 03:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Inflation is driven by monetary policy.

Economics 101 Charlotte. </div></div>

Generally true, but in the case of the late '70s, not true.

Oil either tripled or quadrupled in price at that time, spreading inflationary ripple effects throughout all economic sectors.

cushioncrawler
05-31-2011, 04:43 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Inflation is driven by monetary policy. Economics 101 Charlotte.</div></div>Inflation iz wage rizes. Unions fuel inflation. Get rid of unions, & wage rizes.
Not that inflation ever hoight anyone, its just that it stinx.
If i were King there would be zero inflation.
I seem to rekall that in old England inflation woz zero for about 150 years back there.
mac.

cushioncrawler
05-31-2011, 04:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Inflation is driven by monetary policy. Krappynomix 101 Charlotte.</div></div>Generally true, but in the case of the late '70s, not true. Oil either tripled or quadrupled in price at that time, spreading inflationary ripple effects throughout all economic sectors.</div></div>Not really, inflation, real inflation, proper inflation, iz mezured by wage rizes not price rizes.
If some item or other, or if every item or other, rizes in price, for some reazon, eg koz it takes more manhours to make etc, then that iz not inflation, it iz a cost inflation or a price inflation, but not real inflation.
I realize that krappynomix looks only at price inflation, that iz just one reason why krappynomix iz krappy, when krappynomicysts ask the wrong questions, they will of course allso meazure the wrong things, & assemble the wrong fakts, & then fight to the death about their wrong answers.
Not that inflation ever hoight anyone, its just that it stinx.
mac.

LWW
05-31-2011, 05:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We Would Be OFF Foreign Oil Completely IF ... people like yourself wouldn't have went insane when Reagan/Bush actually tried to enact the critical element of Jimmuh Cahtuh's energy plan ... developing our own natural resources.

Truth be known Charlotte ... you have done everything you could do to block his energy plan, although I have no doubt you supported it when he proposed it and would blindly support it again if proposed by dear leader, and would then oppose the same plan when a non democrook attempted to continue it later. </div></div>

Pretty incorrect. When Reagan accelerated the phase-out of price controls on domestic production, domestic drilling went wild. Unfortunately, the world wide recession tanked the oil price to below $10 a barrel, and many of these new wells drilled were capped and permanently closed because they were not profitable at such a low price level.

</div></div>

Thanks for backing me up ... dropping price controls led to expanded capacity and lowered prices.

Now, why aren't these wells reopened at $100 a barrel?

Find the answer and you will find enlightenment.

LWW
05-31-2011, 05:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Only Jimmy Carter, had been re-elected</div></div>You are right. The reason is because inflation would have been so high that no one could afford anything that used foreign oil. Thank goodness that terrorist appeaser is building houses for the needy now instead of ruining our country.

eg8r </div></div>

Startling lack of knowledge on display here. Foreign oil is the same price as domestic oil, thanks to the deregulation in that market Carter started to phase out, and which Reagan accelerated.

</div></div>

No it isn't as oil comes in different grades, however comparable quality oil is the same on the world markets ... not counting gubmint protectionism and price fixing in local areas.

LWW
05-31-2011, 05:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[quote=LWW]Inflation is driven by monetary policy.

Economics 101 Charlotte. </div></div>

Generally true, but in the case of the late '70s, not true.

Oil either tripled or quadrupled in price at that time, spreading inflationary ripple effects throughout all economic sectors.

[/quote

Incorrect, again.

Oil rose in relation to fiat currencies. Oil in relation to hard currency has remained remarkably constant.

When gold was $35/oz petroleum was 15 barrels an oz. Today that ratio still holds. Petroleum isn't worth more ... the dollar is worth less.

eg8r
05-31-2011, 06:41 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If the point was that oil would be unaffordable, that would be true of both domestic and foreign sourced oil, as there is no difference in price (which is the world market price).

</div></div>Nope, maybe it is poor wording but inflation was skyrocketing and everything was getting more expensive. If we kept him around and kept the status quo the cost of everything would be sky high including vehicles, or any type of transportation irregardless as to whether the oil was expensive.

There was a point but your shoot from the hips response without bother to actually digest what you read is where you fell on your face.

eg8r

Sev
05-31-2011, 07:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And at $100 bbl, they would be very profitable.

Can you give one logical reason why we are better off allowing other countries to produce oil, while restricting our own production?

The left loves to tell us how the shifting of manufacturing (production) overseas is killing our economy. Is oil production not a form of manufacturing? Would it not help our economy to increase our own production, even if we end up selling it overseas?

Steve </div></div>

No, oil production is not manufacturing. No commodity sector thing is manufacturing.

As to why we'd possibly prefer other oil used first, that seems obvious-- we could use up all the reasonably available oil here, and be left only with the unreasonable (i.e., costly, cumbersome, environmentally damaging, etc.) oil, more reliant than ever on foreign sources of the good oil.

People don't talk about it, but the slurry style prospecting necessary for getting out the shale and tar sands oil, and probably the coal, requires a lot of water that is in dwindling and near term short supply. </div></div>

If memory serves we have oceans full of it. Desalinization does exist you know.

Sev
05-31-2011, 07:45 PM
The US should take its Oil off the market.

moblsv
05-31-2011, 07:52 PM
Tear down these Solar Panels.

Sev
05-31-2011, 07:53 PM
Good idea. They only have a 20 year lifespan.

Aenon
06-01-2011, 12:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: moblsv</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Tear down these Solar Panels. </div></div>

How is the idea to use cycle or hybrid cars?

LWW
06-01-2011, 04:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: moblsv</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Tear down these Solar Panels. </div></div>

How many do you have?

Gayle in MD
06-01-2011, 06:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And at $100 bbl, they would be very profitable.

Can you give one logical reason why we are better off allowing other countries to produce oil, while restricting our own production?

The left loves to tell us how the shifting of manufacturing (production) overseas is killing our economy. Is oil production not a form of manufacturing? Would it not help our economy to increase our own production, even if we end up selling it overseas?

Steve </div></div>

No, oil production is not manufacturing. No commodity sector thing is manufacturing.

As to why we'd possibly prefer other oil used first, that seems obvious-- we could use up all the reasonably available oil here, and be left only with the unreasonable (i.e., costly, cumbersome, environmentally damaging, etc.) oil, more reliant than ever on foreign sources of the good oil.

People don't talk about it, but the slurry style prospecting necessary for getting out the shale and tar sands oil, and probably the coal, requires a lot of water that is in dwindling and near term short supply. </div></div>



From your other post, Sofla, I have to disagree that we couldn't have been off foreign oil by now, if our country had stayed with Carter's push to invest our money in research and investment, in the field of renewables, and promoting conservation efforts, given how much energy has been wasted by failing to subsidize conservation, instead of giving the money to the American Oil Cartel, IOW, tax cuts that ushered in higher demand, for less oil production, and more R & D, in renewables, Solar, Wind, maintaining higher Cafe' Standards, not to mention, investments in our suberbs, and cities in high speed rail. JOBS JOBS JOBS!


Battery research is bringing us into a phase of amazing opportunities, according to my reading. One might ask, "Who killed the electric car?" /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

IMHO, We could have been the global leaders in R & D, long, long ago....instead of being the Grand Oil Party's bonus bank,and for what???? given we all know by now (ah, that is all but the right) the growing threat of Climate Change, additional health costs, due to the impact of pollution on our collective health, and the limited nature of Oil.

I have been reading about recent developments in solar, battery cells, and wind, which I find extremely exciting. In fact, solar, IMHO, is coming into its phase, of pushing market money in that direction, which will, of course, produce its own market demand, evetually.

IMO, this could all have been happening, long ago, had we continued on the path, the general direction, which President Carter, tried to established.

Just imagine, if we had invested in that direction, all of the years we've been blowing our money, fighting wars in the M.E., taking care of our wounded, and the horrible, wasteful costs of war, not to mention the grudges promoted, and the environemental damages.

I am a great believer, in American "Can Do."

Additionally:



From this post, having read all of it, your words, and the quote, all I can say is.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can you give one logical reason why we are better off allowing other countries to produce oil, </div></div>


BWA HA HA HA!!!


Stunning!

G.

Gayle in MD
06-01-2011, 06:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: moblsv</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Tear down these Solar Panels. </div></div>


/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif Exactly!

Love a man who reads.... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Gayle in MD
06-01-2011, 06:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thank goodness that terrorist appeaser is building houses for the needy now instead of ruining our country.
</div></div>

eg8r </div></div>

You're not being fair, at all, and BTW, most in our country don't agree with you, the majority, give the President high marks, in foreign affairs.

The man who did what Bush forgot about, admitted he didn't even think about, cut the head off the snake, al Qaeda, can hardly be fairly accused of being a terrorist appeaser, unless of course, it's just more RW BS.

G.

Sev
06-01-2011, 06:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And at $100 bbl, they would be very profitable.

Can you give one logical reason why we are better off allowing other countries to produce oil, while restricting our own production?

The left loves to tell us how the shifting of manufacturing (production) overseas is killing our economy. Is oil production not a form of manufacturing? Would it not help our economy to increase our own production, even if we end up selling it overseas?

Steve </div></div>

No, oil production is not manufacturing. No commodity sector thing is manufacturing.

As to why we'd possibly prefer other oil used first, that seems obvious-- we could use up all the reasonably available oil here, and be left only with the unreasonable (i.e., costly, cumbersome, environmentally damaging, etc.) oil, more reliant than ever on foreign sources of the good oil.

People don't talk about it, but the slurry style prospecting necessary for getting out the shale and tar sands oil, and probably the coal, requires a lot of water that is in dwindling and near term short supply. </div></div>



From your other post, Sofla, I have to disagree that we couldn't have been off foreign oil by now, if our country had stayed with Carter's push to invest our money in research and investment, in the field of renewables, and promoting conservation efforts, given how much energy has been wasted by failing to subsidize conservation, instead of giving the money to the American Oil Cartel, IOW, tax cuts that ushered in higher demand, for less oil production, and more R & D, in renewables, Solar, Wind, maintaining higher Cafe' Standards, not to mention, investments in our suberbs, and cities in high speed rail. JOBS JOBS JOBS!


Battery research is bringing us into a phase of amazing opportunities, according to my reading. One might ask, "Who killed the electric car?" /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

IMHO, We could have been the global leaders in R & D, long, long ago....instead of being the Grand Oil Party's bonus bank,and for what???? given we all know by now (ah, that is all but the right) the growing threat of Climate Change, additional health costs, due to the impact of pollution on our collective health, and the limited nature of Oil.

I have been reading about recent developments in solar, battery cells, and wind, which I find extremely exciting. In fact, solar, IMHO, is coming into its phase, of pushing market money in that direction, which will, of course, produce its own market demand, evetually.

IMO, this could all have been happening, long ago, had we continued on the path, the general direction, which President Carter, tried to established.

Just imagine, if we had invested in that direction, all of the years we've been blowing our money, fighting wars in the M.E., taking care of our wounded, and the horrible, wasteful costs of war, not to mention the grudges promoted, and the environemental damages.

I am a great believer, in American "Can Do."

Additionally:



From this post, having read all of it, your words, and the quote, all I can say is.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can you give one logical reason why we are better off allowing other countries to produce oil, </div></div>


BWA HA HA HA!!!


Stunning!

G. </div></div>

Since your so well informed why dont you explain how quantum dots are produced and actually operate.

pooltchr
06-01-2011, 06:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">


From this post, having read all of it, your words, and the quote, all I can say is.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can you give one logical reason why we are better off allowing other countries to produce oil, </div></div>


BWA HA HA HA!!!


Stunning!

G. </div></div>

Without going back, I believe you cut that quote short. Can you give a logical reason why we allow foreign countries to continue to produce oil, and even help them financially, while at the same time, restrict our own oil production? How does that reduce our dependence on foreign oil?

I also note that he either chose to ignore the question, or didn't have a valid answer. So since you jumped in on that, why don't you explain it to us?

Steve

Sev
06-01-2011, 06:30 AM
Your expecting a wonker to step up?

pooltchr
06-01-2011, 08:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your expecting a wonker to step up? </div></div>

Just offering the opportunity.

Steve

eg8r
06-01-2011, 08:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You're not being fair, at all, and BTW, most in our country don't agree with you, the majority, give the President high marks, in foreign affairs.

The man who did what Bush forgot about, admitted he didn't even think about, cut the head off the snake, al Qaeda, can hardly be fairly accused of being a terrorist appeaser, unless of course, it's just more RW BS.
</div></div>Did you just jump from talking about the terrorist appeaser to Obama? Why the subject change? This thread is about Carter. When did Obama start building houses for the needy?

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-01-2011, 08:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You're not being fair, at all, and BTW, most in our country don't agree with you, the majority, give the President high marks, in foreign affairs.

The man who did what Bush forgot about, admitted he didn't even think about, cut the head off the snake, al Qaeda, can hardly be fairly accused of being a terrorist appeaser, unless of course, it's just more RW BS.
</div></div>Did you just jump from talking about the terrorist appeaser to Obama? Why the subject change? This thread is about Carter. When did Obama start building houses for the needy?

eg8r </div></div>

The terrorist appeasers were Ronald Reagan, and both Bush's.

Not Carter.

Not Clinton.

Not Obama.

Ever heard of arms, for hostages?

eg8r
06-01-2011, 08:54 AM
Carter is the grand-daddy of terrorist appeasing. He sucks at the teat every chance he can.

eg8r

LWW
06-01-2011, 01:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And at $100 bbl, they would be very profitable.

Can you give one logical reason why we are better off allowing other countries to produce oil, while restricting our own production?

Steve </div></div>

Because all the bubbas in fly over country must learn their places, the goal of this regime ... and of the US far left for decades ... is to humble America and turn it into yet another totalitarian cesspool.

Gayle in MD
06-02-2011, 11:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Carter is the grand-daddy of terrorist appeasing. He sucks at the teat every chance he can.

eg8r </div></div>

Jimmy Carter, cut our foriegn oil imports in half, during his administration.

He also negotiated one of the most enduring peace Accords, in our history, between Egypt and Israel.

Carter was thrown out for the feel good Ronald Reagan, who, among other thing, promoted Amnesty for illegals, which brought more of them flowing across our borders, for decades, by the droves!

Carter was thrown out because of the inflation caused directly or indirectly by oil costs.

Carter tried to warn us of the foreign threats to which we would be at risk going forward, if we did not invest in conservation, and R & D, to break our addiction, on foreign oil.

Carter told the truth, Reagan lied, Arms for hostages, he lied.
REagan had to raise taxes six times, to dig out of his mess, and still left a recession in his wake, which Bush one inherited.

bush one, had to raise taxes, remember, "REad my lips" which he had to go back on?

These Repiglicans are the first ever, to refuse to raise taxes, and the first ever to deny that we have a revenue problem.

IDIOTS!

Most have seen the disastrous results, of Reagan's administration, for what it was, all except for the Right, and Republicans, who still refuse to admit tht his economic policies, caused a recession, and even Bush One, clled his economic policies VOODOO ECONOMICS.

Now, Even Reagan's former budget director, says that he warned Reagan, that tax cuts do not produce jobs, nor do they stimulate the economy, nor do they pay for themselves, in any way.

David Stockton was right!!!

Ronald REagans policies, followed by Bush-Bush, grew government, and caused more debt than the last three dEmocratic pesidents, combined.

Bush alone, borrowed more money than all previous administrations, combined.

Bush alone, is at fault for the vast majority of our current deficits!

Not President Obama!

G.

If you are looking for demons, they're easy to find.


[quote] Last GOP administration acted like criminals
By
Published: March 23, 2011

If you get your news from the many propaganda-type news outlets they will tell you that Barack Obama caused the $13 trillion national debt. They will tell you that Ronald Reagan was our greatest president. So letís start with Reagan.

When Reagan took office, the national debt was $907.7 billion. When Reagan left office debt was $3.23 trillion. When George Bush left office, debt was $4.411 trillion. When Bill Clinton left office debt was $5.66 trillion. When George W. Bush left office, the debt was about $10 trillion and growing fast.

Under Obama the total is $13 trillion or so, under the Republicans the national debt went up $10 trillion, under the Democrats the national debt went up $3 trillion dollars. These numbers are close to facts, not propaganda.

The Iraq War: the saddest of all in this short period of history. In my opinion, because of lies, W. Bush and Cheney were able to commit genocide on hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people. The murder of 4,429 U.S. military persons, 32,046 wounded, of which about 14,000 are blind, have severe burns or amputated limbs, and 200,000 have traumatic brain injuries.

To instill integrity back into Americaís government W. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rowe must be charged and brought before the world court and be tried for crimes against humanity. Instead they are writing books and collecting blood money for the death and pain they caused against American military and Iraq families.

Earl L. Gillespie
Atkins, Va.

eg8r
06-02-2011, 11:59 AM
Wow, you really have bought into all the bull. Oh well.

eg8r

pooltchr
06-02-2011, 12:07 PM
Nobody ever said she was very bright!


Steve