Where do the candidates stand on the issues - A guide for 2008 - Page 8

rivrrat · 05-13-08, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

That wasn't the question, but then you beg another one; how are we able to "control" the flow of Middle East Oil and Opec? Do you honestly think we "control" anything there?

Without a doubt we have some control. Not as much as we used to though, but still enough.

Quote:

The original question was this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Truth Detector
Do you have the slightest clue about how much oil the US derives from ALL Middle East oil reserves?

And I'm saying that it doesn't matter how much we derive from the ME. That's not what's important.

Quote:

How hard is it to answer honestly? I think this illustrates that those who are of Liberal/Leftist persuasion never want to answer anything directly or with any level of honesty because then it would highlight the fallacies of most of their arguments.

I'm not a liberal, or a leftist. And I don't know "how much" we derive from the ME, though I'm sure a quick search would provide me with that information. It doesn't matter to me how much we derive from the ME, therefore... I don't know. If I cared, I would care to find out.

How much we get from that area isn't what's important.

hrdman2luv · 05-16-08, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

I can see why you are a Ron Paul advocate with such a naive commentary. Let me correct one of your and many others, false arguments about our efforts in Iraq:

" if there was no oil in Iraq, our soldiers wouldn't be there."

This is false; if Saddam had never invaded his neighbor Kuwait and been defeated, and had not defied the UN resolutions for over a decade, then we would not be there.

Why is this argument so specious you may ask; because if it were only about oil we would be occupying Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and invading Iran as well?

The notion that we invaded a nation we received little oil from before or after is patently false argument by those who desperately desire to avoid the facts and truth.

The fact is, George Bush could have made the central front on terror, in Afghanistan. Remember Afghanistan? Where Osama and Al queda were/are?

We had no reason to help Kuwait.

Let me guess. You still believe in the Weapons of Mass Distruction fairy?

Ishmael · 05-22-08, 09:25 PM

@ Romney and Huckabee

ETA: All of them, actually

el_joven · 06-17-08, 05:29 PM

look at hilary v. obama and hilary v mccain...any clinotnites saying they support mccain over obama are saying, screw the issues, we want a women or we don't want a black man...that is all they are saying...perhaps, I am naive but I like to think better of americans in general...

HuckabeeLover · 07-08-08, 01:42 AM

I suppose it's surprising that Obama supports the Patriot Act.

Truth Detector · 07-09-08, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danarhea

Paul is a bona-fide Goldwater Conservative. Goldwater would have pulled us out of Vietnam, and certainly would not have escalated the war as Johnson did. Just as time has vindicated Goldwater's position on the Vietnam War, it will also vindicate Paul on his opposition to the Iraq war.

You mean Goldwater would have pulled us out of Vietnam like Nixon did?

Aren't your assertions about what Goldwater would or would not have done pure speculation? Did you live with the man and therefore have amazing insights into what he MAY have done in the War?

But wait, reality as it is wont to do, slaps us in the face and tells us that Goldwater’s policies, as are Ron Paul’s, were rejected by the MAJORITY of Americans who chose Johnson over Goldwater and therefore it is a moot issue.

But what was Goldwater’s position about Vietnam?

"Goldwater promised "a choice and not an echo." Goldwater suggested the use of tactical nuclear weapons in Vietnam if necessary. He called for deep cuts in the social programs. He also opposed much of the civil rights legislation. He suggested that Social Security become voluntary, and that Tennessee Valley Authority be sold. Johnson campaigned on a platform of continued social programs, and a limited involvement in Vietnam."

Presidential Election of 1964

What irony erupts from your convoluted politics eh?

Just as your claim about not voting for parties but just candidates. It reminds me of the 60's when the hippies argued we should not have borders and love one another, then when they tried that on communes, it erupted in to arguments, territorial claims and basically fell apart.

Truth Detector · 07-09-08, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivrrat

Without a doubt we have some control. Not as much as we used to though, but still enough.

And I'm saying that it doesn't matter how much we derive from the ME. That's not what's important.

I'm not a liberal, or a leftist. And I don't know "how much" we derive from the ME, though I'm sure a quick search would provide me with that information. It doesn't matter to me how much we derive from the ME, therefore... I don't know. If I cared, I would care to find out.

How much we get from that area isn't what's important.

The fact is you don't know much at all. The notion that Middle East oil is irrelevant is about as absurd as most of your positions on just about everything.

You claim we can control Middle East oil yet offer nothing of substance to support such a ridiculous claim. Here are some facts for you to absorb if that is even possible: We obtained only about 10% of our oil from the Middle East region prior to the Iraq invasion. Today we derive about 18% most of which still comes from Saudi Arabia. Iraq only provides about 2 to 3% of that number and Kuwait less than 1%.

If this is all about controlling oil, and most of our oil comes from Canada, Mexico and Venezuela, it continues to beg the question, why liberate Kuwait and then not reap the benefits? Why liberate Iraq and not reap the benefits?

Lastly, if you are not a Liberal or a leftist, yet tend to parrot their talking points, what are you? Please educate me as to your politics lest I keep making the same mistakes and base my opinion purely on your uninformed statements.

rivrrat · 07-09-08, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

The fact is you don't know much at all. The notion that Middle East oil is irrelevant is about as absurd as most of your positions on just about everything.

You claim we can control Middle East oil yet offer nothing of substance to support such a ridiculous claim. Here are some facts for you to absorb if that is even possible: We obtained only about 10% of our oil from the Middle East region prior to the Iraq invasion. Today we derive about 18% most of which still comes from Saudi Arabia. Iraq only provides about 2 to 3% of that number and Kuwait less than 1%.

If this is all about controlling oil, and most of our oil comes from Canada, Mexico and Venezuela, it continues to beg the question, why liberate Kuwait and then not reap the benefits? Why liberate Iraq and not reap the benefits?

No ****, sherlock. We get most of our oil from US. Where WE get OUR oil isn't the issue. The issue is controlling how, when, and how much oil other people can and will get. If we control the oil, we control the countries. We can use it as a bargaining chip, as rewards, as punishments.

Control. Do you understand the concept AT ALL?

Quote:

Lastly, if you are not a Liberal or a leftist, yet tend to parrot their talking points, what are you? Please educate me as to your politics lest I keep making the same mistakes and base my opinion purely on your uninformed statements.

What does it matter what I call myself? Personally, I don't care much for boxed up terms that invariably make people come to ignorant conclusions.

I don't belong to any political party, I don't subscribe to any ideology. I believe what I believe based on facts, merit, logic, and experience. What other people choose to box things into is irrelevant.

I think if you read my posts you'd find that I'm so-called "conservative" on some issues and so-called "liberal" on others. But I fail to see why it's relevant. It's not any more relevant than what I'm wearing at the moment, or what color my hair is. But I'd still correct you if you assumed that incorrectly too.

hrdman2luv · 07-17-08, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HuckabeeLover

I suppose it's surprising that Obama supports the Patriot Act.

It's not surpising. He also supports Homeland security, NAFTA, the War in Iraq, Afghanistan, and possible even Iran.
He supports alot of things the NEOCONS support. Which makes him a good Democrat. (like Bush, and the rest of the NEOCONS)

Obama isn't any different than McCain or Bush. I wished people would stop listening to the little sound bites of what Obama is saying and listen to the entire speech. Read the entire web-site.

fedupamerican · 09-10-08, 11:57 AM

"I'M ASKING YOU TO BELIEVE."

"Not just in my ability to bring real change to Washington.....

I'm asking you to believe in yours."

The above is from Welcome to Obama for America

For those who still do not understand what real change means and what your responsibility is to help bring change to Washington, please visit the site.

Exercise your abilities.

And don't forget to click on issues. Don't avoid them.

Fed Up American