View Full Version : Budget Surplus!!!
Secretariat
08-05-2008, 10:49 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080805/wl_mcclatchy/3010139
Iraq's oil profits huge while U.S. shoulders reconstruction, GAO says
By Kevin G. Hall, McClatchy Newspapers
Tue Aug 5
WASHINGTON — Iraq has benefited handsomely from this year's surge in oil prices and is well-positioned financially to shoulder a greater share of its own economic and security needs, the U.S. government's accounting watchdog concluded in a report released Tuesday.
In its report on efforts to stabilize and reconstruct Iraq , the Government Accountability Office steered clear of the politics of who pays for what. But it left little doubt that Iraq , which racked up $32.9 billion in oil earnings from January through June, can afford to pay more for its own reconstruction.
The GAO estimates that Iraq will earn $67 billion to $79 billion in oil sales this year, twice the average annual amount of revenue that it generated from oil sales from 2005 through 2007. This windfall comes despite the fact that Iraq is still struggling to approach pre-invasion oil-production levels.
Record high oil prices mean that Iraq's government could post a budget surplus of more than $50 billion by year's end. From 2005 to 2007, oil exports provided 94 percent of the Iraqi government's revenues.
........
Wait, a minute...what was our budget surplus? And why are we paying the reconstruction costs for a country that has a 50 billion surplus?
PaceAdvantage
08-06-2008, 04:09 AM
Huh? I thought Bush was stealing all the oil? Why do you confuse me with such facts?
I thought this whole Iraq thing was an oil grab? Now you're telling me actual Iraqis are making money off of their own oil?
Again, huh?
Secretariat
08-07-2008, 01:23 AM
Huh? I thought Bush was stealing all the oil? Why do you confuse me with such facts?
I thought this whole Iraq thing was an oil grab? Now you're telling me actual Iraqis are making money off of their own oil?
Again, huh?
My God, Obama was right...you really don't get it.
JustRalph
08-07-2008, 07:02 AM
My God, Obama was right...you really don't get it.
nope, I think he does get it. And the "it" is you............
What's wrong with this picture?
WE send 12 billion a month to a nation with a SURPLUS?????
I'm no rocket scientist, but this is just 100% unacceptable.:mad::mad::mad:
IBCNU
08-07-2008, 03:00 PM
So much for the "No Blood for Oil" propaganda line, huh?
I want to hold Bush to ALL the promises he made back then, and that includes the cost, the cheap gas......the whole enchilada.
Things are better there now - time to spend our money at home.
I'm not asking that they repay us, but it high time to stop funding them. Part of thier bright new future is that THEY take responsibility for themselves.
PaceAdvantage
08-09-2008, 02:33 AM
My God, Obama was right...you really don't get it.Please, enlighten me. What does the far-left mean by "Iraq was nothing but an oil grab in order for Bush, Cheney and their buddies to get rich off of Iraq's oil."
Your thread here seems to seriously contradict this often-heard mantra, so perhaps you could explain exactly what it is I'm not "getting."
You seriously can't believe that we are suddenly going to switch gears and talk about your little "Budget Suplus" with this 800-pound gorilla (Iraq "oil grab") sitting in the corner, do you?
The fact that they are making huge profits would seem to dis-spell that oil grab nonsense.
wonatthewire1
08-09-2008, 11:24 AM
The fact that they are making huge profits would seem to dis-spell that oil grab nonsense.
yep - so when does the Bushwacker head over to Iraq with the bill so we can recoup some money?
I don't think that 3/4 of the guys that are going to benefit from the no bid contracts for the oil fields (France's Total, British Petro, and Dutch/Brit Royal Dutch) are going to be forking over a lot of cash.
Plus, we don't know what "connections" have already been made in the background for politicians (if any). I own shares in BP and Royal Dutch, start pumping boys!
Secretariat
08-09-2008, 12:14 PM
Please, enlighten me. What does the far-left mean by "Iraq was nothing but an oil grab in order for Bush, Cheney and their buddies to get rich off of Iraq's oil."
Your thread here seems to seriously contradict this often-heard mantra, so perhaps you could explain exactly what it is I'm not "getting."
You seriously can't believe that we are suddenly going to switch gears and talk about your little "Budget Suplus" with this 800-pound gorilla (Iraq "oil grab") sitting in the corner, do you?
My God Obama was right. I guess you haven't seen Exxon Mobil's profits lately, or KBR or Halliburton's profitterring off of Iraq, or the amount of no bid contracts to some of their buddies. I suppose you've not seen the contracts being given to GW's big oil friends in Iraq (not bid). There was more concern on the invasion of Iraq qith the oil fields than the people.
I am in awe that you still don't get it. btw.. who is the Iraqi oil minister? Yep, none other than one of the key puppets in the grab - the great weapons of mass distraction pontiicator. Ahmad Chalabi!!!!
It is mind boggling to me that you still cannot see this. And why do you think Iraq has billions of dollars stashed away of American taxpayer money, and GW is not asking that they pay for their own reconstruction costs, or why doesn't he ask that their oil revenues pay for it? Pretty damn simple.
PaceAdvantage
08-09-2008, 08:11 PM
It's not that "I don't get it...."
It's that you are changing the rules mid-game. I'm sticking with the original plan, the one that said we went to Iraq to steal their oil.
It's obvious from your post here that we aren't stealing anything.
And I'd like to ask you another question. How much do you think the Iraq war contributed to the increase in oil prices?
The invasion started in early 2003. In fact, shortly after the invasion, oil prices dropped and then subsequently traded in a tight range until mid-2004 when they eclipsed recent prior highs.
I don't recall any major disruptions in the flow or production of oil, do you? It's evident from your own posts that Iraq is producing oil, and despite all the FALSE media claims that WAR WITH IRAN was imminent, no war has come to pass.
So I ask you Secretariat, what is the Iraq war premium that you would place on a barrel of oil? Do you think the Iraq war premium is greater than say the China premium or the worldwide increase in demand?
How about all these damn SUVs that invaded America over the past ten or so years?
I sense that you are going to blame almost the entire rise in oil prices from 2003 onward on the Iraq war....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Oil_Prices_Medium_Term.jpg
Secretariat
08-09-2008, 11:37 PM
It's not that "I don't get it...."
I'm afraid it is.
It's that you are changing the rules mid-game. I'm sticking with the original plan, the one that said we went to Iraq to steal their oil.
I didnt say that was the only reason. But it most certainly is one.
It's obvious from your post here that we aren't stealing anything.
More proof you don't get it.
And I'd like to ask you another question. How much do you think the Iraq war contributed to the increase in oil prices?
The invasion started in early 2003. In fact, shortly after the invasion, oil prices dropped and then subsequently traded in a tight range until mid-2004 when they eclipsed recent prior highs.
I don't recall any major disruptions in the flow or production of oil, do you? It's evident from your own posts that Iraq is producing oil, and despite all the FALSE media claims that WAR WITH IRAN was imminent, no war has come to pass.
As to Iran, things can change quickly. And since you like quoting wikipedia I'l let them answer for me.
"2003
Instability in oil producing nations helped boost U.S. crude oil prices to an average of $31 a barrel in 2003, up 19% from the average in 2002.[60] The U.S.-led 2003 invasion of Iraq was a significant event for oil markets because of Iraq's large oil reserves.[61] The price of oil rose in the months running up to the invasion in March. Prices dropped in mid-2003, and several observers attributed this to the perception that the armed conflict would come to a quick resolution. The conflict coincided with an increase in global demand for petroleum, but it also reduced Iraq's current oil production, and has commonly been blamed in part for oil price increases since."
2004
As a direct consequence of the Iraq War that followed the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the oil production capacity of Iraq was cut from more than three to two million barrels per day.
Mid 2005
On March 16, 2005, the price surpassed the October 2004 high of $55.17 to close at $56.46. In April 2005 the price began to fall, reaching $53.32 on April 9. It then reversed course and headed to an all time high of $58.28, driven mainly by lingering concerns of a prolonged weak dollar.
2005–2006 increases
Oil production in Iraq continued to decline as result of the ongoing conflict, decreasing to an output of just 1 million barrels per day (160,000 m³/d).[
2007
It should be remembered that some of this trend in prices is partly due to the slide of the dollar against other currencies. Measured in Euro for example, as the dollar has been falling steadily, the price of oil appears much less volatile. This results in worldwide price gains being relatively mild, but as the dollar loses its value against the euro, oil prices in the United States rise because they are priced in dollars.
2008
Oil prices surpassed $103 a barrel February 29, 2008 as continued weakness in the U.S. dollar and the prospect of lower Federal funds rates attracted fresh capital to the oil market.[90]
Oil prices continued to rise to $104 on March 3, 2008 continued by the weakness in the United States dollar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_price_increases_of_2004_and_2005
One can see from the above that the Iraqi War had a significant impact on the price of oil. The cost of the war and continued indebtedness has forced us to borrow more money leading further to the continued devaluation of the dollar another aspect of the price rises.
And as to the money grab:
Why is it that the top 15 oil and gas CEO's saw average pay increases of more than 50 percent in 2005 over 2004?
This is why the oil industry gave 2.6 million to GW's 2004 relection campaign.
So I ask you Secretariat, what is the Iraq war premium that you would place on a barrel of oil? Do you think the Iraq war premium is greater than say the China premium or the worldwide increase in demand?
How about all these damn SUVs that invaded America over the past ten or so years?
I sense that you are going to blame almost the entire rise in oil prices from 2003 onward on the Iraq war....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Oil_Prices_Medium_Term.jpg
Well, certainly the devaluation of the dollar plays a big impact on oil prices which the Iraq War has contributed to. The love of globalization which has helped China's economy and subsequently their need for oil has contributed to our plight. And of course the SUV's and the continued free market hands off CAFE standards have effected oil prices as well.
But the beginning of this goes with the Iraq War. It created an instability in the MidEast oil nations which exits today. It forced us to borrow massive amounts from commie China while Bush pursued tax cuts for the rich. It requires a lot of oil and gas to run continued armed operations abroad for five + years (a war longer than WW 2). There are multiple reasons, but the Iraq War began this process.
I can't post this because it's too lengthy, but the title is:
OIL INDUSTRY MAIN BENEFICIARY OF IRAQ WAR
The United States House of Representative
Jan 11, 2007
"Rep. McDermott [D-WA]: Mr. Speaker, the American people have not received very much information about a major issue in and around the Iraq war, and the oil industry would like to keep it...
The number one Iraq story for all of 2006 on AlterNet, which is an Internet-based news and opinion site, was a two-part series by a reporter, Joshua Holland, entitled: "Bush's Petro-Cartel Almost Has Iraq's Oil."
Last Sunday, The Independent carried stories with these headlines: "Future of Iraq: The Spoils of War, How the West Will Make a Killing on Iraqi Oil Riches." And "Blood and Oil: How the West Will Profit from Iraq's Most Precious Commodity."
Members of Congress are limited in how much information we can enter into the record at one time, so I will enter into the record The Independent story. I will also encourage every American to seek out and read the complete AlterNet story, which is available online.
These investigative reports paint a disturbing picture and raise troubling questions about big oil's attempting to steal the oil wealth and resources of the Iraqi people. From the beginning of the Iraq invasion, more moderate voices, especially overseas, questioned whether the ulterior motive behind toppling Saddam Hussein was a grab for Iraqi oil. In this scenario, democracy is a by-product of oil production, not the real reason for military action in Iraq.
Gaining access to the oil wealth of Iraq has had oil industries salivating for years. Gaining control of that oil wealth would be a prize beyond compare for the oil industry. Iraq has the third largest oil reserves in the world, and there are many oil geologists who believe that vast additional oil reserves are just waiting to be discovered in Iraq's western desert. They call it the Holy Grail, and some believe the untapped riches could propel Iraq from third to first place in the world's oil reserves."
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=110-h20070111-43&person=400262
"Despite U.S. and British denials that oil was a war aim, American troops were detailed to secure oil facilities as they fought their way to Baghdad in 2003. And while former defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld shrugged off the orgy of looting after the fall of Saddam's statue in Baghdad, the Oil Ministry--alone of all the seats of power in the Iraqi capital--was under American guard."
And the real spike in prices occurred after the dems took congress, and dropped back down when they went on recces. :lol:
Sec,
Excellent post. Unfortunately the response from the PA off-topic high-fivers will be kneejerk at best. Look at Toms' immediate answer. I have indicated many times Democratic control does not yet exist. Republicans have obstructed the peoples business as never before. However, good chance a filibuster proof Democratic congress will be elected this November.
I wish you would change your mind about voting for McCain. Your strategy may be TOO long term. My feeling is that McCain is dangerous. Earlier in 2000, maybe I could have accepted the possibility of a McCain presidency. Recently I find his lapses particularly on foreign policy issues very, very troubling. His finger on the button? Scary. Obama may be a bit of an unknown, but I believe with a good chance of a Dem controlled congress and Obama in the WH, the long term pospects of social justice will be enhanced. Waiting out a McCain presidency may be TOO dangerous. The repugs will to do further permanent damage. Your strategy with McCain elected will only jeopardize and continue to destabilize the situation in the MID EAST.
BTW, there may be another reason other than simple supply and demand that oil prices have fallen recently. Due to a bill sponsored by the dems, supported by Obama, not supported by Grandpa and the bush WH. Closing the Enron loophole.
"What's happened to oil since June 22nd, that date that the Bush/McCain veto was overridden by the Democratic Congress?"
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/8/123738/1629/795/564667
skate
08-10-2008, 05:52 PM
OK ok opek
Come on now PA, get with the spelling lessons for the Ladies, will ya?
Seems as thou Iraq has some sizable fields :eek: , and we just went thru some money grab due to oil shorts.
Now it aint takin too much of a thought process to put into play, just what the high cost for oil would be infin the Iraq oil was not made available by Uncle(bossman)George or BigDickChainsaw.
equicom
08-10-2008, 06:27 PM
PA and others, I think you're getting issues a bit confused.
Why does it have to be America that profits from the invasion of Iraq by American forces? Why can't it just be that Bush, Cheney, Rummy, et al profit personally from that activity?
I'm amazed that everyone would think that all of these actions are supposed to be good for the country. I don't think any of those guys cares about anyone but themselves. Why should they give a rats that you're out of pocket, as long as they're not?
PaceAdvantage
08-10-2008, 07:13 PM
Let me ask a follow-up question then, since it seems ya'll think the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent "instability in the Middle East" accounts for about 90% of the current rise in oil prices....
What happened when the mighty Iraq invaded Iran back in the 80s? What happened to oil prices back then?
I'll give you a hint....after actual fighting started between Iran and Iraq, prices dropped! So much for that particular part of your theory....
The following graph shows that point #23 signifies the first major fighting in the Iran-Iraq war....in fact, if you read some of the stuff going on at that time, after point #23, it's mind-boggling that prices actually decreased....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Oil_price_chronology-june2007.gif
equicom
08-10-2008, 07:20 PM
Prices dropped in the 80's because the political conditions were very different. The US was also an ally of Iraq, who had the most oil.
The arabs didn't hate your guts the way they do now. That's part of the reason why prices are going up.
Another reason is that the oil companies are exploiting the situation to make more profits. Which is actually making some Americans (who own shares in those companies) very happy indeed.
PaceAdvantage
08-10-2008, 07:41 PM
The arabs didn't hate your guts the way they do now. That's part of the reason why prices are going up.Really? Terrorism against America has been going on since the early 1970s. Perhaps the Iran hostage crisis was their way of greeting us with flowers and candy and we merely misinterpreted back in 1979?
Another reason is that the oil companies are exploiting the situation to make more profits. Which is actually making some Americans (who own shares in those companies) very happy indeed.This is indeed a nice deflection of the issues at hand. Nobody should give a rats ass how much oil companies make, because nobody was crying for the oil companies when oil was far cheaper than it was today, yet they still had to spend the same relative amount of money and take the same risk to find the stuff and get it out of the ground.
Secretariat
08-10-2008, 08:16 PM
Really? Terrorism against America has been going on since the early 1970s. Perhaps the Iran hostage crisis was their way of greeting us with flowers and candy and we merely misinterpreted back in 1979?
This reveals your ignorance on this issue. He spoke of Arabs, and you speak of Iranians. I've posted the differences for you below to research.
http://www.thesimon.com/magazine/articles/telling_stories/01143_arabs_iranians_users_guide.html
This is indeed a nice deflection of the issues at hand. Nobody should give a rats ass how much oil companies make, because nobody was crying for the oil companies when oil was far cheaper than it was today, yet they still had to spend the same relative amount of money and take the same risk to find the stuff and get it out of the ground.
"Nobody should give a rats ass how much oil companies make". This reveals how out of touch you've become. Do you work for the oil companies, or at a minimum are you a big shareholder of their stock? Things have got so bad out there for the common folk that
http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/31/news/economy/poll_gas_price_blame/index.htm
Americans finger oil firms for gas runup
"The CNN/Opinion Research poll found that 68% of respondents think U.S. oil companies are a major cause behind high gas prices"
equicom
08-10-2008, 08:21 PM
Yeah, what he said.
Secretariat
08-10-2008, 08:28 PM
Sec,
Excellent post. Unfortunately the response from the PA off-topic high-fivers will be kneejerk at best. Look at Toms' immediate answer. I have indicated many times Democratic control does not yet exist. Republicans have obstructed the peoples business as never before. However, good chance a filibuster proof Democratic congress will be elected this November.
I wish you would change your mind about voting for McCain. Your strategy may be TOO long term. My feeling is that McCain is dangerous. Earlier in 2000, maybe I could have accepted the possibility of a McCain presidency. Recently I find his lapses particularly on foreign policy issues very, very troubling. His finger on the button? Scary. Obama may be a bit of an unknown, but I believe with a good chance of a Dem controlled congress and Obama in the WH, the long term pospects of social justice will be enhanced. Waiting out a McCain presidency may be TOO dangerous. The repugs will to do further permanent damage. Your strategy with McCain elected will only jeopardize and continue to destabilize the situation in the MID EAST.
BTW, there may be another reason other than simple supply and demand that oil prices have fallen recently. Due to a bill sponsored by the dems, supported by Obama, not supported by Grandpa and the bush WH. Closing the Enron loophole.
"What's happened to oil since June 22nd, that date that the Bush/McCain veto was overridden by the Democratic Congress?"
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/8/123738/1629/795/564667
Good post.
McCain? Whew....Yes, I'm still voting for him. You know my reason, and it is a calculated risk. Obviously, he is Bush light, and I do fear him dying in office. I also fear him escalating more foreign conflicts. My biggest fear is his running mate at this stage. If he were to die in office and someone like Cheney was his VP I could not vote for him obviously. If his running mate was someone like Lieberman I also could not vote for him. I realize the election of McCain will do further significant damage, and I'm banking on it. Sell short.
riskman
08-10-2008, 09:01 PM
The issue raised in this thread pissed off several members of Congress -- particularly because Bush administration officials said on the eve of the war that Iraqi oil money would pay for reconstruction.
In 2003, then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz told the House Appropriations Committee: "We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.''
Rep. Henry Waxman, D-California, said Tuesday's report "is going to make a lot of American families very angry."
"The record gas prices they are paying have turned into an economic windfall for Iraq, but the Iraqi government isn't spending the money on rebuilding," said Waxman, the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
Sen. Levin's spokeswoman Tara Andringa said the senator hopes to tighten rules governing U.S. expenditures on Iraqi reconstruction efforts in the next Pentagon authorization bill.
The Iraqi surplus has piled up even though the country's oil production has only recently matched prewar levels, according to the Brookings Institution's latest Iraq Index.
The country spent about 80 percent of its $29 billion operating budget in 2007, including public services and salaries, but only 28 percent of its $12 billion investment budget, the GAO found.
The export of crude oil accounted for 94 percent of Iraq's revenues from 2005 to 2007, the GAO reported.
So, let's see what these moronic lawmakers are saying. Even though the USA is the nation that invaded the country, with a quarter of the population either being dead, maimed, or refugees elsewhere, those Iraqis should be grateful to us and should be spending money to repair what the U.S. Government destroyed.
The nerve of those Iraq's!
PaceAdvantage
08-11-2008, 02:35 AM
This reveals your ignorance on this issue. He spoke of Arabs, and you speak of Iranians. I've posted the differences for you below to research.
http://www.thesimon.com/magazine/articles/telling_stories/01143_arabs_iranians_users_guide.html You're going to sit here and school me on the absurd and at the same time defend a poster who thinks nothing of posting racial stereotypes and slurs?
Oh, and are you trying to tell me that the Iranians (or at least those running the gov't of Iran) DON'T HATE US and have been HATING us for much longer than GWB has been around...
Are you also going to next tell me that Abu Nidal was not an Arab and was not killing Americans back in the 1970s?
equicom
08-11-2008, 07:14 PM
Something gives me the feeling that you're a Jewish guy, PA. Is that right?
Well it makes no sense that you're calling the race card on this. It's a totally ridiculous accusation. I don't mean to say that all Arabs hate all Americans, but that the Arab world *in general* definitely does hate America.
You've done nothing to endear yourselves to them, so why should it not be so. Even the "friends" you have in the ME are actually only your frinds for strategic reasons.
Anyway, long story short... please point out the "racial stereotypes and slurs" that you refer to. And IF by any remote chance you actually are able to do that (which I doubt you can *legitimately* do), then I assure you that any implied slur was completely unintentional.
If I ever do decide to slur anybody, there will not be a shadow of a doubt. There will be nothing subtle about it. But I have not done that yet, nor do I plan to.
Secretariat
08-11-2008, 07:49 PM
You're going to sit here and school me on the absurd and at the same time defend a poster who thinks nothing of posting racial stereotypes and slurs?
Oh, and are you trying to tell me that the Iranians (or at least those running the gov't of Iran) DON'T HATE US and have been HATING us for much longer than GWB has been around...
Are you also going to next tell me that Abu Nidal was not an Arab and was not killing Americans back in the 1970s?
No, I'm simply pointing out that your confusion of comparing Iranians to Arabs. It simply points to a fundamental misunderstanding of the region. No need to get defensive.
Good post.
McCain? Whew....Yes, I'm still voting for him. You know my reason, and it is a calculated risk. Obviously, he is Bush light, and I do fear him dying in office. I also fear him escalating more foreign conflicts. My biggest fear is his running mate at this stage. If he were to die in office and someone like Cheney was his VP I could not vote for him obviously. If his running mate was someone like Lieberman I also could not vote for him. I realize the election of McCain will do further significant damage, and I'm banking on it. Sell short.
I suspect as the election moves forward, you will find McCain less acceptable.
I think the debates will be very damaging and his age will show. Trusting McCain to keep a level head is the problem. Anger and overreaction does not make a foreign policy. Bush might be surpassed in overall damage by approaching senility.
I can't wait for the debates to begin!
ThEAO0lt4Dw&feature=related
I mean, I REALLY can't wait.
EpGH02DtIws&feature=related
Either can I. Keep dreaming Tom. Even loyal republicans are deserting McCain.
I seem to recall you and JR and others here not voting republican this time around. How do you think that's going to translate in november.
Suggestion. Grab your knees, Bend over backwards real hard and kiss your neocon ass buh-bye. A Democratic blow-out in congress, a close popular election, bur an electoral victory for Obama
I am a conservative, hcap, I don't grab my ankles. But don't let me stop you.
Not there's anything wrong with that. We need all political strategies represented.
Don't count your chickens before all the chads are in.
Your views are neocon. Or worse. You have posted many times your lack of concern with how many innocents we kill. McCain is much closer to your views than Obama, yet you will sit this one out as will other "conservatives".
Even the McCain crowd acknowledges Obamas oratory skills and have fashioned political ads attacking him as ONLY having those skills-but no REAL skills. The dream that McCain will do better in the debates is only that. A dream. The only way Obama gets beat is by the resurrection of some sort of swiftboating
Or the word gets out to enough people - Obama is a liar and a total fool. :lol:
PaceAdvantage
08-13-2008, 04:39 AM
Something gives me the feeling that you're a Jewish guy, PA. Is that right?No sir. What would give you that impression? Was it my bagel breath?
(For our Jewish friends who might be offended by the above comment I made, I did so with the following previous post by equicom as context:
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=564481&postcount=23)
Either you guys believe Obama will lose the debates 'cause McCain is a glorified Shakespearean gifted speaker and Obama sucks. :bang: Or Obama is too elitist and too good an Orator, and too fit, and too popular.
http://www.bartcop.com/obama-too-good.gif
Let him debate WITHOUT his monitor and we will see.
But we are talking about the content of the debate, not, uh, the, uh, uh, uh, theater.
equicom
08-13-2008, 04:07 PM
No sir. What would give you that impression? Was it my bagel breath?
I still don't get it. Bagels are offensive? Don't non-jews eat bagels?
I got that impression of you possibly being jewish, by the way, because of your reaction to my earlier comment. Clearly my words were not intended as any sort of insult, but somehow you decided to twist it into one.
For which I have no clues of your motive. I don't think I ever declared a personal war on PA at any stage, so I don't know why in the past few days you've been gathering troops on the border.
You seem to be under the impression that we're enemies or on opposing sides or something. How you arrived at that decision is something that is completely unknown to me, and I'm just putting it down to cultural differences.
skate
08-13-2008, 07:24 PM
Obambam is a Too.
prospector
08-13-2008, 08:25 PM
The only way Obama gets beat is by the resurrection of some sort of swiftboating
don't know about the word "only", but you must remember the swiftboat guys told the truth..
i say that as a proud donator to their cause and i still proudly display my "Vietnam Vets Against John Kerry" bumpersticker..
the truth will defeat obama...
Secretariat
08-14-2008, 03:45 PM
The only way Obama gets beat is by the resurrection of some sort of swiftboating
Count on it. Can you say the name Corsi?
And prospector...was what you wrote what you really beleive or satire? :bang: :bang: :bang:
PaceAdvantage
08-14-2008, 05:37 PM
Clearly my words were not intended as any sort of insult, but somehow you decided to twist it into one. Not just me. I have the emails in my inbox to prove otherwise. I was first alerted to your post via the "Report this Post" function of this message board.
Sec, you and hcap seriously underestimate the American public.
The only way?
Just not true.
But I like that you and the media are already getting your excuses lined up. The drive-by media are saying it will be the 20% of racist whites who will cause his demise.
* * * * * *
PA....where is that report button? I don't see it.
prospector
08-14-2008, 07:14 PM
Count on it. Can you say the name Corsi?
And prospector...was what you wrote what you really beleive or satire? :bang: :bang: :bang:
satire? here?
shirley you jest...
And stop calling him Shirley! ;)
Sec, you and hcap seriously underestimate the American public.
The only way?
Just not true.
But I like that you and the media are already getting your excuses lined up. The drive-by media are saying it will be the 20% of racist whites who will cause his demise.
* * * * * *
PA....where is that report button? I don't see it.Tom, you and the rest of the PA high-fivers are seriously out of touch. You underestimate the American public, and the military as well.
Military donations favor Obama over McCain
Troops donate more campaign money to Obama than McCain, despite McCain's military record
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080814/military_donations.html?.v=1
Troops serving abroad have given nearly six times as much money to Obama's presidential campaign as they have to McCain's, the Center for Responsive Politics said.
...........................
Inspector Javert??
lsbets
08-14-2008, 10:18 PM
Spitter -
I was going to say I never knew anyone in the military who actually gave money to a campaign and then I clicked on your link and saw the total who have donated to both campaign ix 1400 people. Wow, what a representative sample. :sleeping:
Javert,
Others who serve have contrary views to yours. Big surprise. Your point about representative sample may be valid. But you have to admit that even if it is not "representative" "Troops serving abroad have given nearly six times as much money to Obama's presidential campaign as they have to McCain's, the Center for Responsive Politics said. seems to indicate the majority for Obama. Previously the military tilted strongly repug. I guess your views may not be the representative sample. :eek:
BTW, these are just the $200+ donors. Since many of Obama’s donations are less, it would be interesting to see how many have donated smaller amounts.
Javert,
Here is an older study. May 6, 2008
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/05/army_militarydonors_050408w/
Military donations to anti-war candidates rise
"These donors gave the largest amounts to Rep. Ron Paul, the long-shot Republican candidate from Texas who has acknowledged defeat in the nomination process but continues to campaign, and Sen. Barack Obama, the Democrat from Illinois.
During the reporting period, Paul — a former Air Force surgeon who broke with his party to vote against the Iraq war — received the most military contributions, with $201,271.
That’s significantly more than the presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain from Arizona, who received $132,133 from military donors, according to CRP "
......Obama, meanwhile, whose opposition to invading Iraq has been a centerpiece of his campaign, has received $178,456 in military contributions"
So let's see.
Sen. John McCain received $132,133 from military donors
Sen Obama has received $178,456 in military contributions.
PaceAdvantage
08-15-2008, 11:13 AM
PA....where is that report button? I don't see it.It's under your vCash total:
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/images/buttons/green/report.gif (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/report.php?p=565732)
Secretariat
08-15-2008, 03:05 PM
I am a conservative, hcap, I don't grab my ankles.
Larry Craig said the same thing.
Those weren't his ankles he was grabbing, Sec! :lol:
Thanks PA, I wondered why everyone had one of those but me. Duh!:D
PaceAdvantage
08-16-2008, 03:23 AM
Thanks PA, I wondered why everyone had one of those but me. Duh!:DI can think of a few on here who would report their own posts, if given the opportunity....:lol: :lol:
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.