[Ninong]

Originally Posted by NoSump

Good Idea, perhaps Al Gore can use his abundent spare time, and invent a new source of energy. For a guy who invented the internet it should be a snap.

Al Gore didn't invent the internet and he never said that he invented the internet.

At least he didn't buy a ranch as a campaign prop. I never heard of a ranch in Texas before that doesn't have any livestock at all -- not even a duck and certainly not any horses. The leader of the free world is scared to death of horses. The one time they stuck him on one for a photo op, he almost had a panic attack.

[charlie]

Originally Posted by Ninong

Al Gore didn't invent the internet and he never said that he invented the internet.

At least he didn't buy a ranch as a campaign prop. I never heard of a ranch in Texas before that doesn't have any livestock at all -- not even a duck and certainly not any horses. The leader of the free world is scared to death of horses. The one time they stuck him on one for a photo op, he almost had a panic attack.

I can live with a leader that is scared of horses, but at least he's in the right saddle all of the time.

[Ninong]

Is it any wonder that we are not the most popular country in the world in the eyes of many Iranians. After all, we did overthrow their democratically elected prime minister in 1953. In his place, we installed a dictator who ruled them with an iron hand for the next 25 years, thanks to one of the most terrifying and torturous secret police in the world, the Savak. Maybe that's why their 1979 revolution was so anti-American.

And maybe they're still mad at us for backing our other dictator friend, Saddam Hussein, in his war against them.

Maybe we wouldn't have to spread democracy in the Middle East if we hadn't helped wipe it out half a century ago. Maybe we would be better liked in the developing world if we didn't have a history of supporting dictators. Maybe we are partly to blame for the mess we find ourselves in over there?

P.S. -- I did an online search and it appears that the CIA is finally declassifying what few remaining documents they still have on Operation Ajax: http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q...-US&FORM=CVRE2

After nearly five decades of denials, the United States finally officially admitted involvement in the 1953 coup when the U.S. Secretary of State included the following statement in a speech in 2000:

In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Massadegh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs.

Moreover, during the next quarter century, the United States and the West gave sustained backing to the Shah's regime. Although it did much to develop the country economically, the Shah's government also brutally repressed political dissent.

As President Clinton has said, the United States must bear its fair share of responsibility for the problems that have arisen in U.S.-Iranian relations. Even in more recent years, aspects of U.S. policy towards Iraq, during its conflict with Iran appear now to have been regrettably shortsighted, especially in light our subsequent experiences with Saddam Hussein. http://www.aghayan.com/alb031700.htm

[schrocat]

Originally Posted by NoSump

Good Idea, perhaps Al Gore can use his abundent spare time, and invent a new source of energy. For a guy who invented the internet it should be a snap.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.htm

Including this one just in case...

[NoSump]

Originally Posted by Ninong

Maybe we wouldn't have to spread democracy in the Middle East if we hadn't helped wipe it out half a century ago. Maybe we would be better liked in the developing world if we didn't have a history of supporting dictators. Maybe we are partly to blame for the mess we find ourselves in over there?

I get it.....America = bad things (global warming, war, poverty,etc.); Any other nation = good (peaceful loving people who just want to be free from American "interference in their lives). If your world view is that your own nation is always wrong, there really isn't much for you and I to discuss - I fundamentaly disagree with your premise. The U.S. has the power to act in ways that further it's interests (most of the rest of the world does not have that power - thank god). It's a complex world, "what is in our interest" is constantly evolving based on changing circumstances.

Freeing Europe and the world from the threat of facism in WWII was a noble cause. The fact that it also ensured the U.S. stable world trade markets does not diminish the achievment.

If we acted strictly on the basis of self interest, with no overiding values, we would simply send a division down to Venezuela and "acquire" their oil reserves- if that did occur, we would not be having this discussion about oil prices in the U.S,

Given the scope of U.S. economic and military power, our restraint in the pursuit of our national interests is unprecedented in world history.

In terms of the George Bush is afraid of horses but crafts a texas rancher image silliness - Algore grew up in a hotel room in Washinton, D.C. and yet attempted to package himself as a 'down home Tenesseeian". Let me quess, you'll attach a couple of theads that say that he really did'nt grow up in a hotel, and in fact grew up in a shack in the hills.

Sorry, but I get cranky around tax time.

Chuck

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by NoSump

I get it.....America = bad things (global warming, war, poverty,etc.); Any other nation = good (peaceful loving people who just want to be free from American "interference in their lives). If your world view is that your own nation is always wrong, there really isn't much for you and I to discuss - I fundamentaly disagree with your premise. The U.S. has the power to act in ways that further it's interests (most of the rest of the world does not have that power - thank god). It's a complex world, "what is in our interest" is constantly evolving based on changing circumstances.

You have no idea what my world view is. Why don't you address specific issues instead of resorting to childish name calling as you did in response to my posts about Enron, etc. Why can't you address the statement made? All of the statements that I have made are true, painful as they may be. Lets face reality instead of living in a make believe world.

Freeing Europe and the world from the threat of facism in WWII was a noble cause. The fact that it also ensured the U.S. stable world trade markets does not diminish the achievment.

OK. So how does this fit into this discussion. Have I ever said anything negative about our efforts in World War II? Just because we fought against fascism in the 1940's doesn't absolve us from our support of fascism in Latin America in the following decades.

Given the scope of U.S. economic and military power, our restraint in the pursuit of our national interests is unprecedented in world history.

Should we expect anything less? Lets not crow about the sunrise!

And "our restraint" has been sorely lacking in the past few years. The Bush administration led us into an unnecessary war under false pretenses that has caused more harm than good. Hopefully it will all work out for the better in the end but that is still to be determined.

This administration has been a disaster for our relationships with our traditional allies as well as the non-aligned nations. It's intervention in Iraq has NOT helped in the war on terror. In fact, it has made the whole mess that much worse. We should have gone after Osama bin Laden instead of Saddam Hussein.

And speaking of restraint, since when did it become fashionable to debate the use of torture by American forces? The very idea that we should even think about using torture on prisoners is abhorrent in the extreme. That is a line that free people in a democratic society do NOT cross. And, according to the CIA and the FBI, torture is rarely productive anyway. The idea that some media personalities who are held in high regard by this administration should refer to abuse and torture of prisoners as nothing more than fraternity hazing is amazing to me.

Since when did torture become acceptable to Americans?!?

In terms of the George Bush is afraid of horses but crafts a texas rancher image silliness - Algore grew up in a hotel room in Washinton, D.C. and yet attempted to package himself as a 'down home Tenesseeian". Let me quess, you'll attach a couple of theads that say that he really did'nt grow up in a hotel, and in fact grew up in a shack in the hills.

Al Gore grew up with a silver spoon in his mouth. We all know that. George Bush grew up with a silver foot in his mouth. (OK, so I stole that from Ann Richards. )

[NoSump]

[quote=Ninong]You have no idea what my world view is. Why don't you address specific issues instead of resorting to childish name calling as you did in response to my posts about Enron, etc. Why can't you address the statement made? All of the statements that I have made are true, painful as they may be. Lets face reality instead of living in a make believe world.


Now, now methinks you are growing a tad bit testy! I don't see anywhere in my post where any names were applied to you. Although "childish' would appear to fit the description of name calling (I've been called many things, but that's a new one - at 49, I kinda like the concept). My only knowledge of your views is based on your statements - and they paint a pretty clear picture of what you think.

In terms of the truth of your statements - yes, you are skilled at presenting factual information (as a retiree, you clearly have a lot of time to pull resouces from the net, and no doubt you are well read/educated). The problem is that you then draw inferences from those facts that fit your political idealogy. There is nothing wrong with that, just don't then claim that your inferences are fact.

This has been fun but, I'm plan to visit my accountant (my financial proctologist), sign some paperwork, and in protest take the rest of the day off - go to Peter Lugers in NY and have the biggest damn steak on the menu.

Have a good day, and try not to take these internt political discussions too seriously - I don't.



Chuck

[schrocat]

Lugers...
Why don't you just go to Nathans.

Old Homestead is so much better.

[NoSump]

Originally Posted by schrocat

Lugers...
Why don't you just go to Nathans.

Old Homestead is so much better.

I like the atmosphere at Lugers (then again I like Nathans hot dogs too). You're right about Old Homestead (down on 14th Street), it does serve better steaks.
The Palm is pretty good too.

Chuck

[SPasse]

NoSump,

Given the scope of U.S. economic and military power, our restraint in the pursuit of our national interests is unprecedented in world history.

That statement is pretty hard to argue with, especially since the fall of the Soviet Empire. If NAZI Germany even came close to our present relative world preeminence, we would all be goose-stepping today.

Regards,

Scott

[NoSump]

Originally Posted by SPASSE

NoSump,

Given the scope of U.S. economic and military power, our restraint in the pursuit of our national interests is unprecedented in world history.

That statement is pretty hard to argue with, especially since the fall of the Soviet Empire. If NAZI Germany even came close to our present relative world preeminence, we would all be goose-stepping today.

Regards,

Scott

Scott:

Despite all of the sanctimony, France, on the limited occasions that nation has been in a "power" position, has shown no reluctance to abuse power. The most recent example is the heavy handed way in which it attempted to bully the nations of Eastern Europe into falling in line in resistance to Gulf WarII (by holding EU membership over their heads).

[Ninong]

All of my predictions in this thread have come to pass, only sooner than I expected.

Originally Posted by Ninong

I think we will see $60 a barrel oil by early this summer. We may see $75 a barrel oil by sometime next summer.

We achieved both of those milestones as predicted. The price of a barrel of oil is now more than double what it was when I made that prediction in March 2005.

Originally Posted by Ninong

What will we see first? $100 a barrel oil or $1000 an oz. gold? I think we will see both within the next five years.

It took slightly less than three years. We now have $111.00/bbl crude oil and gold at $1,001.00/oz. Three years ago, when I made that prediction, gold was $425.00/oz and crude oil was around $50.00/bbl.

During the reign of George W. Bush:

Annual Average Domestic Crude Oil Prices
2001 = $23.00
2002 = $22.81
2003 = $27.69
2004 = $37.66
2005 = $50.04
2006 = $58.30
2007 = $64.20
2008 YTD = >$100.00

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by SPasse

Gas prices at ~$2.00 a gallon may be a good thing for the US.

Ah, March 2005, the good old days. If $2.00 a gallon gas was a "good thing" for the U.S., does that mean $4.00 a gallon gas is even better? Because that's what we will have in a few months.

[SPasse]

Ninong,

The concept behind the idea that $2 gallon gas could be good for the US in the long run was based on the premise that imported oil need to be expensive enough that it was economically viable for the development of alternative energy sources.

This also presupposed that the national government that was/is in power was too shortsighted to sponsor the development of alternative energy for strategic /national interests.

Now what is going on right now is another discussion.

Regards,

Scott

[Ninong]

Scott,

My only point in bring up your post from three years ago was to point out that back then we considered $2.00/gal gas to be outrageous. Today we can look back on $2.00/gal gas as "the good old days."

Gas in the San Francisco Bay Area is already right at $4.00/gal and it's as high as $5.20/gal for regular along the Big Sur Coast.

[SPasse]

Ninong,

I commute 70 miles each weekday (round trip) so the current “$3” gas is costing me an arm and a leg.

The good news is that I am not driving one of those “10 miles per gallon” SUVs or pickups that are so popular around here…

The “magic” gas price is one that is high enough to encourage conservation and alternative energy research but not high enough to cause too much inflation.

$2 gas is looking awful good these days.

Regards,

Scott

[almostdiva]

Scott,

$3.00/gallon would be FABULOUS. Unfortunately, diesel (I drive a lot, so I drive a diesel VW Beetle) in and around Philadelphia is around $4.15 - $4.20 as of this weekend. If you go across the river to South Jersey, you can get it for $3.89. Yes, I do get around 45 mpg highway (which is what most of my driving is), but the tank only holds 14 gallons, and it now costs me $40 to fill.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by SPasse

$2 gas is looking awful good these days.

Those were the days, my friend, we thought they'd never end...

I like pulling up this thread to see what we were saying about this topic just three years ago. If you really want to cry, read this thread over again from the beginning.


Crude Oil now trading above $126.00/bbl.

Crude oil is up more than 100% from May 2007.

Here.

P.S. -- If prices don't pull back soon, we will almost certainly have $4.00/gal for regular gas nationwide within a few weeks. San Francisco can expect to pay $4.50 for regular and $5.00 for premium before the 4th of July.

[icemark]

Originally Posted by Ninong

If prices don't pull back soon, we will almost certainly have $4.00/gal for regular gas nationwide within a few weeks. San Francisco can expect to pay $4.50 for regular and $5.00 for premium before the 4th of July.

Not worried... wishing that the roads will start clearing up soon.

IMO, Gas prices need and extra $1 or $2 tax on them... pretty soon a bunch of the idiots won't be able to afford to drive anymore.

Average price gallon unleaded regular in CA
Today 3.953
Yesterday 3.960
One Week 3.930
One Month Ago 3.801
One Year Ago 3.439

Exxon in Goleta 4.49 for one gal of unleaded regular, reported Saturday.

But on average Premium is only $.10 to $.15 more than unleaded so if regular is $4.50, premium will only be $4.65 not $5.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by icemark

Average price gallon unleaded regular in CA
Today 3.953
Yesterday 3.960
One Week 3.930
One Month Ago 3.801
One Year Ago 3.439

Exxon in Goleta 4.49 for one gal of unleaded regular, reported Saturday.

Unleaded Gasoline Average Prices

Today..........LA 3.593, USA 3.726, SF 4.021
Yesterday.....LA 3.571, USA 3.716, SF 3.990
1 week ago...LA 3.507, USA 3.607, SF 3.995
1 month ago. LA 3.253, USA 3.371, SF 3.878
1 year ago.... LA 2.882, USA 3.092, SF 3.601

Our prices here in Louisiana are usually a good 15 to 20 cents below the national average and a good 35 to 40 cents below San Francisco. Sometimes we're as much as 75 cents below San Francisco.

Regular unleaded gas along the Big Sur coast has been above $5.00/gal for the past two or three months now.