When will we cut these punks loose?

Ten years after the corrupt enviromentalist democraps let us drill in Anwar and the Gulf of Mexico.

Lord Justice Moses

Heh.

chsw

a capella on February 15, 2008 at 10:43 AM”

Now that’s about the funniest thing I’ve read in a long time. Yes! Tell the Junkies to stop being junkies, and the problem is solved! Being addicted to herion is a little more than a social habit.

Is there any doubt about this effed up relationship we have with the Saudis? They’re now threatening to unleash Jihadists if the UK doesn’t back off a corruption investigation.
Gaurdian
Prince Bandar, the head of the Saudi national securit…

And while he talks about energy independence out of one side of his mouth, his full acceptance of ‘Gorebal Warming’ and planned legislation to further destroy American heavy manufacturing will make it even more impossible to build any new refineries in the US.

So you guys can’t just blame the democrats for this situation. ~ 1/4 of the republicans in the senate and house are just as culpable. So many of you keep telling us holdouts to ‘grow up and support McCain’ when his policies will only make us even more dependent on our enemy’s oil & gas than we are now.

We are screwed no matter who we elect to be President.

Prince Bandar, the former Saudi ambassador to the US and the son of the Saudi crown prince, threatened to cut off British access to Saudi intelligence if the British did not cease an investigation into an arms deal with the Saudis in 2006. Story ……..

Yep, the good ol’ Prius! Hey why stop there dude, what about recreational vehicles…dirt bikes, 4 wheelers, jet skis, motor boats, snowmobiles, aircraft, the hits keep coming! Why the F do I bother to work?? (oh ya…someone has to pick up the tab for the in state tuition breaks)

So why, fogw, has Bush never included SA on the list of nations that enable terrorism? Why is it US policy to support SA?

MrScribbler on February 15, 2008 at 12:38 PM

Simple question, simple answer.

Until the Dems get on board with drilling for oil domestically, we still need to import oil from the Saudi’s.

Try driving your car on dirt or snapple.

And I fail to see how putting someone’s name on a list is going to change anything. Is that your answer to the problem? Tell little Johnny he’s been a bad boy.

Saudi Prince #1: “Bush has put us on his list.”
Saudi Prince #2: “Are they still buying oil from us?”
Saudi Prince #1: “Oh, Yes.”
Saudi PRince #2: “Raise the price.”

US dollar hegemony (US dollar as the world’s reserve currency) is critical and its the Sauds that keep it in place.

The Sauds have had a, be reasonable, do it my way, attitude, and why not they have immense economic power.

Of course we can always rely our good friend Hugo.

The petrodollar system is no different than the gold standard. Today’s currency is simply underwritten by the one vital source of energy upon which every industrialized society depends—oil. If the dollar is de-linked from oil; it will no longer serve as the de-facto international currency and the US will be forced to reduce its massive trade deficits, rebuild its manufacturing capacity, and become an export nation again. The only alternative is to create a network of client regimes who repress the collective aspirations of their people so they can faithfully follow directives from Washington.

http://www.peakoil.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=35533

So why, fogw, has Bush never included SA on the list of nations that enable terrorism? Why is it US policy to support SA?

Because the way Saudi Arabia was created — through the work of former British MI6 agent Jack Philby — was specific enough to make sure Saudi territory included Mecca and Medina to create the “Jihad Option”.

US and UK policy, in regards to Saudi Arabia, is to avoid any and all conflict inside Saudi Arabia.

ANWR is about oil, and Bush is, at heart, an oilman. Moreover, ANWR (even when added to new drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, or wherever else) will reduce, not eliminate, our dependence on foreign oil. It is a potential help, not a cure. It is far from being the central point of this issue.

I’d be the last to argue that the Dems haven’t done their share. But the buck, at least when it comes to issues of protecting the nation, stops at Bush’s desk. And, during too much of his presidency, Bush has chosen the desires of others over the needs of Americans.

That crap should’ve been followed up with:

“UK thraten to unleash S.A.S. if they so much as hear the words ‘Saudi’ or ‘jihadists’, ever again”

While my appreciation for the UK is fast wearing off, thanks to this new PM, I’ll always like the Saudis even less. If Prime Minister Brown rolls over and drops his pants for the Sand People, the UK deservesto take it up the poop chute. There’d be nothing that would make me giggle like finding out a joint NATO SOF strike force (http://www.stormingmedia.us/45/4510/A451054.html) crept into Saudi Arabia under cover of darkness and showed those oil-pumping Tusken Raiders what terror was really all about. That statement was a blatant beg for open warfare, and if they let it slide, it’s going to be yet another milestone in the fall of European civilization to the islamofascists.

This has been an ongoing battle throughout his presidency and in spite of the stranglehold the Middle East countries have on our oil supplies, and consequently our economy, the Democrats will not rise up to the occasion and pass legislation that will open up a motherload of new domestic oil.

They’re not budging. President Clinton used executive order powers to siphon off millions of acres of US territory that is rich in resources that could be mined in order to please private families in OTHER COUNTRIES. Thanks for the National Park. Is it Riady National Park? How about ‘corrupt mining family company national park number 1′?

The Democrats are looking out for their donors. That’s what political parties do.

The Saudis should remember who protects their trade routes. Because without secure trade routes that desert kingdom would be sandstorm with no end.

MrScribbler on February 15, 2008 at 11:48 AM

President Bush, members of his administration and Republican Party leaders have been calling on the Democrats to allow drilling in ANWR and in the Gulf of Mexico ad infinitem. This has been an ongoing battle throughout his presidency and in spite of the stranglehold the Middle East countries have on our oil supplies, and consequently our economy, the Democrats will not rise up to the occasion and pass legislation that will open up a motherload of new domestic oil.

And Bush is playing into the hands of the Saudis?

I have trouble making the coorelation since he is the one begging the Democrats to help us end our reliance on Middle East oil, and they fight him at every step because of a polar bear or a grouper.

As long as we continue to ignore our own resources for oil, and keep giving money to our enemies for their oil, we will be between a rock and a hard place.

Nuke Mecca

Yeah, that’s it. That’s it.

When the petty criminals that run the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia cease to be our SOBs, they’ve ceased any reason for me to support their continued sucking in of oxygen:Saudi Arabia’s rulers threatened to make it easier for terrorists to……

fogw: and as a father of combatant participating in this war, I could never call this battle we are waging a fraud.

The battles — and the sacrifices — are not fraudulent. What is fraudulent is the way our president, probably in partial response to the wishes of his Saudi buddies, has mishandled leadership of the WoT.

It has been common knowledge for years that SA is a major supporter of our enemies, while we continue to treat them as if they’re friends.

I’d like to think McCain would reverse the course charted by the Bushes, father and son. I’m certain the Messiah or Clinton wouldn’t.

a capella on February 15, 2008 at 11:06 AM

I did little poking around and found this:

U.S. ethanol, which is made from corn, costs at least 30% more than Brazil’s product, in part because the starch in corn must be first turned into sugar before being distilled into alcohol. It may take the U.S. a few more decades to bring the cost of ethanol down to 80 cents a gallon — equivalent to Brazil’s most efficient producers — according to the U.S. Department of Energy

Paging Bobby Jindal, Governor Bobby Jindal…