puppies, like the Marines still under investigation throwing one? If you assume I am like one of the types who would do such a thing, you seriously are demented.

So you don’t support Troops as well… I figured as much. Thank you for being so transparent.

You have made me realize you are one of those who thinks the “Wars” are evil. So are those who serve “Evil” as well?

… and since those who serve are a form of carbon-based life, is all life evil? Including little puppies?

No it doesn’t apply to everything. Not EVERYONE plans to have a Baby not matter what age they are! Wow what a concept THERE! Not EVERYONE plans on getting hit by a drunk driver or better yet a IED, if they “planned” it and the possiblity of them having to lose a wife/husband/child or leg/arm/their mind, would that make you happy?

Good Lord, do you think that everything is planeed out to the extreme? If you do then you have some extreme case of OCD! Nothing is PERFECT including “Plans” and EVERYTHING can be disrupted…. except God!

As for McCain and these “wars”… you have got to be kidding right!?! He wasn’t the President and isn’t as of YET. So how do you put a man or owman in that position if they weren’t there to begin with? He voted for it, but was McCain the only one as well? How do you knwo what a victory IS if you can not call one “in your own mind”?

You have made me realize you are one of those who thinks the “Wars” are evil. So are those who serve “Evil” as well? Because they didn’t plan and decided to go in? I decided to go back in to do the right thing. And I work with Oil and gas companies….. so am I “EVIL”?

Makes me wonder!

A little research on your part would challenge your snark.

Really? OK. Humor me. What would McCain consider victory? In falsifiable terms, please.

war in any aspect does not go off of a time line and sometimes the goals can not be met due to circumstances beyond anyones control.

Guess what. This applies to everything. Still people set goals and make clear plans.

Steve oil companies need to have at least 32.00 a bbl to make any money to be able to drill and produce. Anything less and they begin to “shut down” the smaller producing wells and then lay off people. That is just smart business. Also the Refineries set their own prices and those taxes are also “trickled down” to the consumer.

But what people do not understand is how much they are taxed in their State or community for that matter on Gasoline and Natrual Gas as well.

I am not saying Oil Companies are totally innocent. But you keep pointing a finger at someone for doing something they aren’t, you might want to point that finger at yourself.

war in any aspect does not go off of a time line and sometimes the goals can not be met due to circumstances beyond anyones control. I am pretty sure you really don’t understand that achieving a goal such as winning parts of a war, in turn is usually small outward steps before a big leap.

But I guess you knew that…. being in control and all.

According to this article from 2006, Exxon made a profit of about 28 cents per gallon of gasoline, while the Federal government imposes an 18.4-cent tax, and state taxes average 27.6 cents a gallon.

Obama: “They’ll [the oil companies will] pay a penalty on windfall profits”

Truth: They already do.

If oil companies were not allowed to make a profit, the price of gasoline might drop to slightly below $3.00 per gallon. But since the oil companies would go out of business, gasoline would be extremely hard to find.

That is, of course, because we don’t know what Saddam, post 9/11, had in store for us.

First of all, don’t use this “post 9/11″ crap on me. If you woke up on 9/11 and learned of the existence of terrorism on that day, then don’t forget to remind yourself that every time you think you have an informed opinion about the world.

I don’t want to go back to that discussion as it’s pretty pointless at this moment. Inspectors were working in the country and they saw no trace of an active WMD program. I knew what Saddam had in store for us. Nothing.

At any case, the troops are there now and we’re discussing what to do next. I’m not saying let’s withdraw now. In part because it’s impossible. But a clear definition of victory would be desirable.

And I would also like a stop to this talk about how we’re permanently in a war state. I don’t like unchecked powers for the executive. Nobody’s saying let’s pretend the enemy doesn’t exist. But you can’t live in a perpetual fight. It’s also very destructive from the point of view of achieving goals. You gotta have time constraints and clear goals.

I wonder if it is really necessary to fight in Iraq despite the fact the loss of life on our side is fairly small.
freevillage on April 2, 2008 at 12:15 PM

Damned if we do, Damned if we don’t.

You don’t like Obama, you support the Soldiers but you don’t support the war?

I see nothing wrong here and I don’t see Obama being “on the take” just because someone made a contribution. I don’t recall the DNC saying “if you work at a Shell station, you can’t donate to our party”. Come on, people. Lets not get stupid.

I wonder if it is really necessary to fight in Iraq
freevillage on April 2, 2008 at 12:15 PM

That is, of course, because we don’t know what Saddam, post 9/11, had in store for us.

And, aren’t you HAPPY, we’ll never have to find out.

Hah

OK then,

Let’s put “Iraq” into the “perspective” of WWI, WWII, Korea, or Vietnam.

Then, explain what all the hoopla’s about.

Depends on whose hoopla you’re talking about. Mine consists of two parts.

1) I wonder if it is really necessary to fight in Iraq despite the fact the loss of life on our side is fairly small.

2) I very much dislike when the President claims war powers when the war seems to have no end in sight. If I were a Republican and hated America thinking two out of three branches of its government were dysfunctional and half the country were public enemies, then it’d be less of a concern to me. But I kinda like the way America was set up and I would like to go back to that order.

I think Republicans may have overestimated Obama. Many thought it would be easier to beat Hillary Clinton in a general election, but Obama looks almost completely incompetent under pressure.

But he would have been impossible to beat with the MSM helping to shield him. Now that they are finally doing their jobs, he is crumbling. How long will they continue to expose him? When will they circle the wagons and protect him?

I guess that depends on a perspective.
freevillage on April 2, 2008 at 11:00 AM

Hah

OK then,

Let’s put “Iraq” into the “perspective” of WWI, WWII, Korea, or Vietnam.

Then, explain what all the hoopla’s about.

You’re right, that’s chump change, but here’s the problem: when you’re running for the presidency as the messianic “agent of change” who’s not a Washington insider, and not beholden to lobbyists and e-e-evil corporations, and you’re caught in these little lies, you got more ’splainin to do.

I guess that depends on a perspective. It seems to me a much more solid attack would be on his stance on trade or even Iraq, where he proposes something that can’t possibly be done (quick withdrawal), lack of any executive experience. The first person he will ever hire in his life is vice-president. Shouldn’t one practice just a little bit before being allowed to make decisions of that magnitude?

Instead we have most idiotic accusations of him being a black racist or that if employees of a company have contributed a minuscule amount to your campaign, then it somehow means you’re in bed with its execs. Good luck with that. I mean, most of visitors here have already successfully elected Teh Fred! or Guilliani to be the Republican nominee, so we can trust their political instincts.

Barack Obama (D) $213,884

“I’m Barack Obama. I don’t take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists…”

Contributions from LOBBTISTS:

Barack Obama (D) $114,713

He’s not at the top of the list – but he is liar none the less.

“Well, they ALL lie……”

Oh, well, then……

The Obama campaign points out that the senator doesn’t take money from PACs or from lobbyists.

The Obama campaign for President DOES take money from PACs. Union PACs have been contributing to his presidential campaign from day one. Obama’s senatorial campaign in 2004 took money from union and corporate PACs.

Furthermore, Obama has participated in ads paid for by the DCCC and DSCC seeking to promote Democrats running for Congress. The DCCC and DSCC both accept money from union and corporate PACs.

This ad in Pennsylvania should be prime material to really question Obama about what he says he does versus what he actually does. They are in conflict with each other.