Posted on May 25, 2008 at 1:22 pm I received this email from a friend who follows big oil. He maintains they are pure scammers w/our congress critters firmly in their pocket. I tend to believe him. start--- What I would like to know is why isn’t the following article TOP NEWS. Let’s see 100 wells that could produce 2-5 million barrels of oil daily, for $30.00 a barrel [in fields lager than Saudi Arabia, right here in the United States], versus 1,000 wind mills that would produce very little power, or corn for ethanol raising food costs, or buying oil at $130.00 a barrel ??? Well the environmentalists and Congress obviously know better. Silly me. http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/30/magazines/fortune/Oil_from_stone.fortune/index.htm   To me reading the following article that the Oil Companies were not quite open and honest about oil prices ??? Peeved at Prices? Don't Blame the Dealer Awash in Profit, Exxon Fights for Pennies While Raising the Rent www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/24/AR2008052401961.html?hpid=topnews end---

Posted on May 25, 2008 at 2:39 pm I wouldn't say that this is anything new by any means. I think that we all can agree that there is dirty work indeed being done, not just by our Goverment but also by other countries Goverment.

Posted on May 25, 2008 at 6:36 pm Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Other than banks and insurance companies I can't think of anyone even close to as powerful as the oil companies. We are at their mercy and they can charge as much as they want. A thought I have had is that with the current " green" movement they are thinking that in the future they will no longer be so powerful so they are squeezing as much out of us as is possible before they can't anymore.

Posted on May 26, 2008 at 9:04 am I guess my thinking runs a little differently. I can't advance any good reasons why we always re-elect the incumbent. Things won't change unless we change the people in congress. Two good examples are Feinstein and Pelosi. Congress had Bush dead to rights on the lies he told about getting into the Iraq war yet did nothing because Pelosi made it a point to do nothing. Look it up. Bush was guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors yet skated one more time. The point no one cares to grasp is simple. The person doesn't make the office, the office makes the person. When I was commissioned, the commissioning officer reminded all of us we were given a privelege, i.e. being commissioned into an office. He said the office existed before we were commissioned and will exist long after we are out of office. The same holds true of the presidency or congress or your local yokel politicians. They aren't the office. That's why they are subject to rules and laws as they exist. But, that's how I think.

Posted on May 27, 2008 at 12:17 am Crooked runs in both party's. The Clinton's are scum but here we are trying to put a Clinton in office again. As for Bush ? Not sure about any crimes direct from him. As for Iraq? There is completely obvious arguements for some intervention in that region. We will be there or in that region until the end. Oil, yep.........they got it, we want it and we need it. People won't see that until it's no longer there. Bottom line, we want to use up their oil first. Israel ? Yep, we are buffering them from Syria and Iran along with all the other nations who hate them. There is no right in war but there are times it is necessary. We all almost were speaking German and saying heil Hitler the last time America didn't want to get involved. I have conflicting feelings on where America should stand in the world but I certainly don't want to see nations like Iraq, Iran, Syria or North Korea wielding too much power. Sadam was not a nice guy either nor was his regime. Wonder where the human rights activists were when the things he was doing were going on ? And where was N.O.W. when the women over there were and are still treated like dogs ? I will not dispute corruption, it is and always has been. I do believe that sometimes security dictates some needs in govt. action.

Posted on May 27, 2008 at 9:21 am I've read our Constitution several times but can't seem to find the clause that makes us the world's policeman. I also can't find the clause that says politicians are immune from prosecution nor does it say once a person is president anything they do is protected by executive privelege. As for wanting their oil, well, maybe, maybe not. As for the character of their leaders, who are we to say what that should be? After all, if we use only Mr. Clinton as an example what an example he would be. Somebody in the world didn't like his womanizing and somebody in the world didn't like he and his wife's supposed body count. Should they have invaded us? Iran, Syria and North Korea certainly do exert power and influence in the world. We even invite them to exert their influence. It is called the United Nations and its HQ sits in New York. At one time or another over our history, we have been "friends" with both Iran and Syria and have sided with them over issues. We have even invited their leaders to make speeches in our universities. The Iranian president was the last speaker. Security. Both Germany and Japan used that as one of their excuses to invade other countries. After all, they had to be "secure" and the only way was to conquer as many states as possible. I guess we should follow their blueprint. Oh wait, we already are. We are following it so closely we are close to surrendering. In fact, the value of your money shouts volumes. For a modern day example, look at the former Soviet Union. Ronnie proved to them they were on the wrong track and showed them they couldn't keep spending the way they were spending or they would go broke. Voila! They went broke. Now, look at us. Foreclosures, outsourced jobs, millions of illegals, a welfare system that has been transformed from a privelege into a right, high schools with a graduation rate of 40% (national average), infrastructure so old it collapses, a centralized government in D.C. that dictates policy across the board, etc., etc., etc. But, other than that, how did you like the parade Mrs. Kennedy?

Posted on May 30, 2008 at 1:37 pm Politics make strange bedfellows as goes the saying. I agree, we are not Constitutionally bound to be the worlds policeman. Perhaps though our security and safety does provide some moral obligation??? There are only a handful of countries that have proven over the last 100 years to be somewhat loyal friends to America. My favorite, the Aussies, England, Israel and Canada ( for the most part). There are some little countries like the Phillipines that we should be loyal to but have crapped on. Overall though, there is always the case of the under and over achievers syndrome and that always results in anamosity and jealousy. If we don't then someone else will and I'm really not partial to either communism or the Islamic nations ways nor do I wish to see any of the Islamic nations wielding nuclear weapons. Also nations like North Korea. World War 3 is not an if, it's a when and may already be in progress. America is not necessarily the problem. We have two choices, pre-emptive or prepatory, both are expensive, one costs more American lives. You decide.

Posted on May 30, 2008 at 1:40 pm To add, economies rebound. Russia is becoming a power house again and just look at China. If we collected on debts the world owes us instead of forgiving them we'd be in great shape. I want some of that forgiveness in my personal finances lol.

Posted on May 31, 2008 at 11:44 am Pre-emptive is a two way sword. When China was going to pre-emptively prevent Taiwan from attacking it, we got awful excited and even went to the UN to get pre-emptive declared illegal. Funny, isn't it? Any jack ass who advocates pre-emptive without solid evidence of danger from the other country is just that, a jack ass. This is the type of politician who will bring misery to  his countrymen. Prepatory has been our mode ever since the Korean police action. It worked real well for over 50 years. Then a serial killer was elected and things magically changed in the blanca casa. My 2¢ on pre-emptive and prepatory. BTW, was Viet Nam pre-emptive or prepatory?

Posted on May 31, 2008 at 12:59 pm Few would debate our motivation for Vietnam, alleged to be stopping the spread of communism but really protecting lady B's financial interests or so I've heard, little before my time. Totally winable war if the politicians would have stayed out of it. Little different story when you have nut cases like the guys running Iran and North Korea. China is one we will have to deal with in different ways but hopefully is also smarter than the formentioned. The fanatical belief systems in the middle east and some other countries make it necessary to do something lest we will have a nuclear missle or bomb going off in one of our cities in the very near future. In todays world I see no reason to ever occupy any country, including Iraq. Eliminate the immediate threat via bombs and go home. They hate us, always have, always will and it has little to do with politics, it's a religious and philisophical difference. That my friend is dangerous. We don't always do exactly what is right and there is no doubt corruption exists in our goverment and most goverments of the world. It's pick and choose between the lesser of two evils. I have to pick us over Russia, China and most of the middle eastern countries. And whom is the mass murder you are referring to ?