Fred: What is you point? It seems like you are reluctant to make it because it only passes itself off as a point if one shares a dislike for the left. If you don’t have a point that you can make clearly, then I advise you not to post on serious forums or topics.
Yet again: What is your point?
My point is that its is 1:00 am here. I am willing to have you unable to understand my point. It is a “loss” that I can live with. Have a nice night.
Good call… This author with this thread title - he’s actually trying out offense instead of defense.
But came across crying for sympathy, like a farewell spasm.
Repeat…[quote]I’ve been waiting for your other hardcore Republican TainanCowboy to answer if he agrees with the krauthammer that Americans have a moral obligation to torture. He remains silently loyal, so have you. You find comfort in tacitly agreeing or find it too politically damning to condemn torture?[/quote]
fred smith are you just not hardcore enough to decide where you stand on the question?
Well then good for you fred smith, for staying nimble like a noodle so that morals and principles can neatly fold under party loyalty.
To be fair, you may very well argue that morals and principles are just nuisances - dead weight, which may be quite true for many.
We’ll see how you choose to answer. I’m guessing you’ll toss around a couple names, pharmaceutical anecdotes or a nonsense story.
Do Americans have a moral obligation to torture? Republican hero the krauthammer said yes. TainanCowboy already galloped away from bravely answering. But, really, fred smith, its like a T-Ball sitting right in front of you, and everyone’s yelling, “swing the bat limpwrist, SWING THE BAT!” (fred smith dedication: hahaduhuhheehaw)
Good call… This author with this thread title - he’s actually trying out offense instead of defense.
But came across crying for sympathy, like a farewell spasm.
Repeat…[quote]I’ve been waiting for your other hardcore Republican TainanCowboy to answer if he agrees with the krauthammer that Americans have a moral obligation to torture. He remains silently loyal, so have you. You find comfort in tacitly agreeing or find it too politically damning to condemn torture?[/quote]
fred smith are you just not hardcore enough to decide where you stand on the question?
Well then good for you fred smith, for staying nimble like a noodle so that morals and principles can neatly fold under party loyalty.
To be fair, you may very well argue that morals and principles are just nuisances - dead weight, which may be quite true for many.
We’ll see how you choose to answer. I’m guessing you’ll toss around a couple names, pharmaceutical anecdotes or a nonsense story.
Do Americans have a moral obligation to torture? Republican hero the krauthammer said yes. TainanCowboy already galloped away from bravely answering. But, really, fred smith, its like a T-Ball sitting right in front of you, and everyone’s yelling, “swing the bat limpwrist, SWING THE BAT!” (fred smith dedication: hahaduhuhheehaw)[/quote]
Sigh…What’s torture got to do with this? Or as Frank says, the torture never stops does it?
Do you really need to be Right wing to see the widely alternating views Europe has on intervention and international law or real-politic and oil? I tell ya, it’s a gas.
I think people who have something to say should say it clearly. If they just want to provide links to interesting articles then they should just do that, and not imply that it has meaning. In my experience, whenever people say, “look at that, it’s so … you know wink wink” then their point is weak, subjective or both. I’m not saying the OP is wrong, I’m saying, if you have something useful to say, say it.
[quote=“fred smith”]Reread the first page and then let me know again if you really do not get this.[/quote]No need, the crux of the opening story: Ex-German officials Fischer and Schröder are now competing oil/gas lobbyists.
[quote]Fischer is… {still} an international politician, dealing with important matters like connecting Central Asia to Europe and improving relations with Turkey. Schröder, on the other hand, is mainly interested in preserving Russia’s gas monopoly.
…
The construction of the Nabucco pipeline is scheduled to begin in 2011. There are no gas delivery contracts yet, and it still isn’t clear what Turkey’s price will be for allowing the pipeline to pass through its territory.
In other words, it is still possible that Schröder’s prognosis is correct and Nabucco will never operate at a profit.[/quote]
Tell us fred smith, how were gas/oil resources leveraged while Schröder and Fischer were in office, considering their connections you pretend to reveal? You are after-all completely welcome to make and support an actual point.
I know of course you’re tired of defending bush/cheney/rove’s oil/gas/energy deviant motives.
You’re only human. But half-attempting to build this quasi-parallel between your heroes and two ex-German leaders is just way too funny.
FIRST Compare accomplished profits.
$600+ Billion Big Oil Profit in Bush years
2001-2008 Total Big Five Profits: +$655.8 billion
$655,800,000,000.00
(also see Oil Profit Chart 2000~2007 PDF )
EXXON’s BUSH: The Denver Post published and later deleted an article quoting Bush defending Exxon’s massive profits: Bush 2006: “I think that basically the price is determined by the marketplace and that’s the way it should be.”
BUT- a Fact Sheet on Oil Company Profits Domestic Refining Increase proves otherwise.
U.S. foreign policy under Bush/Cheney satisfying back-pocket lobbyists provided the #1 catalyst for such incredible profits - not a lack of supply (‘virtually no change in throughput at domestic or foreign refineries’).
Now, are you willing to try and compare these numbers to the oil/gas profits Schröder and/or Fischer experienced while in office? I doubt it but by all means go right ahead.
SECOND Compare military aggression.
Which duo sold and executed the invasions of two other nations under unproven pretenses with evidenced aspirations of militarily securing future gas and oil supplies?
That’s right… Bush and Cheney.
And in defense of the unproven pretexts for those invasions, which duo’s legacies will forever be tarnished by perverting its justice system by branding immoral torture as necessary, even moral?
And since claiming to think about thinking, should we not recognize his hope of escape from clearing away the enormous moral cavity surrounding America’s legal torture system pinned on 9/11?
So this thread still boils down to a failed diversion combined as a sad ploy for sympathy.
Yeah, yeah, old guys like Schroeder and Fischer have to worry about their pipelines. What’s the big deal?