Only in the sense that the French are the loudest critics of how we handle radical Islam, saying they are smarter and safer than we are, that their methods of dealing with the world are far superior to anyone else's. They can't even handle radical Islam in their own country - so why the hell would anyone who cares about National Security listen to them? Remember this is the country that took all of TWO WEEKS to decide their country wasn't worth fighting for in the past. When it comes to fighting terror or dealing with global security issues, we should politely tell France to shut up and let the grown-ups handle it.
More on this later, I have work to do.
Jason
Jason's Journal
My Podcast Link
11/07/2005 11:14 #23601
Schadenfreude! Indeed!Category: jihad
10/30/2005 16:49 #23599
I'll Add Some ContextCategory: politics
Since (e:Ajay) refused to acknowledge what I wrote, instead going for the bait and switch. Feel free to look if you are reading and are interested.
Essentially your silence says this:
No, (e:Jason), I refuse to live by the standards I set for you. Do what I say, not what I do. No, I refuse to challenge my own political ideas and no I am not interested in reading the same subject from multiple points of view before coming to my conclusions. No, I am never skeptical of any point of view that lambastes the right - no matter what they say it has to be true! Yes, you are absolutely correct that I am only interested in pointing at the right and staying silent about my own side. I refuse to be anything but a pointy-headed partisan like Hannity and Rush.
How could such a brilliant analytical mind stoop to this when it comes to politics? All I'm asking for is an equal effort, and for you to be as honest as you want me to be. Don't ask me to do the things you refuse to do. I'm trying to reach out my hand here.
Jason
PS - The "Niman is a mosquito, here are the real issues!" argument refuses to acknowledge press accountability, which is the real topic here. Try to stay on topic. We have plenty of time to discuss Halliburton and anything else you desire, but for now try and explain why the media shouldn't be accountable for what they say, and why it isn't a problem that pretty much every media outlet breathes lies or half-truths to the American public on a regular basis. Try and explain to me why Paul Krugman can get away with reprehensible lies about the presidential recount and numerous other topics, and is never forced by his bosses to issue a correction. Instead of reporting facts, it's become favorable to tell a story. Don't tell me this shit isn't nearly as important as "war profiteering". I'm not buying it.
"Niman got some bunk info from someone, liked what he heard, and started telling people the 12 tribes are white supremacists. He didn't need or want anything other than what he agreed with. He wrote an entire article making his case. He is peddling his opinion as if it is fact, and people are going to read the article thinking it is fact. If you were to ask Niman if what he wrote was opinion or fact, what do you think he would say? The "this is just an opinion piece" argument shrivels up as a result.
Maybe you're right. Maybe he isn't lying. Maybe he didn't already have his opinion in his head before he tried making a case for it. Maybe he just got BS information. Apparently that passes as a legitimate argument nowadays. We are seeing it more and more.
Don't think that just because I don't talk about Fox News that I don't have an opinion about them. There are 120239879834798 people talking about Fox News, and zero talking about the alternative press, who get a free pass from everyone. You tell me to be skeptical about what I read, but are you skeptical about what you read from the alternatives or from any information source? I'm sure the answer is yes but I've never asked. I want to make sure that you are willing to be as honest as you want me to be.
I'm willing to "set the example" but I feel like I am completely alone in that sentiment. I feel like people just want ME to point the finger at the right so they can tell me how correct they are, while they stay silent. Nobody wants to point the finger at the people who represent their political "side". As of yet I am the only person on e-strip who is willing to do this. Will you join me? =)
Yes I know Fox News reporting is skewed to the right, everyone knows that. They are the only TV news outlet in the USA that reports this way. There isn't any reporting from any media outlet that isn't skewed. They do report facts, but not the same facts and not in the same context. Hannity and O'Reilly and Rush and the rest - no I do not think everything that comes out of their mouth is fact. I am not so far to the right as a Hannity or a Rush.
Ultimately I want truth, and truth does not come from a single source. It comes from reading a broad spectrum of pieces. I feel like I'm the only person on e-strip who does that as well. I feel like I'm the only one who is willing to challenge his/her ideas and to grow. I'll never be a partisan."
Essentially your silence says this:
No, (e:Jason), I refuse to live by the standards I set for you. Do what I say, not what I do. No, I refuse to challenge my own political ideas and no I am not interested in reading the same subject from multiple points of view before coming to my conclusions. No, I am never skeptical of any point of view that lambastes the right - no matter what they say it has to be true! Yes, you are absolutely correct that I am only interested in pointing at the right and staying silent about my own side. I refuse to be anything but a pointy-headed partisan like Hannity and Rush.
How could such a brilliant analytical mind stoop to this when it comes to politics? All I'm asking for is an equal effort, and for you to be as honest as you want me to be. Don't ask me to do the things you refuse to do. I'm trying to reach out my hand here.
Jason
PS - The "Niman is a mosquito, here are the real issues!" argument refuses to acknowledge press accountability, which is the real topic here. Try to stay on topic. We have plenty of time to discuss Halliburton and anything else you desire, but for now try and explain why the media shouldn't be accountable for what they say, and why it isn't a problem that pretty much every media outlet breathes lies or half-truths to the American public on a regular basis. Try and explain to me why Paul Krugman can get away with reprehensible lies about the presidential recount and numerous other topics, and is never forced by his bosses to issue a correction. Instead of reporting facts, it's become favorable to tell a story. Don't tell me this shit isn't nearly as important as "war profiteering". I'm not buying it.
"Niman got some bunk info from someone, liked what he heard, and started telling people the 12 tribes are white supremacists. He didn't need or want anything other than what he agreed with. He wrote an entire article making his case. He is peddling his opinion as if it is fact, and people are going to read the article thinking it is fact. If you were to ask Niman if what he wrote was opinion or fact, what do you think he would say? The "this is just an opinion piece" argument shrivels up as a result.
Maybe you're right. Maybe he isn't lying. Maybe he didn't already have his opinion in his head before he tried making a case for it. Maybe he just got BS information. Apparently that passes as a legitimate argument nowadays. We are seeing it more and more.
Don't think that just because I don't talk about Fox News that I don't have an opinion about them. There are 120239879834798 people talking about Fox News, and zero talking about the alternative press, who get a free pass from everyone. You tell me to be skeptical about what I read, but are you skeptical about what you read from the alternatives or from any information source? I'm sure the answer is yes but I've never asked. I want to make sure that you are willing to be as honest as you want me to be.
I'm willing to "set the example" but I feel like I am completely alone in that sentiment. I feel like people just want ME to point the finger at the right so they can tell me how correct they are, while they stay silent. Nobody wants to point the finger at the people who represent their political "side". As of yet I am the only person on e-strip who is willing to do this. Will you join me? =)
Yes I know Fox News reporting is skewed to the right, everyone knows that. They are the only TV news outlet in the USA that reports this way. There isn't any reporting from any media outlet that isn't skewed. They do report facts, but not the same facts and not in the same context. Hannity and O'Reilly and Rush and the rest - no I do not think everything that comes out of their mouth is fact. I am not so far to the right as a Hannity or a Rush.
Ultimately I want truth, and truth does not come from a single source. It comes from reading a broad spectrum of pieces. I feel like I'm the only person on e-strip who does that as well. I feel like I'm the only one who is willing to challenge his/her ideas and to grow. I'll never be a partisan."
11/04/2005 13:38 #23600
Burn, Baby Burn!Category: jihad
From Yahoo:
WHY PARIS IS BURNING - by Amir Taheri
AS THE night falls, the "troubles" start — and the pattern is always the same.
Bands of youths in balaclavas start by setting fire to parked cars, break shop windows with baseball bats, wreck public telephones and ransack cinemas, libraries and schools. When the police arrive on the scene, the rioters attack them with stones, knives and baseball bats.
The police respond by firing tear-gas grenades and, on occasions, blank shots in the air. Sometimes the youths fire back — with real bullets.
These scenes are not from the West Bank but from 20 French cities, mostly close to Paris, that have been plunged into a European version of the intifada that at the time of writing appears beyond control.
The troubles first began in Clichy-sous-Bois, an underprivileged suburb east of Paris, a week ago. France's bombastic interior minister, Nicholas Sarkozy, responded by sending over 400 heavily armed policemen to "impose the laws of the republic," and promised to crush "the louts and hooligans" within the day. Within a few days, however, it had dawned on anyone who wanted to know that this was no "outburst by criminal elements" that could be handled with a mixture of braggadocio and batons.
By Monday, everyone in Paris was speaking of "an unprecedented crisis." Both Sarkozy and his boss, Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, had to cancel foreign trips to deal with the riots.
How did it all start? The accepted account is that sometime last week, a group of young boys in Clichy engaged in one of their favorite sports: stealing parts of parked cars.
Normally, nothing dramatic would have happened, as the police have not been present in that suburb for years.
The poblem came when one of the inhabitants, a female busybody, telephoned the police and reported the thieving spree taking place just opposite her building. The police were thus obliged to do something — which meant entering a city that, as noted, had been a no-go area for them.
Once the police arrived on the scene, the youths — who had been reigning over Clichy pretty unmolested for years — got really angry. A brief chase took place in the street, and two of the youths, who were not actually chased by the police, sought refuge in a cordoned-off area housing a power pylon. Both were electrocuted.
Once news of their deaths was out, Clichy was all up in arms.
With cries of "God is great," bands of youths armed with whatever they could get hold of went on a rampage and forced the police to flee.
The French authorities could not allow a band of youths to expel the police from French territory. So they hit back — sending in Special Forces, known as the CRS, with armored cars and tough rules of engagement.
Within hours, the original cause of the incidents was forgotten and the issue jelled around a demand by the representatives of the rioters that the French police leave the "occupied territories." By midweek, the riots had spread to three of the provinces neighboring Paris, with a population of 5.5 million.
But who lives in the affected areas? In Clichy itself, more than 80 percent of the inhabitants are Muslim immigrants or their children, mostly from Arab and black Africa. In other affected towns, the Muslim immigrant community accounts for 30 percent to 60 percent of the population. But these are not the only figures that matter. Average unemployment in the affected areas is estimated at around 30 percent and, when it comes to young would-be workers, reaches 60 percent.
In these suburban towns, built in the 1950s in imitation of the Soviet social housing of the Stalinist era, people live in crammed conditions, sometimes several generations in a tiny apartment, and see "real French life" only on television.
The French used to flatter themselves for the success of their policy of assimilation, which was supposed to turn immigrants from any background into "proper Frenchmen" within a generation at most.
That policy worked as long as immigrants came to France in drips and drops and thus could merge into a much larger mainstream. Assimilation, however, cannot work when in most schools in the affected areas, fewer than 20 percent of the pupils are native French speakers.
France has also lost another powerful mechanism for assimilation: the obligatory military service abolished in the 1990s.
As the number of immigrants and their descendants increases in a particular locality, more and more of its native French inhabitants leave for "calmer places," thus making assimilation still more difficult.
In some areas, it is possible for an immigrant or his descendants to spend a whole life without ever encountering the need to speak French, let alone familiarize himself with any aspect of the famous French culture.
The result is often alienation. And that, in turn, gives radical Islamists an opportunity to propagate their message of religious and cultural apartheid.
Some are even calling for the areas where Muslims form a majority of the population to be reorganized on the basis of the "millet" system of the Ottoman Empire: Each religious community (millet) would enjoy the right to organize its social, cultural and educational life in accordance with its religious beliefs.
In parts of France, a de facto millet system is already in place. In these areas, all women are obliged to wear the standardized Islamist "hijab" while most men grow their beards to the length prescribed by the sheiks.
The radicals have managed to chase away French shopkeepers selling alcohol and pork products, forced "places of sin," such as dancing halls, cinemas and theaters, to close down, and seized control of much of the local administration.
A reporter who spent last weekend in Clichy and its neighboring towns of Bondy, Aulnay-sous-Bois and Bobigny heard a single overarching message: The French authorities should keep out.
"All we demand is to be left alone," said Mouloud Dahmani, one of the local "emirs" engaged in negotiations to persuade the French to withdraw the police and allow a committee of sheiks, mostly from the Muslim Brotherhood, to negotiate an end to the hostilities.
President Jacques Chirac and Premier de Villepin are especially sore because they had believed that their opposition to the toppling of Saddam Hussein in 2003 would give France a heroic image in the Muslim community.
That illusion has now been shattered — and the Chirac administration, already passing through a deepening political crisis, appears to be clueless about how to cope with what the Parisian daily France Soir has called a "ticking time bomb."
It is now clear that a good portion of France's Muslims not only refuse to assimilate into "the superior French culture," but firmly believe that Islam offers the highest forms of life to which all mankind should aspire.
So what is the solution? One solution, offered by Gilles Kepel, an adviser to Chirac on Islamic affairs, is the creation of "a new Andalusia" in which Christians and Muslims would live side by side and cooperate to create a new cultural synthesis.
The problem with Kepel's vision, however, is that it does not address the important issue of political power. Who will rule this new Andalusia: Muslims or the largely secularist Frenchmen?
Suddenly, French politics has become worth watching again, even though for the wrong reasons.
Amir Taheri, editor of the French quarterly "Politique internationale," is a member of Benador Associates.
WHY PARIS IS BURNING - by Amir Taheri
AS THE night falls, the "troubles" start — and the pattern is always the same.
Bands of youths in balaclavas start by setting fire to parked cars, break shop windows with baseball bats, wreck public telephones and ransack cinemas, libraries and schools. When the police arrive on the scene, the rioters attack them with stones, knives and baseball bats.
The police respond by firing tear-gas grenades and, on occasions, blank shots in the air. Sometimes the youths fire back — with real bullets.
These scenes are not from the West Bank but from 20 French cities, mostly close to Paris, that have been plunged into a European version of the intifada that at the time of writing appears beyond control.
The troubles first began in Clichy-sous-Bois, an underprivileged suburb east of Paris, a week ago. France's bombastic interior minister, Nicholas Sarkozy, responded by sending over 400 heavily armed policemen to "impose the laws of the republic," and promised to crush "the louts and hooligans" within the day. Within a few days, however, it had dawned on anyone who wanted to know that this was no "outburst by criminal elements" that could be handled with a mixture of braggadocio and batons.
By Monday, everyone in Paris was speaking of "an unprecedented crisis." Both Sarkozy and his boss, Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, had to cancel foreign trips to deal with the riots.
How did it all start? The accepted account is that sometime last week, a group of young boys in Clichy engaged in one of their favorite sports: stealing parts of parked cars.
Normally, nothing dramatic would have happened, as the police have not been present in that suburb for years.
The poblem came when one of the inhabitants, a female busybody, telephoned the police and reported the thieving spree taking place just opposite her building. The police were thus obliged to do something — which meant entering a city that, as noted, had been a no-go area for them.
Once the police arrived on the scene, the youths — who had been reigning over Clichy pretty unmolested for years — got really angry. A brief chase took place in the street, and two of the youths, who were not actually chased by the police, sought refuge in a cordoned-off area housing a power pylon. Both were electrocuted.
Once news of their deaths was out, Clichy was all up in arms.
With cries of "God is great," bands of youths armed with whatever they could get hold of went on a rampage and forced the police to flee.
The French authorities could not allow a band of youths to expel the police from French territory. So they hit back — sending in Special Forces, known as the CRS, with armored cars and tough rules of engagement.
Within hours, the original cause of the incidents was forgotten and the issue jelled around a demand by the representatives of the rioters that the French police leave the "occupied territories." By midweek, the riots had spread to three of the provinces neighboring Paris, with a population of 5.5 million.
But who lives in the affected areas? In Clichy itself, more than 80 percent of the inhabitants are Muslim immigrants or their children, mostly from Arab and black Africa. In other affected towns, the Muslim immigrant community accounts for 30 percent to 60 percent of the population. But these are not the only figures that matter. Average unemployment in the affected areas is estimated at around 30 percent and, when it comes to young would-be workers, reaches 60 percent.
In these suburban towns, built in the 1950s in imitation of the Soviet social housing of the Stalinist era, people live in crammed conditions, sometimes several generations in a tiny apartment, and see "real French life" only on television.
The French used to flatter themselves for the success of their policy of assimilation, which was supposed to turn immigrants from any background into "proper Frenchmen" within a generation at most.
That policy worked as long as immigrants came to France in drips and drops and thus could merge into a much larger mainstream. Assimilation, however, cannot work when in most schools in the affected areas, fewer than 20 percent of the pupils are native French speakers.
France has also lost another powerful mechanism for assimilation: the obligatory military service abolished in the 1990s.
As the number of immigrants and their descendants increases in a particular locality, more and more of its native French inhabitants leave for "calmer places," thus making assimilation still more difficult.
In some areas, it is possible for an immigrant or his descendants to spend a whole life without ever encountering the need to speak French, let alone familiarize himself with any aspect of the famous French culture.
The result is often alienation. And that, in turn, gives radical Islamists an opportunity to propagate their message of religious and cultural apartheid.
Some are even calling for the areas where Muslims form a majority of the population to be reorganized on the basis of the "millet" system of the Ottoman Empire: Each religious community (millet) would enjoy the right to organize its social, cultural and educational life in accordance with its religious beliefs.
In parts of France, a de facto millet system is already in place. In these areas, all women are obliged to wear the standardized Islamist "hijab" while most men grow their beards to the length prescribed by the sheiks.
The radicals have managed to chase away French shopkeepers selling alcohol and pork products, forced "places of sin," such as dancing halls, cinemas and theaters, to close down, and seized control of much of the local administration.
A reporter who spent last weekend in Clichy and its neighboring towns of Bondy, Aulnay-sous-Bois and Bobigny heard a single overarching message: The French authorities should keep out.
"All we demand is to be left alone," said Mouloud Dahmani, one of the local "emirs" engaged in negotiations to persuade the French to withdraw the police and allow a committee of sheiks, mostly from the Muslim Brotherhood, to negotiate an end to the hostilities.
President Jacques Chirac and Premier de Villepin are especially sore because they had believed that their opposition to the toppling of Saddam Hussein in 2003 would give France a heroic image in the Muslim community.
That illusion has now been shattered — and the Chirac administration, already passing through a deepening political crisis, appears to be clueless about how to cope with what the Parisian daily France Soir has called a "ticking time bomb."
It is now clear that a good portion of France's Muslims not only refuse to assimilate into "the superior French culture," but firmly believe that Islam offers the highest forms of life to which all mankind should aspire.
So what is the solution? One solution, offered by Gilles Kepel, an adviser to Chirac on Islamic affairs, is the creation of "a new Andalusia" in which Christians and Muslims would live side by side and cooperate to create a new cultural synthesis.
The problem with Kepel's vision, however, is that it does not address the important issue of political power. Who will rule this new Andalusia: Muslims or the largely secularist Frenchmen?
Suddenly, French politics has become worth watching again, even though for the wrong reasons.
Amir Taheri, editor of the French quarterly "Politique internationale," is a member of Benador Associates.
ajay - 11/05/05 00:06
A little schadenfreude, (e:Jason)? :)
Whereever you have a community which is isolated from the rest, you'll have this situation. The boundaries are more stark here, with religion playing a major role. But in a way, this is no different than Watts or the LA Riots after Rodney King.
A little schadenfreude, (e:Jason)? :)
Whereever you have a community which is isolated from the rest, you'll have this situation. The boundaries are more stark here, with religion playing a major role. But in a way, this is no different than Watts or the LA Riots after Rodney King.
ladycroft - 11/04/05 21:30
I was just watching bits of this on the news. It makes me so very sad.
I was just watching bits of this on the news. It makes me so very sad.
alicia - 11/04/05 18:19
wow that shit is nutz....how u been?? I was soo trashed at the party hehe
wow that shit is nutz....how u been?? I was soo trashed at the party hehe
10/29/2005 16:27 #23598
Why Bush Is UnimpeachableCategory: politics
From HuffingtonPost: 
"The News article is anonymously sourced but we know it's 100 percent true because the White House won't deny that Bush is a traitor."
Some people just can't be helped. I've said for a long time that for some people, "truth" means "whatever the left writes that goes against the right, regardless of lack of proof or any kind of logic." Hey hey hey guess what?!?! I have a 25 inch cock! That's right, 25 thick motherfucking inches! Over two feet of monstrous pleasure for the ladies (sorry dudes)! Is it true? Hell yes it is true, because I say so and no I don't have to prove myself, I just have to believe it! So goes the media in October 2005.
My take? If someone is at fault, AND IF THEY ARE PROVEN IN A COURT TO BE GUILTY (this is very important to remember, in the US legal system people are innocent until proven guilty - I suppose this exposes a mortal flaw in our legal system too, eh lefties) then they should pay the consequences. I'm not going to be one of those assholes (they are all over the left and the right) who completely ignore anything my side does while hypocritically going after the other side. I have no use for people like that - they are intellectual toddlers. I want clean government and it's not good enough for only one party to be clean. Indictments are what (in part) helped the Republicans to take Congress. Mr. White Lie Bush and Mr. Sexual Assault Artist Clinton (not to mention his husband...err wife) should both be jailbirds as far as I'm concerned (yeah, I think that if it were possible for a US president to be accountable for crimes, they both very well could end up in prison as charges could actually be brought against them and successfully argued).
Jason
"The News article is anonymously sourced but we know it's 100 percent true because the White House won't deny that Bush is a traitor."
Some people just can't be helped. I've said for a long time that for some people, "truth" means "whatever the left writes that goes against the right, regardless of lack of proof or any kind of logic." Hey hey hey guess what?!?! I have a 25 inch cock! That's right, 25 thick motherfucking inches! Over two feet of monstrous pleasure for the ladies (sorry dudes)! Is it true? Hell yes it is true, because I say so and no I don't have to prove myself, I just have to believe it! So goes the media in October 2005.
My take? If someone is at fault, AND IF THEY ARE PROVEN IN A COURT TO BE GUILTY (this is very important to remember, in the US legal system people are innocent until proven guilty - I suppose this exposes a mortal flaw in our legal system too, eh lefties) then they should pay the consequences. I'm not going to be one of those assholes (they are all over the left and the right) who completely ignore anything my side does while hypocritically going after the other side. I have no use for people like that - they are intellectual toddlers. I want clean government and it's not good enough for only one party to be clean. Indictments are what (in part) helped the Republicans to take Congress. Mr. White Lie Bush and Mr. Sexual Assault Artist Clinton (not to mention his husband...err wife) should both be jailbirds as far as I'm concerned (yeah, I think that if it were possible for a US president to be accountable for crimes, they both very well could end up in prison as charges could actually be brought against them and successfully argued).
Jason
10/27/2005 13:08 #23597
Disgusting Filthy MotherfuckersCategory: business
I read today on the CNN and Fox News web sites that Exxon/Mobil has posted the highest quarterly profit in US corporate history:
10 Billion dollars. TEN BILLION IN ONE QUARTER!! People are freaking out about heating and other fuel costs, and those assholes made 50% of their record profits from last year in one quarter. I don't care what anyone tells me, this is not right. They are laughing at us right now, sitting in their corner offices and putting their middle fingers up, shouting "Fuck you jerks, we can do this and you're so addicted to oil you can't do a goddamn thing about it!"
There comes a time when a company should give back to the country that allows it to earn big profits - like for example during national emergencies. Is 5 Billion in profit not enough? Is 1 Billion not enough? People's heating costs are expected to rise by 90 percent this winter and Exxon would rather see their pockets getting fatter instead of their customers having heated homes and lower gas prices during a time of national emergency. FUCK YOU EXXON!!
Jason
10 Billion dollars. TEN BILLION IN ONE QUARTER!! People are freaking out about heating and other fuel costs, and those assholes made 50% of their record profits from last year in one quarter. I don't care what anyone tells me, this is not right. They are laughing at us right now, sitting in their corner offices and putting their middle fingers up, shouting "Fuck you jerks, we can do this and you're so addicted to oil you can't do a goddamn thing about it!"
There comes a time when a company should give back to the country that allows it to earn big profits - like for example during national emergencies. Is 5 Billion in profit not enough? Is 1 Billion not enough? People's heating costs are expected to rise by 90 percent this winter and Exxon would rather see their pockets getting fatter instead of their customers having heated homes and lower gas prices during a time of national emergency. FUCK YOU EXXON!!
Jason
metalpeter - 10/27/05 19:58
What everyone like your self and many others who are pissed at the oil companies and the price of gas need to to is say fuck them and stop driving cars. I know for somepeople who that is there only way to get around they can't. But any one who dosn't need the car park it don't drive or get an alernative fuel source car. They are out there but hard to find. I think if John Deloran wouldn't have been taken down, his cars would have already gone to a non gas sourse. If you have a diesal vechile you can use biodiesal wich is basicly cooking oil. When supply goes down then the price of oil goes up so the profit margin goes up. The consumer shouldn't have to pay for a flucating market. Could you imagine if you went to buy a can of pop and it went up 5 cents because an alimunfactory went up in flames. When gas prices rise that makes it more expensive for trucking companies that makes shipping stuff more expensive so stores raise there prices, so we have less money so we spend less so the government gets less tax money. Then those greedy oil companies still make all there money and laugh at us, the greedy fucking bastards need to be stoped.
What everyone like your self and many others who are pissed at the oil companies and the price of gas need to to is say fuck them and stop driving cars. I know for somepeople who that is there only way to get around they can't. But any one who dosn't need the car park it don't drive or get an alernative fuel source car. They are out there but hard to find. I think if John Deloran wouldn't have been taken down, his cars would have already gone to a non gas sourse. If you have a diesal vechile you can use biodiesal wich is basicly cooking oil. When supply goes down then the price of oil goes up so the profit margin goes up. The consumer shouldn't have to pay for a flucating market. Could you imagine if you went to buy a can of pop and it went up 5 cents because an alimunfactory went up in flames. When gas prices rise that makes it more expensive for trucking companies that makes shipping stuff more expensive so stores raise there prices, so we have less money so we spend less so the government gets less tax money. Then those greedy oil companies still make all there money and laugh at us, the greedy fucking bastards need to be stoped.
ajay - 10/27/05 13:10
But this is the Repuglican way! More money for the corporates!! The people be damned!!!
Seriously man, you need to look at your own side of the fence. At least the liberal side of the divide doesn't stick it to the little guy as much.
But this is the Repuglican way! More money for the corporates!! The people be damned!!!
Seriously man, you need to look at your own side of the fence. At least the liberal side of the divide doesn't stick it to the little guy as much.
"Accountability" ? It's a free market, the system you rightwingers love! The solution to Niman? Don't read Artvoice! Nobody else does! Why do you think they give it away for free?
The "accountability" you are proposing is one small step away from Censorship (the Rightwingers wet dream). If you think you have a valid rebuttal to Niman, write letters to Artvoice. They even publish op-eds written by normal citizenry. Heck, write to Niman directly and engage him in a debate. Post the results here, we'd all love to read about it.
Remember, for every Niman there's a Drudge, Limbaugh and Coulter. What was that again, "Rush is Right"? ;-)