So what you're saying is that the US is offering the best price for scarce
resources, and is paying the same price as anyone else for non-scarce goods?
The countries that sell us resources don't have to, do they?

Glenn D.



when they don't we will liberate them
George

Usually, yes. But recently, they've decided it's easier to just make up
lies about WMDs so they can just invade oil rich countries & take the oil.

Are we taking any oil?


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

Usually, yes. But recently, they've decided it's easier to just make up
lies about WMDs so they can just invade oil rich countries & take the oil.

Are we taking any oil?


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

"Pete Dimsman" wrote in message
...


Glenn Dowdy wrote:



So what you're saying is that the US is offering the best price for
scarce
resources, and is paying the same price as anyone else for non-scarce
goods?
The countries that sell us resources don't have to, do they?

I'm not sure that is what I am saying, but you still missed my point. We
could have and can still choose to conserve resources instead of
exploiting them.

It is about doing the right thing, not what is in the best interest of
huge corporations.

Those huge corporations aren't the ones consuming resources. It's the 400
million folks in the US. Big corporations don't just buy stuff because they
can . They buy because they can sell it at a profit.

b.t.w. Exxon still hasn't paid everything they owe for the Valdez
disaster. Still litigating. In the meantime, still one of the most
profitable entities on the planet.

That's the Law's fault, not anyone elses.

Glenn D.

"Pete Dimsman" wrote in message
...


Glenn Dowdy wrote:



So what you're saying is that the US is offering the best price for
scarce
resources, and is paying the same price as anyone else for non-scarce
goods?
The countries that sell us resources don't have to, do they?

I'm not sure that is what I am saying, but you still missed my point. We
could have and can still choose to conserve resources instead of
exploiting them.

It is about doing the right thing, not what is in the best interest of
huge corporations.

Those huge corporations aren't the ones consuming resources. It's the 400
million folks in the US. Big corporations don't just buy stuff because they
can . They buy because they can sell it at a profit.

b.t.w. Exxon still hasn't paid everything they owe for the Valdez
disaster. Still litigating. In the meantime, still one of the most
profitable entities on the planet.

That's the Law's fault, not anyone elses.

Glenn D.

The troops will come out when there is an awakening from
that dream, when the return on investment in dollars and
blood no longer makes economic sense, or when we they find
someone to take it from at lower cost.


If I was Canada I would keep one hand on the throttle and one hand on
my pistol
George

The troops will come out when there is an awakening from
that dream, when the return on investment in dollars and
blood no longer makes economic sense, or when we they find
someone to take it from at lower cost.


If I was Canada I would keep one hand on the throttle and one hand on
my pistol
George

Pete Dimsman wrote:


Blind Joni wrote:

The problem is that the US 7% of the population consumes far, far
more than it's share of the worlds resources. And most of those
resources belonged to other countries... it's a stacked deck,
which is why so much of the world resents America.


I understand this but aren't we BUYING those resources..we're not
stealing them.


You CAN'T put a dollar value on everything. There is a finite amount of
fossil fuel available, and we took a good portion of that while it was
still cheap. Because we have (or had) the money to pay for them, doesn't
change the fact that we have and continue to use an imporportionate
amount of those resources. Maybe "stealing" isn't the right word, you
can call it "taking".


Making sure that oil was to be sold for dollars at about the same time we went off the gold standard was a great way to insure the continued viability of the Dollar...

Pete Dimsman wrote:


Blind Joni wrote:

The problem is that the US 7% of the population consumes far, far
more than it's share of the worlds resources. And most of those
resources belonged to other countries... it's a stacked deck,
which is why so much of the world resents America.


I understand this but aren't we BUYING those resources..we're not
stealing them.


You CAN'T put a dollar value on everything. There is a finite amount of
fossil fuel available, and we took a good portion of that while it was
still cheap. Because we have (or had) the money to pay for them, doesn't
change the fact that we have and continue to use an imporportionate
amount of those resources. Maybe "stealing" isn't the right word, you
can call it "taking".


Making sure that oil was to be sold for dollars at about the same time we went off the gold standard was a great way to insure the continued viability of the Dollar...

Same here in Albany...all the city stuff is those little electric eggs.

Did they get those to match The Egg?


Scott Fraser

Same here in Albany...all the city stuff is those little electric eggs.

Did they get those to match The Egg?


Scott Fraser

Glenn Dowdy wrote:

Those huge corporations aren't the ones consuming resources. It's the 400
million folks in the US. Big corporations don't just buy stuff because they
can . They buy because they can sell it at a profit.

You really need to do some research into what those huge corporations
have done and continue to do to deliberately sabotage efforts to make
alternative energy sources more viable. Can't blame that on us.

Glenn Dowdy wrote:

Those huge corporations aren't the ones consuming resources. It's the 400
million folks in the US. Big corporations don't just buy stuff because they
can . They buy because they can sell it at a profit.

You really need to do some research into what those huge corporations
have done and continue to do to deliberately sabotage efforts to make
alternative energy sources more viable. Can't blame that on us.

Glenn Dowdy wrote:


Some of those huge corporations, yes. Not all of them.

Yes, but it is the ones that profit on the wasting of said resources.
Mainly the oil companies, which have historically been hugely profitable
businesses.

And it the greedy
mofo's at the top of those corporations.

Yes? But isn't that the point?


Everyone else just wants to keep
their jobs.

And it is the whores that keep pimps in business.

Glenn Dowdy wrote:


Some of those huge corporations, yes. Not all of them.

Yes, but it is the ones that profit on the wasting of said resources.
Mainly the oil companies, which have historically been hugely profitable
businesses.

And it the greedy
mofo's at the top of those corporations.

Yes? But isn't that the point?


Everyone else just wants to keep
their jobs.

And it is the whores that keep pimps in business.

"Pete Dimsman" wrote in message
...


Glenn Dowdy wrote:

Those huge corporations aren't the ones consuming resources. It's the
400
million folks in the US. Big corporations don't just buy stuff because
they
can . They buy because they can sell it at a profit.

You really need to do some research into what those huge corporations
have done and continue to do to deliberately sabotage efforts to make
alternative energy sources more viable. Can't blame that on us.

Some of those huge corporations, yes. Not all of them. And it the greedy
mofo's at the top of those corporations. Everyone else just wants to keep
their jobs.

Glenn D.

"Pete Dimsman" wrote in message
...


Glenn Dowdy wrote:

Those huge corporations aren't the ones consuming resources. It's the
400
million folks in the US. Big corporations don't just buy stuff because
they
can . They buy because they can sell it at a profit.

You really need to do some research into what those huge corporations
have done and continue to do to deliberately sabotage efforts to make
alternative energy sources more viable. Can't blame that on us.

Some of those huge corporations, yes. Not all of them. And it the greedy
mofo's at the top of those corporations. Everyone else just wants to keep
their jobs.

Glenn D.

On 16 Sep 2004 22:13:39 GMT, (Blind Joni) wrote:

The problem is that the US 7% of the population consumes far, far more
than it's share of the worlds resources. And most of the those
resources belonged to other countries... it's a stacked deck, which is
why so much of the world resents America.

I understand this but aren't we BUYING those resources..we're not stealing
them.

That's not really true if you look a little deeper. Historically we
have used our military power to manipulate our access to raw materials
that we needed, and to keep prices favorable to the US. This is what
allows our corporations to amass such great wealth. The CIA and the
American military have worked to insure that we continue to get these
resources by constantly interfering in other country's affairs,
propping up authoritarian leaders, rigging elections, promoting
assinations, etc etc. The average person in these resource-rich places
gets no benefit from the sale of these resources, the money tending to
stay with the ruler of the country, his extended family, and their
cronies. The US practices a type of economic colonialism enforced by
violence if neccessary. This is a really big subject and I'm too tired
to go into it fully at the moment, but I suggest you do some reading,
you will surely be enlightened, this book is a pretty good start:

U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II -- William Blum
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...books&n=507846

Every conflict we have been involved in since WWII has at it's heart
been about the control of resources.

On 16 Sep 2004 22:13:39 GMT, (Blind Joni) wrote:

The problem is that the US 7% of the population consumes far, far more
than it's share of the worlds resources. And most of the those
resources belonged to other countries... it's a stacked deck, which is
why so much of the world resents America.

I understand this but aren't we BUYING those resources..we're not stealing
them.

That's not really true if you look a little deeper. Historically we
have used our military power to manipulate our access to raw materials
that we needed, and to keep prices favorable to the US. This is what
allows our corporations to amass such great wealth. The CIA and the
American military have worked to insure that we continue to get these
resources by constantly interfering in other country's affairs,
propping up authoritarian leaders, rigging elections, promoting
assinations, etc etc. The average person in these resource-rich places
gets no benefit from the sale of these resources, the money tending to
stay with the ruler of the country, his extended family, and their
cronies. The US practices a type of economic colonialism enforced by
violence if neccessary. This is a really big subject and I'm too tired
to go into it fully at the moment, but I suggest you do some reading,
you will surely be enlightened, this book is a pretty good start:

U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II -- William Blum
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...books&n=507846

Every conflict we have been involved in since WWII has at it's heart
been about the control of resources.

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:39:27 -0500, Pete Dimsman
wrote:



Glenn Dowdy wrote:



So what you're saying is that the US is offering the best price for scarce
resources, and is paying the same price as anyone else for non-scarce goods?
The countries that sell us resources don't have to, do they?

I'm not sure that is what I am saying, but you still missed my point. We
could have and can still choose to conserve resources instead of
exploiting them.

It is about doing the right thing, not what is in the best interest of
huge corporations.

b.t.w. Exxon still hasn't paid everything they owe for the Valdez
disaster. Still litigating. In the meantime, still one of the most
profitable entities on the planet.

The victims of the Union Carbide disaster in Bhopal India still
haven't received a dime either, it remains in litigation as well.

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:39:27 -0500, Pete Dimsman
wrote:



Glenn Dowdy wrote:



So what you're saying is that the US is offering the best price for scarce
resources, and is paying the same price as anyone else for non-scarce goods?
The countries that sell us resources don't have to, do they?

I'm not sure that is what I am saying, but you still missed my point. We
could have and can still choose to conserve resources instead of
exploiting them.

It is about doing the right thing, not what is in the best interest of
huge corporations.

b.t.w. Exxon still hasn't paid everything they owe for the Valdez
disaster. Still litigating. In the meantime, still one of the most
profitable entities on the planet.

The victims of the Union Carbide disaster in Bhopal India still
haven't received a dime either, it remains in litigation as well.

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 22:33:53 -0600, "Glenn Dowdy"
wrote:

Those huge corporations aren't the ones consuming resources. It's the 400
million folks in the US.

This is a great failure of leadership. The world's resources are
finite commodities, yet there is no promotion of conservation. This
is going to bite the USA in ass real soon, in fact it's already
started.

Big corporations don't just buy stuff because they
can . They buy because they can sell it at a profit.

The reason they can sell it at a profit is that we promote foreign
governments who will play ball with us and keep the prices low so that
the corporations can make great profits. Those governments more often
that not are *extremely* oppressive and corrupt. Saudi Arabi is the
ultimate example but there are scores of others. Indonesia, Burma,
Chile (under Pinochet), Kazakistan, Nigeria are a few that come to
mind off the top of my head. So much for exporting democracy.
When the Saudi royal family finally gets overthrown, what kind of
prices do you think oil will reach then?

The ignorance of the average US citizen of what really goes on in the
world is a huge problem, & is the source of surpised questions of "why
do they hate us?" etc.

Al

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 22:33:53 -0600, "Glenn Dowdy"
wrote:

Those huge corporations aren't the ones consuming resources. It's the 400
million folks in the US.

This is a great failure of leadership. The world's resources are
finite commodities, yet there is no promotion of conservation. This
is going to bite the USA in ass real soon, in fact it's already
started.

Big corporations don't just buy stuff because they
can . They buy because they can sell it at a profit.

The reason they can sell it at a profit is that we promote foreign
governments who will play ball with us and keep the prices low so that
the corporations can make great profits. Those governments more often
that not are *extremely* oppressive and corrupt. Saudi Arabi is the
ultimate example but there are scores of others. Indonesia, Burma,
Chile (under Pinochet), Kazakistan, Nigeria are a few that come to
mind off the top of my head. So much for exporting democracy.
When the Saudi royal family finally gets overthrown, what kind of
prices do you think oil will reach then?

The ignorance of the average US citizen of what really goes on in the
world is a huge problem, & is the source of surpised questions of "why
do they hate us?" etc.

Al

"playon" wrote in message

When the Saudi royal family finally gets overthrown, what kind of
prices do you think oil will reach then?


That's when Nostradamus' man in the Blue Turban will appear. ;-)

"playon" wrote in message

When the Saudi royal family finally gets overthrown, what kind of
prices do you think oil will reach then?


That's when Nostradamus' man in the Blue Turban will appear. ;-)

Those governments more often
that not are *extremely* oppressive and corrupt. Saudi Arabi is the
ultimate example but there are scores of others. Indonesia, Burma,
Chile (under Pinochet), Kazakistan, Nigeria are a few that come to
mind off the top of my head. So much for exporting democracy.
When the Saudi royal family finally gets overthrown, what kind of
prices do you think oil will reach then?

The ignorance of the average US citizen of what really goes on in the
world is a huge problem, & is the source of surpised questions of "why
do they hate us?" etc.


I guess I'm on of the average US citizens. Do you think left to their own
devices these countries would develope governments more to our liking? I mean,
these kinds of scenarios existed long before the US was on the
scene...seemingly throughout history.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

Those governments more often
that not are *extremely* oppressive and corrupt. Saudi Arabi is the
ultimate example but there are scores of others. Indonesia, Burma,
Chile (under Pinochet), Kazakistan, Nigeria are a few that come to
mind off the top of my head. So much for exporting democracy.
When the Saudi royal family finally gets overthrown, what kind of
prices do you think oil will reach then?

The ignorance of the average US citizen of what really goes on in the
world is a huge problem, & is the source of surpised questions of "why
do they hate us?" etc.


I guess I'm on of the average US citizens. Do you think left to their own
devices these countries would develope governments more to our liking? I mean,
these kinds of scenarios existed long before the US was on the
scene...seemingly throughout history.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

Just in case your Hummer doesn't use enough gas, you can always get one
of these:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Co...5a.hmedium.jpg

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6026041

Truck maker unveils a monster pickup
Navistar's 14,500-pound vehicle gets 7 miles a gallon

Just in case your Hummer doesn't use enough gas, you can always get one
of these:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Co...5a.hmedium.jpg

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6026041

Truck maker unveils a monster pickup
Navistar's 14,500-pound vehicle gets 7 miles a gallon

On 17 Sep 2004 22:34:26 GMT, (Blind Joni) wrote:

Those governments more often
that not are *extremely* oppressive and corrupt. Saudi Arabi is the
ultimate example but there are scores of others. Indonesia, Burma,
Chile (under Pinochet), Kazakistan, Nigeria are a few that come to
mind off the top of my head. So much for exporting democracy.
When the Saudi royal family finally gets overthrown, what kind of
prices do you think oil will reach then?

The ignorance of the average US citizen of what really goes on in the
world is a huge problem, & is the source of surpised questions of "why
do they hate us?" etc.


I guess I'm on of the average US citizens. Do you think left to their own
devices these countries would develope governments more to our liking?

No, they'd develop governments more to *their* liking.
That's the classic American attitude... do you think that other
countries exist for the purpose of pleasing us?

I mean,
these kinds of scenarios existed long before the US was on the
scene...seemingly throughout history.

I have no idea what scenarios you are referring to... I was talking
about the scenarios overthrowing and undermining of democratically
elected governments by the US, and the installation of dicatorial
puppet regimes installed by the US... the the Shah of Iran... that one
really turned around and bit us on the ass, didn't it? You don't seem
like a dumb guy, why don't you read up on it a little, I'm seriously
encouraging you.

On 17 Sep 2004 22:34:26 GMT, (Blind Joni) wrote:

Those governments more often
that not are *extremely* oppressive and corrupt. Saudi Arabi is the
ultimate example but there are scores of others. Indonesia, Burma,
Chile (under Pinochet), Kazakistan, Nigeria are a few that come to
mind off the top of my head. So much for exporting democracy.
When the Saudi royal family finally gets overthrown, what kind of
prices do you think oil will reach then?

The ignorance of the average US citizen of what really goes on in the
world is a huge problem, & is the source of surpised questions of "why
do they hate us?" etc.


I guess I'm on of the average US citizens. Do you think left to their own
devices these countries would develope governments more to our liking?

No, they'd develop governments more to *their* liking.
That's the classic American attitude... do you think that other
countries exist for the purpose of pleasing us?

I mean,
these kinds of scenarios existed long before the US was on the
scene...seemingly throughout history.

I have no idea what scenarios you are referring to... I was talking
about the scenarios overthrowing and undermining of democratically
elected governments by the US, and the installation of dicatorial
puppet regimes installed by the US... the the Shah of Iran... that one
really turned around and bit us on the ass, didn't it? You don't seem
like a dumb guy, why don't you read up on it a little, I'm seriously
encouraging you.

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 18:28:04 -0500, Pete Dimsman
wrote:

Just in case your Hummer doesn't use enough gas, you can always get one
of these:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Co...5a.hmedium.jpg

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6026041

Truck maker unveils a monster pickup
Navistar's 14,500-pound vehicle gets 7 miles a gallon

Jesus... why not just buy a Kenworth or a Peterbuilt and be done with
it?

Al

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 18:28:04 -0500, Pete Dimsman
wrote:

Just in case your Hummer doesn't use enough gas, you can always get one
of these:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Co...5a.hmedium.jpg

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6026041

Truck maker unveils a monster pickup
Navistar's 14,500-pound vehicle gets 7 miles a gallon

Jesus... why not just buy a Kenworth or a Peterbuilt and be done with
it?

Al

playon wrote:

I was talking about the scenarios overthrowing and
undermining of democratically elected governments by the US,
and the installation of dicatorial puppet regimes installed
by the US... the the Shah of Iran... that one really turned
around and bit us on the ass, didn't it? You don't seem like
a dumb guy, why don't you read up on it a little, I'm
seriously encouraging you.

Start with the original source--Donald Wilber's recently declassified report on TPAJAX http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/

playon wrote:

I was talking about the scenarios overthrowing and
undermining of democratically elected governments by the US,
and the installation of dicatorial puppet regimes installed
by the US... the the Shah of Iran... that one really turned
around and bit us on the ass, didn't it? You don't seem like
a dumb guy, why don't you read up on it a little, I'm
seriously encouraging you.

Start with the original source--Donald Wilber's recently declassified report on TPAJAX http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/

playon

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 22:33:53 -0600, "Glenn Dowdy"
wrote:

Those huge corporations aren't the ones consuming resources. It's the 400
million folks in the US.

This is a great failure of leadership. The world's resources are
finite commodities, yet there is no promotion of conservation. This
is going to bite the USA in ass real soon, in fact it's already
started.

Big corporations don't just buy stuff because they
can . They buy because they can sell it at a profit.

The reason they can sell it at a profit is that we promote foreign
governments who will play ball with us and keep the prices low so that
the corporations can make great profits. Those governments more often
that not are *extremely* oppressive and corrupt. Saudi Arabi is the
ultimate example but there are scores of others. Indonesia, Burma,
Chile (under Pinochet), Kazakistan, Nigeria are a few that come to
mind off the top of my head. So much for exporting democracy.
When the Saudi royal family finally gets overthrown, what kind of
prices do you think oil will reach then?

The ignorance of the average US citizen of what really goes on in the
world is a huge problem, & is the source of surpised questions of "why
do they hate us?" etc.


So to sum up, our enemies hate us because they are smarter, better
informed and more moral than we are (by virtue of less consumption) and our
friends love us because they are corrupt, oppressive, and greedy?

That's *dopey*. A stupid, narrow, and unexamined worldview.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

playon

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 22:33:53 -0600, "Glenn Dowdy"
wrote:

Those huge corporations aren't the ones consuming resources. It's the 400
million folks in the US.

This is a great failure of leadership. The world's resources are
finite commodities, yet there is no promotion of conservation. This
is going to bite the USA in ass real soon, in fact it's already
started.

Big corporations don't just buy stuff because they
can . They buy because they can sell it at a profit.

The reason they can sell it at a profit is that we promote foreign
governments who will play ball with us and keep the prices low so that
the corporations can make great profits. Those governments more often
that not are *extremely* oppressive and corrupt. Saudi Arabi is the
ultimate example but there are scores of others. Indonesia, Burma,
Chile (under Pinochet), Kazakistan, Nigeria are a few that come to
mind off the top of my head. So much for exporting democracy.
When the Saudi royal family finally gets overthrown, what kind of
prices do you think oil will reach then?

The ignorance of the average US citizen of what really goes on in the
world is a huge problem, & is the source of surpised questions of "why
do they hate us?" etc.


So to sum up, our enemies hate us because they are smarter, better
informed and more moral than we are (by virtue of less consumption) and our
friends love us because they are corrupt, oppressive, and greedy?

That's *dopey*. A stupid, narrow, and unexamined worldview.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

George
If I was Canada I would keep one hand on the throttle and one hand on
my pistol

Guess this election reminds George of "The Deerhunter" too.


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

George
If I was Canada I would keep one hand on the throttle and one hand on
my pistol

Guess this election reminds George of "The Deerhunter" too.


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

playon

(Blind Joni) wrote: Are we taking any oil?

**** yes. We are buying it of course, ...

Stealing = buying. Doh! If the world indeed does hate Americans as you
claim Al, for the reason of our stupidity, *you* are in big trouble.

... but since the oil infrastructer
and export will all be managed by oil corporations (friends of Bush
and Cheney's) all the money will go to US companies.

How about Theresa Heinz Kerry's MASSIVE holdings in Halliburton Dude? And
she refuses to release her financial records and disclose her investments,
unlike Bush and Cheney who have released all their records and put their
investments into blind trusts.

Fact is because of this non-disclosure it's the Democrat who is the
ethically challenged candidate, by every standard set in past Presidential
elections.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits