Do not be silly,Knot.It is beneath you.

We have simply dcided to give the Obama fans a taste of their own medicine after months of Hate Hillary posts.And I am not even for her.

by SouthernGal
05/08/2008, 10:40 PM #

To be perfectly honest, Knot I'm to the
point I don't really care about HRC or whether she gets the nomination or not and the same goes for Obama too...sorry to take the wind out of your sails or mud off of your face...you choose. If Obama has the nomination sewn up why do you all continue to attack HRC?

That leaves Ellen and Elaine. Time for sour grapes and not caring about poor little HRC.

It's fairly evident that MA and SG are Republicans if they 1) don't like Obama and 2) don't support Clinton. So what was the fuss all about for the past three months?

Answer: Rev. Jeremiah Wright scared the bejeezus outta these gals.

"It's fairly evident that MA and SG are Republicans if they 1) don't like Obama and 2) don't support Clinton. "

Perhaps you should stick to economics since the fallacy contained in that sentence is glaringly evident. (Best avoid 'peak oil' though...)

you continue to prove on a daily basis that you do not know of which you speak.

If you are so obtuse as to not know what the last 3 months have been about then I'm afraid there is little I can say to enlighten you...1) you've never heard me say that I don't like Obama 2) It's hard to support a candidate who is not going to win the nomination and if that makes me a Republican...well damn, all I can say is the criteria for being one has certainly changed.

We'll see who Rev, Wright scares the bejeesus out of and it most assuredly will not be MaryAnne or me.

SG

Let's parse my statement, shall we?

"It's fairly evident that MA and SG are Republicans if they 1) don't like Obama and 2) don't support Clinton. "

"Fairly evident" means something like an 80-90% probability, not 100%. Had I said "totally evident" or even "evident", the implied probability would have been 100% or nearly so.

MA and SG by their statements are no longer supporting Clinton. They are on record opposing Obama, though SG has made some concilliatory or flattering remarks about him or at least tried to understand his supporters. With MA there is no question; she calls him an "empty suit" and worse.

So if SG and particularly MA can't get behind either of the two candidates, then there is McCain or Nader. Since I doubt either would be inclined to go the Nader route, that leaves McCain--assuming they vote at all. And the two of them are political junkies who probably always vote. Hence, my "fairly evident".

What's this got to do with (Hubbart's) Peak Oil?

I will always support Senator Clinton...I believe she is a fine person and politician and would have made a great President but I believe she will not get the nomination so really don't see the sense going on about it day in and day out. Besides, Sen. Obama's supporters need to catch a break from the mean HRC supporters before that big neocon storm that's about to blow in and hit them.

You are right...I will vote and it will be for the candidate who opposes McCain. Having to look at bush and put up with his totally failed policies was bad enough but if I have to look at McCain [whom I truly feel is a complete A-H...as bad as bush any day] for 4 years I'd rather put out my eyes with an ice pick and his policies?...forget about it.

Can we not have peace? Please...

SG

Sure, we can have peace.

I take it that's a yes vote for Nader?

genedio:

Let's parse my statement, shall we?

"It's fairly evident that MA and SG are Republicans if they 1) don't like Obama and 2) don't support Clinton. "

"Fairly evident" means something like an 80-90% probability, not 100%. Had I said "totally evident" or even "evident", the implied probability would have been 100% or nearly so.

"Men who split hairs with their conscience, who mislead others by deft, shrewd phrasing which may be true in letter yet lying in spirit and designedly uttered to produce a false impression, are untruthful in the most cowardly way. Such men would cheat even in solitaire. Like murderers they forgive themselves their crime in congratulating themselves on the cleverness of their alibi." William George Jordan

genedio:

What's this got to do with (Hubbart's) Peak Oil?

Almost nothing, just another issue you were mistaken on.

Hope that helps.

All this talk of "lying in spirit", "producing false impressions", "untruthful in the most cowardly way", "murderers", and "crime" is a little melodramatic, wouldn't you admit? All I was doing was trying to get SG and MA to choose. I don't think they are terribly sanguine about voting for McCain, but I'm trying to help them make a decision. So I exaggerated my case a little. Bite me!

But I suspect it's really Peak Oil which is on your mind. I am less of an expert than you are, and I'm aware of what the oil majors have been saying, and I think that's very self-serving of them to blame the speculators. Point is, there haven't been any large oil finds lately. Mexico's Cantarell is dwindling fast. Who knows what's happening in Saudi Arabian fields, but I don't see them taking advantage of these record prices and pumping much more oil.

My original post ("Oil over $120") was concerned with the fact that the rest of the world pays as much, and in most developed countries, significantly higher gas prices than we do. Yet we produce all the hot air about it. I showed that most of the rise was due to the weak dollar, and also mentioned the premium for political instability (Nigeria, Iran, Iraq, etc.). Speculation no doubt plays a part, but look at the rise over the last 16 months--it's been continuous, with few retraces. That doesn't look like speculation, but something more fundamental.

even more so than I gave you credit for.

Does Nader have a chance of beating McCain?

Consider this conversation fini.

SG