Google and Oil are the only things up!

That was a well thought out and articulate response.

If people actually took the time to investigate the options, they would see there are a number of options for private accounts and it's an option.

How are your toes?

 

Why don't you tell us why oil is at record highs, the country is in record debt, record trade deficits with a weak dollar with no consumer confidence and the stock markets crashing

 

Perhaps some balance is in order? You seem to want this information, but are reluctant to offer a solution to the oil problem. Put your best effort forward on it, and I'll do the same on your issue.

 

There was never an oil problem GTech, they said that we were running out of Oil in 1974 when Nixon and Kissinger engineered the fake "Oil Crisis of 1973-74" which was the original Republican lie that they still try to use on us today

We do not have an oil problem, we have a corruption problem. Do you remember Enron GTech?

 

So 40% oil consumption growth over the last ten years and countries around the world are not really consuming more oil? Other countries are not feeling the effect? Somehow Bush has managed to convince all the major leaders around the world to fake an oil problem?

I admit, there is an oil corruption problem. It's in the United Nations and those countries and world leaders that took oil vouchers in return for a vote on going to war with Iraq. I fail to see how Bush is profitting from the UN oil scandal though.

 

Explain how under Richard Nixon that gas prices went from .25 cents a gallon to $1.50 overnight in the 1973-1974 "Nixon fake oil crisis" GTech.

There was no shortage then, there is no shortage now, it is corrupt Houston Oil men that are short of fucking brains.

 

So you prefer a one sided conversation. You type, I read. I was hoping you would contribute something intelligent regarding the solution to oil. Saying there is no oil problem, when it is a global problem makes no sense.

 

hehe, I'll live. Musta had a bad afternoon.

But seriously, the president has no business recommending the stock market which is an uninsurable investment.

It's purely corporate whoring.

 

It is called corruption by "OIL EXECUTIVES" (Dick Cheney, Ken Lay and friends).......

Read about the original criminals that taught the above everything they know about stealing "OIL MONEY"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_energy_crisis

Hell even you may learn something GTech

See the photo below from the above linked article GTech.

Note that sick bastard Kissinger standing behind the arse Nixon

 

Hope we're cool.

I disagree with the above though. Here's why: We're not talking about the stock market on the whole. We're talking about personal investment accounts, similar to the way current 401 and IRAs are done today. And stock market index funds are not the only option. Personal savings accounts and treasury bonds are an option as well.

It offers people today, to invest (and there are limits on that investing) a small portion of their earnings into a retirement account that will grow better and faster. And it allows that account to be passed on, in case of death.

It's basically a plan Democrats had during the Clinton administration. But that administration chose not to tackle the problem, even though they saw it as a looming problem as well. Here's an interview with Clinton:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/july-dec98/social_7-28.html

If in fact, we could simply just go out and pick high risk investments to put our money into, I would disagree. But it's stock market index funds, treasury bonds and personal savings accounts. There are choices.

What I don't understand is, how can Democrats be for it (like war with Iraq) during Clinton's years, but against it now?

 

I understand you have a fixation with Nixon, Anthony. The problem is, I don't. You are more than welcome to bash Nixon till your eyes turn blue, but I was a kid then, coming up with plans on how I could peep into neighborhood girls windows and shooting BB guns.

Though Nixon is long departed, I'm touched that you feel obligated to keep him alive!

 

GTech you need to learn about Nixon because his mentality and those who followed in his footsteps caused most of the current problems this country has and Kissinger is still at it behind the scenes.

Bush nominated him to Chair the 9/11 commission and he resigned because of conflict of interest as his firm Kissinger & Associates represents the Saudi Government in Washington. What does that tell you about the current situation

Maybe if you would listen for once you could progress GTech, but you like Republican hype too much to learn anything.

 

We're cool. I should have went to pm to begin with. You had no idea we were aquainted.

You explain it better then the description does. If that's accurate, then I guess it meets what I think my criteria would be.

Problem is it won't happen, the line between poor and rich will increase and society will have to bare the burden.

Maybe long term if we turn our heads to the downfall of those that will not help themselves, we will have eliminated them and the burden.

All of the plans the president has make business sense for the most part. But because society, as we've molded it, affects how it plays out, not commerce, it's not doable.

 

Nixon is dead. If he can run this country from his grave, then he must have been one hell of a president.

Listening to your displeasure of a dead president is not what I consider progressive.

I can't just accept your word. Imagine, if you will, that I suddenly started believing in what you said, with no evidence to back it up? I would blindly go around to forums preaching madness the likes of:

"Bush and Cheney steal our oil."
"Bush stole the election."
"Bush wants to benefit his nuclear friends."

Then I would have to debate against some thug that actually had facts and would come back with:

"How does Bush and Cheney steal our oil?"
"How did Bush steal the election? What proof do you have?"
"What friends does Bush have in the nuclear business that he is, or wants to make rich."

And then I would have to dodge the questions, because the only evidence we have of oil thieves are the UN and some of our allies who were bought off with oil vouchers. I would then have to avoid all talk of the UN Oil scandal and pretend it didn't happen. I'd have to make up some gibberish about Nixon and Kissinger because I have no proof that Bush is trying to richen his nuclear buddies (of which I don't even know who they are).

Could you imagine trying to debate like that? Just the thought of continuously trying to make claims like that, then when asked to comment, drudge up Nixon to cover up the fact there is simply no evidence, is daunting. I can't imagine anyone trying to get their point across like that. Can you?

 

I guess you missed post # 49 and the original cause of the oil crisis and why it still exists today....It is called fraud GTech

 

Yes, the parellel is there. However, you are avoiding how Bush did it.

I'm no Bush fan, but ya can't make those charges you've made.

 

What charges? This is reality Noppid.....

This guy seems to think Bush (Cheney) has something to do with it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm



http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=3668&highlight=crisis

We have discussed this before also Noppid, see above thread.

 

OK Anthony, I'm at the article and I've skimmed over it. Doing a search on "Kissinger" in the article shows to mentions. Neither of which mention stealing oil. In fact, from what I'm reading, OPEC decided they were going to increase the price of oil to countries who supported Israel. I also note a rise from .38 cents per gallon to .55 cents per gallan. That's a drastic difference from the $1.50 you mentioned.

So how can I learn to make up my own set of facts from the real ones? What part of the article am I missing?

 

Ok, that was asking alot I guess. You can, but the evidence is yet to mean anything.

 

Yep, and I spent six hours that night doing research to dispute a lone article by a known *journalist* that caters to the far left spectrum. I just never posted it. I sent it to Mia for his input, but have not heard back yet. So here it is:

Secret US Plans for Iraq's Oil

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm

Breaking down Greg Palast's from 17 March, 2005

First, the actual article:

Paragraph One. Setting the stage of protests.

Paragraph Two. Speculation. The author offers a photo image of two documents with no identifying marks to suggest where the source of the documents originates. Further, the document images are clearly altered to incude additional highlighting captures. I'm reminded of the CBS Forged Document Memo Scandal.

Paragraph Three. Speculation. No foundation.

Paragraph Four. What insiders? Where does the information come from and how are the sources verified as credible? Speculation.

Paragraph Five/Six. Falah Aljibury says he took part in secret meetings and claims he interviewed potential successsors.

What do we know of Falah Aljibury's previous statements?

From a PBS interview dated April 24th, 2003 (approximately one month after initial invasion of Iraq):

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june03/oil_4-24.html

Among several passages, Falah states:

Paragraph Seven. Author claims a secret plan to sell-off of all of Iraq's oil fields was crafted just before the invasion of 2003. That would be prior to Falah's statements above. Is Falah's statement correct THEN, or is it correct today?

Paragraph Eight. Sell-off was given green light in secret meeting headed by Fadhil Chalabi shortly after US entered Baghdad, according to Robert Ebel.

April 2003 Time frame. What do we know of Robert Ebel?

In an article 19 December, 2002 (within 4-5 months of the established "secret meeting' time frame):

Within week(s) of said secret meeting, Mr Ebel briefs the US SEnate Committee on Energy and Natural Resoures on the worst case scenario of oil supply after an attack on Iraq.

http://energy.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=590&wit_id=1601


What do we know of Fadhil Chalabi?

Fadhil is a cousin of Ahmed Chalabi, an initial member of the Iraqi Governing Council. He was later accused of passing US Intelligence secrets to Iran. Perhpas Fadhil is seeking retribution for his cousin?

Paragraph Eight. We are reminded again that Mr Ebel flew to a secret meeting in February/Early March 2003, just months after his interview above, and week(s) after his briefing to the US Senate.

Paragraph Nine, Ten, Eleven. Mr Aljibury appears to claim that insurgents (of all people) knew of these secret plans before Greg Palast and was encited by them to cause casulaties. What changed Mr Aljibury's position from April 2003, to just months later to the above?

Paragraph Twelve. Author claims Philip Carroll stalled the sell-off scheme.

Paragraph Thirteen/Fourteen. Claims Mr Carroll said there will be no privatisation while he was involved. Apparently there were no plans for privatization then, as Mr Carroll went on to serve in the position of Oil adviser.

What do we know of Philip Carroll?

Houston Chronicle - October 2nd, 2003
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/world/2132249

Mr Carroll gives an upbeat progress report of his accomplishments and notes:

If Mr Carroll was not willing to be a part of any plan for privatisation stemming from the March 2003 time frame, then it would appear his service to our country and that of Iraq had no encounter of such, at that time. Interestly, Mr Carroll makes no mention of any privatisation in his interview with the Houston Chronicle.

Paragraph Fifteen, Sixteen and Seventeen. General comments. No smoking gun or admissions.

Paragraph Eighteen. Author claims to have possession of new State Department plans for a state-owned oil company completed in January 2004 under the guidance of Amy Jaffe.

What do we know of Amy Jaffe?

From a PBS interview dated April 24th, 2003 (approximately one month after initial invasion of Iraq) which notes Mr Aljibury's comments above:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june03/oil_4-24.html

Surprisingly, during a time which *supposedly* there were secret plans of another sort, Amy Jaffee notes "Secretary Rumsfeld and others have said this, is there has never been a question that the oil in the ground is owned by the Iraqi people and the country of Iraq, so that's the first principle."

Remaining Article. The remaining paragraphs hold no smoking gun information. General observations and quotes with little or no bearing on accusations.