Report, edit, etc...Posted by Arbitrary on 2006-03-14 at 15:33:35
Oh no, there's plenty more room for being screwed. Nigeria, which supplies 20% of our oil, is on the verge of civil war, so you can expect gas prices to skyrocket soon enough. And relations with Venezuela (another 10%) aren't exactly great either.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by olaboy- on 2006-03-14 at 17:05:21
Well, they rised a lot and there's nothing we can really do about it.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2006-03-14 at 18:19:08
QUOTE(Arbitrary @ Mar 14 2006, 12:33 PM)
Oh no, there's plenty more room for being screwed. Nigeria, which supplies 20% of our oil, is on the verge of civil war, so you can expect gas prices to skyrocket soon enough. And relations with Venezuela (another 10%) aren't exactly great either.
[right][snapback]445451[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]445451[/snapback][/right]
Where did you get 20%? Im sure we get oil from them, but thats a pretty big percent. We get most of our oil from south america and canada. And we are starting to drill in Libya now.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Doodle77(MM) on 2006-03-14 at 18:39:34
We have no buisiness in Iraq, so he has gone too far. The best way to keep the nation secure is to beef up security.
ADDITION:
The country we import the most from is Canada (17%), but another 14.5% comes from Saudi Arabia. Then Mexico (13%). After that comes Venezuela with 11%. Nigeria comes in with 7%.
ADDITION:
QUOTE(TheDaddy0420 @ Mar 14 2006, 06:18 PM)
Where did you get 20%? Im sure we get oil from them, but thats a pretty big percent. We get most of our oil from south america and canada. And we are starting to drill in Libya now.
[right][snapback]445582[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]445582[/snapback][/right]
The country we import the most from is Canada (17%), but another 14.5% comes from Saudi Arabia. Then Mexico (13%). After that comes Venezuela with 11%. Nigeria comes in with 7%.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by 00cnr on 2006-03-14 at 21:27:21
Too far and not far enough.
Too far with the Patriot Act and NSA illegal phone taps but not far enough with security with our ports and Canadian/Mexican borders. Truely I doubt how much safer we really are. Terrorists will find new ways to attack, so reacting to an attack by beefing defense is a terrible strategy.
The Mexican/Canadian borders are almost a free pass for anyone to enter this country with what ever they want, be it a nuclear weapon or a family searching for a better life.
The ports are an easy way to smuggle weapons into the US. Scanning isn't as good as you think, a large container can hold a nuclear weapon and enough sheilding so that it will be quite difficult to detect.
Since you can only vote once, I too far. Though we are still open for an attack Bush's reforms crossed the line into our rights and freedoms.
Too far with the Patriot Act and NSA illegal phone taps but not far enough with security with our ports and Canadian/Mexican borders. Truely I doubt how much safer we really are. Terrorists will find new ways to attack, so reacting to an attack by beefing defense is a terrible strategy.
The Mexican/Canadian borders are almost a free pass for anyone to enter this country with what ever they want, be it a nuclear weapon or a family searching for a better life.
The ports are an easy way to smuggle weapons into the US. Scanning isn't as good as you think, a large container can hold a nuclear weapon and enough sheilding so that it will be quite difficult to detect.
Since you can only vote once, I too far. Though we are still open for an attack Bush's reforms crossed the line into our rights and freedoms.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2006-03-14 at 22:03:59
QUOTE(00cnr @ Mar 14 2006, 06:26 PM)
Too far and not far enough.
Too far with the Patriot Act and NSA illegal phone taps but not far enough with security with our ports and Canadian/Mexican borders. Truely I doubt how much safer we really are. Terrorists will find new ways to attack, so reacting to an attack by beefing defense is a terrible strategy.
The Mexican/Canadian borders are almost a free pass for anyone to enter this country with what ever they want, be it a nuclear weapon or a family searching for a better life.
The ports are an easy way to smuggle weapons into the US. Scanning isn't as good as you think, a large container can hold a nuclear weapon and enough sheilding so that it will be quite difficult to detect.
Since you can only vote once, I too far. Though we are still open for an attack Bush's reforms crossed the line into our rights and freedoms.
[right][snapback]445724[/snapback][/right]
Too far with the Patriot Act and NSA illegal phone taps but not far enough with security with our ports and Canadian/Mexican borders. Truely I doubt how much safer we really are. Terrorists will find new ways to attack, so reacting to an attack by beefing defense is a terrible strategy.
The Mexican/Canadian borders are almost a free pass for anyone to enter this country with what ever they want, be it a nuclear weapon or a family searching for a better life.
The ports are an easy way to smuggle weapons into the US. Scanning isn't as good as you think, a large container can hold a nuclear weapon and enough sheilding so that it will be quite difficult to detect.
Since you can only vote once, I too far. Though we are still open for an attack Bush's reforms crossed the line into our rights and freedoms.
[right][snapback]445724[/snapback][/right]
What freedoms do you not have anymore?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by (DI)Yulla on 2006-03-15 at 18:58:43
Are you kidding? If Bush didn't go too far, then I might ask you, who DID go too far? His illegal phone tapping, Patriot Act, war on Iraq, and his drop on educational fund is definitely enough for me to see. He only cause chaos. I am very surprised he isn't impeached.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2006-03-15 at 22:01:12
Whats illegal about it?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2006-03-15 at 22:20:49
The President does not have the authority to allow the NSA to wiretap people without court approval. He's President Bush, not King George II.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Cloud on 2006-03-16 at 00:45:11
QUOTE(TheDaddy0420 @ Mar 7 2006, 06:44 AM)
What have we conquered?
[right][snapback]441000[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]441000[/snapback][/right]
Well since you've been so out of touch with civilization I guess I have to tell you about IRAQ. Or have you even heard of that country?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2006-03-16 at 01:09:41
QUOTE(Mp)Cloud @ Mar 15 2006, 09:44 PM)
Well since you've been so out of touch with civilization I guess I have to tell you about IRAQ. Or have you even heard of that country?
[right][snapback]446659[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]446659[/snapback][/right]
Yes, but is it now American? Have we annexed Iraq? Is Iraq American soil?
QUOTE
The President does not have the authority to allow the NSA to wiretap people without court approval. He's President Bush, not King George II.
Well he is also commander and cheif of our armed forces battling a silent enemy. If he needs intel to make tough choices shouldn't he have that right?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Cloud on 2006-03-16 at 01:35:36
QUOTE(TheDaddy0420 @ Mar 16 2006, 06:09 AM)
Yes, but is it now American? Have we annexed Iraq? Is Iraq American soil?
[right][snapback]446673[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]446673[/snapback][/right]
Metaphorically, yes it is. America DOES have control of the country, mind you. And America is taking their oil. Theres no denying that.
Oh btw I just re-read that post and well. That was really rude of me, sorry about that.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2006-03-16 at 02:10:41
QUOTE
Well he is also commander and cheif of our armed forces battling a silent enemy.
We are not officially at war; no official declaration of war has ever been issued. It is not within the presidential scope of power to declare essentially martial law upon American citizens to "fight a silent enemy".
And if you think he should have special powers because we are "at war with terrorists", when will this "war" end? When do we get our rights back?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Cloud on 2006-03-16 at 02:20:13
QUOTE(DT_Battlekruser @ Mar 16 2006, 07:10 AM)
when will this "war" end? When do we get our rights back?
[right][snapback]446698[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]446698[/snapback][/right]
If it were that easy, there wouldn't be any wars right now. Would there?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2006-03-16 at 18:23:45
QUOTE(DT_Battlekruser @ Mar 15 2006, 11:10 PM)
We are not officially at war; no official declaration of war has ever been issued. It is not within the presidential scope of power to declare essentially martial law upon American citizens to "fight a silent enemy".
And if you think he should have special powers because we are "at war with terrorists", when will this "war" end? When do we get our rights back?
[right][snapback]446698[/snapback][/right]
And if you think he should have special powers because we are "at war with terrorists", when will this "war" end? When do we get our rights back?
[right][snapback]446698[/snapback][/right]
There isn't any martial law on us. Your rights to what?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2006-03-16 at 18:54:57
Our rights to a trial. The government can jail suspected terrorists indefintely without charges based on evidence they heard while wiretapping illegally.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2006-03-16 at 21:58:42
QUOTE(DT_Battlekruser @ Mar 16 2006, 03:54 PM)
Our rights to a trial. The government can jail suspected terrorists indefintely without charges based on evidence they heard while wiretapping illegally.
[right][snapback]447045[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]447045[/snapback][/right]
Before the Patriot act you could be detained with out a trial.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2006-03-16 at 22:45:10
The 5th, 6th and 7th Amendments?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by (DI)Yulla on 2006-03-16 at 22:58:50
I think it is 5th Amendment that says stuff about being jailed without charges is illegal.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Arbitrary on 2006-03-16 at 23:09:37
There's no reasoning with Chris on this matter 
From what I've gathered, he either lacks an overall understanding of what is expressed Constitution, the Amendments in particular, or he's just being deliberately obtuse.
Yes, for a few days prior to your trial, not 4+ years.
From what I've gathered, he either lacks an overall understanding of what is expressed Constitution, the Amendments in particular, or he's just being deliberately obtuse.
QUOTE(TheDaddy0420 @ Mar 16 2006, 09:58 PM)
Before the Patriot act you could be detained with out a trial.
[right][snapback]447210[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]447210[/snapback][/right]
Yes, for a few days prior to your trial, not 4+ years.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2006-03-16 at 23:54:49
QUOTE(TheDaddy0420 @ Mar 16 2006, 06:58 PM)
Before the Patriot act you could be detained with out a trial.
[right][snapback]447210[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]447210[/snapback][/right]
As Arbitrary said, you could be held without charges for a short time at most it was a couple weeks). Now there is no limit.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Tdnfthe1 on 2006-03-17 at 00:55:56
Hey I know this isn't the next week or anything, but I wanna bring up what I think is a good point.
Why does our so called "country for the people" not allow people to have any say in the running of the country?
Maybe this should be a different topic(i know) but think about this;
We didn't elect Bush, we chose Bush over Gore
We didn't choose to go to Iraq, Bush did and we chose him over Gore
We didn't choose to allow so many acts of moral injustice during hurricane katrina and Rita to go unpunished or dealt with, but we chose Bush over Gore
And the governement's silent response to these types of things would be, "You elected your leaders, so live with it!"
But really we just chose... between bad and not so good.
If you really think about it and break it down, we shouldnt be having this discussion.
-Presidential candidates are nominated by the different committies or watevr, the people who control the committies control whose in power, and those people can choose who to let into their commity thereby controlling the flow of power
-Senate, H.O.R., Council, watevr is all selected by the president
-The first president was decided in what? 1700's? 1800's? watevr
-This country was founded by; rich, male, european, anglo saxon, christians
So really, you could speculate that the entire outlook of this country has been controlled by the "founders" since this country began. So the society that existed then, is the society that exists now.
Society that listens to... rich, male, white, christians
That protects the rights of... rich, male, white, christians
And finally takes action according to... rich, male, white, christians
My whole point of view is that, the entire country was never in control by the people. Back when everyone who was considered people was white, rich, and male... then yeah it was ruled by the people. But now that latinos, chinese, blacks, australians, canadians, russians, arabs, palestenians, watevr are now all people... is this country meant to protect and enforce us? I think that's a pretty big and discussable question, but meh I'm a teen we don't know a thing.
And as for the current discussion topic, "Is bush doing too much?"
Bush is not doing too much... cuz if he was doing anything we'd be happier then when he starting doing whatever it is he's doing. If you ask me, he's not doing enough... he needs to do something good for once.
~Tdnfthe1 (Sorry for the long mostly offtopic post, but I felt like saying it)
Why does our so called "country for the people" not allow people to have any say in the running of the country?
Maybe this should be a different topic(i know) but think about this;
We didn't elect Bush, we chose Bush over Gore
We didn't choose to go to Iraq, Bush did and we chose him over Gore
We didn't choose to allow so many acts of moral injustice during hurricane katrina and Rita to go unpunished or dealt with, but we chose Bush over Gore
And the governement's silent response to these types of things would be, "You elected your leaders, so live with it!"
But really we just chose... between bad and not so good.
If you really think about it and break it down, we shouldnt be having this discussion.
-Presidential candidates are nominated by the different committies or watevr, the people who control the committies control whose in power, and those people can choose who to let into their commity thereby controlling the flow of power
-Senate, H.O.R., Council, watevr is all selected by the president
-The first president was decided in what? 1700's? 1800's? watevr
-This country was founded by; rich, male, european, anglo saxon, christians
So really, you could speculate that the entire outlook of this country has been controlled by the "founders" since this country began. So the society that existed then, is the society that exists now.
Society that listens to... rich, male, white, christians
That protects the rights of... rich, male, white, christians
And finally takes action according to... rich, male, white, christians
My whole point of view is that, the entire country was never in control by the people. Back when everyone who was considered people was white, rich, and male... then yeah it was ruled by the people. But now that latinos, chinese, blacks, australians, canadians, russians, arabs, palestenians, watevr are now all people... is this country meant to protect and enforce us? I think that's a pretty big and discussable question, but meh I'm a teen we don't know a thing.
And as for the current discussion topic, "Is bush doing too much?"
Bush is not doing too much... cuz if he was doing anything we'd be happier then when he starting doing whatever it is he's doing. If you ask me, he's not doing enough... he needs to do something good for once.
~Tdnfthe1 (Sorry for the long mostly offtopic post, but I felt like saying it)
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2006-03-17 at 01:03:23
QUOTE(Arbitrary @ Mar 16 2006, 08:09 PM)
There's no reasoning with Chris on this matter
From what I've gathered, he either lacks an overall understanding of what is expressed Constitution, the Amendments in particular, or he's just being deliberately obtuse.
Yes, for a few days prior to your trial, not 4+ years.
[right][snapback]447257[/snapback][/right]
From what I've gathered, he either lacks an overall understanding of what is expressed Constitution, the Amendments in particular, or he's just being deliberately obtuse.
Yes, for a few days prior to your trial, not 4+ years.
[right][snapback]447257[/snapback][/right]
I have taken a step back and I want to know YOUR reasonings. I am asking simple questions on purpose.
QUOTE(Tdnfthe1 @ Mar 16 2006, 09:55 PM)
Hey I know this isn't the next week or anything, but I wanna bring up what I think is a good point.
Why does our so called "country for the people" not allow people to have any say in the running of the country?
Maybe this should be a different topic(i know) but think about this;
We didn't elect Bush, we chose Bush over Gore
We didn't choose to go to Iraq, Bush did and we chose him over Gore
We didn't choose to allow so many acts of moral injustice during hurricane katrina and Rita to go unpunished or dealt with, but we chose Bush over Gore
And the governement's silent response to these types of things would be, "You elected your leaders, so live with it!"
But really we just chose... between bad and not so good.
If you really think about it and break it down, we shouldnt be having this discussion.
-Presidential candidates are nominated by the different committies or watevr, the people who control the committies control whose in power, and those people can choose who to let into their commity thereby controlling the flow of power
-Senate, H.O.R., Council, watevr is all selected by the president
-The first president was decided in what? 1700's? 1800's? watevr
-This country was founded by; rich, male, european, anglo saxon, christians
So really, you could speculate that the entire outlook of this country has been controlled by the "founders" since this country began. So the society that existed then, is the society that exists now.
Society that listens to... rich, male, white, christians
That protects the rights of... rich, male, white, christians
And finally takes action according to... rich, male, white, christians
My whole point of view is that, the entire country was never in control by the people. Back when everyone who was considered people was white, rich, and male... then yeah it was ruled by the people. But now that latinos, chinese, blacks, australians, canadians, russians, arabs, palestenians, watevr are now all people... is this country meant to protect and enforce us? I think that's a pretty big and discussable question, but meh I'm a teen we don't know a thing.
And as for the current discussion topic, "Is bush doing too much?"
Bush is not doing too much... cuz if he was doing anything we'd be happier then when he starting doing whatever it is he's doing. If you ask me, he's not doing enough... he needs to do something good for once.
~Tdnfthe1 (Sorry for the long mostly offtopic post, but I felt like saying it)
[right][snapback]447346[/snapback][/right]
Why does our so called "country for the people" not allow people to have any say in the running of the country?
Maybe this should be a different topic(i know) but think about this;
We didn't elect Bush, we chose Bush over Gore
We didn't choose to go to Iraq, Bush did and we chose him over Gore
We didn't choose to allow so many acts of moral injustice during hurricane katrina and Rita to go unpunished or dealt with, but we chose Bush over Gore
And the governement's silent response to these types of things would be, "You elected your leaders, so live with it!"
But really we just chose... between bad and not so good.
If you really think about it and break it down, we shouldnt be having this discussion.
-Presidential candidates are nominated by the different committies or watevr, the people who control the committies control whose in power, and those people can choose who to let into their commity thereby controlling the flow of power
-Senate, H.O.R., Council, watevr is all selected by the president
-The first president was decided in what? 1700's? 1800's? watevr
-This country was founded by; rich, male, european, anglo saxon, christians
So really, you could speculate that the entire outlook of this country has been controlled by the "founders" since this country began. So the society that existed then, is the society that exists now.
Society that listens to... rich, male, white, christians
That protects the rights of... rich, male, white, christians
And finally takes action according to... rich, male, white, christians
My whole point of view is that, the entire country was never in control by the people. Back when everyone who was considered people was white, rich, and male... then yeah it was ruled by the people. But now that latinos, chinese, blacks, australians, canadians, russians, arabs, palestenians, watevr are now all people... is this country meant to protect and enforce us? I think that's a pretty big and discussable question, but meh I'm a teen we don't know a thing.
And as for the current discussion topic, "Is bush doing too much?"
Bush is not doing too much... cuz if he was doing anything we'd be happier then when he starting doing whatever it is he's doing. If you ask me, he's not doing enough... he needs to do something good for once.
~Tdnfthe1 (Sorry for the long mostly offtopic post, but I felt like saying it)
[right][snapback]447346[/snapback][/right]
C Rice is black and shes in a high ranking position in the government.
We vote for whos President based on the nominees nominated by the different parties running, Congross voted to go to war, Bush caused Kitrina.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2006-03-17 at 23:26:19
QUOTE(Tdnfthe1 @ Mar 16 2006, 09:55 PM)
Hey I know this isn't the next week or anything, but I wanna bring up what I think is a good point.
Why does our so called "country for the people" not allow people to have any say in the running of the country?
Maybe this should be a different topic(i know) but think about this;
We didn't elect Bush, we chose Bush over Gore
We didn't choose to go to Iraq, Bush did and we chose him over Gore
We didn't choose to allow so many acts of moral injustice during hurricane katrina and Rita to go unpunished or dealt with, but we chose Bush over Gore
And the governement's silent response to these types of things would be, "You elected your leaders, so live with it!"
But really we just chose... between bad and not so good.
If you really think about it and break it down, we shouldnt be having this discussion.
-Presidential candidates are nominated by the different committies or watevr, the people who control the committies control whose in power, and those people can choose who to let into their commity thereby controlling the flow of power
-Senate, H.O.R., Council, watevr is all selected by the president
-The first president was decided in what? 1700's? 1800's? watevr
-This country was founded by; rich, male, european, anglo saxon, christians
So really, you could speculate that the entire outlook of this country has been controlled by the "founders" since this country began. So the society that existed then, is the society that exists now.
Society that listens to... rich, male, white, christians
That protects the rights of... rich, male, white, christians
And finally takes action according to... rich, male, white, christians
My whole point of view is that, the entire country was never in control by the people. Back when everyone who was considered people was white, rich, and male... then yeah it was ruled by the people. But now that latinos, chinese, blacks, australians, canadians, russians, arabs, palestenians, watevr are now all people... is this country meant to protect and enforce us? I think that's a pretty big and discussable question, but meh I'm a teen we don't know a thing.
And as for the current discussion topic, "Is bush doing too much?"
Bush is not doing too much... cuz if he was doing anything we'd be happier then when he starting doing whatever it is he's doing. If you ask me, he's not doing enough... he needs to do something good for once.
~Tdnfthe1 (Sorry for the long mostly offtopic post, but I felt like saying it)
[right][snapback]447346[/snapback][/right]
Why does our so called "country for the people" not allow people to have any say in the running of the country?
Maybe this should be a different topic(i know) but think about this;
We didn't elect Bush, we chose Bush over Gore
We didn't choose to go to Iraq, Bush did and we chose him over Gore
We didn't choose to allow so many acts of moral injustice during hurricane katrina and Rita to go unpunished or dealt with, but we chose Bush over Gore
And the governement's silent response to these types of things would be, "You elected your leaders, so live with it!"
But really we just chose... between bad and not so good.
If you really think about it and break it down, we shouldnt be having this discussion.
-Presidential candidates are nominated by the different committies or watevr, the people who control the committies control whose in power, and those people can choose who to let into their commity thereby controlling the flow of power
-Senate, H.O.R., Council, watevr is all selected by the president
-The first president was decided in what? 1700's? 1800's? watevr
-This country was founded by; rich, male, european, anglo saxon, christians
So really, you could speculate that the entire outlook of this country has been controlled by the "founders" since this country began. So the society that existed then, is the society that exists now.
Society that listens to... rich, male, white, christians
That protects the rights of... rich, male, white, christians
And finally takes action according to... rich, male, white, christians
My whole point of view is that, the entire country was never in control by the people. Back when everyone who was considered people was white, rich, and male... then yeah it was ruled by the people. But now that latinos, chinese, blacks, australians, canadians, russians, arabs, palestenians, watevr are now all people... is this country meant to protect and enforce us? I think that's a pretty big and discussable question, but meh I'm a teen we don't know a thing.
And as for the current discussion topic, "Is bush doing too much?"
Bush is not doing too much... cuz if he was doing anything we'd be happier then when he starting doing whatever it is he's doing. If you ask me, he's not doing enough... he needs to do something good for once.
~Tdnfthe1 (Sorry for the long mostly offtopic post, but I felt like saying it)
[right][snapback]447346[/snapback][/right]
We might have had more votes for Gore, but there were still millions upon millions for Bush. The stupidity of our voters cannot be helped, it simply is.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Kashmir on 2006-03-18 at 00:12:42