OT: Oil Profits

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

There was just a news article about the HUGE profits that the oil companies
are making.

Well, just to go over a bit of it - Chevron has about $150 in investments.
They turned about $5 billion in profit for the first quarter. That's a hell
of a lot of money. But it is only 4% of the investment.

There's no doubt that the oil companies are making a good profit at the
moment. If they hold profits to the sort of curve they normally have in a
year they're going to make 14% or so for the year.

From that 14% they will assign a lot of money to further research and
development of oil sources as well as a large investment into other things
such as safer oil transportation, clean air investments and the like.

Would YOU invest your money in Chevron if they didn't make the same sort of
profits that you could get from Ace Hardware or Safeway?

My point is that the Socialists are making every possible play to convince
people that somehow capitalism is evil. And yet you can bet that they have
their money invested in Chevron.

Tom Kunich wrote:
<snip crap>

cT = 1.0

tom, whatever mood you're in, doesn't mean you need to take it out on
everybody else. you've pissed and moaned all day. go home and take it
out on the wife, not us.

and this is a "bike tech" forum. you cooperation with that subject
matter will be appreciated.

Tom Kunich wrote:
> There was just a news article about the HUGE profits that the oil
> companies are making.
>
> Well, just to go over a bit of it - Chevron has about $150 in
> investments. They turned about $5 billion in profit for the first
> quarter. That's a hell of a lot of money. But it is only 4% of the
> investment.
> There's no doubt that the oil companies are making a good profit at
> the moment. If they hold profits to the sort of curve they normally
> have in a year they're going to make 14% or so for the year.
>
> From that 14% they will assign a lot of money to further research and
> development of oil sources as well as a large investment into other
> things such as safer oil transportation, clean air investments and
> the like.
> Would YOU invest your money in Chevron if they didn't make the same
> sort of profits that you could get from Ace Hardware or Safeway?
>
> My point is that the Socialists are making every possible play to
> convince people that somehow capitalism is evil. And yet you can bet
> that they have their money invested in Chevron.

I say slap a windfall profits tax on Google. (Or any number of companies
with MUCH higher profit margins than energy companies.) Hell, the
GOVERNMENT gets a helluva lot more income per gallon of gas than do the
corporations; how about they cough up some of it?

Bill "I won't hold my breath" S.

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 16:12:58 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.
com> wrote:

>There was just a news article about the HUGE profits that the oil companies
>are making.
>
>Well, just to go over a bit of it - Chevron has about $150 in investments.
>They turned about $5 billion in profit for the first quarter. That's a hell
>of a lot of money. But it is only 4% of the investment.

Different industries have different traditional profit margins. Look
it up.

>There's no doubt that the oil companies are making a good profit at the
>moment. If they hold profits to the sort of curve they normally have in a
>year they're going to make 14% or so for the year.

Yes, gouging and believing that making a dollar is your primary
purpose in society can generate lots of money in a despicable way.

>From that 14% they will assign a lot of money to further research and
>development of oil sources as well as a large investment into other things
>such as safer oil transportation, clean air investments and the like.

BS. Apparently you don't know anyone actually working in a research
lab at an oil company.

>Would YOU invest your money in Chevron if they didn't make the same sort of
>profits that you could get from Ace Hardware or Safeway?

I would if they were a sound investment. Seems to me that oil stocks
drew a lot of investors for years before they started the recent rape.

>My point is that the Socialists are making every possible play to convince
>people that somehow capitalism is evil.

There's nothing evil about capitalism. There's also nothing wrong with
a social conscience or actually supporting the USA in time of need.

> And yet you can bet that they have
>their money invested in Chevron.

Yeah... there's a supportable statement.

In article <bemdnSbnX9Kdwc3VnZ2dnUVZ_qHinZ2d@earthlink.com>, Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@yahoo.> wrote:

> There was just a news article about the HUGE profits that the oil companies
> are making.
>
> Well, just to go over a bit of it - Chevron has about $150 in investments.
> They turned about $5 billion in profit for the first quarter. That's a hell
> of a lot of money. But it is only 4% of the investment.
>
> There's no doubt that the oil companies are making a good profit at the
> moment. If they hold profits to the sort of curve they normally have in a
> year they're going to make 14% or so for the year.
>
> From that 14% they will assign a lot of money to further research and
> development of oil sources as well as a large investment into other things
> such as safer oil transportation, clean air investments and the like.
>
> Would YOU invest your money in Chevron if they didn't make the same sort of
> profits that you could get from Ace Hardware or Safeway?
>
> My point is that the Socialists are making every possible play to convince
> people that somehow capitalism is evil. And yet you can bet that they have
> their money invested in Chevron.
>

Hmm. I'd wager my capitalist derived but socialist inclined paycheck
that the fidelity of adherents to either system is contingent on
"what's in it for them".

Wanna turn a market fundamentalist into an advocate for subsidizing a
commodity or industry? Hand him a pink slip or charge him triple for
filling up his tank. And as the Russians and Chinese have demonstrated,
there's nothing like the profit motive in making laissez-faire
capitalists of erstwhile socialists.

I expect one know's better how to run Big Oil better than Big Oil --
that's why they're BIG. The result of gov't running industry is clear:
it's called AMTRAK.

"Luke" <lucasiragusa@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:120620081636532297%lucasiragusa@rogers.com...
>
> I expect one know's better how to run Big Oil better than Big Oil --
> that's why they're BIG. The result of gov't running industry is clear:
> it's called AMTRAK.

That's what the Liberals have in store for your future.

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Luke" <lucasiragusa@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:120620081636532297%lucasiragusa@rogers.com...
>>
>> I expect one know's better how to run Big Oil better than Big Oil --
>> that's why they're BIG. The result of gov't running industry is clear:
>> it's called AMTRAK.
>
> That's what the Liberals have in store for your future.
>
McCain Tells Oil Companies to Share their Profits


Washington (AP) - Record high prices for gasoline probably won't drop
any lower before the November election, Republican John McCain said
Wednesday.

"I don't think it's going much lower, and it could go higher," McCain
said on NBC's "Today Show." "I don't think so, not when you've got a
finite supply, basically, and a cartel controlling it."

McCain said oil companies should "absolutely" return some profits to
consumers. "And they should be embarking on research and development
that will pay off in reducing our dependence on foreign oil," he said.

"The point is, oil companies have got to be more participatory in
alternate energy, in sharing their profits in a variety of ways, and
there is very strong and justifiable emotion about their profits,"
McCain said.

As Cybercast News Service reported on Tuesday, McCain is said to be
"open to the possibility" of tapping America's domestic oil and gas
reserves, but it is not clear from his voting record whether he would
actively push to expand offshore oil recovery efforts. See Story:
McCain's View on Expanded Oil Drilling Uncertain

McCain opposes oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

On the "issues" section of his campaign Web site, McCain has promised to
"act immediately to reduce the pain of high gas prices."

His economic plan says nothing about domestic oil drilling. It includes
only two "tangible plans" to address rising gas prices -- a summer gas
tax holiday and a temporary halt in filling the nation's Strategic
Petroleum Reserve.

McCain says a suspension of the 18.4 cent federal gas tax and 24.4 cent
diesel tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day would immediately lower prices
at the pump for the heavy-demand summer season.

And he argues that international demand for oil is bolstered by federal
purchases for the SPR. "There is no reason to fill it when oil is so
expensive," McCain's Web site says.

"Eric Vey" <junker@ericvey.com> wrote in message
news:g2s6in$ln0$1@news.datemas.de...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> "Luke" <lucasiragusa@rogers.com> wrote in message
>> news:120620081636532297%lucasiragusa@rogers.com...
>>>
>>> I expect one know's better how to run Big Oil better than Big Oil --
>>> that's why they're BIG. The result of gov't running industry is clear:
>>> it's called AMTRAK.
>>
>> That's what the Liberals have in store for your future.
>>
> McCain Tells Oil Companies to Share their Profits

I see that you believe that McCain is an expert on the field of oil. I
assume you're voting for him?

Luke wrote:

> I expect one know's better how to run Big Oil better than Big Oil --
> that's why they're BIG. The result of gov't running industry is clear:
> it's called AMTRAK.

US Big Oil Companies Control Less Than 6% Of World Reserves

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/05/us-big-oil-companies-control-less-than.html

With 94% of the world's oil supply locked up by foreign
governments, most of which are hostile to the United States, the
relatively puny American oil companies do not have access to enough
crude oil to significantly affect the market and help bring prices down.
Thus, Exxon Mobil, a small oil company, buys 90% of the crude oil that
it refines for the U.S. market from the big players, i.e, mostly-hostile
foreign governments. The price at the U.S. pump is rising because the
price the big oil companies charge Exxon Mobil and the other small
American companies for crude oil is going up.

So, even if Maxine Waters and the Democrats are successful in taking
over the oil companies it would not make any difference on gas prices
unless Congress decides to allow American companies to explore and drill.

>> "Luke" <lucasiragusa@rogers.com> wrote
>>> I expect one know's better how to run Big Oil better than Big Oil --
>>> that's why they're BIG. The result of gov't running industry is clear:
>>> it's called AMTRAK.

> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> That's what the Liberals have in store for your future.

Eric Vey wrote:
> McCain Tells Oil Companies to Share their Profits
>
>
> Washington (AP) - Record high prices for gasoline probably won't drop
> any lower before the November election, Republican John McCain said
> Wednesday.
>
> "I don't think it's going much lower, and it could go higher," McCain
> said on NBC's "Today Show." "I don't think so, not when you've got a
> finite supply, basically, and a cartel controlling it."
>
> McCain said oil companies should "absolutely" return some profits to
> consumers. "And they should be embarking on research and development
> that will pay off in reducing our dependence on foreign oil," he said.
>
> "The point is, oil companies have got to be more participatory in
> alternate energy, in sharing their profits in a variety of ways, and
> there is very strong and justifiable emotion about their profits,"
> McCain said.
>
> As Cybercast News Service reported on Tuesday, McCain is said to be
> "open to the possibility" of tapping America's domestic oil and gas
> reserves, but it is not clear from his voting record whether he would
> actively push to expand offshore oil recovery efforts. See Story:
> McCain's View on Expanded Oil Drilling Uncertain
>
> McCain opposes oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
>
> On the "issues" section of his campaign Web site, McCain has promised to
> "act immediately to reduce the pain of high gas prices."
>
> His economic plan says nothing about domestic oil drilling. It includes
> only two "tangible plans" to address rising gas prices -- a summer gas
> tax holiday and a temporary halt in filling the nation's Strategic
> Petroleum Reserve.
>
> McCain says a suspension of the 18.4 cent federal gas tax and 24.4 cent
> diesel tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day would immediately lower prices
> at the pump for the heavy-demand summer season.
>
> And he argues that international demand for oil is bolstered by federal
> purchases for the SPR. "There is no reason to fill it when oil is so
> expensive," McCain's Web site says.

OK, McCain's R.I.N.O and your selection supports what Luke and Tom
wrote. Got any news to report?
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

A Muzi wrote:

> OK, McCain's R.I.N.O and your selection supports what Luke and Tom
> wrote. Got any news to report?

The news is that the R.I.N.O has been selected as the party's best hope
for election.

None of what either will do to or for the oil companies will make any
difference since the American Oil companies have been marginalized to
being bit players. The age of the Seven Sisters is long gone. They are
still important in the US because they own the refineries, but not
important in the oil fields like they used to be.

Now that most of the Alaskan oil has been pumped up and sent to Japan,
Nigeria is about all Big Oil has left. If you want to see how oil
companies act when they are released from regulations, look at Nigeria.
Hard to believe unless you have seen it. They have fouled everything
they touch there. A real environmental nightmare.

But don't worry folks, they say that they know how to extract oil
without causing a mess. Too bad they didn't bother to do it in Nigeria.

> A Muzi wrote:
>> OK, McCain's R.I.N.O and your selection supports what Luke and Tom
>> wrote. Got any news to report?

Eric Vey wrote:
> The news is that the R.I.N.O has been selected as the party's best hope
> for election.
>
> None of what either will do to or for the oil companies will make any
> difference since the American Oil companies have been marginalized to
> being bit players. The age of the Seven Sisters is long gone. They are
> still important in the US because they own the refineries, but not
> important in the oil fields like they used to be.
>
> Now that most of the Alaskan oil has been pumped up and sent to Japan,
> Nigeria is about all Big Oil has left. If you want to see how oil
> companies act when they are released from regulations, look at Nigeria.
> Hard to believe unless you have seen it. They have fouled everything
> they touch there. A real environmental nightmare.
>
> But don't worry folks, they say that they know how to extract oil
> without causing a mess. Too bad they didn't bother to do it in Nigeria.

The two parties have merged. Look at Illinois politics to see the
country's future - they both steal and take care of the other side,
elections having no consequence.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

"Eric Vey" <junker@ericvey.com> wrote in message
news:g2sg6d$scl$1@news.datemas.de...
>A Muzi wrote:
>
>> OK, McCain's R.I.N.O and your selection supports what Luke and Tom wrote.
>> Got any news to report?
>
> The news is that the R.I.N.O has been selected as the party's best hope
> for election.

And what is behind that is the fact that the national press supported him
all the way while fogging coverage of the competition.

Hope you enjoy what's going to happen to your country. You're about to
discover what taxation REALLY means.

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 19:02:34 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.
com> wrote:

>
>And what is behind that is the fact that the national press supported him
>all the way while fogging coverage of the competition.

The old, lame, "blame it on the press".

>Hope you enjoy what's going to happen to your country. You're about to
>discover what taxation REALLY means.

I'm hoping we discover what "balance budget" and "paying off your
debts by making some hard decisions" means.

We can't afford the trillion $, no limits, deficit spending of the
neo-cons. It's bankrupting us.

"still just me" <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:g9o3541jf70t3cugrtt5ertlqkt8tud4i5@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 19:02:34 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.
>
>>Hope you enjoy what's going to happen to your country. You're about to
>>discover what taxation REALLY means.
>
> I'm hoping we discover what "balance budget" and "paying off your
> debts by making some hard decisions" means.

Psst - Obama has already talked about what he was going to do and it will
cost 3 TRILLION dollars more than the income from taxes. Have a great day.

> We can't afford the trillion $, no limits, deficit spending of the
> neo-cons. It's bankrupting us.

But you can afford the multi-trillion dollar deficits of a man who wrote in
his book: "I stand with the Muslims."

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 22:13:14 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.
com> wrote:

>> I'm hoping we discover what "balance budget" and "paying off your
>> debts by making some hard decisions" means.
>
>Psst - Obama has already talked about what he was going to do and it will
>cost 3 TRILLION dollars more than the income from taxes. Have a great day.

Hmmm... nearly matches the deficit that GWB has run up.

>> We can't afford the trillion $, no limits, deficit spending of the
>> neo-cons. It's bankrupting us.
>
>But you can afford the multi-trillion dollar deficits of a man who wrote in
>his book: "I stand with the Muslims."

For the record, I don't like Obama very much.

As for Muslims, I have no issues with any group of people based on
national origin, race, or religion. I do have a problem with
terrorists. If Obama was standing with the terrorists, I'd have an
issue with that.

BTW - does it bother you when McCain and GWB stand with the
Christians? Or are you a complete hypocrite as I expect?

"still just me" <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rg0954151rqbnv69p5mejs67f24bnomm00@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 22:13:14 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.
> com> wrote:
>
>>> I'm hoping we discover what "balance budget" and "paying off your
>>> debts by making some hard decisions" means.
>>
>>Psst - Obama has already talked about what he was going to do and it will
>>cost 3 TRILLION dollars more than the income from taxes. Have a great day.
>
> Hmmm... nearly matches the deficit that GWB has run up.

I'm not suggesting that Bush II has been a great President. In fact he's
been so Liberal that we may not recover in my lifetime. But he did do the
right thing invading Iraq in my opinion. Too bad he almost screwed the pooch
after the great win. However, history will record that as a turning point in
an area of the world that was about to go absolutely crazy drunk with oil
power.

>>> We can't afford the trillion $, no limits, deficit spending of the
>>> neo-cons. It's bankrupting us.
>>
>>But you can afford the multi-trillion dollar deficits of a man who wrote
>>in
>>his book: "I stand with the Muslims."
>
> For the record, I don't like Obama very much.

For the record I detest McCain. To tell you the truth I think that this
country is in deep trouble no matter who gets elected this time. Imagine a
wildly Liberal Congress and a Socialist almost to the point of Marxist Obama
or a Super Liberal McCain?

The only real disagreement those two have is in staying in Iraq for the long
term or handing it over to the Muslim Extremists.

> As for Muslims, I have no issues with any group of people based on
> national origin, race, or religion. I do have a problem with
> terrorists. If Obama was standing with the terrorists, I'd have an
> issue with that.
>
> BTW - does it bother you when McCain and GWB stand with the
> Christians? Or are you a complete hypocrite as I expect?

Tell me - have the Christians murdered thousands of Muslims in the last
couple of hundred years simply because they were Muslims?

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 20:23:47 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.
com> wrote:

>I'm not suggesting that Bush II has been a great President. In fact he's
>been so Liberal that we may not recover in my lifetime.

Liberal? He hasn't been a liberal. Neither is he a conservative. He's
a puppet for the neo-cons who value dollars over country. The don't
care much about principles, only dollars.

>But he did do the
>right thing invading Iraq in my opinion. Too bad he almost screwed the pooch
>after the great win. However, history will record that as a turning point in
>an area of the world that was about to go absolutely crazy drunk with oil
>power.

You're wrong. There was no Constitutional basis for it.

As for the oil... it's helped out only the (new) vendors who now get
to disperse the oil as opposed to the vendors Sadaam was working with
or planning to work with. See a document from the Cheney Energy Policy
secret meetings entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oil" for more
information.

>For the record I detest McCain. To tell you the truth I think that this
>country is in deep trouble no matter who gets elected this time. Imagine a
>wildly Liberal Congress and a Socialist almost to the point of Marxist Obama
>or a Super Liberal McCain?

The Democrats are apparently going to continue to nominate ideological
fringe candidates and will never have a practical approach. The
Republican party is now owned by the neo-cons who don't give two hoots
about the country as long as they fill their pockets.

>The only real disagreement those two have is in staying in Iraq for the long
>term or handing it over to the Muslim Extremists.

The extremists who were a danger to us weren't a problem until GWB
went in.

>Tell me - have the Christians murdered thousands of Muslims in the last
>couple of hundred years simply because they were Muslims?

Muslims haven't murdered Christians. Terrorists have murdered
Christians. And Jews. And other Muslims.

"still just me" <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cbcg54tcumf14j1tlc3178i402erpb6jr8@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 20:23:47 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.
> com> wrote:
>
>>I'm not suggesting that Bush II has been a great President. In fact he's
>>been so Liberal that we may not recover in my lifetime.
>
> Liberal? He hasn't been a liberal. Neither is he a conservative. He's
> a puppet for the neo-cons who value dollars over country. The don't
> care much about principles, only dollars.

I suggest that fools should remain silent. How is it that in a country where
nothing can be kept secret you're telling us that there are secrets? Man!
What a dork.

> As for the oil... it's helped out only the (new) vendors who now get
> to disperse the oil as opposed to the vendors Sadaam was working with
> or planning to work with. See a document from the Cheney Energy Policy
> secret meetings entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oil" for more
> information.

Ahh, yes, the old "someone other than me is getting rich" excuse. I'm always
amused at how much people like you know.

> The Democrats are apparently going to continue to nominate ideological
> fringe candidates and will never have a practical approach. The
> Republican party is now owned by the neo-cons who don't give two hoots
> about the country as long as they fill their pockets.

And you believe that the Democrats are ideological idiots? I suggest you
read your own writings sometime.

>>The only real disagreement those two have is in staying in Iraq for the
>>long
>>term or handing it over to the Muslim Extremists.
>
> The extremists who were a danger to us weren't a problem until GWB
> went in.

Maybe you missed a couple of buildings in New York.

>>Tell me - have the Christians murdered thousands of Muslims in the last
>>couple of hundred years simply because they were Muslims?
>
> Muslims haven't murdered Christians. Terrorists have murdered
> Christians. And Jews. And other Muslims.

I hate to point this out to you but it wasn't "terrorists" but Muslim
extremists. Maybe you believe that "terrorists" will commit suicide for
their cause but the fact is that only real religious extremists are likely
to do that.

Most Muslims are no worse than anyone else but the fact remains that they
themselves are frightened silly of the 10% extremist branch of their own
religion. So frightened that they won't even mention it even when they know
that these extremists are going to commit gross acts of sacrilege to their
own religion.

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:28:04 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.
com> wrote:

>"still just me" <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:cbcg54tcumf14j1tlc3178i402erpb6jr8@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 20:23:47 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.
>> com> wrote:
>>
>>>I'm not suggesting that Bush II has been a great President. In fact he's
>>>been so Liberal that we may not recover in my lifetime.
>>
>> Liberal? He hasn't been a liberal. Neither is he a conservative. He's
>> a puppet for the neo-cons who value dollars over country. The don't
>> care much about principles, only dollars.
>
>I suggest that fools should remain silent. How is it that in a country where
>nothing can be kept secret you're telling us that there are secrets? Man!
>What a dork.

Perhaps you trimmed too much there, but your response makes no sense
as a follow on to the quoted text. There's nothing about "secrets"
above.

>> As for the oil... it's helped out only the (new) vendors who now get
>> to disperse the oil as opposed to the vendors Sadaam was working with
>> or planning to work with. See a document from the Cheney Energy Policy
>> secret meetings entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oil" for more
>> information.
>
>Ahh, yes, the old "someone other than me is getting rich" excuse. I'm always
>amused at how much people like you know.

I have no problem with people getting rich. I kind of enjoy the
process myself. It gives me time to trifle with brainwashed fools like
you in the newsgroups.

I do have a problem with the perversion of the US Government and the
Constitution and the spending of MY tax dollars for the personal
enrichment of a chosen and influential few. That's fascism, not
democracy.

>> The Democrats are apparently going to continue to nominate ideological
>> fringe candidates and will never have a practical approach. The
>> Republican party is now owned by the neo-cons who don't give two hoots
>> about the country as long as they fill their pockets.
>
>And you believe that the Democrats are ideological idiots? I suggest you
>read your own writings sometime.

Your head is so far up the butt of the neo-cons that you are incapable
of even reasoning at this point. I support some very liberal ideas as
well as some very conservative ideas. But, that runs counter to your
brainwashing. you're the stereotypical case of "when all you have is a
hammer, everything looks like a nail".

>>>The only real disagreement those two have is in staying in Iraq for the
>>>long
>>>term or handing it over to the Muslim Extremists.
>>
>> The extremists who were a danger to us weren't a problem until GWB
>> went in.
>
>Maybe you missed a couple of buildings in New York.

My statement was clearly a reference to Iraq. Perhaps you should
re-read what YOU posted. The FACT is that there was no terrorist
problem in Iraq until we invaded.

Also, if you'd pull your head out of that neo-con butt you have it
stuck in, you'll note that I strongly supported the invasion of
Afghanistan and have repeatedly commended GWB for his ability to draw
together an incredible international coalition. We were kicking
terrorist butt and had the entire world mobilized against terrorists.
It was the opportunity of the century.

However, since I am not an brainwashed mouth piece for the neo-cons
(like you) and incapable of rational consideration and thought (like
you), I was still able to recognize that Iraq was a mistake from the
time GWB started rattling his saber and has been the, or at least in
the top three, biggest foreign policy blunders in history.

>I hate to point this out to you but it wasn't "terrorists" but Muslim
>extremists. Maybe you believe that "terrorists" will commit suicide for
>their cause but the fact is that only real religious extremists are likely
>to do that.

You're playing foolish semantic games.

>Most Muslims are no worse than anyone else but the fact remains that they
>themselves are frightened silly of the 10% extremist branch of their own
>religion. So frightened that they won't even mention it even when they know
>that these extremists are going to commit gross acts of sacrilege to their
>own religion.

That still doesn't make discriminatory statements like your against
all Muslims valid.

The group that committed the largest act of terrorism on US soil
before 911 was a radical bunch of Christians. That doesn't make all
Christians terrorists.

You're acting as a clear bigot when you discriminate against all
Muslims in the way that you do.