Forget the rush to more warfare in the Persian Gulf, forget that we've got
insane leaders hell bent on more destruction and death, and let's all have
a quiet solemn moment weeping for this buxomous model's tragic passing!
She leaves behind an unresolved battle for hundreds of millions of dollars
she wanted to suck out of a dead billionaire ex-huband's estate, after
going to the Supreme Court to win the case.
Bizarre side note on Nicole's life is that she adored Marilyn Monroe and
often imitated her. She did, in fact look something close to Monroe,
especially facially.
Monroe died at 36. She died at 39. Eeerie...much drug and alcohol use by
Smith, and erratic public behaviour, temper tantrums, depressive
episodes...similar to Monroe's later years. There's even a hint that she
may have committed suicide with a drug overdose! Who knows? Will there be
suspicions someone killed her? Is Bush or Jeb involved?
After posting a satiric piece about the Ayatollah Khameini and his 'wife'
Anna Nicole Smith here, only a couple of hours before this story broke, I
felt a bit of an ironic shock.
Anna's dead...no more Anna...in the news, it's like Monroe had passed, but
without the talent. Can we expect all this heavy news coverage when Paris
Hilton dies?
I can't go on any further right now...I'm unable to compose myself...it's
just too much to bear.
*sob* *sniff* ....
Docrodile ;-`(``
Anna Nicole Smith dies after collapsing at Hard Rock
BY DIANA MOSKOVITZ and SARA FREDERICK
dmoskovitz@MiamiHerald.com
Anna Nicole Smith -- Playboy model, multimillionaire widow, tabloid
favorite, new mom -- reportedly ended her meteoric, scandalous path
through the celebrity stratosphere today at the Seminole Hard Rock Hotel &
Casino in Hollywood, where she was found unconscious.
Smith was rushed to Memorial Regional Hospital after she was discovered
unconscious in her hotel room at about 2 p.m. She was pronounced dead at
the hospital at 2:49 p.m.
Smith was in her room with her private nurse at the time she collapsed,
Seminole Police Chief Charlie Tiger said at a press conference. The nurse
called the hotel operator for help at 1:38 p.m.; Smith was given CPR by
her bodyguard at the Hard Rock at 1:45 p.m. before she was taken to the
hospital, Tiger said.
Tiger said police did not know why she had a nurse with her. He added that
the death was not being treated as a crime, but the crime scene
investigators were going through the room on the 6th floor. Shortly after
4 p.m., an investigator with the Broward County Medical Examiner's Office
went to the hospital to transport Smith's body to the morgue. An autopsy
will be conducted Friday morning, Chief Investigator Edwina Johnson of the
medical examiner's office said.
Smith and her lawyer boyfriend Howard K. Stern arrived at the Hard Rock on
Monday and planned to check out tomorrow, said Michael Bloom, Hard Rock
spokesman. Smith's 5-month-old daughter was not with them, Bloom said. She
has been at the hotel three times before and was described by Tiger as a
frequent patron.
Smith has been a fixture in the news for her marriage to an elderly
tycoon, for her court battles with his children over her late husband's
fortune, for her reality TV show, The Anna Nicole Show, and, most
recently, for the untimely death of her son.
Smith, 39, gave birth to a daughter, Dannielynn, on Sept. 7 in the
Bahamas. Three days later, son Daniel was found dead in her hotel room.
Officials later said that the 20-year-old had died of a cardiac
dysrhythmia caused by a lethal combination of methadone, Zoloft and
Lexapro.
Three weeks later, the 1993 Playboy Playmate of the Year and Stern --
listed as Dannielynn's father on the birth certificate -- held a
commitment ceremony in the Bahamas. Almost immediately after, her former
boyfriend, photographer Larry Birkhead, filed suit in an attempt to force
Smith to bring her daughter to California for paternity testing, saying he
was the father.
Debra Opri, the attorney who filed his paternity suit, said Birkhead ``is
devastated. He is inconsolable, and we are taking steps now to protect the
DNA testing of the child. The child is our number one priority.''
Just last week week, three Los Angeles women filed suit Smith and the
company she represented, TrimSpa Inc., accusing the company and its
spokeswoman of using deceptive business practices to peddle the
weight-loss supplement and of violating California's unfair competition
law.
Smith had been no stranger to the courtroom. In 1995, Smith began a nearly
12-year legal battle over her the fortune of her late husband, J. Howard
Marshall II. At the time of their 1994 marriage, Marshall was 89; Smith
26.
While the oil tycoon did not include Smith in his will, she argued he
intended to provide for her through a special trust. She initially won a
$474 million judgment, which was cut to about $89 million and eventually
reduced to zero before the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in. That court said
in May that only federal courts in California could deal with her case
despite a Texas state court ruling that Marshall's youngest son was sole
heir to the estate.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/entertainment/gossip/16654459.htm
.
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: ANNA NICOLE SMITH DIES AFTER COLLAPSING AT HARD ROCK |
08 Feb 2007 08:49:05 PM |
|
|
"Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
After posting a satiric piece [...]
I'm assuming that your crass dismissal of human life
is not yet another symptom of our mental illness...
Bush farts and all you nimrods uphold it as proof
positive that he's going to invade Iran within the
next 20 minutes. Yet with a $1.6 billion estate at
stake, you can't see any motive for murder, and
believe that anyone who entertains the notion is
a conspiracy freak....
Medication. Take. You.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Bipolar" |
|
| Title: Re: ANNA NICOLE SMITH DIES AFTER COLLAPSING AT HARD ROCK |
10 Feb 2007 06:18:04 AM |
|
|
On Feb 8, 6:49 pm, "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
After posting a satiric piece [...]
I'm assuming that your crass dismissal of human life
is not yet another symptom of our mental illness...
You're right! Not YET!!! LOL!
Bush farts and all you nimrods uphold it as proof
positive that he's going to invade Iran within the
next 20 minutes. Yet with a $1.6 billion estate at
stake, you can't see any motive for murder, and
believe that anyone who entertains the notion is
a conspiracy freak....
Medication. Take. You.
Interesting how you make the quantum leap of relevance from a war that
has killed over 3100 soldiers, caused over 21,000 injuries, left over
2000 double amputees, slaughtered tens of thousands of innocent
civilians AND the premature end of one stupid, drug-crazed, gold-
digging model ***** whose claim to fame is her tits and *****, and
surrounded by her fucked-up sleazy social satellites feeding off her
like parasites, as being something, in your inference, approximately
the same in importance. There's NOTHING about that ***** stupid vain
woman that's relevant or important to the crises we face in our
government, our democracy, the hegemonious bloody global aggression,
et al. All Anna Nicole represents is human narcissism gone totally off
the deep end, and parasitic 'friends' slithering around her-- and
there are so many examples of those human foibles every day to make us
all choke to death on our vomit!! So, there might have been a
conspiracy to murder her and get her millions...big fucking news.
Everyone's seen that story repeat itself over and over in their
lifetime. Nothing can be done about human behaviour like that, but
something can be done to stop the assholes in this national
administration who started this killing field, and now want to expand
it. They can be stopped by removing them from power...but, so far, we
can't muster the moral determination, concern for needless death and
suffering, and get the guts to proceed ahead with it. All we can do is
make these fucking leaders into jokes for our amusement, and Congress--
all it can do is debate and propose a toothless resolution to be
passed condemning the war, and/or cutting off funding for an expansion
of it. The time of entertaining our stupid selves, and playin' with
dangerous psychotics in power, is ***** well over, and action needs
to be taken ASAP to get them the hell outta' office!! Ann NIcole can
suck maggots and worms...goddamnit!
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: ANNA NICOLE SMITH DIES AFTER COLLAPSING AT HARD ROCK |
10 Feb 2007 06:44:46 AM |
|
|
"Dr. Bipolar" <garylesle...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Bush farts and all you nimrods uphold it as proof
positive that he's going to invade Iran within the
next 20 minutes. Yet with a $1.6 billion estate at
stake, you can't see any motive for murder, and
believe that anyone who entertains the notion is
a conspiracy freak....
Medication. Take. You.
Interesting how you make the quantum leap of relevance
from a war that has killed over 3100 soldiers, caused
over 21,000 injuries, left over 2000 double amputees,
slaughtered tens of thousands of innocent civilians
Psst. I was very specific. This "War" I brought up --
against Iran -- doesn't exist.
There are no causalties, no amputees... no slaughtered
civilians.
HTH.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Docrodile" |
|
| Title: Re: ANNA NICOLE SMITH DIES AFTER COLLAPSING AT HARD ROCK |
10 Feb 2007 07:56:28 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171111486.669309.205730@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
"Dr. Bipolar" <garylesle...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Bush farts and all you nimrods uphold it as proof
positive that he's going to invade Iran within the
next 20 minutes. Yet with a $1.6 billion estate at
stake, you can't see any motive for murder, and
believe that anyone who entertains the notion is
a conspiracy freak....
Medication. Take. You.
Interesting how you make the quantum leap of relevance
from a war that has killed over 3100 soldiers, caused
over 21,000 injuries, left over 2000 double amputees,
slaughtered tens of thousands of innocent civilians
Psst. I was very specific. This "War" I brought up --
against Iran -- doesn't exist.
Pssssssst. Iran is but an extension of the aggression in Iraq. Same
difference. Should it erupt into warfare, more needless suffering and
death. More squandered public money.
The very same leaders who started the Iraq fiasco are attempting to start
another.
So, I am being very specific--it's about the leaders, junior -- it's the
leaders, stupid. Not the geographical location they do their dirty deed
in.
And the 'war' with Iran HAS started, and in fact, began soon after Iraq
was invaded. A war of propaganda and sanctions, especially as determined
and sustained in its execution as this Iran set-up, usually precedes the
physical war.
What this nation apparently really needs, junior, is to have its cities
reduced to rubble, and it's....pssssst...idiotic toy-happy jaded
smart-assed citizens get their pristine asses fried and their plastic junk
melted into big smouldering gooey black lumps. (And that includes your
doll collection.) And then you'd see a lot less interest in perpetuating
warfare or playing around with sociopathic dangerous leaders.
Pssssst....get it....?
It's called having a conscience and knowing what's right and wrong about
the species' behaviour and looking forward to a relatively sane future to
live in.
There are no causalties, no amputees... no slaughtered
civilians.
HTH.
Not yet...and the same could've been said about the Mideast weeks before
March 19, 2003...
GWIK...if you spent less of your energy and time scoring ego-centered
points here, and more time feeling something authentic about the human
condition, or revealing yourself as an actual real person, and not a
shitty anagram hidden amongst the usenet ID protective wall, you might be
more credible and have more of a meaningful discussion...but you're too
busy using this forum like a masturbator uses a ***** sock. And for ten
years???!!! Jeez...that's a lot of mental orgasms. Well, at least you're
dedicated clown...of course, so was John Wayne Gacy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: ANNA NICOLE SMITH DIES AFTER COLLAPSING AT HARD ROCK |
10 Feb 2007 08:22:42 AM |
|
|
"Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
Pssssssst. Iran is but an extension of the aggression
in Iraq.
No, Mr. Right Hand. It isn't. That's the point.
All those lies Bush told to get us into Iraq?
All were true for Iran. All of them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Docrodile" |
|
| Title: Re: ANNA NICOLE SMITH DIES AFTER COLLAPSING AT HARD ROCK |
10 Feb 2007 09:09:00 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171117362.828871.233350@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
"Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
Pssssssst. Iran is but an extension of the aggression
in Iraq.
No, Mr. Right Hand. It isn't. That's the point.
All those lies Bush told to get us into Iraq?
All were true for Iran. All of them.
Iran is feeding into Iraq for control. No aggression? LOL!
The US is posturing for control of the oil production and delivery. No
aggression? LOL!
No, Mr. Butt Plug, aggression is the name of the game, from Iran and the
US. Who will prevail militarily, economically, politically...and you can't
see that?
Why do you think we're sitting on our fucking farty asses at $1000 high-
tech plastic contraptions right now and hammering out all this blubbering
***** about the Mideast day after day? Has it occurred to you that
we're getting sucked emotionally into a paradigm that is pure naked
aggression for control of resources? Yes, Mr. Butt Plug, we're being
played for pawns here.
If it isn't Iran, it's the US, if it isn't Britain, it's Russia, if it
isn't China, it's the EU...aggression is being used in all its ugly forms
to get the biggest piece of the pie for each member to devour.
Your 'point' is a specious one, Mr. Butt Plug. You haven't thought past
the mainstream media crap, or the political hype. It doesn't matter if
it's Iran, or Iraq, it's about power and control, and the resources
necessary to fuel an expanding empire. The geography is a minor thing. It
could've been Antartica or Borneo...the manipulations at the top don't
care about nationalistic boundaries, only profit margins and power. They
let the suckers care about the nationalism, and die for it, and kill for
it.
So it doesn't matter about whether Bush meant this to be a war with Iran,
or a war with Syria, or anyone there, specifically. It's where the
investment power is concentrated in an area of huge oil reserves. He can
start the war anywhere, but only the constitutional process of impeachment
can stop it. Rather than argue about the clandestine machinations
involved, argue for the removal of Bush and the change in policy. Rather
than entertain yourself with some arcane revelatory insight into
conspiracy, drive to get the leaders out who started this, and have the
policy changed.
The nation has slipped into a mode of amusing itself, diddling with its
doodles every day, while people get killed and maimed. If life itself, the
very bodies we have, is not as important as the entertainment value, or
the self-centeredness in its various forms, then anyone who subscribes to
that mindset is a piece of worthless *****. That's why I don't spend my
time playing mental chess with conspiracy crap -- it's too easy to have it
become a distracting, consuming, narcissistic hobby. I know what's wrong
and what's right, and I know who need to be stopped or punished. You play
with your special insight, buster, and tell us how you think this or that
as to why events unfold as they do, or how elitists are tricking us, and
how you really know what the real deal is, and the rest of us are
naive...keep playin' with it, kid. It shows you're a player, a poser...and
not an activist to get something done about it. It's all a head game to
ya...played to your satisfaction every day here.
Play it as it lays, and move against what is wrong, and support actively
what is right...if you must play anything at all, play being a real human
being, not some caricature of one that floats and dances in the nether
regions of an amused disassociative realm.
Pssssst.....***** or get off the pot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: ANNA NICOLE SMITH DIES AFTER COLLAPSING AT HARD ROCK |
11 Feb 2007 03:34:15 AM |
|
|
"Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
Why do you think we're sitting on our fucking farty
asses at $1000 high-tech plastic contraptions right
now and hammering out all this blubbering fucking
***** about the Mideast day after day? Has it
occurred to you that we're getting sucked
emotionally into a paradigm that is pure naked
aggression for control of resources? Yes, Mr. Butt
Plug, we're being played for pawns here.
"Frogs in a pot" is the increasingly popular term to
describe the out-of-the-loop public.
The problem is, your observations fit any number of
explanations.... and I've heard quite a few.
We're certianly just as "Aggressive" towards north
Korea, and they don't have any oil. Then again, we
HAVE NOT acted in north Korea, did act in the middle
east, so that swings a point back to your favor...
Back & forth, point/counter-point.
I'm more than willing to speculate, but you appear
to believe that you've got the answers. You don't.
You've got guesses, Mr. Right Hand.
Your 'point' is a specious one, Mr. Butt Plug. You
haven't thought past the mainstream media crap, or
the political hype.
Please. you haven't come up with anything original.
You're parroting the same ***** I could find on
any granola-crunchy website.
You talk in generalities, just so you can avoid
having to put together all the little pieces, deal
with all the contradictions.
So they conrtrol the media, huh? EXCEPT in the case
of the BAD NEWS coming out of Iraq?
It doesn't matter if it's Iran, or Iraq, it's about
power and control, and the resources necessary to
fuel an expanding empire.
So is Finland an explanding Empire? Sweden? Spain?
Germany?
Because they were hit pretty damn hard by the 1970s
oil crisis, too. Seems like even "Level" empires
need resources, don't it?
Fact is, anyone who's aware of what happened in the
1970s has to themselves admit that IT IS important,
WE DO have interest, our government DOES have an
obligation to watch out for our interests.
Look at how cold it has been in many parts of the
U.S. Imagine if we had to choose between keeping
tens of thousands of people from freezing to death,
or using the fuel to instead power the morning
commute in a major city?
What do we do, kill people or start shutting off
whole sectors of the economy?
What about when the gas lines return -- and
rationing -- only it's much worse this time because
our dependence on imported oil has more than
doubled since the last time?
Expect riots. Watch violence, chaos, and then tell
us how much you're above fighting over oil.
The geography is a minor thing. It
could've been Antartica or Borneo...the manipulations at the top don't
care about nationalistic boundaries, only profit margins and power. They
let the suckers care about the nationalism, and die for it, and kill for
it.
So it doesn't matter about whether Bush meant this to be a war with Iran,
or a war with Syria, or anyone there, specifically. It's where the
investment power is concentrated in an area of huge oil reserves. He can
start the war anywhere, but only the constitutional process of impeachment
can stop it. Rather than argue about the clandestine machinations
involved, argue for the removal of Bush and the change in policy. Rather
than entertain yourself with some arcane revelatory insight into
conspiracy, drive to get the leaders out who started this, and have the
policy changed.
The nation has slipped into a mode of amusing itself, diddling with its
doodles every day, while people get killed and maimed. If life itself, the
very bodies we have, is not as important as the entertainment value, or
the self-centeredness in its various forms, then anyone who subscribes to
that mindset is a piece of worthless *****. That's why I don't spend my
time playing mental chess with conspiracy crap -- it's too easy to have it
become a distracting, consuming, narcissistic hobby. I know what's wrong
and what's right, and I know who need to be stopped or punished. You play
with your special insight, buster, and tell us how you think this or that
as to why events unfold as they do, or how elitists are tricking us, and
how you really know what the real deal is, and the rest of us are
naive...keep playin' with it, kid. It shows you're a player, a poser...and
not an activist to get something done about it. It's all a head game to
ya...played to your satisfaction every day here.
Play it as it lays, and move against what is wrong, and support actively
what is right...if you must play anything at all, play being a real human
being, not some caricature of one that floats and dances in the nether
regions of an amused disassociative realm.
Pssssst.....***** or get off the pot.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Docrodile" |
|
| Title: Re: ANNA NICOLE SMITH DIES AFTER COLLAPSING AT HARD ROCK |
11 Feb 2007 08:51:02 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171186455.889520.72820@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
"Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
Sheesh...you certainly do a lot of marathon opining. Is it a substitution
for sex?
ROFL!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: ANNA NICOLE SMITH DIES AFTER COLLAPSING AT HARD ROCK |
11 Feb 2007 05:25:46 AM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> Spat
the Words
"Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
Why do you think we're sitting on our fucking farty
asses at $1000 high-tech plastic contraptions right
now and hammering out all this blubbering fucking
***** about the Mideast day after day? Has it
occurred to you that we're getting sucked
emotionally into a paradigm that is pure naked
aggression for control of resources? Yes, Mr. Butt
Plug, we're being played for pawns here.
"Frogs in a pot" is the increasingly popular term to
describe the out-of-the-loop public.
The problem is, your observations fit any number of
explanations.... and I've heard quite a few.
We're certianly just as "Aggressive" towards north
Korea, and they don't have any oil. Then again, we
HAVE NOT acted in north Korea, did act in the middle
east, so that swings a point back to your favor...
Back & forth, point/counter-point.
I'm more than willing to speculate, but you appear
to believe that you've got the answers. You don't.
You've got guesses, Mr. Right Hand.
Your 'point' is a specious one, Mr. Butt Plug. You
haven't thought past the mainstream media crap, or
the political hype.
Please. you haven't come up with anything original.
You're parroting the same ***** I could find on
any granola-crunchy website.
You talk in generalities, just so you can avoid
having to put together all the little pieces, deal
with all the contradictions.
So they conrtrol the media, huh? EXCEPT in the case
of the BAD NEWS coming out of Iraq?
It doesn't matter if it's Iran, or Iraq, it's about
power and control, and the resources necessary to
fuel an expanding empire.
So is Finland an explanding Empire? Sweden? Spain?
Germany?
Because they were hit pretty damn hard by the 1970s
oil crisis, too. Seems like even "Level" empires
need resources, don't it?
Fact is, anyone who's aware of what happened in the
1970s has to themselves admit that IT IS important,
WE DO have interest, our government DOES have an
obligation to watch out for our interests.
Look at how cold it has been in many parts of the
U.S. Imagine if we had to choose between keeping
tens of thousands of people from freezing to death,
or using the fuel to instead power the morning
commute in a major city?
What do we do, kill people or start shutting off
whole sectors of the economy?
What about when the gas lines return -- and
rationing -- only it's much worse this time because
our dependence on imported oil has more than
doubled since the last time?
Expect riots. Watch violence, chaos, and then tell
us how much you're above fighting over oil.
You know, humans existed for thousands of years without
oil-based conveniences (as recently as 100 years ago in
fact). Initially there would be discomfort, even some
violence, but we would adapt quickly and make very fast
progress toward alternative energy.
Are you willing to die for a barrel of oil ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: ANNA NICOLE SMITH DIES AFTER COLLAPSING AT HARD ROCK |
11 Feb 2007 07:56:33 AM |
|
|
"Perseid" <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns98D42D0F429C9rrfkwrantispamattbic@216.196.97.136...
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> Spat
the Words
"Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
Why do you think we're sitting on our fucking farty
asses at $1000 high-tech plastic contraptions right
now and hammering out all this blubbering fucking
***** about the Mideast day after day? Has it
occurred to you that we're getting sucked
emotionally into a paradigm that is pure naked
aggression for control of resources? Yes, Mr. Butt
Plug, we're being played for pawns here.
"Frogs in a pot" is the increasingly popular term to
describe the out-of-the-loop public.
The problem is, your observations fit any number of
explanations.... and I've heard quite a few.
We're certianly just as "Aggressive" towards north
Korea, and they don't have any oil. Then again, we
HAVE NOT acted in north Korea, did act in the middle
east, so that swings a point back to your favor...
Back & forth, point/counter-point.
I'm more than willing to speculate, but you appear
to believe that you've got the answers. You don't.
You've got guesses, Mr. Right Hand.
Your 'point' is a specious one, Mr. Butt Plug. You
haven't thought past the mainstream media crap, or
the political hype.
Please. you haven't come up with anything original.
You're parroting the same ***** I could find on
any granola-crunchy website.
You talk in generalities, just so you can avoid
having to put together all the little pieces, deal
with all the contradictions.
So they conrtrol the media, huh? EXCEPT in the case
of the BAD NEWS coming out of Iraq?
It doesn't matter if it's Iran, or Iraq, it's about
power and control, and the resources necessary to
fuel an expanding empire.
So is Finland an explanding Empire? Sweden? Spain?
Germany?
Because they were hit pretty damn hard by the 1970s
oil crisis, too. Seems like even "Level" empires
need resources, don't it?
Fact is, anyone who's aware of what happened in the
1970s has to themselves admit that IT IS important,
WE DO have interest, our government DOES have an
obligation to watch out for our interests.
Look at how cold it has been in many parts of the
U.S. Imagine if we had to choose between keeping
tens of thousands of people from freezing to death,
or using the fuel to instead power the morning
commute in a major city?
What do we do, kill people or start shutting off
whole sectors of the economy?
What about when the gas lines return -- and
rationing -- only it's much worse this time because
our dependence on imported oil has more than
doubled since the last time?
Expect riots. Watch violence, chaos, and then tell
us how much you're above fighting over oil.
You know, humans existed for thousands of years without
oil-based conveniences (as recently as 100 years ago in
fact). Initially there would be discomfort, even some
violence, but we would adapt quickly and make very fast
progress toward alternative energy.
Are you willing to die for a barrel of oil ?
No, the trick is to make the other poor dumb ***** die for a barrel of
oil.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: ANNA NICOLE SMITH DIES AFTER COLLAPSING AT HARD ROCK |
11 Feb 2007 05:59:37 AM |
|
|
Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
You know, humans existed for thousands of years without
oil-based conveniences (as recently as 100 years ago in
fact). Initially there would be discomfort, even some
violence, but we would adapt quickly and make very fast
progress toward alternative energy.
Are you willing to die for a barrel of oil ?
Problem is, you're arguing a conclusion.
I did address it, yes, but I also pointed out that it
was one of many conclusions, and I thoroughly reject
the idea that anyone here "Knows" the thruth.
Secondly, you're talking about deaths. You say
"Discomfort" but the word should be "Death." And
"Economic depression." And "Total lack of personal
security."
Yeah, those are all things worth fighting to avoid.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Docrodile" |
|
| Title: Re: ANNA NICOLE SMITH DIES AFTER COLLAPSING AT HARD ROCK |
11 Feb 2007 08:55:24 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171195177.828618.22550@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
You know, humans existed for thousands of years without
oil-based conveniences (as recently as 100 years ago in
fact). Initially there would be discomfort, even some
violence, but we would adapt quickly and make very fast
progress toward alternative energy.
Are you willing to die for a barrel of oil ?
Problem is, you're arguing a conclusion.
I did address it, yes, but I also pointed out that it
was one of many conclusions, and I thoroughly reject
the idea that anyone here "Knows" the thruth.
Secondly, you're talking about deaths. You say
"Discomfort" but the word should be "Death." And
"Economic depression." And "Total lack of personal
security."
Yeah, those are all things worth fighting to avoid.
I know I'm guilty, too, of this exchange with an inveterate usenet psycho
***** like you, but isn't it curious that we're actually spending so much
time arguing with your silly anagram *****?
Let me go back to the sensationbot and argue with it some more...LOL!
Besides, the bot is a lot smarter and funnier...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: ANNA NICOLE SMITH DIES AFTER COLLAPSING AT HARD ROCK |
11 Feb 2007 06:56:13 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> Spat
the Words
Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
You know, humans existed for thousands of years without
oil-based conveniences (as recently as 100 years ago in
fact). Initially there would be discomfort, even some
violence, but we would adapt quickly and make very fast
progress toward alternative energy.
Are you willing to die for a barrel of oil ?
Problem is, you're arguing a conclusion.
I did address it, yes, but I also pointed out that it
was one of many conclusions, and I thoroughly reject
the idea that anyone here "Knows" the thruth.
Secondly, you're talking about deaths. You say
"Discomfort" but the word should be "Death." And
"Economic depression." And "Total lack of personal
security."
Now YOU'RE drawing conclusions about what might happen.
Why would anybody choose to die over a barrel of oil ?
I can easily see how some people might send others to
die over oil, and I know people get kooky over scarce
resources, but given the choice between death with some
oil in your possession and a long life without any oil,
which would you choose ?
Yeah, those are all things worth fighting to avoid.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: ANNA NICOLE SMITH DIES AFTER COLLAPSING AT HARD ROCK |
12 Feb 2007 02:00:56 AM |
|
|
Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
Now YOU'RE drawing conclusions about what might
happen.
No, I was addressing YOUR conclusion.
If you prefer, you can think of it as an "Even
if you're right about it being entirely about
oil, it's not as easy as you make it out to be
because...."
Why would anybody choose to die over a barrel
of oil ?
Fuel. Warming their home in the winter. Transportion.
Greed. Money.
I can easily see how some people might send others
to die over oil, and I know people get kooky over
scarce resources, but given the choice between
death with some oil in your possession and a long
life without any oil, which would you choose ?
I would choose war over a long period of chaos,
insecurity & tragedy. As I pointed out -- and you
so conveniently ignored -- our dependence on
imported oil is GREATER now than it was in the 1970s.
Things would be WORSE now than they were then.
The stock market losr 45% of it's value before it was
all over... back then.
There was rationing, limiting of the amount you could
purchase.... back then.
There was huge spikes in prices... then.
There were long, long lines just to buy gas, without
any assurance tha there'd be any when you made it to
the front... back then.
Our dependence has AT LEAST doubled since then.
Given the choice between watching all the western
economies fall in ruin, even as chaos reigns and
many, many, many suffer -- or going to war, I choose
war.
Soldier kills or neighbor dies.... yup, I pick war.
Believe me, I've talked solutions myself. Not like
you, but trying to discuss real solutions. Nobody is
interested in them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: ANNA NICOLE SMITH DIES AFTER COLLAPSING AT HARD ROCK |
12 Feb 2007 04:49:11 AM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> Spat
the Words
Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
Now YOU'RE drawing conclusions about what might
happen.
No, I was addressing YOUR conclusion.
If you prefer, you can think of it as an "Even
if you're right about it being entirely about
oil, it's not as easy as you make it out to be
because...."
Why would anybody choose to die over a barrel
of oil ?
Fuel. Warming their home in the winter. Transportion.
Greed. Money.
I can easily see how some people might send others
to die over oil, and I know people get kooky over
scarce resources, but given the choice between
death with some oil in your possession and a long
life without any oil, which would you choose ?
I would choose war over a long period of chaos,
insecurity & tragedy. As I pointed out -- and you
so conveniently ignored -- our dependence on
imported oil is GREATER now than it was in the 1970s.
Things would be WORSE now than they were then.
The stock market losr 45% of it's value before it was
all over... back then.
There was rationing, limiting of the amount you could
purchase.... back then.
There was huge spikes in prices... then.
There were long, long lines just to buy gas, without
any assurance tha there'd be any when you made it to
the front... back then.
Our dependence has AT LEAST doubled since then.
Given the choice between watching all the western
economies fall in ruin, even as chaos reigns and
many, many, many suffer -- or going to war, I choose
war.
Soldier kills or neighbor dies.... yup, I pick war.
Believe me, I've talked solutions myself. Not like
you, but trying to discuss real solutions. Nobody is
interested in them.
Sometimes war solves problems, but usually it just creates
hate that lasts for generations. The oil will eventually
run out as our population is doubling at an ever-increasing
rate... so now you've got no oil AND 3/4 of the world hates
your guts and wants to kill you... nice scenario you've
chosen.
.
|
|
|
| User: "FourCell" |
|
| Title: Re: ANNA NICOLE SMITH DIES AFTER COLLAPSING AT HARD ROCK |
12 Feb 2007 10:13:27 AM |
|
|
On Feb 12, 2:49 am, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> Spat
the Words
Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
Now YOU'RE drawing conclusions about what might
happen.
No, I was addressing YOUR conclusion.
If you prefer, you can think of it as an "Even
if you're right about it being entirely about
oil, it's not as easy as you make it out to be
because...."
Why would anybody choose to die over a barrel
of oil ?
Fuel. Warming their home in the winter. Transportion.
Greed. Money.
I can easily see how some people might send others
to die over oil, and I know people get kooky over
scarce resources, but given the choice between
death with some oil in your possession and a long
life without any oil, which would you choose ?
I would choose war over a long period of chaos,
insecurity & tragedy. As I pointed out -- and you
so conveniently ignored -- our dependence on
imported oil is GREATER now than it was in the 1970s.
Things would be WORSE now than they were then.
The stock market losr 45% of it's value before it was
all over... back then.
There was rationing, limiting of the amount you could
purchase.... back then.
There was huge spikes in prices... then.
There were long, long lines just to buy gas, without
any assurance tha there'd be any when you made it to
the front... back then.
Our dependence has AT LEAST doubled since then.
Given the choice between watching all the western
economies fall in ruin, even as chaos reigns and
many, many, many suffer -- or going to war, I choose
war.
Soldier kills or neighbor dies.... yup, I pick war.
Believe me, I've talked solutions myself. Not like
you, but trying to discuss real solutions. Nobody is
interested in them.
Sometimes war solves problems, but usually it just creates
hate that lasts for generations. The oil will eventually
run out as our population is doubling at an ever-increasing
rate... so now you've got no oil AND 3/4 of the world hates
your guts and wants to kill you... nice scenario you've
chosen.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
The scenario you've mentioned is as portrayed in the movie "Son of Men"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: ANNA NICOLE SMITH DIES AFTER COLLAPSING AT HARD ROCK |
13 Feb 2007 06:44:40 AM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "FourCell" <fourcell@hotmail.com>
Spat the Words
Given the choice between watching all the western
economies fall in ruin, even as chaos reigns and
many, many, many suffer -- or going to war, I choose
war.
Soldier kills or neighbor dies.... yup, I pick war.
Believe me, I've talked solutions myself. Not like
you, but trying to discuss real solutions. Nobody is
interested in them.
Sometimes war solves problems, but usually it just creates
hate that lasts for generations. The oil will eventually
run out as our population is doubling at an ever-increasing
rate... so now you've got no oil AND 3/4 of the world hates
your guts and wants to kill you... nice scenario you've
chosen.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
The scenario you've mentioned is as portrayed in the movie "Son of Men"
That's a recent movie, right ? I haven't seen it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: ANNA NICOLE SMITH DIES AFTER COLLAPSING AT HARD ROCK |
12 Feb 2007 05:29:04 AM |
|
|
Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
Sometimes war solves problems, but usually it just
creates hate that lasts for generations. The oil
will eventually run out as our population is
doubling at an ever-increasing rate... so now
you've got no oil AND 3/4 of the world hates your
guts and wants to kill you... nice scenario you've
chosen.- Hide quoted text -
your scenario offers *Zero* improvement to our
standing in the world, even as it places EVERYTHING
you know -- or at least think you know -- in grave
danger. Everything.
Money itself only has value because we agree that
it does. Such concepts -- like money -- are easily
crumbled under the boot of social chaos.
And, baby, there's a lot more where THAT came
from!
How many cows are raised in L.A.? How many chickens?
How much grain is grown there? Plenty of water, huh?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: ANNA NICOLE SMITH DIES AFTER COLLAPSING AT HARD ROCK |
12 Feb 2007 06:20:16 AM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> Spat the
Words
Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
Sometimes war solves problems, but usually it just
creates hate that lasts for generations. The oil
will eventually run out as our population is
doubling at an ever-increasing rate... so now
you've got no oil AND 3/4 of the world hates your
guts and wants to kill you... nice scenario you've
chosen.- Hide quoted text -
your scenario offers *Zero* improvement to our
standing in the world,
I didn't offer a scenario. I described your scenario. I get
the feeling we're not really communicating here.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: ANNA NICOLE SMITH DIES AFTER COLLAPSING AT HARD ROCK |
12 Feb 2007 06:49:23 AM |
|
|
Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
I didn't offer a scenario. I described your scenario.
Funny, but I distinctly said that none of us knows
why events are unfolding, that you guess that it was
all about oil is simply one of many explanations.
And now you're pretending it's my scenario?
All i did was point out the holes in your scenario...
the stuff you left out.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: ANNA NICOLE SMITH DIES AFTER COLLAPSING AT HARD ROCK |
13 Feb 2007 06:52:05 AM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> Spat
the Words
Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
I didn't offer a scenario. I described your scenario.
Funny, but I distinctly said that none of us knows
why events are unfolding, that you guess that it was
all about oil is simply one of many explanations.
And now you're pretending it's my scenario?
All i did was point out the holes in your scenario...
the stuff you left out.
You have a short memory. Here is your post followed by mine.
You clearly were talking about oil, and I questioned you
about your views.
________________________________________________________________
So is Finland an explanding Empire? Sweden? Spain?
Germany?
Because they were hit pretty damn hard by the 1970s
oil crisis, too. Seems like even "Level" empires
need resources, don't it?
Fact is, anyone who's aware of what happened in the
1970s has to themselves admit that IT IS important,
WE DO have interest, our government DOES have an
obligation to watch out for our interests.
Look at how cold it has been in many parts of the
U.S. Imagine if we had to choose between keeping
tens of thousands of people from freezing to death,
or using the fuel to instead power the morning
commute in a major city?
What do we do, kill people or start shutting off
whole sectors of the economy?
What about when the gas lines return -- and
rationing -- only it's much worse this time because
our dependence on imported oil has more than
doubled since the last time?
Expect riots. Watch violence, chaos, and then tell
us how much you're above fighting over oil.
You know, humans existed for thousands of years without
oil-based conveniences (as recently as 100 years ago in
fact). Initially there would be discomfort, even some
violence, but we would adapt quickly and make very fast
progress toward alternative energy.
Are you willing to die for a barrel of oil ?
________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: ANNA NICOLE SMITH DIES AFTER COLLAPSING AT HARD ROCK |
12 Feb 2007 11:36:04 AM |
|
|
Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
I didn't offer a scenario. I described your scenario.
Only it wasn't mine. I said that none of us have any
idea what's behind events. You said it was about oil.
All I did was fill in YOUR blanks... What you left out.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: ANNA NICOLE SMITH DIES AFTER COLLAPSING AT HARD ROCK |
13 Feb 2007 06:51:04 AM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> Spat
the Words
Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
I didn't offer a scenario. I described your scenario.
Only it wasn't mine. I said that none of us have any
idea what's behind events. You said it was about oil.
All I did was fill in YOUR blanks... What you left out.
You have a short memory. Here is your post followed by mine.
You clearly were talking about oil, and I questioned you
about your views.
________________________________________________________________
So is Finland an explanding Empire? Sweden? Spain?
Germany?
Because they were hit pretty damn hard by the 1970s
oil crisis, too. Seems like even "Level" empires
need resources, don't it?
Fact is, anyone who's aware of what happened in the
1970s has to themselves admit that IT IS important,
WE DO have interest, our government DOES have an
obligation to watch out for our interests.
Look at how cold it has been in many parts of the
U.S. Imagine if we had to choose between keeping
tens of thousands of people from freezing to death,
or using the fuel to instead power the morning
commute in a major city?
What do we do, kill people or start shutting off
whole sectors of the economy?
What about when the gas lines return -- and
rationing -- only it's much worse this time because
our dependence on imported oil has more than
doubled since the last time?
Expect riots. Watch violence, chaos, and then tell
us how much you're above fighting over oil.
You know, humans existed for thousands of years without
oil-based conveniences (as recently as 100 years ago in
fact). Initially there would be discomfort, even some
violence, but we would adapt quickly and make very fast
progress toward alternative energy.
Are you willing to die for a barrel of oil ?
________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: ANNA NICOLE SMITH DIES AFTER COLLAPSING AT HARD ROCK |
13 Feb 2007 07:50:29 AM |
|
|
Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
You have a short memory. Here is your post
followed by mine. You clearly were talking
about oil, and I questioned you about your
views.
You've GOT to be kidding me? Because now I'm going to
prove that you're either being dishonest of clueless...
It actually starts here:
"Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
Why do you think we're sitting on our fucking farty
asses at $1000 high-tech plastic contraptions right
now and hammering out all this blubbering fucking
***** about the Mideast day after day? Has it
occurred to you that we're getting sucked
emotionally into a paradigm that is pure naked
aggression for control of resources?
I responded with (in part):
| The problem is, your observations fit any number of
| explanations.... and I've heard quite a few.
|
| We're certianly just as "Aggressive" towards north
| Korea, and they don't have any oil. Then again, we
| HAVE NOT acted in north Korea, did act in the middle
| east, so that swings a point back to your favor...
|
| Back & forth, point/counter-point.
Clearly, when the talk FIRST turned to oil (these
"resources"), I BEGAN arguing that we do not know
the motives behind Bush's policies -- MAYBE it's oil,
MAYBE it's something else. We don't know.
*You* Responded to this with:
You know, humans existed for thousands of years
without oil-based conveniences (as recently as
100 years ago in fact). Initially there would be
discomfort, even some violence, but we would
adapt quickly and make very fast progress toward
alternative energy.
Are you willing to die for a barrel of oil ?
Was I arguing that it was all about oil? No. Clearly
not. You'd have to be a two-bit liar to claim that
I was. *YOU* were arguing that it was about oil. It
was *YOUR* scenario, not mine.
And I NEVER allowed you to cling to the mistaken
notion that I was arguing that the war was for
oil. My immediate followup to YOUR oil scenario
was:
| Problem is, you're arguing a conclusion.
(Psst. "It's about oil" is a conclusion)
| I did address it, yes, but I also pointed out
| that it was one of many conclusions, and I
| thoroughly reject the idea that anyone here
| "Knows" the thruth.
NEVER was I saying that it's about oil, NEVER
was the war-for-oil scenario my scenario.
You're welcome
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Bipolar" |
|
| Title: Re: ANNA NICOLE SMITH DIES AFTER COLLAPSING AT HARD ROCK |
18 Feb 2007 02:57:00 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171374629.051531.13530@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
You have a short memory. Here is your post
followed by mine. You clearly were talking
about oil, and I questioned you about your
views.
You've GOT to be kidding me? Because now I'm going to
prove that you're either being dishonest of clueless...
It actually starts here:
"Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
Why do you think we're sitting on our fucking farty
asses at $1000 high-tech plastic contraptions right
now and hammering out all this blubbering fucking
***** about the Mideast day after day? Has it
occurred to you that we're getting sucked
emotionally into a paradigm that is pure naked
aggression for control of resources?
I responded with (in part):
| The problem is, your observations fit any number of
| explanations.... and I've heard quite a few.
|
| We're certianly just as "Aggressive" towards north
| Korea, and they don't have any oil. Then again, we
| HAVE NOT acted in north Korea, did act in the middle
| east, so that swings a point back to your favor...
|
| Back & forth, point/counter-point.
Clearly, when the talk FIRST turned to oil (these
"resources"), I BEGAN arguing that we do not know
the motives behind Bush's policies -- MAYBE it's oil,
MAYBE it's something else. We don't know.
*You* Responded to this with:
You know, humans existed for thousands of years
without oil-based conveniences (as recently as
100 years ago in fact). Initially there would be
discomfort, even some violence, but we would
adapt quickly and make very fast progress toward
alternative energy.
Are you willing to die for a barrel of oil ?
Was I arguing that it was all about oil? No. Clearly
not. You'd have to be a two-bit liar to claim that
I was. *YOU* were arguing that it was about oil. It
was *YOUR* scenario, not mine.
And I NEVER allowed you to cling to the mistaken
notion that I was arguing that the war was for
oil. My immediate followup to YOUR oil scenario
was:
| Problem is, you're arguing a conclusion.
(Psst. "It's about oil" is a conclusion)
If it's not about oil, dummy, then it's about ideology, or power madness,
or greed. Do you deny we're in an oil-based economy?
Do you deny hundreds of billions of dollars of Western investment in oil
is centered in the Persian Gulf area?
Do you deny we'd not give a flying ***** about anyone in the Mideast if it
weren't for our investment and our need for oil?
Arguing about 'it's about oil' as a 'conclusion' by saying that it's
invalid as an argument, or that you personally didn't raise the issue of
oil, is a moot point.
Oil is exactly why the West is there commercially and militarily, and why
so many have already died and been maimed.
It is ostensibly to keep you playing with your ***** here, junior, and
foolin' around with the plastic 'puter you're on, drivin' the four-wheel
chariot, layin' back on your synthetic fabric Lazeeboy, scratchin' your
hairy nuts while watchin' the plastic TV.
Or puting the plastic ***** up your stinking ***** and yahooing while you
watch the lastest statistics on TV on the war dead and injured in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
It's too bad life is so fucking unfair and unjust so much of the time --
it'd be great to see mickey-mouse psychos like you drawn and quartered by
angry exploited Third World folks, steamed with rice, and eaten to
alleviate their hunger or malnutrition.
It'd be a paltry meal, to be sure, but at least you'd finally serve some
real purpose.
| I did address it, yes, but I also pointed out
| that it was one of many conclusions, and I
| thoroughly reject the idea that anyone here
| "Knows" the thruth.
NEVER was I saying that it's about oil, NEVER
was the war-for-oil scenario my scenario.
You're welcome
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: ANNA NICOLE SMITH DIES AFTER COLLAPSING AT HARD ROCK |
18 Feb 2007 10:54:12 AM |
|
|
On Feb 18, 12:57 am, "Dr. Bipolar"
<doctorsalway...@theglobalasylum.com> wrote:
"JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171374629.051531.13530@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
You have a short memory. Here is your post
followed by mine. You clearly were talking
about oil, and I questioned you about your
views.
You've GOT to be kidding me? Because now I'm going to
prove that you're either being dishonest of clueless...
It actually starts here:
"Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
Why do you think we're sitting on our fucking farty
asses at $1000 high-tech plastic contraptions right
now and hammering out all this blubbering fucking
***** about the Mideast day after day? Has it
occurred to you that we're getting sucked
emotionally into a paradigm that is pure naked
aggression for control of resources?
I responded with (in part):
| The problem is, your observations fit any number of
| explanations.... and I've heard quite a few.
|
| We're certianly just as "Aggressive" towards north
| Korea, and they don't have any oil. Then again, we
| HAVE NOT acted in north Korea, did act in the middle
| east, so that swings a point back to your favor...
|
| Back & forth, point/counter-point.
Clearly, when the talk FIRST turned to oil (these
"resources"), I BEGAN arguing that we do not know
the motives behind Bush's policies -- MAYBE it's oil,
MAYBE it's something else. We don't know.
*You* Responded to this with:
You know, humans existed for thousands of years
without oil-based conveniences (as recently as
100 years ago in fact). Initially there would be
discomfort, even some violence, but we would
adapt quickly and make very fast progress toward
alternative energy.
Are you willing to die for a barrel of oil ?
Was I arguing that it was all about oil? No. Clearly
not. You'd have to be a two-bit liar to claim that
I was. *YOU* were arguing that it was about oil. It
was *YOUR* scenario, not mine.
And I NEVER allowed you to cling to the mistaken
notion that I was arguing that the war was for
oil. My immediate followup to YOUR oil scenario
was:
| Problem is, you're arguing a conclusion.
(Psst. "It's about oil" is a conclusion)
If it's not about oil, dummy, then it's about ideology, or power madness,
or greed. Do you deny we're in an oil-based economy?
Do you deny hundreds of billions of dollars of Western investment in oil
is centered in the Persian Gulf area?
Do you deny we'd not give a flying ***** about anyone in the Mideast if it
weren't for our investment and our need for oil?
So ... if it's all about oil, why do we support Israel? Doesn't our
support for Israel's right to exist cause friction in our
relationships with some of those oil producing nations?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: ANNA NICOLE SMITH DIES AFTER COLLAPSING AT HARD ROCK |
14 Feb 2007 06:35:12 AM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> Spat the
Words
Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
You have a short memory. Here is your post
followed by mine. You clearly were talking
about oil, and I questioned you about your
views.
You've GOT to be kidding me? Because now I'm going to
prove that you're either being dishonest of clueless...
Here is where you started talking about oil. You deny this ?
This comes from the google archive, and this is the post
which I responded to.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.prophecies.nostradamus/browse_thread/threa
d/fd0ff1bd87f380c5/6b5361d06dc21402?lnk=st&q=&rnum=79#6b5361d06dc21402
Here is the last bit of what you said
________________________________________________________________
What about when the gas lines return -- and
rationing -- only it's much worse this time because
our dependence on imported oil has more than
doubled since the last time?
Expect riots. Watch violence, chaos, and then tell
us how much you're above fighting over oil.
The geography is a minor thing. It
________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: ANNA NICOLE SMITH DIES AFTER COLLAPSING AT HARD ROCK |
13 Feb 2007 07:46:26 AM |
|
|
Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
Only it wasn't mine. I said that none of us have any
idea what's behind events. You said it was about oil.
All I did was fill in YOUR blanks... What you left out.
You have a short memory. Here is your post followed by mine.
You clearly were talking about oil, and I questioned you
about your views.
You've GOT to be kidding me? Because now I'm going to
prove that you're either being dishonest of clueless...
It actually starts here:
"Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
Why do you think we're sitting on our fucking farty
asses at $1000 high-tech plastic contraptions right
now and hammering out all this blubbering fucking
***** about the Mideast day after day? Has it
occurred to you that we're getting sucked
emotionally into a paradigm that is pure naked
aggression for control of resources?
I responded with (in part):
| The problem is, your observations fit any number of
| explanations.... and I've heard quite a few.
|
| We're certianly just as "Aggressive" towards north
| Korea, and they don't have any oil. Then again, we
| HAVE NOT acted in north Korea, did act in the middle
| east, so that swings a point back to your favor...
|
| Back & forth, point/counter-point.
Clearly, when the talk FIRST turned to oil (these
"resources"), I BEGAN arguing that we do not know
the motives behind Bush's policies -- MAYBE it's oil,
MAYBE it's something else. We don't know.
*You* Responded to this with:
You know, humans existed for thousands of years
without oil-based conveniences (as recently as
100 years ago in fact). Initially there would be
discomfort, even some violence, but we would
adapt quickly and make very fast progress toward
alternative energy.
Are you willing to die for a barrel of oil ?
Was I arguing that it was all about oil? No. Clearly
not. You'd have to be a two-bit liar to claim that
I was. *YOU* were arguing that it was about oil. It
was *YOUR* scenario, not mine.
An I NEVER allowed you to cling to the mistaken
notion that I was arguing that the war was for
oil. My immediate followup to YOUR oil scenario
was:
| Problem is, you're arguing a conclusion.
(Psst. "It's about oil" is a conclusion)
| I did address it, yes, but I also pointed out
| that it was one of many conclusions, and I
| thoroughly reject the idea that anyone here
| "Knows" the thruth.
NEVER was I saying that it's about oil, NEVER
was the war-for-oil my scenario.
You're welcome
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: ANNA NICOLE SMITH DIES AFTER COLLAPSING AT HARD ROCK |
14 Feb 2007 06:34:09 AM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> Spat
the Words
Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
Only it wasn't mine. I said that none of us have any
idea what's behind events. You said it was about oil.
All I did was fill in YOUR blanks... What you left out.
You have a short memory. Here is your post followed by mine.
You clearly were talking about oil, and I questioned you
about your views.
You've GOT to be kidding me? Because now I'm going to
prove that you're either being dishonest of clueless...
Here is where you started talking about oil. You deny this ?
This comes from the google archive, and this is the post
which I responded to.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.prophecies.nostradamus/browse_thread/th
read/fd0ff1bd87f380c5/6b5361d06dc21402?lnk=st&q=&rnum=79#6b5361d06dc21402
Here is the last bit of what you said
________________________________________________________________
What about when the gas lines return -- and
rationing -- only it's much worse this time because
our dependence on imported oil has more than
doubled since the last time?
Expect riots. Watch violence, chaos, and then tell
us how much you're above fighting over oil.
The geography is a minor thing. It
________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Bipolar" |
|
| Title: Re: ANNA NICOLE SMITH DIES AFTER COLLAPSING AT HARD ROCK |
12 Feb 2007 04:41:06 AM |
|
|
On Feb 12, 12:00 am, "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
Now YOU'RE drawing conclusions about what might
happen.
No, I was addressing YOUR conclusion.
If you prefer, you can think of it as an "Even
if you're right about it being entirely about
oil, it's not as easy as you make it out to be
because...."
Why would anybody choose to die over a barrel
of oil ?
Fuel. Warming their home in the winter. Transportion.
Greed. Money.
I can easily see how some people might send others
to die over oil, and I know people get kooky over
scarce resources, but given the choice between
death with some oil in your possession and a long
life without any oil, which would you choose ?
I would choose war over a long period of chaos,
insecurity & tragedy. As I pointed out -- and you
so conveniently ignored -- our dependence on
imported oil is GREATER now than it was in the 1970s.
Things would be WORSE now than they were then.
The stock market losr 45% of it's value before it was
all over... back then.
There was rationing, limiting of the amount you could
purchase.... back then.
There was huge spikes in prices... then.
There were long, long lines just to buy gas, without
any assurance tha there'd be any when you made it to
the front... back then.
Our dependence has AT LEAST doubled since then.
Given the choice between watching all the western
economies fall in ruin, even as chaos reigns and
many, many, many suffer -- or going to war, I choose
war.
Soldier kills or neighbor dies.... yup, I pick war.
Believe me, I've talked solutions myself. Not like
you, but trying to discuss real solutions. Nobody is
interested in them.
With world leaders, oil industry heads, alternative tech
inventors...eh? Or, did you discuss 'real solutions' with your hairy-
***** flea-bitten next-door neighbor who's been snortin' blow all his
life?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
