| Topic: |
Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus |
| User: |
"Paul Kekai Manansala" |
| Date: |
21 Oct 2004 10:37:46 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Foreign endorsements of U.S. presidential candidates |
You're a dumbass, dude. Bush is responsible for the oil prices because of
his failed oil policy and failed oil war.
And as you predicted, he's also responsible for the hurricanes and the
volcanoes (divine retribution, I guess, for his evil actions).
(___)
\_/ Paul Kekai Manansala
.
|
|
| User: "Congenital Kano" |
|
| Title: Re: Foreign endorsements of U.S. presidential candidates |
21 Oct 2004 10:46:37 PM |
|
|
"Paul Kekai Manansala" <youremail@email.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9589D1DAC65B4pmanansalasbcglobaln@64.164.98.29...
You're a dumbass, dude. Bush is responsible for the oil prices because of
his failed oil policy and failed oil war.
And as you predicted, he's also responsible for the hurricanes and the
volcanoes (divine retribution, I guess, for his evil actions).
(___)
\_/ Paul Kekai Manansala
Simple minds distract easily. Isn't there a teen chatroom somewhere where
your silliness would be accepted uncritically?
"Oil war"?
Try crunching the numbers on that one. Oh, wait. That involves facts.
Never mind...
Why do I bother? Pig
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Kekai Manansala" |
|
| Title: Re: Foreign endorsements of U.S. presidential candidates |
22 Oct 2004 12:03:16 PM |
|
|
"Congenital Kano" <jrsdaddeletethis@comcast.net> wrote in
news:xo%dd.168811$He1.97580@attbi_s01:
"Paul Kekai Manansala" <youremail@email.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9589D1DAC65B4pmanansalasbcglobaln@64.164.98.29...
You're a dumbass, dude. Bush is responsible for the oil prices
because of his failed oil policy and failed oil war.
And as you predicted, he's also responsible for the hurricanes and
the volcanoes (divine retribution, I guess, for his evil actions).
(___)
\_/ Paul Kekai Manansala
"Oil war"?
Try crunching the numbers on that one.
Iraq = 20-25 percent of world's known oil reserves. But it ain't getting
pumped out. Estimated yearly operational costs in Iraq of about $60 billion
(including massive use of petroleum products). Record oil price today of
$55.40 per barrel. Are those the numbers you were looking for?
(___)
\_/ Paul Kekai Manansala
.
|
|
|
| User: "Congenital Kano" |
|
| Title: Re: Foreign endorsements of U.S. presidential candidates |
22 Oct 2004 02:46:35 PM |
|
|
"Paul Kekai Manansala" <youremail@email.com> wrote in message
news:Xns958A6648E9AF0pmanansalasbcglobaln@64.164.98.29...
"Congenital Kano" <jrsdaddeletethis@comcast.net> wrote in
news:xo%dd.168811$He1.97580@attbi_s01:
"Paul Kekai Manansala" <youremail@email.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9589D1DAC65B4pmanansalasbcglobaln@64.164.98.29...
You're a dumbass, dude. Bush is responsible for the oil prices
because of his failed oil policy and failed oil war.
And as you predicted, he's also responsible for the hurricanes and
the volcanoes (divine retribution, I guess, for his evil actions).
(___)
\_/ Paul Kekai Manansala
"Oil war"?
Try crunching the numbers on that one.
Iraq = 20-25 percent of world's known oil reserves. But it ain't getting
pumped out. Estimated yearly operational costs in Iraq of about $60
billion
(including massive use of petroleum products). Record oil price today of
$55.40 per barrel. Are those the numbers you were looking for?
Nope. To begin with, if you use the DOE estimates, based upon oil industry
figures, Iraq has only 11.1% of the world's reserves. If you use the USGS
figures, based upon geological survey data, Iraq has only 6.5%. So, even
starting off you are way off the mark. But don't let that bother you,
because too many other elements are missing in your "oil war" scenario.
Specifically, why there would be more profit in war than in merely making a
deal (as TotalFinaElf did for the French gummint) to lift sanctions against
Saddam for lucrative oil development contracts? War was unnecessary to get
at Iraqi oil - you already had sanctions eroded by 1999 according to the
Duelfer report to where they were almost nonexistant. Russia, China,
Germany, Jordan, Syria and France, among others, were working to get the
sanctions lifted. It would have been simple - and much more profitable -
for Bush to have cut a deal with Saddam and gotten contracts for Shell and
Exxon and Halliburton without any cost to the US. *IF* Saddam had not
represented a threat.
Since the economics support a contractual arrangement, there must have been
other factors that defeated such a deal. Perhaps the President's revenge
for the plot against his Daddy? Then we don't have a war for oil, we have
one for revenge. Maybe revenge AND oil? Shouldn't we bring the Israelis in
to this? We know they secretly run Washington. But why would the Israelis
want Saddam out? Do *they* want his oil? Or do they think (correctly) that
he was a threat to them? But wait ... if Saddam was a threat to an ally
with a mutual defense treaty with the US... was the war really about oil?
Now it is about oil, and revenge, and protecting an ally. Sure, we know
Saddam was paying $25,000 bounties to the families of suicide bombers (more
if they killed more Israelis). And documents in the "Oil for Food"
investigation show that Saddam contributed $72 million to the Popular Front
for the Liberation of Palestine (you know, those jolly folks behind the
"Black September" plane hijackings and various rocket attacks on Israel).
So it must have been a war for oil, revenge, treaties and terrorism.
Oh, dear.
Now, let's look at how the Iraqi oil is being administered. Where is it
going? Who gets the profits? You don't know? Follow the money, Deep
Thro... er, Deep One. How is the Iraqi oil pie being divided? You will
find that, had the US merely gotten contracts with Saddam the companies
involved would have had higher returns, without obligations to the Iraqi
people (Saddam didn't care; he was diverting the Oil for Food money from the
people).
Sorry, just because oil exists somewhere doesn't mean everyone's actions are
based upon that oil. The USGS data states that the oil-producing areas in
Africa have larger reserves than Iraq - why are we not invading? The USGS
data states that North America has about half of the reserves that the
entire ME has - invade Canada, anyone?
For your "war for oil" scenario to play out, you simply have to deny all the
other elements. Saddam posed no threat, now or ever. He was not supporting
terrorism. He was not using Salman Pak to train terrorists from other
countries. He was not providing sanctuary to terrorists. He was, as
Michael Moore tells you (and you believe), a gentle, kind man where children
were able to fly kites and all were happy before the evil Bush machine
crushed their hopes.
Riight.
Read what the Iraqis have to say Pig
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Kekai Manansala" |
|
| Title: Re: Foreign endorsements of U.S. presidential candidates |
22 Oct 2004 05:17:14 PM |
|
|
"Congenital Kano" <jrsdaddeletethis@comcast.net> wrote in
news:vsded.514720$8_6.214790@attbi_s04:
"Paul Kekai Manansala" <youremail@email.com> wrote in message
news:Xns958A6648E9AF0pmanansalasbcglobaln@64.164.98.29...
"Congenital Kano" <jrsdaddeletethis@comcast.net> wrote in
news:xo%dd.168811$He1.97580@attbi_s01:
"Paul Kekai Manansala" <youremail@email.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9589D1DAC65B4pmanansalasbcglobaln@64.164.98.29...
You're a dumbass, dude. Bush is responsible for the oil prices
because of his failed oil policy and failed oil war.
And as you predicted, he's also responsible for the hurricanes and
the volcanoes (divine retribution, I guess, for his evil actions).
(___)
\_/ Paul Kekai Manansala
"Oil war"?
Try crunching the numbers on that one.
Iraq = 20-25 percent of world's known oil reserves. But it ain't
getting pumped out. Estimated yearly operational costs in Iraq of
about $60 billion
(including massive use of petroleum products). Record oil price today
of $55.40 per barrel. Are those the numbers you were looking for?
Nope. To begin with, if you use the DOE estimates, based upon oil
industry figures, Iraq has only 11.1% of the world's reserves. If you
use the USGS figures, based upon geological survey data,
Yes, you're right, I confused the figures for Saudi Arabia and Iraq, but
the latter still has the second largest known reserves in the world.
Specifically, why there would be more profit in
war than in merely making a deal (as TotalFinaElf did for the French
gummint) to lift sanctions against Saddam for lucrative oil
development contracts? War was unnecessary to get at Iraqi oil - you
already had sanctions eroded by 1999 according to the Duelfer report
to where they were almost nonexistant. Russia, China, Germany,
Jordan, Syria and France, among others, were working to get the
sanctions lifted. It would have been simple - and much more
profitable - for Bush to have cut a deal with Saddam and gotten
contracts for Shell and Exxon and Halliburton without any cost to the
US. *IF* Saddam had not represented a threat.
Saddam cut a deal with Bush? Yeah, riight.
By invading Bush planned to control the oil and use it pay for
Halliburton and other contracts and even for the war itself. Ooops,
didn't work out that way. In fact, the idea that Iraqi oil would be
used for war costs and reconstruction was no secret at all.
The U.S. and their puppet govt would supposedly hold all the strings on
Iraqi oil production and could flood the market lowering prices.
Sheesh!
Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala
.
|
|
|
| User: "Congenital Kano" |
|
| Title: Re: Foreign endorsements of U.S. presidential candidates |
22 Oct 2004 05:36:59 PM |
|
|
"Paul Kekai Manansala" <youremail@email.com> wrote in message
news:Xns958A9B7EE50BBpmanansalasbcglobaln@64.164.98.7...
"Congenital Kano" <jrsdaddeletethis@comcast.net> wrote in
news:vsded.514720$8_6.214790@attbi_s04:
"Paul Kekai Manansala" <youremail@email.com> wrote in message
news:Xns958A6648E9AF0pmanansalasbcglobaln@64.164.98.29...
"Congenital Kano" <jrsdaddeletethis@comcast.net> wrote in
news:xo%dd.168811$He1.97580@attbi_s01:
"Paul Kekai Manansala" <youremail@email.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9589D1DAC65B4pmanansalasbcglobaln@64.164.98.29...
You're a dumbass, dude. Bush is responsible for the oil prices
because of his failed oil policy and failed oil war.
And as you predicted, he's also responsible for the hurricanes and
the volcanoes (divine retribution, I guess, for his evil actions).
(___)
\_/ Paul Kekai Manansala
"Oil war"?
Try crunching the numbers on that one.
Iraq = 20-25 percent of world's known oil reserves. But it ain't
getting pumped out. Estimated yearly operational costs in Iraq of
about $60 billion
(including massive use of petroleum products). Record oil price today
of $55.40 per barrel. Are those the numbers you were looking for?
Nope. To begin with, if you use the DOE estimates, based upon oil
industry figures, Iraq has only 11.1% of the world's reserves. If you
use the USGS figures, based upon geological survey data,
Yes, you're right, I confused the figures for Saudi Arabia and Iraq, but
the latter still has the second largest known reserves in the world.
Specifically, why there would be more profit in
war than in merely making a deal (as TotalFinaElf did for the French
gummint) to lift sanctions against Saddam for lucrative oil
development contracts? War was unnecessary to get at Iraqi oil - you
already had sanctions eroded by 1999 according to the Duelfer report
to where they were almost nonexistant. Russia, China, Germany,
Jordan, Syria and France, among others, were working to get the
sanctions lifted. It would have been simple - and much more
profitable - for Bush to have cut a deal with Saddam and gotten
contracts for Shell and Exxon and Halliburton without any cost to the
US. *IF* Saddam had not represented a threat.
Saddam cut a deal with Bush? Yeah, riight.
By invading Bush planned to control the oil and use it pay for
Halliburton and other contracts and even for the war itself. Ooops,
didn't work out that way. In fact, the idea that Iraqi oil would be
used for war costs and reconstruction was no secret at all.
The U.S. and their puppet govt would supposedly hold all the strings on
Iraqi oil production and could flood the market lowering prices.
Sheesh!
"Flood the market"? You have *no concept* about the limits on oil
production, transportation, the lack of refineries in Iraq, etc. Look at
the number of millions of barrels a day projected to be produced in Iraq,
look at the world production and demand, and tell me about "flooded". The
world consumes about 82 million barrels a day. Iraq, even at pre-Gulf War
levels, can produce about 3 million bpd. Say that can be doubled over the
next 10 years with billions of dollars of exploitation and development. You
are talking about at most 6 mbpd in 10 years. Meanwhile, the Saudis have
plans to double *their* production to over 20 mbpd.
Bottom line, the Iraqis never *could* have "flooded" the market, and oil
people know this.
Your theory simply doesn't stand up to reality. I guess you think they just
have to speed up the pumps to take all the oil they want. Silly.
Once again, you prove you are not worth my time.
Why do I even bother? Pig
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Kekai Manansala" |
|
| Title: Re: Foreign endorsements of U.S. presidential candidates |
23 Oct 2004 10:29:38 AM |
|
|
"Congenital Kano" <jrsdaddeletethis@comcast.net> wrote in
news:fYfed.442406$Fg5.6802@attbi_s53:
"Paul Kekai Manansala" <youremail@email.com> wrote in message
news:Xns958A9B7EE50BBpmanansalasbcglobaln@64.164.98.7...
"Congenital Kano" <jrsdaddeletethis@comcast.net> wrote in
news:vsded.514720$8_6.214790@attbi_s04:
"Flood the market"? You have *no concept* about the limits on oil
production, transportation, the lack of refineries in Iraq, etc. Look
at the number of millions of barrels a day projected to be produced in
Iraq, look at the world production and demand, and tell me about
"flooded".
Oh duh yeah they can't flood the market now, Socrates, cuz the
insurgents are blowing everything up!
(___)
\_/ Paul Kekai Manansala
.
|
|
|
| User: "Congenital Kano" |
|
| Title: Re: Foreign endorsements of U.S. presidential candidates |
23 Oct 2004 03:35:19 PM |
|
|
"Paul Kekai Manansala" <youremail@email.com> wrote in message
news:Xns958B5669DC371pmanansalasbcglobaln@64.164.98.7...
"Congenital Kano" <jrsdaddeletethis@comcast.net> wrote in
news:fYfed.442406$Fg5.6802@attbi_s53:
"Paul Kekai Manansala" <youremail@email.com> wrote in message
news:Xns958A9B7EE50BBpmanansalasbcglobaln@64.164.98.7...
"Congenital Kano" <jrsdaddeletethis@comcast.net> wrote in
news:vsded.514720$8_6.214790@attbi_s04:
"Flood the market"? You have *no concept* about the limits on oil
production, transportation, the lack of refineries in Iraq, etc. Look
at the number of millions of barrels a day projected to be produced in
Iraq, look at the world production and demand, and tell me about
"flooded".
Oh duh yeah they can't flood the market now, Socrates, cuz the
insurgents are blowing everything up!
OK, one last time - when you can only produce 3 million barrels a day in the
face of a 82 mbpd demand... how do you "flood" the market? If you *gave*
away your oil you would not affect the price.
Silly boy. Goodbye!
Real-world physics and economics are beyond some folks Pig
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Kekai Manansala" |
|
| Title: Re: Foreign endorsements of U.S. presidential candidates |
23 Oct 2004 06:07:09 PM |
|
|
"Congenital Kano" <jrsdaddeletethis@comcast.net> wrote in
news:bgzed.304169$D%.223976@attbi_s51:
"Paul Kekai Manansala" <youremail@email.com> wrote in message
news:Xns958B5669DC371pmanansalasbcglobaln@64.164.98.7...
"Congenital Kano" <jrsdaddeletethis@comcast.net> wrote in
news:fYfed.442406$Fg5.6802@attbi_s53:
"Paul Kekai Manansala" <youremail@email.com> wrote in message
news:Xns958A9B7EE50BBpmanansalasbcglobaln@64.164.98.7...
"Congenital Kano" <jrsdaddeletethis@comcast.net> wrote in
news:vsded.514720$8_6.214790@attbi_s04:
"Flood the market"? You have *no concept* about the limits on oil
production, transportation, the lack of refineries in Iraq, etc.
Look at the number of millions of barrels a day projected to be
produced in Iraq, look at the world production and demand, and tell
me about "flooded".
Oh duh yeah they can't flood the market now, Socrates, cuz the
insurgents are blowing everything up!
OK, one last time - when you can only produce 3 million barrels a day
in the face of a 82 mbpd demand... how do you "flood" the market? If
you *gave* away your oil you would not affect the price.
Well first of all, knucklehead, your numbers are not good. According to
a study by the Centre for Global Energy Studies, a fully recovered Iraq
can produce from 10-12 mbpd.
This would take maybe a decade or more of work, but no problem since its
just more dough for Halliburton, Bechtel and other Bush-linked
companies.
Secondly, flooding the market with oil does not mean anything like
doubling the current production. It can be as simple as one major oil
producer breaking ranks.
Currently oil producing countries try to keep a good balance between
supply and demand. But if a major country breaks ranks it also puts
pressure on other countries to start pumping more to make up for falling
prices.
In fact, this one of the reasons Saddam invaded little Kuwait.
(___)
\_/ Paul Kekai Manansala
.
|
|
|
| User: "Congenital Kano" |
|
| Title: Re: Foreign endorsements of U.S. presidential candidates |
23 Oct 2004 08:47:22 PM |
|
|
"Paul Kekai Manansala" <youremail@email.com> wrote in message
news:Xns958BA3F11752Fpmanansalasbcglobaln@64.164.98.7...
Well first of all, knucklehead, your numbers are not good. According to
a study by the Centre for Global Energy Studies, a fully recovered Iraq
can produce from 10-12 mbpd.
This would take maybe a decade or more of work, but no problem since its
just more dough for Halliburton, Bechtel and other Bush-linked
companies.
Secondly, flooding the market with oil does not mean anything like
doubling the current production. It can be as simple as one major oil
producer breaking ranks.
Currently oil producing countries try to keep a good balance between
supply and demand. But if a major country breaks ranks it also puts
pressure on other countries to start pumping more to make up for falling
prices.
In fact, this one of the reasons Saddam invaded little Kuwait.
Silly boy. You obviously don't understand how supply and demand work. Or
for that matter, how any form of mineral development works.
Discount the *billions* it would take in investment before such a figure
could be reached. Discount the cost of pipelines, tankers, etc., to handle
the extra production.
The costs of development must be reclaimed - you cannot give the oil away.
But let's ignore that fiscal reality.
10-12 mbpd in 10 years. With the increased demand in ASEAN and developing
nations, it is not unreasonable to peg the daily world demand at 100-110
mbpd in 10 years (it went up 10 million in the last 10 years; China's thirst
will not be linear but logarithmic or exponential).
The only way *flooding* works is if you can meet demand or a good portion of
it with your low prices (see memory chip dumping by the Japanese in the
1980s). When you can, by your figures, only provide 1/10th or less of the
demand for cheap oil. Every day, people buy the cheap oil first. It is
then gone. The demand (for 90 or 100 million barrels) remains. Why should
any other producer lower their price? That's not how markets work. Will
they lower prices to try to snare the first 10 million barrels? That's the
only place cheap oil can compete.
You cannot just "pump more." That is just ignorant. When they talk about
"capacity", they are talking the physical limits of production by the
equipment in place; there is also the limits on transportation, processing
and distribution. More exploitation means more cost, and you reach a point
of diminishing returns. If it was just a matter of "pumping faster" then
the Russians would be churning out more because they desperately need the
hard cash.
Saddam wanted Kuwait in pertinent part because he a) didn't have to pay for
their equipment or exploration, b) Kuwait has 3 refineries while Iraq has
none, and c) they have much better ports for shipping.
Your whole line of reasoning if fatuous and naive. You cannot "flood" a
market by producing 10% of the demand. Period.
Thanks for playing! Vanna has a nice board game on your way out Pig
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Kekai Manansala" |
|
| Title: Re: Foreign endorsements of U.S. presidential candidates |
23 Oct 2004 10:20:46 PM |
|
|
"Congenital Kano" <jrsdaddeletethis@comcast.net> wrote in
news:KQDed.520376$8_6.167976@attbi_s04:
You cannot just "pump more." .
?
Horse poop. You know nothing of what you're talking about, as usual. Even
rumors of increased or decreased production in a major oil producing
country can effect prices.
(___)
\_/ Paul Kekai Manansala
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Foreign endorsements of U.S. presidential candidates |
22 Oct 2004 11:14:26 PM |
|
|
Congenital Kano a écrit:
"Paul Kekai Manansala" <youremail@email.com> wrote in message
news:Xns958A6648E9AF0pmanansalasbcglobaln@64.164.98.29...
"Congenital Kano" <jrsdaddeletethis@comcast.net> wrote in
news:xo%dd.168811$He1.97580@attbi_s01:
"Paul Kekai Manansala" <youremail@email.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9589D1DAC65B4pmanansalasbcglobaln@64.164.98.29...
You're a dumbass, dude. Bush is responsible for the oil prices
because of his failed oil policy and failed oil war.
And as you predicted, he's also responsible for the hurricanes and
the volcanoes (divine retribution, I guess, for his evil actions).
(___)
\_/ Paul Kekai Manansala
"Oil war"?
Try crunching the numbers on that one.
Iraq = 20-25 percent of world's known oil reserves. But it ain't getting
pumped out. Estimated yearly operational costs in Iraq of about $60
billion
(including massive use of petroleum products). Record oil price today of
$55.40 per barrel. Are those the numbers you were looking for?
Nope. To begin with, if you use the DOE estimates, based upon oil industry
figures, Iraq has only 11.1% of the world's reserves. If you use the USGS
figures, based upon geological survey data, Iraq has only 6.5%. So, even
starting off you are way off the mark. But don't let that bother you,
because too many other elements are missing in your "oil war" scenario.
Specifically, why there would be more profit in war than in merely making a
deal (as TotalFinaElf did for the French gummint) to lift sanctions against
Saddam for lucrative oil development contracts? War was unnecessary to get
at Iraqi oil - you already had sanctions eroded by 1999 according to the
Duelfer report to where they were almost nonexistant. Russia, China,
Germany, Jordan, Syria and France, among others, were working to get the
sanctions lifted. It would have been simple - and much more profitable -
for Bush to have cut a deal with Saddam and gotten contracts for Shell and
Exxon and Halliburton without any cost to the US. *IF* Saddam had not
represented a threat.
Since the economics support a contractual arrangement, there must have been
other factors that defeated such a deal. Perhaps the President's revenge
for the plot against his Daddy? Then we don't have a war for oil, we have
one for revenge. Maybe revenge AND oil? Shouldn't we bring the Israelis in
to this? We know they secretly run Washington. But why would the Israelis
want Saddam out? Do *they* want his oil? Or do they think (correctly) that
he was a threat to them? But wait ... if Saddam was a threat to an ally
with a mutual defense treaty with the US... was the war really about oil?
Now it is about oil, and revenge, and protecting an ally. Sure, we know
Saddam was paying $25,000 bounties to the families of suicide bombers (more
if they killed more Israelis). And documents in the "Oil for Food"
investigation show that Saddam contributed $72 million to the Popular Front
for the Liberation of Palestine (you know, those jolly folks behind the
"Black September" plane hijackings and various rocket attacks on Israel).
So it must have been a war for oil, revenge, treaties and terrorism.
Oh, dear.
Now, let's look at how the Iraqi oil is being administered. Where is it
going? Who gets the profits? You don't know? Follow the money, Deep
Thro... er, Deep One. How is the Iraqi oil pie being divided? You will
find that, had the US merely gotten contracts with Saddam the companies
involved would have had higher returns, without obligations to the Iraqi
people (Saddam didn't care; he was diverting the Oil for Food money from the
people).
Sorry, just because oil exists somewhere doesn't mean everyone's actions are
based upon that oil. The USGS data states that the oil-producing areas in
Africa have larger reserves than Iraq - why are we not invading? The USGS
data states that North America has about half of the reserves that the
entire ME has - invade Canada, anyone?
For your "war for oil" scenario to play out, you simply have to deny all the
other elements. Saddam posed no threat, now or ever. He was not supporting
terrorism. He was not using Salman Pak to train terrorists from other
countries. He was not providing sanctuary to terrorists. He was, as
Michael Moore tells you (and you believe), a gentle, kind man where children
were able to fly kites and all were happy before the evil Bush machine
crushed their hopes.
Riight.
Read what the Iraqis have to say Pig
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/
GREAT news ("Clerics endorse democracy"). Hope the clerics worldwide
will adopt the same direction. So far what we see from the fatwa they
have issued was the complete opposite.
Great post!
J.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rusalka" |
|
| Title: Re: Foreign endorsements of U.S. presidential candidates |
21 Oct 2004 11:26:20 PM |
|
|
In article <xo%dd.168811$He1.97580@attbi_s01>
"Congenital Kano" <jrsdaddeletethis@comcast.net> wrote:
"Paul Kekai Manansala" <youremail@email.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9589D1DAC65B4pmanansalasbcglobaln@64.164.98.29...
You're a dumbass, dude. Bush is responsible for the oil prices because of
his failed oil policy and failed oil war.
And as you predicted, he's also responsible for the hurricanes and the
volcanoes (divine retribution, I guess, for his evil actions).
(___)
\_/ Paul Kekai Manansala
Simple minds distract easily. Isn't there a teen chatroom somewhere where
your silliness would be accepted uncritically?
Yawn.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
