Bush Threatens to Veto Gas Gouging Bill

(Brent P) wrote in
news
>
>
> Then you might have noticed that Bush has set up for himself what
> Roman emperors and leaders of third world kelptocracies do just before
> they become an emperor.
>
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...070509-12.html
>
> Now all that's needed is an emergency.
Ya know you said the same thing about clinton about how he was going to
cancel the elections, why dont you admit you are a raving loony and go
to a nice room where you can bounce off the walls.
>
>
> You're just showing yourself to be an unaware, uninformed, ignoramous
> who is proud of it.
I have heard your ilk on shortwave radio and for the most part you all make
me laugh so go to your liberty lobby meetings and have a circle jerk with
each other

necromancer > wrote in
th.net:

> lyon_wonder:
>> Bush Threatens Veto of Gas Gouging Bill
>> Published: May 23, 2007 1:11 PM
>>
>> By William L. Watts
>>
>> WASHINGTON (Dow Jones) -- President Bush is likely to veto legislation
>> that would create hefty fines and criminal penalties for gasoline
>> price-gouging, the White House said Wednesday.
>
> Here's a radical thought: why not pass some laws that remove the
> impediments to building refineries in this country so that it makes
> better business sense to build more refineries and lower prices?
>
><< snip >>
>

then the Greenies will be bitching at Bush for ruining the environment,and
for helping his buddies in Big Oil Business.

The Greenies WANT the oil to become expensive and in short supply,then
people drive less and they can use it as an excuse to force public
transpo.upon us. THEY don't CARE about defending America,they hate it
already.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article et>, john sumner wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote in
> news >
>>
>>
>> Then you might have noticed that Bush has set up for himself what
>> Roman emperors and leaders of third world kelptocracies do just before
>> they become an emperor.
>>
>> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...070509-12.html
>>
>> Now all that's needed is an emergency.

> Ya know you said the same thing about clinton about how he was going to
> cancel the elections, why dont you admit you are a raving loony and go
> to a nice room where you can bounce off the walls.

I never said any such thing about clinton. Liar. My posts are in the
google archive, I demand you back up that claim.


>> You're just showing yourself to be an unaware, uninformed, ignoramous
>> who is proud of it.

> I have heard your ilk on shortwave radio and for the most part you all make
> me laugh so go to your liberty lobby meetings and have a circle jerk with
> each other

Ilk? My Ilk being people who read leglislation? Read executive orders?
That would be people who are informed as opposed to ignorant, mindless
party followers. I guess you're the later. I am sorry you are so ignorant
that all you can do is insult people who present you with the
information.

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:

> The Greenies WANT the oil to become expensive and in short supply,then
> people drive less and they can use it as an excuse to force public
> transpo.upon us. THEY don't CARE about defending America,they hate it
> already.

Take a peak at who funds the Greenies. Also see where the Gore family
fortune comes from.

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:
>
>
>>The Greenies WANT the oil to become expensive and in short supply,then
>>people drive less and they can use it as an excuse to force public
>>transpo.upon us. THEY don't CARE about defending America,they hate it
>>already.
>
>
> Take a peak at who funds the Greenies.

www.activistcash.com

On Wed, 23 May 2007 23:37:32 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

> In article >, Scott O. Kuznicki wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 May 2007 22:24:57 -0500,
> > (Brent P) wrote:
> >
> >> NAFTA is about hurting the poor and middle class in the USA, not cutting
> >> into the profits of big oil.
> >
> > Thank you for regurgitating (i.e., "puking back") articles from
> > "Teamster" magazine -- which I actually do read, by the way.
>
> Never heard of it.
>
> I just pay attention to the CFR.

It's just that making a valid point requires more than just saying
"this is about killing people" or something along those lines. Why?
And who is big oil? How does this all work?

I could have made the equally-valid statement in reverse, that "NAFTA
is about helping the poor and middle class in the USA, and cuts into
the profits of big oil." It can be both ways. But if you justify
your position, it's much more defensible than some offhand statement
that, while it may be true, smacks of the uninformed party politics
many of us have come to dislike.

--
Scott O. Kuznicki, P.E.
Civil (Traffic) Engineer
Dedicated Highway Enthusiast
Driving Enthusiast:
'03 BMW 525i 5-speed
'07 BMW R1200GS

In article >, Scott O. Kuznicki wrote:

> It's just that making a valid point requires more than just saying
> "this is about killing people" or something along those lines. Why?
> And who is big oil? How does this all work?
>
> I could have made the equally-valid statement in reverse, that "NAFTA
> is about helping the poor and middle class in the USA, and cuts into
> the profits of big oil." It can be both ways. But if you justify
> your position, it's much more defensible than some offhand statement
> that, while it may be true, smacks of the uninformed party politics
> many of us have come to dislike.

Oh how could I forget, the rules are different for me.... I cannot just
put forth an opinion like everyone, including you puts forth. I have to
support my opinions with reams of cites. Except then when I do that,
providing cite after cite after cite, the cites are just ignored and
people call me names instead.

I'm getting tired of doing the homework around here. The fact you made a
teamster comment shows that you are quite aware of at least a couple of
the facts regarding what 'harmonizing' the economies of the US and Mexico
via NAFTA and the SPP means.

Now I could go through this same old excerise again of citing documents,
government websites, AP, and other news articles... but we both know
you're just going to discard it. If you're really interested in that
stuff I've posted some of it before. But we both know you're not. It's
just to send me on the errand to dig it all up again where you'd promptly
discard it and post something insulting again.

Read up on what the CFR and other groups' plans for a north american
union and figure it out for yourself. I'll give you an author to get you
started... "Robert Pastor".

On Fri, 25 May 2007 00:35:18 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

> In article >, Scott O. Kuznicki wrote:
>
> > It's just that making a valid point requires more than just saying
> > "this is about killing people" or something along those lines. Why?
> > And who is big oil? How does this all work?
> >
> > I could have made the equally-valid statement in reverse, that "NAFTA
> > is about helping the poor and middle class in the USA, and cuts into
> > the profits of big oil." It can be both ways. But if you justify
> > your position, it's much more defensible than some offhand statement
> > that, while it may be true, smacks of the uninformed party politics
> > many of us have come to dislike.
>
> Oh how could I forget, the rules are different for me.... I cannot just
> put forth an opinion like everyone, including you puts forth.

I put forth a statement ("Thank you for . . .") and backed it up by
citing an actual publication.

> I have to
> support my opinions with reams of cites. Except then when I do that,
> providing cite after cite after cite, the cites are just ignored and
> people call me names instead.

Well, I'm not going to do that. It's inappropriate.

> I'm getting tired of doing the homework around here. The fact you made a
> teamster comment shows that you are quite aware of at least a couple of
> the facts regarding what 'harmonizing' the economies of the US and Mexico
> via NAFTA and the SPP means.

Sure. And when you make comments like the one you did, it's helpful
to state the "why" not the just the "is" or "is supposedly" . . . it
shows that you are aware of more than just rhetoric which, as you
point out above, you are.

> Now I could go through this same old excerise again of citing documents,
> government websites, AP, and other news articles... but we both know
> you're just going to discard it. If you're really interested in that
> stuff I've posted some of it before. But we both know you're not. It's
> just to send me on the errand to dig it all up again where you'd promptly
> discard it and post something insulting again.

Did I post something insulting? I just pointed out what came to mind.
I don't want you to appear as though you really ARE regurgitating
"talking points".

I'm kind of insulted that you would imply I'd discard whatever you
posted. I haven't done that in our conversation and I don't intend
to. I don't discard anything I read. In fact, I've just read the EO
on emergency government provisions (although the poster in the
argument with you may not have). Don't lose confidence in your
ability to win an argument -- just frame statements in a more factual
light.

> Read up on what the CFR and other groups' plans for a north american
> union and figure it out for yourself. I'll give you an author to get you
> started... "Robert Pastor".

I'm well aware of the implications of a North American Union. National
sovereignty is essential to the health of a nation. Border control,
control over national currency, and the ability to enforce laws and
administer justice are just a few of the characteristics that define
national sovereignty. We're losing a lot of those hallmarks to our
peril.

See? I'm not disinterested or on to a name-calling game. Chill,
dude. We're not all out to rile up everyone else here.

--
Scott O. Kuznicki, P.E.
Civil (Traffic) Engineer
Dedicated Highway Enthusiast
Driving Enthusiast:
'03 BMW 525i 5-speed
'07 BMW R1200GS

On Thu, 24 May 2007 05:54:22 -0400, "Joe the Aroma" >
wrote:

>
> "Scott O. Kuznicki" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Wed, 23 May 2007 22:24:57 -0500,
> > (Brent P) wrote:
> >
> >> NAFTA is about hurting the poor and middle class in the USA, not cutting
> >> into the profits of big oil.
> >
> > Thank you for regurgitating (i.e., "puking back") articles from
> > "Teamster" magazine -- which I actually do read, by the way.
>
> It ain't only union people, NAFTA is the first step on the long, painful
> road to a full integration between Mexico, the US, and Canada... aka the
> North Americans Union (NAU). Nobody in the US was clamoring for NAFTA to be
> passed, it's a complete elitist entity. All nations should have the freedom
> to restrict imports as much as they want, that is true free trade. National
> sovereignty should always trump economic integration.

I read your post after I responded to the one just downthread of the
one to which you responded.

You're correct - we are losing our national sovereignty to economic
integration and other factors, possibly to our loss. I'm surprised to
see this concept (sovereignty) brought up in another post . . . if I'd
read yours first, I may not have even mentioned it!

--
Scott O. Kuznicki, P.E.
Civil (Traffic) Engineer
Dedicated Highway Enthusiast
Driving Enthusiast:
'03 BMW 525i 5-speed
'07 BMW R1200GS

On 24 May 2007 05:07:51 -0700, Gary V > wrote:

> On May 24, 12:37 am, (Brent P)
> wrote:
>
> > I just pay attention to the CFR.
>
> Code of Federal Regulations?

Yeah. Great reading. Title 49 is some good stuff and so is Title 23.

Are you asleep yet? You will be!

--
Scott O. Kuznicki, P.E.
Civil (Traffic) Engineer
Dedicated Highway Enthusiast
Driving Enthusiast:
'03 BMW 525i 5-speed
'07 BMW R1200GS