Vote Yes on No

Here is just one small recent example of what is being done: Gasoline
prices, which doubled under Bush (thereby proving that our
Middle-Eastern wars of conquest have nothing to do with oil, either),
suddenly have subsided just prior to the upcoming election. How did
this happen in an era of worldwide increasing demand and decreasing
supply? Easy - Goldman-Sachs simply cut exposure of its primary
commodity index, the GSCI, to gasoline by two-thirds. Since a great
many investors adjust their investments to match the GSCI index
(including funds that are required by their charters to track that
index exactly), the result was a massive sell off of gasoline futures
contracts in just the past few weeks. It is, of course, no coincidence
that the greatest declines in pump prices have taken place in so-called
"swing states" that are particularly critical to Republicans in the
upcoming congressional election.

http://www.conspiracypenpal.com/rants/yesonno.htm

Bret Ludwig wrote:

> Here is just one small recent example of what is being done: Gasoline
> prices, which doubled under Bush (thereby proving that our
> Middle-Eastern wars of conquest have nothing to do with oil, either),
> suddenly have subsided just prior to the upcoming election. How did
> this happen in an era of worldwide increasing demand and decreasing
> supply? Easy - Goldman-Sachs simply cut exposure of its primary
> commodity index, the GSCI, to gasoline by two-thirds. Since a great
> many investors adjust their investments to match the GSCI index
> (including funds that are required by their charters to track that
> index exactly), the result was a massive sell off of gasoline futures
> contracts in just the past few weeks. It is, of course, no coincidence
> that the greatest declines in pump prices have taken place in so-called
> "swing states" that are particularly critical to Republicans in the
> upcoming congressional election.
>
> http://www.conspiracypenpal.com/rants/yesonno.htm
>

Umm - no. New fields have been discovered, as well as progress being
made in liquifacation of coal and in shale.

Truth is, if gas/oil prices were high right now, the Dems would blame
Bush and the Republicans. If gas/oil prices were moderate right now,
the Dems would find some way to couch that against Bush and the
Republicans. If prices were low right now (and they are), the Dems
would even turn that into an anti-Bush/Republican story. People have
gotten numb to the "wrong no matter what they do or don't do" b.s.

One sentence you wrote puzzled me: "...(thereby proving that our
Middle-Eastern wars of conquest have nothing to do with oil)...". I
thought the libs were anti-Bush *because* he was doing everything he
does to get oil (i.e., the mantra used to be "He went into Iraq to steal
their oil"). More examples of wrong no matter what he does or does not do.

Can you guys decide what your position is on one point and stick with
it? Or is it in fact you who are being pragmatic and changing your
spots because of the upcoming elections?

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

Bill Putney wrote:
> Bret Ludwig wrote:
>
>> Here is just one small recent example of what is being done: Gasoline
>> prices, which doubled under Bush (thereby proving that our
>> Middle-Eastern wars of conquest have nothing to do with oil, either),
>> suddenly have subsided just prior to the upcoming election. How did
>> this happen in an era of worldwide increasing demand and decreasing
>> supply? Easy - Goldman-Sachs simply cut exposure of its primary
>> commodity index, the GSCI, to gasoline by two-thirds. Since a great
>> many investors adjust their investments to match the GSCI index
>> (including funds that are required by their charters to track that
>> index exactly), the result was a massive sell off of gasoline futures
>> contracts in just the past few weeks. It is, of course, no coincidence
>> that the greatest declines in pump prices have taken place in so-called
>> "swing states" that are particularly critical to Republicans in the
>> upcoming congressional election.
>>
>> http://www.conspiracypenpal.com/rants/yesonno.htm
>>
>
> Umm - no. New fields have been discovered, as well as progress being
> made in liquifacation of coal and in shale.
>
> Truth is, if gas/oil prices were high right now, the Dems would blame
> Bush and the Republicans. If gas/oil prices were moderate right now,
> the Dems would find some way to couch that against Bush and the
> Republicans. If prices were low right now (and they are), the Dems
> would even turn that into an anti-Bush/Republican story. People have
> gotten numb to the "wrong no matter what they do or don't do" b.s.
>
> One sentence you wrote puzzled me: "...(thereby proving that our
> Middle-Eastern wars of conquest have nothing to do with oil)...". I
> thought the libs were anti-Bush *because* he was doing everything he
> does to get oil (i.e., the mantra used to be "He went into Iraq to steal
> their oil"). More examples of wrong no matter what he does or does not do.
>
> Can you guys decide what your position is on one point and stick with
> it? Or is it in fact you who are being pragmatic and changing your
> spots because of the upcoming elections?

Hi Bill...

Don't believe that "He went into Iraq to steal their oil"; bud DO
believe that he and his gang went into Iraq to control their oil.

Who it was sold to, when, and for what price. And to make absolutely
sure that the lion's share of the selling price stuck to "his/their"
fingers.

Then again, whatta I know - not a liberal, not a conservative, not
even an American

Take care.

Ken

On 16 Oct 2006 17:20:32 -0700, "Bret Ludwig" >
wrote:

>Here is just one small recent example of what is being done: Gasoline
>prices, which doubled under Bush (thereby proving that our
>Middle-Eastern wars of conquest have nothing to do with oil, either),
>suddenly have subsided just prior to the upcoming election. How did
>this happen in an era of worldwide increasing demand and decreasing
>supply? Easy - Goldman-Sachs simply cut exposure of its primary
>commodity index, the GSCI, to gasoline by two-thirds. Since a great
>many investors adjust their investments to match the GSCI index
>(including funds that are required by their charters to track that
>index exactly), the result was a massive sell off of gasoline futures
>contracts in just the past few weeks. It is, of course, no coincidence
>that the greatest declines in pump prices have taken place in so-called
>"swing states" that are particularly critical to Republicans in the
>upcoming congressional election. <snip>

Polling confirms that the drop in crude and refined retail products
hasn't swayed the voters that Bush is "fixing the problem," as the
Dems have innoculated the issue by tying Bush Bird and Cheney to their
"war for oil" It's the Iraq war, stupid...and the fact that "Joe Six
Pack" is still having to pony up $2.40+ for a gallon of unleaded has
him seething when he thinks of the $1.05 he was pumping into his gas
hog only a year ago...that, and the fact that he can't afford to take
his kids to the doctor anymore because he is working a scab job with
no health care whatsoever and for lower wages. It's rather cynical
that the Rove Brigade would choose to give "in trouble" red states the
biggest price drops, but what can you expect from a White House full
of criminals? Also: E85 is significantly eating into unleaded
regular sales in the "Corn Belt." Less demand, lower retail prices.
Winner he Archer-Daniels-Midland, the biggest recipient of
corporate welfare in American history.

Latest numbers show these incumbent GOP senators out on their asses so
far:

Santorum - PA, gone...too loony for prime time, Bush suckup
"Macacawitz" - VA, Webb is scoring major blows, has the momentum
Burns - MT, the "Snoozer" is gone, has Abramoff stench as well
Chaffey - RI, but close...a horse race in the home stretch.
DeWine - OH, gone, another Abramoff casualty

There're the five necessary to make a 50/50 Senate right there (and
that's lumping Lieberman in with the Dems), plus all Dem incumbents
appear to be holding their seats. If the Dems take the other two
tight open seats, Maryland and Tennessee, it's "game over" for the
Bushies. So far, Ford is winning Tennessee and Cardin is slaughtering
Steele in Maryland. Lieberman, after having his butt kicked and
losing DNC funding for his lovey-dovey relationship with the Bushies,
will vote reliably Democratic on most issues after his win over
Lamont. Minnesota's no longer in play; after a disastrous performance
by the GOP's Kennedy on "Meet The Press" Sunday, Minnesota's a walk
for Klobuchar. The only safe GOP seat is AZ, where the wetback issue
is keeping Kyl fairly safe, but within striking range. It's also no
longer whether the Dems will win the House, but by how much. I
predict a range of 15 to 30 seats, which may make Gingrich's "Contract
Hit on America" in '94 look like a piker in comparison.

As irritating Wall Street shill Larry Kudlow said on his nauseating
CNBC stock shilling program today:

"Well, Wall Street analysts were predicting modest gains for the
Democrats in the House and a Repubilcan hold on Congress, but now new
poll numbers say the DEMOCRATS WILL TAKE THE HOUSE BY STORM AND MAY
WIN THE SENATE AS WELL!"

I can't stand Larry Kudlow, but even he's aware of the rising tide of
resentment voters have to the "Republipedo Party." What's the real
backstory here, though, isn't just that the "Pedoes" are losing
Congress in toto, but rather than many of their right wing "rising
stars" are being sent to the shredder, such as "Macacawitz" and
Santorum. The Rovers are particularly upset that Santorum's going
down the tubes...he loses, the post-Mehlman (he'll be thrown out after
the election) RNC will no longer support ANY church nutter/christian
talibaner Senate candidate, period.

Let's get things in focus...nuts like Santorum are tools, not leaders,
selected by the corporate goon owners of the Republipedo Party to
mollify stupid church nutters. Once the nutter faction proves
unreliable in November (and I'm betting large many will stay home,
despite threats of damnation by Falwell-controlled pastors), it's all
over for the church nutter/corporate goon connection that's been in
play since the mid-1970s. The GOP will come about hard back to the
center, will disavow the gun nuts, church nutters and other social
miscreants, and then will to try to gain control of the all-important
Senate again in '08. The Senate's where the corporate and banking
hogs get their slop, not the House, nor even the White House.

Predicition: Hillary Clinton will not be the Democratic nominee in
'08, and McCain will self-destruct as always. Once Mehlman gets
booted from the RNC, they will support Giuliani. The Dems have some
surprises waiting for them by then, too. As John McLaughlin said
months ago, "Al Gore is BACK! Buh BYE!"

DeserTBoB wrote:
> On 16 Oct 2006 17:20:32 -0700, "Bret Ludwig" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Here is just one small recent example of what is being done: Gasoline
>>prices, which doubled under Bush (thereby proving that our
>>Middle-Eastern wars of conquest have nothing to do with oil, either),
>>suddenly have subsided just prior to the upcoming election. How did
>>this happen in an era of worldwide increasing demand and decreasing
>>supply? Easy - Goldman-Sachs simply cut exposure of its primary
>>commodity index, the GSCI, to gasoline by two-thirds. Since a great
>>many investors adjust their investments to match the GSCI index
>>(including funds that are required by their charters to track that
>>index exactly), the result was a massive sell off of gasoline futures
>>contracts in just the past few weeks. It is, of course, no coincidence
>>that the greatest declines in pump prices have taken place in so-called
>>"swing states" that are particularly critical to Republicans in the
>>upcoming congressional election. <snip>
>
>
> Polling confirms that the drop in crude and refined retail products
> hasn't swayed the voters that Bush is "fixing the problem," as the
> Dems have innoculated the issue by tying Bush Bird and Cheney to their
> "war for oil"...

Ken - I think that about says it all. LOL! I think you can see where I
was coming from now. When guys like that open their mouths, it helps
the Republicans more than anything.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

On 16 Oct 2006 17:20:32 -0700, "Bret Ludwig" >
wrote:

>Here is just one small recent example of what is being done: Gasoline
>prices, which doubled under Bush (thereby proving that our
>Middle-Eastern wars of conquest have nothing to do with oil, either),
>suddenly have subsided just prior to the upcoming election. How did
>this happen in an era of worldwide increasing demand and decreasing
>supply? Easy - Goldman-Sachs simply cut exposure of its primary
>commodity index, the GSCI, to gasoline by two-thirds. Since a great
>many investors adjust their investments to match the GSCI index
>(including funds that are required by their charters to track that
>index exactly), the result was a massive sell off of gasoline futures
>contracts in just the past few weeks. It is, of course, no coincidence
>that the greatest declines in pump prices have taken place in so-called
>"swing states" that are particularly critical to Republicans in the
>upcoming congressional election.
>
>http://www.conspiracypenpal.com/rants/yesonno.htm

If you care to remember (I suspect you won't), just before the last
election TWO things were going to happen:
1. Bush was going to announce the capture of Bin Laden which he had
been holding until right before the election,
2. Gas prices were going to go down (same exact story you are
repeating today.)
Bush did not have Bin Laden and gas prices were over $3 for the first
time in history a little before the election.
Pleasd find something new.

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 13:06:20 -0400, jtees4 > wrote:

>If you care to remember (I suspect you won't), just before the last
>election TWO things were going to happen:
>1. Bush was going to announce the capture of Bin Laden which he had
>been holding until right before the election, <snip>

How could he "have him?" He's never gone after him! Instead, after
some initial press propaganda about the failed "MOAB," he "contracted"
the job to Pervez Musharif, an unwilling ally that Cheney threatened
to bomb back to the Middle Ages if he didn't "cooperate." So,
Bin-laden sits in the mountains of Pakistan, a convenient "hole card"
to be dug out when needed. However, due to screwups in Iraq and a
depleted military, there's no way the Bushies can dig him out now by
invading Pakistan. Also, Ol' Pervie has been getting enough press on
his own to confirm the Cheney story, so the LAST place the neocons
want to be found creating another war would be Pakistan. Doing so
would alienate an already predatory India (who is eating our lunch on
jobs and trade imbalance right now) who may decide to "make the peace"
with Pervie and form an alliance against US policy. Since the neocon
coup in Washington, relations with India have increasingly been
decaying.

>2. Gas prices were going to go down (same exact story you are
>repeating today.)
>Bush did not have Bin Laden and gas prices were over $3 for the first
>time in history a little before the election. <snip>

WRONG. The gas price increase didn't start until AFTER the '04
election. Regular unleaded was still in the low one buck range a
scant year and half ago.

>Pleasd find something new. <snip>

Please get some facts and quit listening to Flush Limpdick. That guy
is rotting your brain.

DESERTBOB (not its real name) is a troll.
It regularly frequents at least twenty news groups,
including many rabid/sex/racist/liberal idiot/wannabee mechanic groups.

Normally, it starts off with reasonable, even witty lines,
but rapidly drifts into lies, abuse and stupidity.
Check its details at Google Groups at this URL:

http://groups.google.com/groups/prof...Te82ZIng&hl=en

See it's pathetic picture and myspace page at this URL- as it searches
for companionship at age 50- looks like a quart of oil for the car in
that hair...

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm...did=303 21125

It had 2 Ebay usernames, both banned due to abuse, auction
interference, and harassment- they were VOXPOPPER and XCALIBER44- see
them here- search history of VOXPOPPER to see how it left (8) negative
feedbacks for a seller, for items that cost only a penny each !

http://feedback.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAP...erid=voxpopper

http://feedback.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAP...rid=xcaliber44


It is a sad creature, deserving of pity, not anger.
Any direct response simply feeds it,
but it will go away if you ignore it.

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 10:48:16 -0700, DeserTBoB >
wrote:
p>
>
>WRONG. The gas price increase didn't start until AFTER the '04
>election. Regular unleaded was still in the low one buck range a
>scant year and half ago.

I think your memory is a little off on this one... Gas prices went
over $1.50 in January of '04.

Steve B.

> On 16 Oct 2006 17:20:32 -0700, "Bret Ludwig" >
> wrote:

and the fact that "Joe Six Pack" is still having to pony up $2.40+ for
a gallon of unleaded has
him seething when he thinks of the $1.05 he was pumping into his gas
hog only a year ago...

____Reply Separator_____

I'd like to know where "Joe Six Pack" was buying gasoline for $1.05
last year!!!!!!!