Lefty wargamers

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

I am well jack of all the cryptofascist shite in this group. Is there a
wargamers group where liberal folk don't have to wade through
reactionary do-do to get the good oil. Nothing personal you understand
fellas :)
143 answers Last reply
More about lefty wargamers
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <43009439$0$15508$61c65585@un-2park-reader-
    02.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>, jimmyallen@exetel.com.au says...
    > I am well jack of all the cryptofascist shite in this group. Is there a
    > wargamers group where liberal folk don't have to wade through
    > reactionary do-do to get the good oil. Nothing personal you understand
    > fellas :)

    Here in Virginia, I have to wade through it with everything I do. So,
    I'm kind of used to it.

    To be fair, on satellite radio, there's a channel with left talk-shows.
    It's not much better, I only listened to it once.

    Epi

    ----
    I would rather use meek-words than power-words.
    ----

    http://www.curlesneck.com
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1d6a72a0f086b70598a4dd@news-east.giganews.com...
    > In article <43009439$0$15508$61c65585@un-2park-reader-
    > 02.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>, jimmyallen@exetel.com.au says...
    >
    > > I am well jack of all the cryptofascist shite in this group.
    >
    > And I'm "well jack" of worthless little nancy-boys who use words like
    > "cryptofascist" as though they meant anything more than, "Something I
    > <sob!> really, *really* hate!!!!!"

    there's nothing crypto about your brand of fascism is there gifty.
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "Jim Allen" <jimmyallen@exetel.com.au> wrote in message
    news:43009439$0$15508$61c65585@un-2park-reader-02.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
    >I am well jack of all the cryptofascist shite in this group. Is there a
    >wargamers group where liberal folk don't have to wade through reactionary
    >do-do to get the good oil. Nothing personal you understand fellas :)

    Best thing to do is killfile all of them. Myself, I have nothing better to
    do, since gas prices are nearing $3 and our great president, to counter the
    high cost, is thinking of invading Iran.

    History will certainly not be kind to Georgie: he thinks the world is one
    big electric chair and he controls the current.


    Alanb
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    Perhaps rec.games.pantysniffingtreehuggingfeministgirlymanwargamers?
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 23:10:22 +1000, Jim Allen
    <jimmyallen@exetel.com.au> wrote:

    >I am well jack of all the cryptofascist shite in this group. Is there a
    >wargamers group where liberal folk don't have to wade through
    >reactionary do-do to get the good oil. Nothing personal you understand
    >fellas :)

    LOL great post, just what the group needed, where's the popcorn?

    O.
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    Jim Allen wrote:
    > I am well jack of all the cryptofascist shite in this group. Is there a
    > wargamers group where liberal folk don't have to wade through
    > reactionary do-do to get the good oil. Nothing personal you understand
    > fellas :)

    You must be new. I'd say the ratio was about 50/50 crypto-fascist to
    crypto-communist. (Note: there are no normal people here, though each
    side *thinks* they're normal.)

    For my part, I wonder why "liberal folk" want to play war games in the
    first place. Go plant some flowers, freak! ;-)
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1d6a8fa567a6e27d98a4de@news-east.giganews.com...
    > In article <JrCdnZ2dnZ0-uAjZnZ2dnTUmnd6dnZ2dRVn-052dnZ0@comcast.com>,
    > roh@comcast.net says...
    >
    > > > > I am well jack of all the cryptofascist shite in this group.
    > > >
    > > > And I'm "well jack" of worthless little nancy-boys who use words like
    > > > "cryptofascist" as though they meant anything more than, "Something I
    > > > <sob!> really, *really* hate!!!!!"
    > >
    > > there's nothing crypto about your brand of fascism is there gifty.
    >
    > Using your worthless definition, *everyone* is a more-or-less a fascist.
    > That's the point, not that you could possibly understand it. But take
    > heart; at least you can *spell* "fascism," so that puts it into an
    > entirely lesser catalog of your boundless stupidities.
    >
    > --
    > Giftzwerg

    everyone? no, you ? yes.
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "Alan Bernardo" > > Giftzwerg
    >
    > Forever bashing, that's your trademark. But at least you're good with
    > language: must be an English teacher.
    >
    > Alanb

    in the world of gifty $50 for a wargame is a sin. $50 for a tank of gas is
    good.
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "Briarroot" <woodsyl@iwon.com> wrote in message
    news:11g23bq10nuao24@corp.supernews.com...
    > Jim Allen wrote:
    > > I am well jack of all the cryptofascist shite in this group. Is there a
    > > wargamers group where liberal folk don't have to wade through
    > > reactionary do-do to get the good oil. Nothing personal you understand
    > > fellas :)
    >
    > You must be new. I'd say the ratio was about 50/50 crypto-fascist to
    > crypto-communist. (Note: there are no normal people here, though each
    > side *thinks* they're normal.)
    >
    > For my part, I wonder why "liberal folk" want to play war games in the
    > first place. Go plant some flowers, freak! ;-)


    yeah after all the neo-cons voted for draft dodgers who got cushy guard
    billets
    and then go awol anyway and dick "i had better things to do than fight in
    that war"cheney would they.
    and they attacked john"decorated vet"kerry and max cleland.

    and don't forget you and gifty were cheering for bush as his minions
    attacked john the only repub to actually serve" mccain when he ran in the
    primaries.
    yeah you neo-cons stand behind our troops as far behind as you can get.
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    While taking a short break from the daily grind of enslavement and
    world domination, Giftzwerg mentioned

    >In article <JrCdnZ2dnZ0-uAjZnZ2dnTUmnd6dnZ2dRVn-052dnZ0@comcast.com>,
    >roh@comcast.net says...
    >
    >> > > I am well jack of all the cryptofascist shite in this group.
    >> >
    >> > And I'm "well jack" of worthless little nancy-boys who use words like
    >> > "cryptofascist" as though they meant anything more than, "Something I
    >> > <sob!> really, *really* hate!!!!!"
    >>
    >> there's nothing crypto about your brand of fascism is there gifty.
    >
    >Using your worthless definition, *everyone* is a more-or-less a fascist.

    Quote the definition he's using , IN HIS OWN WORDS! before you
    criticise it, thug!

    Otherwise you're just using a "straw man" argument and trying to bully
    anybody with a different opinion.

    >That's the point, not that you could possibly understand it. But take
    >heart; at least you can *spell* "fascism," so that puts it into an
    >entirely lesser catalog of your boundless stupidities.

    ..
    ..
    We are Microsoft of Borg.....Your technological distinctiveness will be
    added to our own.....Resistance is fu...
    ......$$@#
    ..
    General Protection Fault in MSBORG32.DLL
    ...
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    While taking a short break from the daily grind of enslavement and
    world domination, ray o'hara mentioned

    >
    >"Alan Bernardo" > > Giftzwerg
    >>
    >> Forever bashing, that's your trademark. But at least you're good with
    >> language: must be an English teacher.
    >>
    >> Alanb
    >
    > in the world of gifty $50 for a wargame is a sin. $50 for a tank of gas is
    >good.
    >
    And invading another country to steal THEIR petroleum is even better!
    ..
    ..
    We are Microsoft of Borg.....Your technological distinctiveness will be
    added to our own.....Resistance is fu...
    ......$$@#
    ..
    General Protection Fault in MSBORG32.DLL
    ...
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    While taking a short break from the daily grind of enslavement and
    world domination, Briarroot mentioned

    >Jim Allen wrote:
    >> I am well jack of all the cryptofascist shite in this group. Is there a
    >> wargamers group where liberal folk don't have to wade through
    >> reactionary do-do to get the good oil. Nothing personal you understand
    >> fellas :)
    >
    >You must be new. I'd say the ratio was about 50/50 crypto-fascist to
    >crypto-communist. (Note: there are no normal people here, though each
    >side *thinks* they're normal.)

    And some of us are genuine Trotsyite Communists, members of the Party
    for many years.

    >
    >For my part, I wonder why "liberal folk" want to play war games in the
    >first place. Go plant some flowers, freak! ;-)

    You're using a USA-specific distorted definition of "liberal" which is
    a propaganda term in right-wing mouths. It's not accurate. Use the
    dictionary definition, not the party-political one.

    As to why, it's because we study history, too and we're still working
    towards the historical inevitability of the victory of the socialist
    dialectic. That's why. So that we can resist the oppression of the
    plutocrats and oligarchs.
    ..
    ..
    We are Microsoft of Borg.....Your technological distinctiveness will be
    added to our own.....Resistance is fu...
    ......$$@#
    ..
    General Protection Fault in MSBORG32.DLL
    ...
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    > History will certainly not be kind to Georgie: he thinks the world is one
    > big electric chair and he controls the current.

    Considering that he was re-elected, I can't wait for the "toughtful -
    post-Bush era analysis" about why the guy who invaded the one country out of
    three with the lowest possibility to have WMD (a roll of 1-2 on a six-sided
    die - I hope he didn't choose the result by hand) was considered bright
    enough to have a second go. You know, those sober "wisdom of the aftermath"
    books where the lucky ones manage to deny their involvement and actually to
    explain how they were always for doing the opposite thing in the first place
    (basically everyone, if the dire period is the result of some "groupthink"
    stunt), while the unluckiest "sell their inside stories for six numbers
    figures" anyway ("So-called Intelligence: My Life a the CIA During the
    'Saddam has the bomb, Dimitri! *That* Bomb, the one we speak so often... the
    H-Bomb, Dimitri!' Debacle").

    Anyway, luckly America stands ready for anything. ***Anything***! People
    from San Marino armed with frozen bottles of mineral water (try to be hit by
    one - I was), boys from Papua Nuova Guinea ready to assault the Sears tower
    in Chicago with spears and tribal paints, the Pope trying a publicity stunt
    by paying Industrial Light and Magic to walk on the waters of NY harbor
    while secretly poisoning American body fluids so to cut down sexual
    activities outside marriage... anything!

    Stanley Kubrick, I miss you.
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    While taking a short break from the daily grind of enslavement and
    world domination, Vincenzo Beretta mentioned

    >> History will certainly not be kind to Georgie: he thinks the world is one
    >> big electric chair and he controls the current.
    >
    >Considering that he was re-elected, I can't wait for the "toughtful -
    >post-Bush era analysis" about why the guy who invaded the one country out of
    >three with the lowest possibility to have WMD (a roll of 1-2 on a six-sided
    >die - I hope he didn't choose the result by hand) was considered bright
    >enough to have a second go.

    It's far more likely that The Shrub (a junior bush) is a complaisant
    sock-puppet for the far more dangerous intelligent conspirators
    against democratic processes who prefer to act from the shadows.


    >You know, those sober "wisdom of the aftermath"
    >books where the lucky ones manage to deny their involvement and actually to
    >explain how they were always for doing the opposite thing in the first place
    >(basically everyone, if the dire period is the result of some "groupthink"
    >stunt), while the unluckiest "sell their inside stories for six numbers
    >figures" anyway ("So-called Intelligence: My Life a the CIA During the
    >'Saddam has the bomb, Dimitri! *That* Bomb, the one we speak so often... the
    >H-Bomb, Dimitri!' Debacle").
    >
    >Anyway, luckly America stands ready for anything. ***Anything***! People
    >from San Marino armed with frozen bottles of mineral water (try to be hit by
    >one - I was), boys from Papua Nuova Guinea ready to assault the Sears tower
    >in Chicago with spears and tribal paints, the Pope trying a publicity stunt
    >by paying Industrial Light and Magic to walk on the waters of NY harbor
    >while secretly poisoning American body fluids so to cut down sexual
    >activities outside marriage... anything!
    >
    >Stanley Kubrick, I miss you.
    >

    ..
    ..
    We are Microsoft of Borg.....Your technological distinctiveness will be
    added to our own.....Resistance is fu...
    ......$$@#
    ..
    General Protection Fault in MSBORG32.DLL
    ...
  15. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    ray o'hara wrote:
    > "Briarroot" <woodsyl@iwon.com> wrote in message
    > news:11g23bq10nuao24@corp.supernews.com...
    >>
    >>For my part, I wonder why "liberal folk" want to play war games in the
    >>first place. Go plant some flowers, freak! ;-)
    >
    >
    > and don't forget you and gifty were cheering for bush as his minions
    > attacked john the only repub to actually serve" mccain when he ran in the
    > primaries.

    The only cheering was in your drooling dreams, you putz! I would have
    much preferred McCain over Bush, but as a Democrat I don't get to vote
    my state's Republican primary elections.


    > yeah you neo-cons stand behind our troops as far behind as you can get.
    >

    Lots of people *other* than neo-cons must have voted for ol' Dubya in
    the last election, or he wouldn't have whipped your boy Kerry. But I
    understand your ailment. You live in a humorless, black-and-white
    world, where everyone who rejects your political idiocy gets labeled a
    "neo-con." :-/
  16. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    Vincenzo Beretta wrote:
    >
    > Considering that he was re-elected, I can't wait for the "toughtful -
    > post-Bush era analysis" about why the guy who invaded the one country out of
    > three with the lowest possibility to have WMD (a roll of 1-2 on a six-sided
    > die - I hope he didn't choose the result by hand) was considered bright
    > enough to have a second go. You know, those sober "wisdom of the aftermath"
    > books where the lucky ones manage to deny their involvement and actually to
    > explain how they were always for doing the opposite thing in the first place
    > (basically everyone, if the dire period is the result of some "groupthink"
    > stunt), while the unluckiest "sell their inside stories for six numbers
    > figures" anyway ("So-called Intelligence: My Life a the CIA During the
    > 'Saddam has the bomb, Dimitri! *That* Bomb, the one we speak so often... the
    > H-Bomb, Dimitri!' Debacle").
    >
    > Anyway, luckly America stands ready for anything. ***Anything***! People
    > from San Marino armed with frozen bottles of mineral water (try to be hit by
    > one - I was), boys from Papua Nuova Guinea ready to assault the Sears tower
    > in Chicago with spears and tribal paints, the Pope trying a publicity stunt
    > by paying Industrial Light and Magic to walk on the waters of NY harbor
    > while secretly poisoning American body fluids so to cut down sexual
    > activities outside marriage... anything!

    ROTFLMAO

    Quick, tell me what you've heard! ;-)


    >
    > Stanley Kubrick, I miss you.
    >

    Amen.
  17. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    > > As to why, it's because we study history, too and we're still working
    > > towards the historical inevitability of the victory of the socialist
    > > dialectic. That's why. So that we can resist the oppression of the
    > > plutocrats and oligarchs.
    >
    > ROTFLMAO! (Thanks for the knee-slapping laugh!) :-)
    >
    >

    Well...you're obviously wrong about something. Liberals do like
    wargames after all.

    Epi

    ----
    It's hard to flip-flop when you only tow the party
    line. Personally, I prefer a flip-flopper. At
    least he thinks for himself.
    ----

    http://www.curlesneck.com
  18. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1d6b93b22658515298a4e1@news-east.giganews.com...
    > In article <ert2g1th2iq3i2vq6lm8rik2t6hqjqbh73@4ax.com>,
    > not@thistime.net says...
    >
    > > > in the world of gifty $50 for a wargame is a sin. $50 for a tank of
    gas is
    > > >good.
    > > >
    > > And invading another country to steal THEIR petroleum is even better!
    >
    > Here's a clue[1] for you, dumbass; when you "steal" something, you get
    > it for free.
    >

    hey dumbass, the oil companies are and have been making record profits.
    they and their minions bush and cheney , didn't do it so we could have cheap
    gas they did it so thay could make more money.
  19. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1d6b967951bef58a98a4e3@news-east.giganews.com...
    > In article <btt2g1pg69csvof41is0st4ug4qg0ejjq0@4ax.com>,
    > not@thistime.net says...
    >
    > > >Considering that he was re-elected, I can't wait for the "toughtful -
    > > >post-Bush era analysis" about why the guy who invaded the one country
    out of
    > > >three with the lowest possibility to have WMD (a roll of 1-2 on a
    six-sided
    > > >die - I hope he didn't choose the result by hand) was considered bright
    > > >enough to have a second go.
    > >
    > > It's far more likely that The Shrub (a junior bush) is a complaisant
    > > sock-puppet for the far more dangerous intelligent conspirators
    > > against democratic processes who prefer to act from the shadows.
    >
    > <laughter>
    >
    > The Bilderburgers, perhaps? Skull And Bones? The Trilateral
    > Commission?
    >
    > Or do The Grays have their fine, Byzantine hands in it ... again?
    >

    big oil gifty.
  20. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <98SdnbsCFfVJu5_eRVn-vQ@comcast.com>, roh@comcast.net says...

    > > > And invading another country to steal THEIR petroleum is even better!
    > >
    > > Here's a clue[1] for you, dumbass; when you "steal" something, you get
    > > it for free.
    > >
    >
    > hey dumbass, the oil companies are and have been making record profits.

    Exactly. They "are and have been." Fat oil company profits are not
    exactly something new.

    > they and their minions bush and cheney , didn't do it so we could have cheap
    > gas they did it so thay could make more money.

    Bush and Cheney are making more money? Because of oil prices?

    Cite?

    --
    Giftzwerg
    ***
    "I would have asked the Congress for authority to use
    force if Saddam did not allow the inspectors back in,
    or did not cooperate with them, or we found weapons
    of mass destruction. Because he never did anything he
    wasn=3Ft forced to do, at least in my experience."
    - Bill Clinton
  21. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <rLGdnZsjJ-6Qup_eRVn-3g@comcast.com>, roh@comcast.net says...

    > > > >Considering that he was re-elected, I can't wait for the "toughtful -
    > > > >post-Bush era analysis" about why the guy who invaded the one country
    > out of
    > > > >three with the lowest possibility to have WMD (a roll of 1-2 on a
    > six-sided
    > > > >die - I hope he didn't choose the result by hand) was considered bright
    > > > >enough to have a second go.
    > > >
    > > > It's far more likely that The Shrub (a junior bush) is a complaisant
    > > > sock-puppet for the far more dangerous intelligent conspirators
    > > > against democratic processes who prefer to act from the shadows.
    > >
    > > <laughter>
    > >
    > > The Bilderburgers, perhaps? Skull And Bones? The Trilateral
    > > Commission?
    > >
    > > Or do The Grays have their fine, Byzantine hands in it ... again?
    > >
    >
    > big oil gifty.

    Cite?

    --
    Giftzwerg
    ***
    "I would have asked the Congress for authority to use
    force if Saddam did not allow the inspectors back in,
    or did not cooperate with them, or we found weapons
    of mass destruction. Because he never did anything he
    wasn=3Ft forced to do, at least in my experience."
    - Bill Clinton
  22. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    > Apparently, a good many folks "stand ready for anything," eh?
    >
    > <g>
    >
    > http://tinyurl.com/8foob

    No Pasaran!! <g>

    http://edition.cnn.com/2005/TRAVEL/08/15/no.fly.babies.ap/index.html
  23. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "ray o'hara" <roh@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:98SdnbsCFfVJu5_eRVn-vQ@comcast.com...
    >
    > "Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:MPG.1d6b93b22658515298a4e1@news-east.giganews.com...
    > > In article <ert2g1th2iq3i2vq6lm8rik2t6hqjqbh73@4ax.com>,
    > > not@thistime.net says...
    > >
    > > > > in the world of gifty $50 for a wargame is a sin. $50 for a tank of
    > gas is
    > > > >good.
    > > > >
    > > > And invading another country to steal THEIR petroleum is even better!
    > >
    > > Here's a clue[1] for you, dumbass; when you "steal" something, you get
    > > it for free.
    > >
    >
    > hey dumbass, the oil companies are and have been making record profits.
    > they and their minions bush and cheney , didn't do it so we could have
    cheap
    > gas they did it so thay could make more money.


    Gee, and here everyone else in the world attributes the rising costs to
    the demand from developing nations in SE Asia, especially China.


    >
    >
  24. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    Epi Watkins wrote:
    >>>As to why, it's because we study history, too and we're still working
    >>>towards the historical inevitability of the victory of the socialist
    >>>dialectic. That's why. So that we can resist the oppression of the
    >>>plutocrats and oligarchs.
    >>
    >>ROTFLMAO! (Thanks for the knee-slapping laugh!) :-)
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    > Well...you're obviously wrong about something. Liberals do like
    > wargames after all.
    >

    I never said they didn't; what I asked was why? But before you launch
    into some vitriolic (un-liberal!) screed, please be aware that my
    original question was laced with a good bit of humor.

    Go plant some flowers, freak! ;-)
  25. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    ray o'hara wrote:
    > "Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:MPG.1d6b93b22658515298a4e1@news-east.giganews.com...
    >>
    >>Here's a clue[1] for you, dumbass; when you "steal" something, you get
    >>it for free.
    >>
    >
    >
    > hey dumbass, the oil companies are and have been making record profits.
    > they and their minions bush and cheney , didn't do it so we could have cheap
    > gas they did it so thay could make more money.
    >

    You mean oil prices *aren't* the result of vastly increased world-wide
    demand and continuing limited supply?

    If you'd like to reduce oil prices, why don't you lobby your Congress
    critters to allow drilling in the ANWR? ;-)

    http://www.anwr.org/
  26. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    Actually, higher oil prices have as much to do with our decline
    refining capacity as with crude oil supplies. We have something like
    25% less refining capacity than we had 20 years ago, to meet increased
    demand. No one is building new refineries. Drilling in the ANWR will
    only make a very small dent in the problem.
  27. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <11g4mnpkfnor119@corp.supernews.com>, woodsyl@iwon.com
    says...
    > Epi Watkins wrote:
    > >>>As to why, it's because we study history, too and we're still working
    > >>>towards the historical inevitability of the victory of the socialist
    > >>>dialectic. That's why. So that we can resist the oppression of the
    > >>>plutocrats and oligarchs.
    > >>
    > >>ROTFLMAO! (Thanks for the knee-slapping laugh!) :-)
    > >>
    > >>
    > >
    > >
    > > Well...you're obviously wrong about something. Liberals do like
    > > wargames after all.
    > >
    >
    > I never said they didn't; what I asked was why? But before you launch
    > into some vitriolic (un-liberal!) screed, please be aware that my
    > original question was laced with a good bit of humor.
    >
    > Go plant some flowers, freak! ;-)

    I wasn't about to launch in to anything. You're the one calling someone
    a freak. Who's launching?

    Epi

    ----
    It's hard to flip-flop when you only tow the party
    line. Personally, I prefer a flip-flopper. At
    least he thinks for himself.
    ----

    http://www.curlesneck.com
  28. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <11g4n51dnv1tf4e@corp.supernews.com>, woodsyl@iwon.com
    says...
    > ray o'hara wrote:
    > > "Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > > news:MPG.1d6b93b22658515298a4e1@news-east.giganews.com...
    > >>
    > >>Here's a clue[1] for you, dumbass; when you "steal" something, you get
    > >>it for free.
    > >>
    > >
    > >
    > > hey dumbass, the oil companies are and have been making record profits.
    > > they and their minions bush and cheney , didn't do it so we could have cheap
    > > gas they did it so thay could make more money.
    > >
    >
    > You mean oil prices *aren't* the result of vastly increased world-wide
    > demand and continuing limited supply?
    >
    > If you'd like to reduce oil prices, why don't you lobby your Congress
    > critters to allow drilling in the ANWR? ;-)
    >
    > http://www.anwr.org/

    There's not really that much oil in ANWR.

    Epi

    ----
    It's hard to flip-flop when you only tow the party
    line. Personally, I prefer a flip-flopper. At
    least he thinks for himself.
    ----

    http://www.curlesneck.com
  29. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <JotMe.397$kb4.3046@eagle.america.net>, jp@nicetry.com
    says...
    >
    > "ray o'hara" <roh@comcast.net> wrote in message
    > news:98SdnbsCFfVJu5_eRVn-vQ@comcast.com...
    > >
    > > "Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > > news:MPG.1d6b93b22658515298a4e1@news-east.giganews.com...
    > > > In article <ert2g1th2iq3i2vq6lm8rik2t6hqjqbh73@4ax.com>,
    > > > not@thistime.net says...
    > > >
    > > > > > in the world of gifty $50 for a wargame is a sin. $50 for a tank of
    > > gas is
    > > > > >good.
    > > > > >
    > > > > And invading another country to steal THEIR petroleum is even better!
    > > >
    > > > Here's a clue[1] for you, dumbass; when you "steal" something, you get
    > > > it for free.
    > > >
    > >
    > > hey dumbass, the oil companies are and have been making record profits.
    > > they and their minions bush and cheney , didn't do it so we could have
    > cheap
    > > gas they did it so thay could make more money.
    >
    >
    >
    > Gee, and here everyone else in the world attributes the rising costs to
    > the demand from developing nations in SE Asia, especially China.

    I think it was done some because of oil. Not to enrich Bush or Cheney
    though. More because this country (US) and the rest of the
    industrialized world Needs oil. Saddam was seen (rightly or wrongly) as
    the bull in the china shop.

    Epi

    ----
    It's hard to flip-flop when you only tow the party
    line. Personally, I prefer a flip-flopper. At
    least he thinks for himself.
    ----

    http://www.curlesneck.com
  30. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "Epi Watkins" <epicat1212@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1d6c30673c9f2c1298968f@news.east.earthlink.net...
    > In article <JotMe.397$kb4.3046@eagle.america.net>, jp@nicetry.com
    > says...
    > >
    > > "ray o'hara" <roh@comcast.net> wrote in message
    > > news:98SdnbsCFfVJu5_eRVn-vQ@comcast.com...
    > > >
    > > > "Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > > > news:MPG.1d6b93b22658515298a4e1@news-east.giganews.com...
    > > > > In article <ert2g1th2iq3i2vq6lm8rik2t6hqjqbh73@4ax.com>,
    > > > > not@thistime.net says...
    > > > >
    > > > > > > in the world of gifty $50 for a wargame is a sin. $50 for a tank
    of
    > > > gas is
    > > > > > >good.
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > And invading another country to steal THEIR petroleum is even
    better!
    > > > >
    > > > > Here's a clue[1] for you, dumbass; when you "steal" something, you
    get
    > > > > it for free.
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > > hey dumbass, the oil companies are and have been making record
    profits.
    > > > they and their minions bush and cheney , didn't do it so we could have
    > > cheap
    > > > gas they did it so thay could make more money.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Gee, and here everyone else in the world attributes the rising costs
    to
    > > the demand from developing nations in SE Asia, especially China.
    >
    > I think it was done some because of oil. Not to enrich Bush or Cheney
    > though. More because this country (US) and the rest of the
    > industrialized world Needs oil. Saddam was seen (rightly or wrongly) as
    > the bull in the china shop.
    >
    > Epi
    >
    > ----
    > It's hard to flip-flop when you only tow the party
    > line. Personally, I prefer a flip-flopper. At
    > least he thinks for himself.
    > ----
    >
    > http://www.curlesneck.com


    Ah, but this is just more of the same typical hypocrisy of the left. On
    the one hand, they bitch and moan because they believe the Bushes and the
    Saudi Royal Family to be such pals (as if that's a bad thing)...........on
    the other hand, the US invaded Iraq because of oil............but if the
    Bushes/Saudi Royals are such pals, why invade Iraq for oil ?
  31. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    > Ah, but this is just more of the same typical hypocrisy of the left. On
    > the one hand, they bitch and moan because they believe the Bushes and the
    > Saudi Royal Family to be such pals (as if that's a bad thing)...........on
    > the other hand, the US invaded Iraq because of oil............but if the
    > Bushes/Saudi Royals are such pals, why invade Iraq for oil ?
    >
    >

    I think the US invaded Iraq so that Bush could avenge his father. After
    all, part of the reason the older Bush lost the election was because of Iraq
    and the fact that the US did not finish the job.

    Then the son gets in, whips up some phantom WMDs, and avenges his father.
    Plain and simple Texas revenge.

    The bad thing about it, though, is that people are dying because George W.
    had to have his way.

    Alanb
  32. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "Alan Bernardo" <ifeelyourpain@ihatebush.net> wrote in message
    news:vc-dnR_zk_9cEJ_eRVn-hg@comcast.com...
    > > Ah, but this is just more of the same typical hypocrisy of the left.
    On
    > > the one hand, they bitch and moan because they believe the Bushes and
    the
    > > Saudi Royal Family to be such pals (as if that's a bad
    thing)...........on
    > > the other hand, the US invaded Iraq because of oil............but if the
    > > Bushes/Saudi Royals are such pals, why invade Iraq for oil ?
    > >
    > >
    >
    > I think the US invaded Iraq so that Bush could avenge his father. After
    > all, part of the reason the older Bush lost the election was because of
    Iraq
    > and the fact that the US did not finish the job.
    >
    > Then the son gets in, whips up some phantom WMDs, and avenges his father.
    > Plain and simple Texas revenge.
    >
    > The bad thing about it, though, is that people are dying because George W.
    > had to have his way.
    >
    > Alanb
    >


    Lol, Sr. lost the election because of the economy, (among other more
    minor reasons, none of which are what you suggest) besides the fact that him
    "not finishing the job" was a UN mandate, not a decision for he alone to
    make.
  33. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <WNtMe.399$kb4.3088@eagle.america.net>, jp@nicetry.com
    says...
    >
    > "Epi Watkins" <epicat1212@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:MPG.1d6c30673c9f2c1298968f@news.east.earthlink.net...
    > > In article <JotMe.397$kb4.3046@eagle.america.net>, jp@nicetry.com
    > > says...
    > > >
    > > > "ray o'hara" <roh@comcast.net> wrote in message
    > > > news:98SdnbsCFfVJu5_eRVn-vQ@comcast.com...
    > > > >
    > > > > "Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > > > > news:MPG.1d6b93b22658515298a4e1@news-east.giganews.com...
    > > > > > In article <ert2g1th2iq3i2vq6lm8rik2t6hqjqbh73@4ax.com>,
    > > > > > not@thistime.net says...
    > > > > >
    > > > > > > > in the world of gifty $50 for a wargame is a sin. $50 for a tank
    > of
    > > > > gas is
    > > > > > > >good.
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > And invading another country to steal THEIR petroleum is even
    > better!
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Here's a clue[1] for you, dumbass; when you "steal" something, you
    > get
    > > > > > it for free.
    > > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > hey dumbass, the oil companies are and have been making record
    > profits.
    > > > > they and their minions bush and cheney , didn't do it so we could have
    > > > cheap
    > > > > gas they did it so thay could make more money.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > Gee, and here everyone else in the world attributes the rising costs
    > to
    > > > the demand from developing nations in SE Asia, especially China.
    > >
    > > I think it was done some because of oil. Not to enrich Bush or Cheney
    > > though. More because this country (US) and the rest of the
    > > industrialized world Needs oil. Saddam was seen (rightly or wrongly) as
    > > the bull in the china shop.
    > >
    > > Epi
    > >
    > > ----
    > > It's hard to flip-flop when you only tow the party
    > > line. Personally, I prefer a flip-flopper. At
    > > least he thinks for himself.
    > > ----
    > >
    > > http://www.curlesneck.com
    >
    >
    > Ah, but this is just more of the same typical hypocrisy of the left. On
    > the one hand, they bitch and moan because they believe the Bushes and the
    > Saudi Royal Family to be such pals (as if that's a bad thing)...........on
    > the other hand, the US invaded Iraq because of oil............but if the
    > Bushes/Saudi Royals are such pals, why invade Iraq for oil ?

    I only speak for myself. I don't think they're such pals.

    Epi

    ----
    It's hard to flip-flop when you only tow the party
    line. Personally, I prefer a flip-flopper. At
    least he thinks for himself.
    ----

    http://www.curlesneck.com
  34. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    > (But I kinda think the first story up there dealt with real people
    > getting really arrested. I wonder why Italy took that action - since at
    > least one Italian appears to believe that there's no particular
    > terrorist threat, and any action to deal with it amounts to some sort of
    > paranoid-delusional episode...)

    I do know him - I think that he lives in downtown Siracusa. OTOH, there are
    many Italians who believe that the cures for the - recognized - terrorist
    disease are being marginally less effective that the waving of a skull on a
    stick by a tribal shaman sending warriors to "chase evil demons".
  35. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 21:41:43 GMT, Epi Watkins <epicat1212@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    >In article <11g4n51dnv1tf4e@corp.supernews.com>, woodsyl@iwon.com
    >says...
    >> ray o'hara wrote:
    >> > "Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
    >> > news:MPG.1d6b93b22658515298a4e1@news-east.giganews.com...
    >> >>
    >> >>Here's a clue[1] for you, dumbass; when you "steal" something, you get
    >> >>it for free.
    >> >>
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > hey dumbass, the oil companies are and have been making record profits.
    >> > they and their minions bush and cheney , didn't do it so we could have cheap
    >> > gas they did it so thay could make more money.
    >> >
    >>
    >> You mean oil prices *aren't* the result of vastly increased world-wide
    >> demand and continuing limited supply?

    If you want lower oil prices, you're gonna have to nuke China back to
    the stone age. :p

    >>
    >> If you'd like to reduce oil prices, why don't you lobby your Congress
    >> critters to allow drilling in the ANWR? ;-)
    >>
    >> http://www.anwr.org/
    >
    >There's not really that much oil in ANWR.

    I've never understood that arguement. If there isn't much oil there,
    nobody would go through the trouble to build a pipeline all the way
    across Alaska to get it out and the arguements about the environmental
    impact become moot. So either there's not much oil and drilling to see
    how much there is would have minimal impact or there's a lot of oil in
    which case you can have a debate about whether it's worthwhile to get
    it out.

    Bush's (lack of) environmental policy might be easy to ridicule but I
    find it hard to trash him on Anwar.

    Rgds, Frank
  36. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    Epi Watkins wrote:
    > In article <11g4mnpkfnor119@corp.supernews.com>, woodsyl@iwon.com
    > says...
    >
    >>Epi Watkins wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>Well...you're obviously wrong about something. Liberals do like
    >>>wargames after all.
    >>>
    >>
    >>I never said they didn't; what I asked was why? But before you launch
    >>into some vitriolic (un-liberal!) screed, please be aware that my
    >>original question was laced with a good bit of humor.
    >>
    >>Go plant some flowers, freak! ;-)
    >
    >
    > I wasn't about to launch in to anything. You're the one calling someone
    > a freak. Who's launching?

    It was humor. (see that little winking smiley face?) You remember
    humor, don't you?
  37. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <MPG.1d6c30673c9f2c1298968f@news.east.earthlink.net>,
    epicat1212@hotmail.com says...

    > > Gee, and here everyone else in the world attributes the rising costs to
    > > the demand from developing nations in SE Asia, especially China.
    >
    > I think it was done some because of oil. Not to enrich Bush or Cheney
    > though. More because this country (US) and the rest of the
    > industrialized world Needs oil. Saddam was seen (rightly or wrongly) as
    > the bull in the china shop.

    Here's the problem, though; if it were *really* "all about oil," then
    the most expedient thing the USA could have done was forget about the
    sanctions and let Saddam get down to the business of selling oil, buying
    weapons, and killing people with them.

    --
    Giftzwerg
    ***
    "I would have asked the Congress for authority to use
    force if Saddam did not allow the inspectors back in,
    or did not cooperate with them, or we found weapons
    of mass destruction. Because he never did anything he
    wasn=3Ft forced to do, at least in my experience."
    - Bill Clinton
  38. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <vc-dnR_zk_9cEJ_eRVn-hg@comcast.com>,
    ifeelyourpain@ihatebush.net says...

    > I think the US invaded Iraq so that Bush could avenge his father. After
    > all, part of the reason the older Bush lost the election was because of Iraq
    > and the fact that the US did not finish the job.
    >
    > Then the son gets in, whips up some phantom WMDs, and avenges his father.
    > Plain and simple Texas revenge.

    Fiendishly clever, this Bush, Jr., then, in that he managed to make Bill
    Clinton - among thousands of others - complicit in his devilish scheme
    to "whip up the phantom WMDs."

    --
    Giftzwerg
    ***
    "I would have asked the Congress for authority to use
    force if Saddam did not allow the inspectors back in,
    or did not cooperate with them, or we found weapons
    of mass destruction. Because he never did anything he
    wasn=3Ft forced to do, at least in my experience."
    - Bill Clinton
  39. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    Alan Bernardo wrote:
    >
    > I think the US invaded Iraq so that Bush could avenge his father. After
    > all, part of the reason the older Bush lost the election was because of Iraq
    > and the fact that the US did not finish the job.
    >
    > Then the son gets in, whips up some phantom WMDs, and avenges his father.
    > Plain and simple Texas revenge.
    >
    > The bad thing about it, though, is that people are dying because George W.
    > had to have his way.
    >

    LMAO!

    You must have been what, all of twelve years old at the time? Your
    idiotic notions of what happened in 1991 and why, have all the earmarks
    of a pre-adolescent fantasy.

    As I recall it, most Americans were *happy* to have a quick and highly
    successful war wrapped up quickly. Bush the Elder's decision was
    immensely *popular* with nearly everyone agreeing it had erased the
    embarrassment of Viet Nam. Congress approved, the Chairman of the Joint
    Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell approved, hell even Stormin' Norman
    Schwartzkopf publicly agreed with the decision. I didn't agree of
    course, but then I'm the disagreeable type who thinks war ought to be an
    all or nothing undertaking.

    Had you been posting here then, I'm positive you'd have been whining
    about how unnecessary the whole thing was, and how the war wasn't about
    freeing Kuwait at all, it was all about oil!
  40. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <oHwMe.8639$zs.8376@tornado.fastwebnet.it>,
    reckall@hotmail.com says...

    > > (But I kinda think the first story up there dealt with real people
    > > getting really arrested. I wonder why Italy took that action - since at
    > > least one Italian appears to believe that there's no particular
    > > terrorist threat, and any action to deal with it amounts to some sort of
    > > paranoid-delusional episode...)
    >
    > I do know him - I think that he lives in downtown Siracusa. OTOH, there are
    > many Italians who believe that the cures for the - recognized - terrorist
    > disease are being marginally less effective that the waving of a skull on a
    > stick by a tribal shaman sending warriors to "chase evil demons".

    Hmmm. It seems to me that the number of terrorist incidents which have
    occurred here in The Great Satan - which has got to be, after all,
    Target Numero Uno for every towelhead in the caliphate - compares rather
    favorably with the bangs, booms, and blams dotting the rest of the globe
    since 9/11.

    I think you're making a silly assumption. We don't need to *cure*
    terrorism, just make sure that it doesn't happen *here*.

    To use an analogy, I take all sorts of practical measures to ensure that
    my home and family are secure; smoke detectors, door locks, quality
    automobiles, good doctors, etc. I don't imagine that any of these
    measures are going to *cure* fires, burglaries, automobile accidents, or
    diseases - just decrease to a practical minimum the chances that my
    family will suffer from them.

    --
    Giftzwerg
    ***
    "I would have asked the Congress for authority to use
    force if Saddam did not allow the inspectors back in,
    or did not cooperate with them, or we found weapons
    of mass destruction. Because he never did anything he
    wasn=3Ft forced to do, at least in my experience."
    - Bill Clinton
  41. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <lmm5g1lli2litjfdlndjtda9veeip6qvr1@4ax.com>,
    not@thistime.net says...

    > I agree that IN THE USA (emphasis added) the word "liberal" is misused
    > as a term of political abuse.

    Me, too. The problem is, it's not the conservatives who made "liberal"
    a dirty word; it's the looney-tunes liberals themselves who turned
    classic liberalism[1] into a defeatist, morally-crippled, borderline
    insane embrace of a toxic blend of socialism, moral-relativism, and
    fringe-interest-group pandering.

    There was a time when liberals could be tough-minded patriots who saw
    evil for what it was and worked tirelessly to defeat it - even when it
    meant getting their hands a bit dirty. Now the modern left finds
    perfect, paralyzing equivalence between 9/11 and someone wetting on a
    Koran.

    [1] In whose number I once proudly included myself.

    --
    Giftzwerg
    ***
    "I would have asked the Congress for authority to use
    force if Saddam did not allow the inspectors back in,
    or did not cooperate with them, or we found weapons
    of mass destruction. Because he never did anything he
    wasn=3Ft forced to do, at least in my experience."
    - Bill Clinton
  42. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo) wrote:
    > While taking a short break from the daily grind of enslavement and
    > world domination, Briarroot mentioned
    >>>
    >>>You're using a USA-specific distorted definition of "liberal" which is
    >>>a propaganda term in right-wing mouths. It's not accurate. Use the
    >>>dictionary definition, not the party-political one.
    >>
    >>I was quoting the OP, Jim Allen. That's why I used those little marks
    >>known as *quotation* marks. The word "liberal" is abused so much
    >>lately, I'm unsure how anyone means it, but the dictionary definition is
    >>irrelevant. Dictionaries always *follow* common usage, they don't
    >>create it. Surely a good Trotskyite can understand that. I mean,
    >>dictionaries are so reactionary!
    >>
    >
    >
    > I agree that IN THE USA (emphasis added) the word "liberal" is misused
    > as a term of political abuse. Get over yourselves, folks and join the
    > real world where social justice and equality of opportunity are goals
    > to be achieved, not evils to be suppressed.

    Is the term "liberal" also misused when it is used by those who think
    themselves to be liberal? That's how Jim Allen used it.


    > "...the dictionary definition is irrelevant" Really? And you have that
    > on the good authoritative opinion of...........? Oh, just yourself?
    > Oh?
    > > Gee, that's SO convincing.
    > The rest of us will probably continue to use dictionaries (and
    > thesauruses) as reference works for meaning not as sources of new
    > words to be polluted with political bias.

    Dictionaries entries *follow* common usage, they don't create it. Had
    you any actual "real world" experience, you'd have observed that truism
    by now. Though obviously, had you any actual real world experience, you
    wouldn't be a "genuine Trotskyite Communist, member of the Party for
    many years." But then, anyone who thinks that the real world is
    actually concerned with platitudes like "social justice" and "equality
    of opportunity" clearly has his head up his ass, anyway.
  43. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <11g67iple8k8gba@corp.supernews.com>, woodsyl@iwon.com
    says...
    > Epi Watkins wrote:
    > > In article <11g4mnpkfnor119@corp.supernews.com>, woodsyl@iwon.com
    > > says...
    > >
    > >>Epi Watkins wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>
    > >>>Well...you're obviously wrong about something. Liberals do like
    > >>>wargames after all.
    > >>>
    > >>
    > >>I never said they didn't; what I asked was why? But before you launch
    > >>into some vitriolic (un-liberal!) screed, please be aware that my
    > >>original question was laced with a good bit of humor.
    > >>
    > >>Go plant some flowers, freak! ;-)
    > >
    > >
    > > I wasn't about to launch in to anything. You're the one calling someone
    > > a freak. Who's launching?
    >
    > It was humor. (see that little winking smiley face?) You remember
    > humor, don't you?

    I didn't find it funny. It was only humorous to you. Not everything
    can be undone with a smiley.

    Epi

    ----
    It's hard to flip-flop when you only tow the party
    line. Personally, I prefer a flip-flopper. At
    least he thinks for himself.
    ----

    http://www.curlesneck.com
  44. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    Frank E <fakeaddress@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 21:41:43 GMT, Epi Watkins <epicat1212@hotmail.com>
    >wrote:
    >>>
    >>> You mean oil prices *aren't* the result of vastly increased world-wide
    >>> demand and continuing limited supply?

    Not entirely. That has some effect, of course, but it doesn't have
    nearly the effect that some would think.

    >If you want lower oil prices, you're gonna have to nuke China back to
    >the stone age. :p

    That isn't even close to funny.

    >>>
    >>> If you'd like to reduce oil prices, why don't you lobby your Congress
    >>> critters to allow drilling in the ANWR? ;-)
    >>>
    >>> http://www.anwr.org/

    www.anwr.org is the web site of Arctic Power, and is perhaps one
    of the most dishonest sources of information on ANWR that can be
    found. It originally was funded as a lobbying organization by
    the Oil Industry and Republican's in the Alaska Legislature.
    Most of the major oil companies have pulled out though, and
    today it is primarily supported by the State of Alaska. Arctic
    Power has never seen a fact that can't be twisted, or a lie that
    isn't worth telling...

    >>There's not really that much oil in ANWR.

    That is true.

    >I've never understood that arguement.

    I'll try to explain it, though it is a bit complex.

    >If there isn't much oil there,
    >nobody would go through the trouble to build a pipeline all the way
    >across Alaska to get it out and the arguements about the environmental
    >impact become moot. So either there's not much oil and drilling to see
    >how much there is would have minimal impact or there's a lot of oil in
    >which case you can have a debate about whether it's worthwhile to get
    >it out.
    >
    >Bush's (lack of) environmental policy might be easy to ridicule but I
    >find it hard to trash him on Anwar.

    His "policy" on ANWR is abjectly ridiculous!

    First, we hear several (false or exaggerated) claims fairly often:

    1) ANWR is the "best chance" to discover another Prudhoe Bay.
    3) ANWR will reduce US dependence on foreign oil.
    2) ANWR will reduce the price of crude.
    2) ANWR will reduce the price of gasoline.

    First, the USGS has twice released studies of what can be expected
    from ANWR. One in 1988, and one in 1998. They contradict each other
    on where oil is expected to be found on the coastal plain of ANWR,
    in that the 1988 study said it would be in the eastern part while
    the 1998 study claims it will be in the western part. Otherwise,
    the two studies are not significantly different. The 1998 study is
    available online:

    http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.pdf

    It has to be read *carefully*, because most of the phony numbers
    found on places like www.anwr.org are from the study, but are
    used incorrectly. For example, there are figures for
    "technically recoverable" oil and for "economically recoverable"
    oil. The former is interesting... but it includes oil that
    would cost $2000 a barrel too. The "economically recoverable"
    figures are the only ones that have much significance.

    Likewise there are numbers listed for 5% and 95% probability.
    The average of the two is the only useful number. Those who
    claim there are 10+ billion barrels in ANWR are using the 5%
    probability (i.e., it *ain't* gonna happen) and are citing
    technically recoverable oil (i.e., you wouldn't care if it did
    happen). Moreover, a careful look at the chart shows that the
    big numbers are *not* for ANWR, but for everything in
    Northeastern Alaska!

    Regardless, the predicted oil is actually just under 7 billion
    barrels. That is less that the US consumes in one year. It
    isn't enough to drop the price of crude on the world market by
    more than perhaps 50 cents a barrel, and that would translate to
    all of about a 4 cent per gallon decrease in the price of
    gasoline. Whoop dee dooooo!

    So, why are the oil companies so excited about ANWR? Well, to
    be honest, they *aren't*! The State of Alaska is *much* more
    interested than the oil companies are. But any way one looks at
    it, for the rest of the US, there is no advantage to drilling
    ANWR at all. For the oil companies it is a simple matter of
    they have now drilled just about everywhere around Prudhoe Bay,
    and found little. They need to explore within range of existing
    pipelines if small finds are to be profitable. ANWR is the
    closest prospect to an existing pipeline! The Badami Field is
    36 miles away. Note that on the western side of Prudhoe Bay,
    the push is to expand into the NPR-A, which is also at the edge
    of existing pipelines (to the Alpine Field, near Nuiqsut).

    The economics probabilities are that reasonable oil finds within
    50 miles of existing pipelines can be put into production, while
    anything farther than that requires a much larger field than
    anyone expects.

    The State of Alaska is *very* interested in ANWR for some simple
    reasons: dollars. It costs just about $10 a barrel to produce
    crude in Alaska. with 7 billion barrels, that is $70 billion in
    expenses, but the return at $60 a barrel is $420 billion, for a
    before tax profit of 350 billion bucks. The State of Alaska
    gets 58.4% of that from Prudhoe, and I'm not sure what it would
    be for ANWR... but at that rate the oil companies get $145
    billion and Alaska gets $202 billion. That would be spread out
    over the 30 years that it would take to pump it out.

    Note that the oil companies are *all* either foreign owned
    (British Petroleum) or multi-nationals (which are the same
    thing). We wouldn't be buying that oil from a foreign company,
    but we would in fact be paying a foreign company. Either way,
    it's all the same.

    To put it bluntly, nobody in the Lower-48 would benefit from
    drilling ANWR unless they own a lot of oil company stock.

    Alaskans would benefit. Specifically those of us who live in
    the North Slope Borough would really benefit greatly because
    in addition to State taxes, we tax the infrastructure with
    a property tax.

    But it would also put a network of pipelines and roads across
    the only calving area for the Porcupine Caribou, which *every*
    field biologist (with the exception of one nut case named Matthew
    Cronin) that has worked on the North Slope says will have a negative
    impact. That will harm North Slope residents, and it will have
    a huge impact on the Gwich'in people of both the US and Canada.

    I'd just as soon leave the oil there and let my grandchildren
    1) see ANWR as I have, 2) extract the oil when better technology
    is available.

    Of course, the rest of you are free to believe Bush's "energy
    policy" propaganda, which does *nothing* for you and merely makes
    energy companies more profitable than they are anyway.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
  45. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <MPG.1d6ce905129cf5c398a4eb@news-east.giganews.com>,
    giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com says...
    > In article <MPG.1d6c30673c9f2c1298968f@news.east.earthlink.net>,
    > epicat1212@hotmail.com says...
    >
    > > > Gee, and here everyone else in the world attributes the rising costs to
    > > > the demand from developing nations in SE Asia, especially China.
    > >
    > > I think it was done some because of oil. Not to enrich Bush or Cheney
    > > though. More because this country (US) and the rest of the
    > > industrialized world Needs oil. Saddam was seen (rightly or wrongly) as
    > > the bull in the china shop.
    >
    > Here's the problem, though; if it were *really* "all about oil," then
    > the most expedient thing the USA could have done was forget about the
    > sanctions and let Saddam get down to the business of selling oil, buying
    > weapons, and killing people with them.

    He would still be there then. That's what we didn't want. We couldn't
    trust what he might do.

    Epi

    ----
    It's hard to flip-flop when you only tow the party
    line. Personally, I prefer a flip-flopper. At
    least he thinks for himself.
    ----

    http://www.curlesneck.com
  46. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <MPG.1d6cf3aca279f809989692@news.east.earthlink.net>,
    epicat1212@hotmail.com says...

    > > > I think it was done some because of oil. Not to enrich Bush or Cheney
    > > > though. More because this country (US) and the rest of the
    > > > industrialized world Needs oil. Saddam was seen (rightly or wrongly) as
    > > > the bull in the china shop.
    > >
    > > Here's the problem, though; if it were *really* "all about oil," then
    > > the most expedient thing the USA could have done was forget about the
    > > sanctions and let Saddam get down to the business of selling oil, buying
    > > weapons, and killing people with them.
    >
    > He would still be there then. That's what we didn't want. We couldn't
    > trust what he might do.

    Well, that's certainly true, but I'm reasonably confident that the Gulf
    War and its aftermath put him out of the business of actually invading
    anyone.

    Threatening, of course, is another matter.

    --
    Giftzwerg
    ***
    "I would have asked the Congress for authority to use
    force if Saddam did not allow the inspectors back in,
    or did not cooperate with them, or we found weapons
    of mass destruction. Because he never did anything he
    wasn=3Ft forced to do, at least in my experience."
    - Bill Clinton
  47. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "fizzy" <ewoh27@aol.com> wrote:
    >Actually, higher oil prices have as much to do with our decline
    >refining capacity as with crude oil supplies. We have something like
    >25% less refining capacity than we had 20 years ago, to meet increased
    >demand. No one is building new refineries. Drilling in the ANWR will
    >only make a very small dent in the problem.

    That's not true. We have 25% fewer refineries... but the reason
    they have been closing refineries is because the remaining one
    have all been expanded in capacity. We have significantly more
    capacity today than we did 20 years ago. But the oil industry
    is not expanding refinery capacity beyond immediate needs
    either, so it always appears as if we are "right at capacity".
    But they are *always* "right at capacity" (because refining
    capacity is expensive and nobody is going to overbuild and
    swallow the loss just to make the numbers look good).

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
  48. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <ViUDQ8daj8GNRaASq0hXjpwB4lxV@4ax.com>,
    fakeaddress@hotmail.com says...
    > On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 21:41:43 GMT, Epi Watkins <epicat1212@hotmail.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >In article <11g4n51dnv1tf4e@corp.supernews.com>, woodsyl@iwon.com
    > >says...
    > >> ray o'hara wrote:
    > >> > "Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > >> > news:MPG.1d6b93b22658515298a4e1@news-east.giganews.com...
    > >> >>
    > >> >>Here's a clue[1] for you, dumbass; when you "steal" something, you get
    > >> >>it for free.
    > >> >>
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >> > hey dumbass, the oil companies are and have been making record profits.
    > >> > they and their minions bush and cheney , didn't do it so we could have cheap
    > >> > gas they did it so thay could make more money.
    > >> >
    > >>
    > >> You mean oil prices *aren't* the result of vastly increased world-wide
    > >> demand and continuing limited supply?
    >
    > If you want lower oil prices, you're gonna have to nuke China back to
    > the stone age. :p
    >
    > >>
    > >> If you'd like to reduce oil prices, why don't you lobby your Congress
    > >> critters to allow drilling in the ANWR? ;-)
    > >>
    > >> http://www.anwr.org/
    > >
    > >There's not really that much oil in ANWR.
    >
    > I've never understood that arguement. If there isn't much oil there,
    > nobody would go through the trouble to build a pipeline all the way
    > across Alaska to get it out and the arguements about the environmental
    > impact become moot. So either there's not much oil and drilling to see
    > how much there is would have minimal impact or there's a lot of oil in
    > which case you can have a debate about whether it's worthwhile to get
    > it out.
    >
    > Bush's (lack of) environmental policy might be easy to ridicule but I
    > find it hard to trash him on Anwar.
    >
    > Rgds, Frank

    There is a lot of oil there, but not enough to make the huge difference
    some people want to believe it will.

    Epi

    ----
    It's hard to flip-flop when you only tow the party
    line. Personally, I prefer a flip-flopper. At
    least he thinks for himself.
    ----

    http://www.curlesneck.com
  49. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <MPG.1d6cf6142f45ba5f98a4f0@news-east.giganews.com>,
    giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com says...
    > In article <MPG.1d6cf3aca279f809989692@news.east.earthlink.net>,
    > epicat1212@hotmail.com says...
    >
    > > > > I think it was done some because of oil. Not to enrich Bush or Cheney
    > > > > though. More because this country (US) and the rest of the
    > > > > industrialized world Needs oil. Saddam was seen (rightly or wrongly) as
    > > > > the bull in the china shop.
    > > >
    > > > Here's the problem, though; if it were *really* "all about oil," then
    > > > the most expedient thing the USA could have done was forget about the
    > > > sanctions and let Saddam get down to the business of selling oil, buying
    > > > weapons, and killing people with them.
    > >
    > > He would still be there then. That's what we didn't want. We couldn't
    > > trust what he might do.
    >
    > Well, that's certainly true, but I'm reasonably confident that the Gulf
    > War and its aftermath put him out of the business of actually invading
    > anyone.
    >
    > Threatening, of course, is another matter.

    I would agree that it did. People were still worried about him though.
    It also put him out of the WMD business. People were worried about that
    weren't they?

    Epi

    ----
    It's hard to flip-flop when you only tow the party
    line. Personally, I prefer a flip-flopper. At
    least he thinks for himself.
    ----

    http://www.curlesneck.com
Ask a new question

Read More

PC gaming Games IBM Video Games