- This topic has 205 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 10 months ago by
Anonymous.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 9, 2009 at 9:19 PM #455735September 9, 2009 at 9:21 PM #454931
Allan from Fallbrook
Participant[quote=patb]That would explain all those american multi-nationals in Iraq
signing oil contracts.[/quote]Pat: Is that your quote above? Yes or no? This quote is what I addressed in my responses and the same one you attempted to defend and without success.
You’re now attempting to construct an unsupportable alternative theory of the case and one that postulates that BushCo MUST have invaded for the oil, but due to their complete and total incompetence, they failed to make off with the goods.
Stop wasting my time. You have neither basis nor evidence and are now just throwing poo at the wall in the hope that something will stick. And, you’re failing to understand that your quote above completely refutes your own allegation that Bush invaded for oil. How? Because IF HE HAD, ALL OF THE SIGNIFICANT US NATIONALS LIKE EXXON, CONOCO, AND CHEVRON WOULD ALREADY BE FEEDING AT THE TROUGH. As to your laughable contention that Cheney was secretly attempting a re-write of the existing oil laws to favor US interests in 2001: When did we invade Iraq again? It was well after 2001, right? Well after that re-write went down in flames? Yeah, do the math and it becomes quickly and painfully apparent that neither logic nor simple arithmetic support any of your allegations or contentions.
September 9, 2009 at 9:21 PM #455128Participant[quote=patb]That would explain all those american multi-nationals in Iraq
signing oil contracts.[/quote]Pat: Is that your quote above? Yes or no? This quote is what I addressed in my responses and the same one you attempted to defend and without success.
You’re now attempting to construct an unsupportable alternative theory of the case and one that postulates that BushCo MUST have invaded for the oil, but due to their complete and total incompetence, they failed to make off with the goods.
Stop wasting my time. You have neither basis nor evidence and are now just throwing poo at the wall in the hope that something will stick. And, you’re failing to understand that your quote above completely refutes your own allegation that Bush invaded for oil. How? Because IF HE HAD, ALL OF THE SIGNIFICANT US NATIONALS LIKE EXXON, CONOCO, AND CHEVRON WOULD ALREADY BE FEEDING AT THE TROUGH. As to your laughable contention that Cheney was secretly attempting a re-write of the existing oil laws to favor US interests in 2001: When did we invade Iraq again? It was well after 2001, right? Well after that re-write went down in flames? Yeah, do the math and it becomes quickly and painfully apparent that neither logic nor simple arithmetic support any of your allegations or contentions.
September 9, 2009 at 9:21 PM #455467Participant[quote=patb]That would explain all those american multi-nationals in Iraq
signing oil contracts.[/quote]Pat: Is that your quote above? Yes or no? This quote is what I addressed in my responses and the same one you attempted to defend and without success.
You’re now attempting to construct an unsupportable alternative theory of the case and one that postulates that BushCo MUST have invaded for the oil, but due to their complete and total incompetence, they failed to make off with the goods.
Stop wasting my time. You have neither basis nor evidence and are now just throwing poo at the wall in the hope that something will stick. And, you’re failing to understand that your quote above completely refutes your own allegation that Bush invaded for oil. How? Because IF HE HAD, ALL OF THE SIGNIFICANT US NATIONALS LIKE EXXON, CONOCO, AND CHEVRON WOULD ALREADY BE FEEDING AT THE TROUGH. As to your laughable contention that Cheney was secretly attempting a re-write of the existing oil laws to favor US interests in 2001: When did we invade Iraq again? It was well after 2001, right? Well after that re-write went down in flames? Yeah, do the math and it becomes quickly and painfully apparent that neither logic nor simple arithmetic support any of your allegations or contentions.
September 9, 2009 at 9:21 PM #455539Participant[quote=patb]That would explain all those american multi-nationals in Iraq
signing oil contracts.[/quote]Pat: Is that your quote above? Yes or no? This quote is what I addressed in my responses and the same one you attempted to defend and without success.
You’re now attempting to construct an unsupportable alternative theory of the case and one that postulates that BushCo MUST have invaded for the oil, but due to their complete and total incompetence, they failed to make off with the goods.
Stop wasting my time. You have neither basis nor evidence and are now just throwing poo at the wall in the hope that something will stick. And, you’re failing to understand that your quote above completely refutes your own allegation that Bush invaded for oil. How? Because IF HE HAD, ALL OF THE SIGNIFICANT US NATIONALS LIKE EXXON, CONOCO, AND CHEVRON WOULD ALREADY BE FEEDING AT THE TROUGH. As to your laughable contention that Cheney was secretly attempting a re-write of the existing oil laws to favor US interests in 2001: When did we invade Iraq again? It was well after 2001, right? Well after that re-write went down in flames? Yeah, do the math and it becomes quickly and painfully apparent that neither logic nor simple arithmetic support any of your allegations or contentions.
September 9, 2009 at 9:21 PM #455730Participant[quote=patb]That would explain all those american multi-nationals in Iraq
signing oil contracts.[/quote]Pat: Is that your quote above? Yes or no? This quote is what I addressed in my responses and the same one you attempted to defend and without success.
You’re now attempting to construct an unsupportable alternative theory of the case and one that postulates that BushCo MUST have invaded for the oil, but due to their complete and total incompetence, they failed to make off with the goods.
Stop wasting my time. You have neither basis nor evidence and are now just throwing poo at the wall in the hope that something will stick. And, you’re failing to understand that your quote above completely refutes your own allegation that Bush invaded for oil. How? Because IF HE HAD, ALL OF THE SIGNIFICANT US NATIONALS LIKE EXXON, CONOCO, AND CHEVRON WOULD ALREADY BE FEEDING AT THE TROUGH. As to your laughable contention that Cheney was secretly attempting a re-write of the existing oil laws to favor US interests in 2001: When did we invade Iraq again? It was well after 2001, right? Well after that re-write went down in flames? Yeah, do the math and it becomes quickly and painfully apparent that neither logic nor simple arithmetic support any of your allegations or contentions.
June 30, 2010 at 9:51 AM #573808Anonymous
GuestMy husband is a fisherman and BP is paying us (right now) so please dont boycot bp we need the payouts very bad we know they lie a lot but we are getting a paycheck once a mo. and we need it bad. THANK SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME
June 30, 2010 at 9:51 AM #573905GuestMy husband is a fisherman and BP is paying us (right now) so please dont boycot bp we need the payouts very bad we know they lie a lot but we are getting a paycheck once a mo. and we need it bad. THANK SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME
June 30, 2010 at 9:51 AM #574428GuestMy husband is a fisherman and BP is paying us (right now) so please dont boycot bp we need the payouts very bad we know they lie a lot but we are getting a paycheck once a mo. and we need it bad. THANK SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME
June 30, 2010 at 9:51 AM #574534GuestMy husband is a fisherman and BP is paying us (right now) so please dont boycot bp we need the payouts very bad we know they lie a lot but we are getting a paycheck once a mo. and we need it bad. THANK SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME
June 30, 2010 at 9:51 AM #574832GuestMy husband is a fisherman and BP is paying us (right now) so please dont boycot bp we need the payouts very bad we know they lie a lot but we are getting a paycheck once a mo. and we need it bad. THANK SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.