![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 12 to 36 of 44. Go back in thread:
Posted by gardenergirl on November 3, 2004, at 20:48:32
In reply to GG wins the prize » gardenergirl, posted by yoshimi on November 3, 2004, at 20:20:28
Posted by gardenergirl on November 3, 2004, at 20:51:32
In reply to Re: P.S Zena » Gabbix2, posted by fayeroe on November 3, 2004, at 20:31:52
> I have a son-in-law who is the father of a darling baby girl and I will never, ever accept the fact that he might be killed fighting a senseless war that is putting money in the coffer of Bush's rich friends.....
I pray all of our sons, brothers, husbands, fathers, cousins, friends, lovers, and humans can live in safety and security. And that none are subjected to doing their duty due to questionable inferences and without appropriate resources.
I pray.
gg
Posted by fayeroe on November 3, 2004, at 20:54:13
In reply to Re: P.S Zena » fayeroe, posted by gardenergirl on November 3, 2004, at 20:51:32
Thank you, dear.....Thank you.
Posted by Toph on November 3, 2004, at 22:01:05
In reply to American's spoke yesterday, posted by Zena on November 3, 2004, at 19:30:05
Zena, America spoke yesterday and it came out loud and clear how polarized this country is about the two oilmen who led this country into war for oil. As far as morals go, it's a little known fact that Laura Bush killed a classmate when she drove through a stop sign and didn't so mush as get a ticket in her oil rich town. After 6 years and $50 million dollars republicans couldn't find any wrongdoing until they stumbled upon some private dirt on Clinton. Democrats knew about Laura and chose the high road not to make this an issue with the American people. I'll take Democratic morality and compassion any day.
Posted by fayeroe on November 3, 2004, at 22:02:43
In reply to Re: American's spoke yesterday, posted by Toph on November 3, 2004, at 22:01:05
Fairy dust surrounds you!! Thanks, Toph!
Posted by mair on November 3, 2004, at 22:30:47
In reply to American's spoke yesterday, posted by Zena on November 3, 2004, at 19:30:05
Bush wears his Christianity on his sleeve and talks as if his war is a holy into it and assumes it somehow makes him more "moral." Please consider that much of the rest of the world considers him to be a war criminal. Ask the tens of thousands of innocent maimed and killed Iraqi men women and children about Bush's sense of morality, and explain to them why they had to suffer because 9 or 10 arabs who had no known connection Iraq or to Saddam decided to blow up the world trade center. Does the Biblical eye for an eye mean we can injure or kill tens of thousands of Afghanis and Iraqis to avenge the 3000 killed on 9/11?
And how does the "moral" right justify the layers and layers of lies and influence peddling that have been the hallmark of this administration. And we haven't even begun to talk about the massive human rights violations against people held for months without access to counsel and without any charges being leveled against them?
Do you realize that for all of our bluster, and the massive resources of our government, we haven't successfully prosecuted a single "terrorist" of any import?
Bush has managed to make the US look as noble as any number of 2 bit repressive banana republics, but I guess that's supposed to be ok because he has God on his side.
Posted by fayeroe on November 3, 2004, at 22:40:11
In reply to Re: American's spoke yesterday » Zena, posted by mair on November 3, 2004, at 22:30:47
mair, my family voted for him because of God being on his side. i pray that my parents adopted me!
Posted by yoshimi on November 3, 2004, at 23:32:37
In reply to Re: American's spoke yesterday » mair, posted by fayeroe on November 3, 2004, at 22:40:11
Warning************there are triggers at this site
for some people. It is a truth that must come out though, so if you feel up for it, help spread the word. but please take care.
Posted by shortelise on November 4, 2004, at 1:32:15
In reply to Re: American's spoke yesterday » Zena, posted by gardenergirl on November 3, 2004, at 20:17:22
I disagree with the term "pro-life". I prefer "anti-choice". To my mind, it describes it better.
ShortE
Posted by shortelise on November 4, 2004, at 1:34:42
In reply to Anti-choice, posted by shortelise on November 4, 2004, at 1:32:15
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 4, 2004, at 4:59:54
In reply to Anti-choice, posted by shortelise on November 4, 2004, at 1:32:15
> You democrates might as well get over it.
>
> Zena> It is an immoral war and totally without merit.
>
> fayeroe> the two oilmen who led this country into war for oil.
>
> Toph> much of the rest of the world considers him to be a war criminal.
>
> mair> I disagree with the term "pro-life". I prefer "anti-choice".
>
> ShortEPlease respect the views of others and be sensitive to their feelings.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Toph on November 4, 2004, at 8:54:11
In reply to Re: please be civil » Zena » fayeroe » Toph » mair » shortelise, posted by Dr. Bob on November 4, 2004, at 4:59:54
Posted by fayeroe on November 4, 2004, at 9:18:26
In reply to Re: please be civil » Zena » fayeroe » Toph » mair » shortelise, posted by Dr. Bob on November 4, 2004, at 4:59:54
There's so much to read. Did Zena get a PBC for "get over it"?.....that's what started the brawl. I had 35 messages in my mailbox and simply can't get through all of them before work.......just curious if Z got one also?
Posted by fayeroe on November 4, 2004, at 9:19:33
In reply to Re: please be civil » Zena » fayeroe » Toph » mair » shortelise, posted by Dr. Bob on November 4, 2004, at 4:59:54
Never mind, my new trifocals didn't read the subject line correctly....ehhhhhhhhhh. SORRY!!!!! Pat
Posted by jay on November 4, 2004, at 14:01:11
In reply to American's spoke yesterday, posted by Zena on November 3, 2004, at 19:30:05
A country with the best healthcare system in the world, and you don't have to be a millionaire to run for office. That is why we are constantly rated near the top, if not on it, by the United Nations as the best country in the world to live in. I feel very, very sorry for many of my American friends who didn't vote for the ultra-right, neo-fascist Republicans. There is lots of room up here in Canada...you'd be very welcome to come and stay!
Posted by mair on November 4, 2004, at 15:08:56
In reply to That's why I live in Canada.. » Zena, posted by jay on November 4, 2004, at 14:01:11
I actually suggested to my husband yesterday that a move to Canada was worth considering and the reply he gave me was totally sarcastic - he really hates winter, and we already live in a place where winter seems to go on for ever.
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 4, 2004, at 15:40:16
In reply to Re: That's why I live in Canada.. » jay, posted by mair on November 4, 2004, at 15:08:56
> I actually suggested to my husband yesterday that a move to Canada was worth considering and the reply he gave me was totally sarcastic - he really hates winter, and we already live in a place where winter seems to go on for ever.
Yes, but do you have curling?
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 4, 2004, at 15:54:14
In reply to That's why I live in Canada.. » Zena, posted by jay on November 4, 2004, at 14:01:11
Posted by partlycloudy on November 4, 2004, at 16:02:32
In reply to Re: That's why I live in Canada.. » mair, posted by Larry Hoover on November 4, 2004, at 15:40:16
> Yes, but do you have curling?
>My husband thought I was joking when I first described it to him!
pc
Posted by AuntieMel on November 4, 2004, at 16:44:00
In reply to Re: American's spoke yesterday, posted by Toph on November 3, 2004, at 22:01:05
Hey Toph.
I'm trying to state this in a way that won't get a pbc - and yet everytime I try it sounds like I'm sending you an admonishment, which isn't what I mean. Ok, here goes.
There are many, many of us in the oil biz that are hard working upstanding citizens. It just seems that everytime oil hits the news it's something negative and folks have built been prone to lump all the "oil business" together.
Unfortunately, other businesses get the sympathy news. Steel mill shut down, 5000 out of work and everyone can (rightly) feel for these workers. But if the oil biz is hurting (low prices) and people get laid off nobody cares, it's just a good thing that gas is cheap.
Since the early eighties hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost, most never to come back. From 2000 to 2002 our department alone was hit with at least 6 rounds of layoffs and I saw some very good people get the axe.
I guess what I'm getting at is don't judge all the books by a few covers. We're not all bad.
(posted to you, but directed at the world.)
Posted by mair on November 4, 2004, at 21:37:38
In reply to The Canadian solution to the election outcome...., posted by Larry Hoover on November 4, 2004, at 15:54:14
Larry where do you find this stuff? It's pretty priceless and gave me one of the few (very few) chuckles of the week.
Mair
Posted by mair on November 4, 2004, at 21:40:36
In reply to Re: That's why I live in Canada.. » mair, posted by Larry Hoover on November 4, 2004, at 15:40:16
>
> "Yes, but do you have curling?"
>
> It's pretty dead where I live; I don't think we could stand the excitement!Mair
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 5, 2004, at 9:26:06
In reply to Re: The Canadian solution to the election outcome.... » Larry Hoover, posted by mair on November 4, 2004, at 21:37:38
> Larry where do you find this stuff? It's pretty priceless and gave me one of the few (very few) chuckles of the week.
>
> MairI dunno where I find stuff. I just do. Eclectic has its advantages.
L
Posted by Toph on November 5, 2004, at 11:03:37
In reply to Re: oil men » Toph, posted by AuntieMel on November 4, 2004, at 16:44:00
Melanie, I hate stereotypes too. I am a social worker and you can imagine how I feel about the stereotype of the bleeding heart female do-gooders that people have of socialworkers. By identifying Bush and Cheney as oilmen I was questioning their motives for direrting their attention away from destroying al Qaeda (the enemy) and invading a county that had no WMD or any link to al Qaeda. Iraq did have oil and thank God the Commander in Chief secured the oil fields before he secured the hospitals and ammunition dumps that contained weapons that are killing American soldiers now. When I think of oil men I think of Halliburton which benefited from the invasion of Iraq as did Cheney formerly who was Halliburton's CEO. Halliburton is currently under investigation for ripping American taxpayers off over there.
But not all oil workers are bad, that's for sure, much as not all social workers are good.
-Toph
Posted by AuntieMel on November 5, 2004, at 12:32:12
In reply to Re: oil men, posted by Toph on November 5, 2004, at 11:03:37
Ah, but fact is I wouldn't call either one of them "oil men." Shrub ran a small oil company funded by Friends of Dad, and it failed.
Cheney was ceo of Halliburton for a few years, but before that had no experience in oil.
I'm still a bit fuzzy about Iraq. I believe Cheney pushed for continuing on in the first gulf war, but lost that battle. I think this one came out of his feeling there was 'unfinished business.' If it was only about oil, I don't think we'd be there - we were buying just about all that came out of there before and could have had plenty more if we eased up on the sanctions.
As for ripping off the taxpayers, I don't have enough data to have a final opinion on that, and believe me I'm no friend of Hal. anyway. But one fact is true - that the company really is the only one with experience in working in war zones. Hal's division - KBR - got a lot of the (nobid) contracts to rebuild. KBR stands for Kellogg Brown & Root - and if you remenber (or not) B&R was the co. that did a lot of the contracting in VietNam. If I was wanting to go to a war zone for the extra money (big if) I would want to do it with a company that had lots of experience with that environment. But again - that's not really oil, it's more engineering.
The real solution to linking oil with global policy would be to encourage more exploration here (and I'm not talking about environmentally sensitive areas either.) During the 80's the Democratic gov of Texas, Ann Richards, proposed setting a floor on the price of domestic oil of about $20-25. It sounds cheap now, but at the time of the big '86 oil bust it was about twice the going rate, so it didn't have a chance of being passed. The problem with domestic production is that the price is so volitile that the economics of drilling dictates that it won't be explored for unless the well is expected to make a profit at $10-15. Set a floor and you'd be surprised at how many of the small independents get really busy. Establishing a floor is really a no lose proposition - stability in pricing, more domestic production, etc.
I could go on forever......
But the problem is that the industry can't be explained in sound bytes. And most of the country hears only the few negatives.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.