Blogs @ Augusta.comLooking for photos? Check out Spotted

Recent comments

Syndicate

Syndicate content
Please sign in to post or comment.

Bought speech-what the market will hear…

Posted by gimpel on July 23, 2006 - 8:56 PM

The identity of Hezbollah’s financial supporters is shielded, but Hezbollah most likely receives most of their funds from Iran and Syria. Hezbollah uses this financial support to, of course, attack Israel, but also to win about one –fourth of the seats in the Lebanese government. The Lebanese people voted for them.
Hezbollah does not work in the best interest of the Lebanese people.

There is much deceit on the part of Hezbollah regarding their financial support.
Islam normally forbids such deceit in day-to-day affairs with other Muslims, but allows lying in affairs with non-Muslims.

From islamreview.com
Provisions for lying in Islam
Most Muslims are familiar with the principles of Islam that will justify lying in situations where they sense the need to do so. Among these are:
War is deception.
The necessities justify the forbidden.
If faced by two evils, choose the lesser of the two.
These principles are derived from passages found in the Quran and the Hadith.

Democracy Alliance is a liberal group funded mainly by George Soros, the billionaire who once pledged his entire fortune to the goal of defeating George Bush.
Democracy Alliance has given millions to left wing political groups. These groups come up with the oft-heard catchy phrases such as “Bush is the world’s biggest terrorist,” and “no blood for oil.”

Democracy Alliance was formed last year with major backing from billionaires such as financier George Soros and Colorado software entrepreneur Tim Gill.
The alliance has required organizations that receive its endorsement to sign agreements shielding the identity of donors.

Why the secrecy? What are Soros and his group trying to hide?
Do they consider the deception as political war?
Is the deception necessary to win the election?
Is deception a lesser evil? Would knowing the source of the funding be the worse evil?
Will these “shielded identity donors” help win elections for political parties that don’t work for the best interest of Americans?
Political speech is by necessity not free, but we should know who is buying.
And what they are really selling…

Submitted by imdstuf on July 25, 2006 - 1:55 PM.

Maybe they shield identity so George W's Secret Police cannot come do away with them. When you play around with those in charge, bad things can happen. Ted Kennedy got away with murder, so don't think the powerful can't get away with it.


Submitted by lazydazy on July 27, 2006 - 10:48 AM.

Glad to see someone else admit that neither party is above reproach.


Submitted by g_dog_blog on July 26, 2006 - 9:24 PM.

Gempel, in my estimation, you missed it in the following statement: "The identity of Hezbollah’s financial supporters is shielded, but Hezbollah most likely receives most of their funds from Iran and Syria."

The true identity of Hezbollah's financial support comes from Americans who continue to consume the same amount of gasoline they begrudgingly paid $1.59 per gallon for and are now happy when it is below $3.00 per gallon. Statistics are showing there has not been a decrease in consumption. That also goes for diesel, oil, natural gas, plastic, and other oil-based products.

As long as we Americans selfishly pay the higher prices without finding ways to decrease our dependency, fuel prices will go up and more of that money will be given to terrorist organizations.

We are the consumer and we have a hand in controlling the price by buying or not buying. The cost of refining fuel and exploration has not gone up dramatically in the last 20 years. There is not new technology that has transformed the process or increased the expense. The only thing that has really changed in the marketplace is the public's acceptance of higher fuel prices.

Americans, not George W single handedly, fund terrorism. Syria, Iran, Saudia Arabia, Iraq, and other oil producing nations are only the conduits we use to send our money to the terrorists.


Submitted by gimpel on July 26, 2006 - 10:22 PM.

well, I can't dispute that...
but we are doing something
This is from the last state of the union address:
"So tonight, I announce the Advanced Energy Initiative -- a 22-percent increase in clean-energy research -- at the Department of Energy, to push for breakthroughs in two vital areas. To change how we power our homes and offices, we will invest more in zero-emission coal-fired plants, revolutionary solar and wind technologies, and clean, safe nuclear energy.
We must also change how we power our automobiles. We will increase our research in better batteries for hybrid and electric cars, and in pollution-free cars that run on hydrogen. We'll also fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn, but from wood chips and stalks, or switch grass. Our goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive within six years."

and this is the site for further information on the specific programs
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060131-6.html


Submitted by g_dog_blog on July 27, 2006 - 6:38 AM.

Yes, there are good things the government is doing for the future as far as lessening our dependency for oil but my concern is the here and now.

It appears that the public does not care enough to curb their appetite for oil. Consumption is not going down. The politicians are using these issues to war against the other side rather than being leaders and focusing on putting an end to terrorism.

The most effective and immediate way to combat terrorism for the short term is to remove the capability for them to fund their activities. You won't get rid of all of it, but the large majority of them will go back to work to support their families.

Our politicians understand this but would rather use it for their own personal and party gain. Gee, that almost sounds like the terrorist. Promoting unity among Americans, encouraging support for our President and our troups, and showing us ways to conserve energy right now would remove their political leverage.

This isn't a Democrat v.s. Republican issue but a civil rights and humanitarian issue.

I applaud the President for what he has and is doing, now and for the future, but it is time for average Joe America to stop being selfish and begin to conserve fuel because we are funding terrorism. If we as consumers would dramatically reduce consumption the price of oil would go down. If the price goes down then the surplus money dries up, thereby dramatically reducing the funding for terrorism. You will not get rid of all of it but it would give democracy in Iraq a fighting chance to survive. Then, with the plans the President has put into action, we could return to our old ways.

Conserve, share a ride, combine trips, spend one less hour out at the lake, ride a bus, carpool, stay home a little more often, tune up your car, if you can afford it buy a more fuel efficient car rather than a gas guzzler, put your thermostat up to 76 degrees, run ceiling fans... There is so much more we can do.


Submitted by imdstuf on August 02, 2006 - 12:40 PM.

Go to http://www.postcarbon.org/node/2243/view to read some good points about these supposed steps.


Submitted by mgroothand on July 27, 2006 - 11:29 AM.

If y'all are assuming that mid-east oil fuels the violence and corruption there then y'all are overlooking the fact that much of the oil we use in the USA does not come from the mid-east. Canada, Mexico, the North Sea some South American countries are major suppliers of foreign oil to the USA.


Submitted by g_dog_blog on July 28, 2006 - 7:45 PM.

There are other countries we buy from, but Opec sets the price and we do buy a lot from the Middle East. If we were to conserve fuel we might be able to conserve enough fuel to stop buying from the Middle East, thereby eliminating the cash flow to terrorist from America. This would help bring the cost of fuel down worldwide and would again reduce the extra monies going to terrorists.