The Koch Oil Speculation Kingdom

[JimH52]

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/...l-speculation/

[Fear Itself]

Any thoughts of your own?

[JimH52]

Yeah, I expect the Koch machine to be at full throddle in the fall of 2012. One way to sink Obama is the speculate oil through the roof, and sink the economy again. It is the Republican way.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by JimH52

Yeah, I expect the Koch machine to be at full throddle in the fall of 2012. One way to sink Obama is the speculate oil through the roof, and sink the economy again. It is the Republican way.

Fair enough. Although if Republicans had that much control over the course of the economy, McCain would have won.

Obama also has painted himself into this corner by siding with the environmental extremists on drilling. Yes, the Gulf Spill scared everyone, but even it turned out to not be as bad as everyone predicted.

We need to invest and develop alternative technologies, but those technologies are years away. Right now, we need oil, and lots of it.

[JimH52]

You do remember T Boon Pickings and the Swift Boat liars don't you? With his money he was able to convince everyone that Kerry, a Vietnam decorated hero was some kind of fraud while Bush, the weekend warrior who only showed up with he was sober, was the military guy. Never underestimate the power or the influence of money in the GOP.

[appleciders]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

Obama also has painted himself into this corner by siding with the environmental extremists on drilling. Yes, the Gulf Spill scared everyone, but even it turned out to not be as bad as everyone predicted.

First, beginning explorations off the coast won't produce significant quantities of oil for about a decade. Second, Obama allowed hundreds of offshore drilling permits in the months after the spill. I'm not sure what you're talking about.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by JimH52

You do remember T Boon Pickings and the Swift Boat liars don't you? With his money he was able to convince everyone that Kerry, a Vietnam decorated hero was some kind of fraud while Bush, the weekend warrior who only showed up with he was sober, was the military guy. Never underestimate the power or the influence of money in the GOP.

Well, a couple things like that, at the risk of a relapse.

First, there were a lot of guys who served with Kerry who broke bad on him, which gave the whole thing a lot more credibility. Second, Kerry himself was being deceitful on the issue. He wanted to talk all about the 90 days he spent in Vietnam, and not mention the years he spent afterwards as an anti-war activist who slandered his fellow veterans as war criminals.

Kerry's biggest problem on that issue was his own arrogance. Had he come out and said, "YOu know, a lot of what I did was insensitive to the brave men who served, when my real complaint was with the policymakers".

Was Kerry a fraud? No. He got a lot of medals under dubious circumstances, but so did nearly every other officer over there. The military is great on pinning medals on officers, it's like foreplay.

For Bush, well, the thing was, since most people of his age group found a way to avoid the rice paddies, the attack fell on the same ears as attacks on Clinton fell on the 50% of people who cheat on their marriages. Moralizing always has the problem of the fact that it can go too far.

[China Guy]

Actually, snopes has a pretty good analysis of the Swift Boaters for Truth claim: http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/swift.asp

Most of the swift boaters for truth make statements of opinion rather than fact. Only one actually served with Kerry. It was a Madison Avenue smear campaign

Bush got out of the draft by a sweet reserve posting and there are virtually no records of him having actually served for most of it. Maybe most people of Bush's tax brackets and parental power found a way to avoid rice paddies, but it wasn't true for the majority. That said, it's pretty obvious that Bush didn't even do a decent job of fulfilling his reserve requirements. Unlike his father the WW2 combat vet.

Again, we end up with a draft dodger versus a military veteran and yet the spin makes black white and white black.

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

Well, a couple things like that, at the risk of a relapse.

First, there were a lot of guys who served with Kerry who broke bad on him, which gave the whole thing a lot more credibility. Second, Kerry himself was being deceitful on the issue. He wanted to talk all about the 90 days he spent in Vietnam, and not mention the years he spent afterwards as an anti-war activist who slandered his fellow veterans as war criminals.

Kerry's biggest problem on that issue was his own arrogance. Had he come out and said, "YOu know, a lot of what I did was insensitive to the brave men who served, when my real complaint was with the policymakers".

Was Kerry a fraud? No. He got a lot of medals under dubious circumstances, but so did nearly every other officer over there. The military is great on pinning medals on officers, it's like foreplay.

For Bush, well, the thing was, since most people of his age group found a way to avoid the rice paddies, the attack fell on the same ears as attacks on Clinton fell on the 50% of people who cheat on their marriages. Moralizing always has the problem of the fact that it can go too far.

The main source of things against Kerry was swiftboater extraordinaire Marc Morano.

What is interesting to me is the connection he has with the current denialists of global warming and alternative energy sources.

Marc Morano now is one of the most vociferous voices in the effort to discredit environmentalists and climate scientists. Now, in what universe one can find that a misleading former "expert" on what took place in Vietnam like Morano has now respect as a climate science denier?

Only in the current Republican echo chamber universe.

http://www.desmogblog.com/swiftboati...-you-need-know

[smiling bandit]

On the actual topic at hand, Lee Fang (who wrote the article) has no idea what he's talking about.

The Kochs do not speculate on oil. That's a pure investment activity. What they do is buy it at low prices and hold it, in actual giant tanks they own, until somone wants to buy it. It's most definitely not the same thing: the global supply chain desperately needs this service done, and if the Kochs didn't, the refineries would have to. For various and sundry reasons, they choose not to. But the Koch brothers' actions don't change the price of oil. In fact, it actually smooths the price of oil. This kind of smoothing is a huge part of the modern economy, and it's what keeps swings in oil prices to a point based solely on the underlying supply, and not how recently the giant tanker rolled up.

If you want to debate the policies favored by the Kochs, fine - although it's stupid. If you want to pretend their some threats to republic, whatever - and hat involves, how do we say it, "highly selective" judgment. But people who know nothing about their business should not listen to other people who write moronic and content-free hit pieces

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by smiling bandit

On the actual topic at hand, Lee Fang (who wrote the article) has no idea what he's talking about.

The Kochs do not speculate on oil. That's a pure investment activity. What they do is buy it at low prices and hold it, in actual giant tanks they own, until somone wants to buy it. It's most definitely not the same thing: the global supply chain desperately needs this service done, and if the Kochs didn't, the refineries would have to. For various and sundry reasons, they choose not to. But the Koch brothers' actions don't change the price of oil. In fact, it actually smooths the price of oil. This kind of smoothing is a huge part of the modern economy, and it's what keeps swings in oil prices to a point based solely on the underlying supply, and not how recently the giant tanker rolled up.

If you want to debate the policies favored by the Kochs, fine - although it's stupid. If you want to pretend their some threats to republic, whatever - and hat involves, how do we say it, "highly selective" judgment. But people who know nothing about their business should not listen to other people who write moronic and content-free hit pieces

I'm not sure on the "content free part"

http://thinkprogress.org/report/koch-oil-speculation/

Writing on his political blog, an attorney working for Koch’s law firm angrily replied to our initial investigation by claiming that Koch is solely a bonafide hedger, meaning that it only participates in speculative markets to reduce risk for the oil the company refines (he also bizarrely argued that speculation has no relation to the price of oil). The spin obscures reality: much of Koch’s oil trading business is actually akin to a hedge fund, buying and selling financial products based on oil with little interest in the actual delivery of the product. In fact, Koch pioneered the risky speculation industry that dominates the world’s oil markets today, first by inventing oil derivatives back in the ’80s, then by working to kill off regulations. ThinkProgress has delved into the history of Koch’s oil speculation business and the following timeline spells out Koch’s leading role:

[SeldomSeen]

Originally Posted by smiling bandit

The Kochs do not speculate on oil.

What they do is buy it at low prices and hold it, in actual giant tanks they own, until somone wants to buy it.

In other words, speculate.
Play with semantics much?

[Recovering Republican]

China guy, funny, I seem to remember Dan Rather claiming to have the "goods" on Bush's Guard Service... Remind me how that one turned out again?

Kerry's problem with the Swift Vets had a lot to do with John Kerry, not Karl Rove or Madison Avenue. He really thought he could sneak past on his medals (the ones he CLAIMED he threw back at Congress in the 1970's) and no one would dare challenge him on it. Well, someone did. People who didn't like being accused of murdering children 35 years ago and never forgave Kerry for slandering them in that way. No one was really all that mad because he claimed a Purple Heart for a superficial wound. they were mad because he got in front of Congress and said they were over there raping and murdering people.

As for all these claims about what Bush did or didn't do in the guard, So What? Bush never ran on the platform "I'm running because I was the most awesome pilot of obsolete planes the Texas Guard ever saw". He ran on the platform that he had been an effective Governor of Texas and had guided us through the war on terror. Now Kerry SHOULD have challenged him on that, absolutely. Especially the part where he started a war with Saddam who had not attacked us over weapons that turned out not to be there. But Kerry had a little problem... He was for the war before he was against it.

Bush got into the Guard. Not as bad as though who used Student Deferments (Clinton) fake medical conditions (Limbaugh) Marriage Deferments (Cheney, Gingrich). Reserve Service (Gephardt and Bradley). Lot's of prominent people found ways to avoid service, and frankly, it was poor and working class kids who fought the war.

Boy, I sincerely hope that one day, the Vietnam War will finally be over.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by appleciders

First, beginning explorations off the coast won't produce significant quantities of oil for about a decade. Second, Obama allowed hundreds of offshore drilling permits in the months after the spill. I'm not sure what you're talking about.

I agree, they won't. What they WILL do devalue the oil futures and reserves other people are holding by increasing the overall future supply.

What Obama need to do is be bold- propose sweeping new oil exploration, but also sweeping research programs for new energy sources. He talks all day about the "Green Technology", but what has he really done to build it?

After the whole Japan thing, the world is starting to retreat from Nuclear Power, so that's off the table.

[China Guy]

Bush does not have a clear record of serving out his guard duty. Wiki's take. He may have but very little evidence that he actually did. And 30+ years after the fact with incomplete records proving that he didn't serve his obligation beyond a reasonable doubt was difficult.

So, basically, Bush didn't show any evidence to prove he actually served out his Reserve obligation and the opposition wasn't able to clearly prove he didn't. Nice standard to hold a candidate and eventually President to. Not surprising how President Bush's term turned out.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by China Guy

Bush does not have a clear record of serving out his guard duty. Wiki's take. He may have but very little evidence that he actually did. And 30+ years after the fact with incomplete records proving that he didn't serve his obligation beyond a reasonable doubt was difficult.

So, basically, Bush didn't show any evidence to prove he actually served out his Reserve obligation and the opposition wasn't able to clearly prove he didn't. Nice standard to hold a candidate and eventually President to. Not surprising how President Bush's term turned out.

I was in the National Guard for 11 years (1981-1992), the last six of them as an active duty administrator (AGR). Records are routinely destroyed after a certain point, when they are no longer relevent. I've seen some of the records that do exist, and they look pretty typical for what I saw when I was in. (Yes, we enlisted scum used to peak at the OER's to see what these idiots were saying about each other.)

My suspicion is, yeah, they had one set of rules for the officers and one set for the enlisted. So we can honestly say that the reason Bush and Kerry got away with stuff that would have gotten an enlisted man court-martialled or disciplined.

I also suspect that like a lot of guys in the Guard, it was a nifty idea when he got in, but six years later, he had a life and the Guard was crimping it. Very few people I saw actually served out their six years. Also, keep in mind in 1973, you had the draft ending, guys were getting out of the guard in droves, and guys coming back from 'Nam were trying to get in in Droves. Bush was an F102 pilot, but by 1973, the TXANG had decommissioned almost all their F102's.

So why waste money on a guy like Bush who was leaving, and could only fly a plane that they were scrapping out, when they could use that money on a combat vets qualified on the planes they were getting from the Air Force? My guess is whatever happened was mutually agreed upon, and no one really cared that much.

Speaking of white washing, here's a curious thing. Why are all of Kerry's records and citations dated to 1978, almost a decade after they were issued? Could it possibly be that there was disciplinary action taken against him for his anti-war activities (he was still an officer in the Naval Reserve after he got back) that had to be "sanitized" when he got to Congress?

Now, again, Bush was a HORRIBLE president, and we are going to be paying for his incompetence for decades. But really, looking back, nothing I've seen indicates Kerry would have handled any of the problems any better.

Final point, I've always been curious about how people want to dissect Bush's guard service. It would seem to me that what he did as a 20-something wasn't all that important when he was a fifty-something who wanted to be President. People were willing to give Kerry a pass for hanging with Jane Fonda or Bill Clinton a pass for participating in anti-war protests in England, but somehow, they are all horrifically concerned about whether Bush showed up for "Weekend Warrior" duty?

[China Guy]

Actually, I think it is quite relevant. Bush was an alcoholic that skated through life: Yale as a legacy, National Guard service based on his family and probably didn't even pretend to do half of it, largely failed businessman with sweetheart deals, etc. It's all a pattern of behavior that manifested itself as deciderer in chief. You yourself called him a horrible President.

Your humble opinion is that Kerry would not have handled the problems even better. IMHO, Kerry would have certainly been less disasterous.

Kerry hanging with Jane Fonda was illegal how? Kerry took a moral stand, even if it was for dubious personal reasons, and came out publicly against the war. Bill Clinton exercised his right to free speech and assembly in anti-war protests. Bush, very likely, didn't even comply with the terms of his draft dodging despite painting himself as a "War President." I don't equate these 3 as being equal. YMMV

[Recovering Republican]

A lot of people felt what the protestors against the war did was effectively treason. We were at war, and they were siding with out enemies. And honestly, if Kerry was so proud of what he did back then, he should have invited Fonda to the 2004 convention instead of his war buddies. This is what got him in trouble, he was only trying to tell a part of his life story, and leave out the parts that were less than flattering.

If your argument is that he was a bad Guardsman, exactly what defines a good one? Frankly, what I saw in the Guard were officers who never would have made it past 0-2 in the real army, NCO's who were promoted because they were there for a long time, and enlisted kids who were just there for a college education that never materialized. Heck, guys completing their six year terms was such a rare occurance in my unit I didn't see it happen until I had been AGR for two years, and I had to actually look up what to do to close out the record.

And all the old timers said it was worse in the 60's/70's when the Guard was just a place for guys to avoid selective service. So, no, I can't fault Bush for being less than stellar in a bad system.


I think Bush was a terrible president, but the question is, could we ever have a great one in the current system? I think Clinton was a terrible president, and frankly, Obama ain't shaking up to be great, either. The Great Presidents lead, they didn't take polls, they didn't do focus groups. when we got into WWII, FDR initiated a draft, he rationed everything, and he let eveyone know that we had to make some hard sacrifices to do this thing.

Bush never asked for hard sacrifices from anyone but the people who signed up. I don't see Kerry asking for those sacrifices, either.

[China Guy]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

A lot of people felt what the protestors against the war did was effectively treason. We were at war, and they were siding with out enemies.

And those people were on the wrong side of history. It was a bad war that we never should have been involved with, and accomplished little.

An awful lot more people believe that speaking out against the wrongs that our country perpetrates is more patriotic than being a blind sheep. The protestors were not siding with the enemy, but calling out the wrong that our own government was doing. It's a false equivalency. Just like calling out that the eveidence for war with Iraq was dubious at best was not the same as siding with Sadam

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by China Guy

And those people were on the wrong side of history. It was a bad war that we never should have been involved with, and accomplished little.

An awful lot more people believe that speaking out against the wrongs that our country perpetrates is more patriotic than being a blind sheep. The protestors were not siding with the enemy, but calling out the wrong that our own government was doing. It's a false equivalency. Just like calling out that the eveidence for war with Iraq was dubious at best was not the same as siding with Sadam

Now, being an old soldier, I guess my problem is, the time to have these debates are BEFORE you send young men off to fight. Once you've sent them, you win it. Period.

Also, for who was on the "wrong side of history". The argument for the war was that if the Communists won, they would do horrible things to the people of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.

The communists won.
They Did terrible things to the people of South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.

No wonder Jane Fonda and John Kerry hide from that kind of activity today. "Oh, yeah, I was on a swift boat....weeeeeee"

Speaking of Kerry, he was for the war before he was against it. Now, you would think with the supposed "lesson" he learned from Vietnam, he'd be dead set against a president advocating a war on weak evidence. But he wasn't. He voted for the war. He realized he wouldn't be viable in 2004 unless he was seen as a hawk. That is more contemptable than anything Bush did, IMO. Bush, whatever his flaws, did see Saddam as an evil. Kerry just calculated we'd make short work of him, and then he could go on hammering Bush on the economy (like they did to his father.)

[Chronos]

Also, for who was on the "wrong side of history". The argument for the war was that if the Communists won, they would do horrible things to the people of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.

No, the argument was that if the communists won, they would do horrible things to us. And I've heard conservatives seriously advance the argument that the fact that they didn't proves that we actually won the Vietnam and Korean Wars.

[JimH52]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

Now, being an old soldier, I guess my problem is, the time to have these debates are BEFORE you send young men off to fight. Once you've sent them, you win it. Period.

Also, for who was on the "wrong side of history". The argument for the war was that if the Communists won, they would do horrible things to the people of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.

The communists won.
They Did terrible things to the people of South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.

No wonder Jane Fonda and John Kerry hide from that kind of activity today. "Oh, yeah, I was on a swift boat....weeeeeee"

Speaking of Kerry, he was for the war before he was against it. Now, you would think with the supposed "lesson" he learned from Vietnam, he'd be dead set against a president advocating a war on weak evidence. But he wasn't. He voted for the war. He realized he wouldn't be viable in 2004 unless he was seen as a hawk. That is more contemptable than anything Bush did, IMO. Bush, whatever his flaws, did see Saddam as an evil. Kerry just calculated we'd make short work of him, and then he could go on hammering Bush on the economy (like they did to his father.)

But Kerry was actually fighting in the war, and not laying out from a hangover or getting Dad to call him for him. Kerry actually won medals for engaging in combat, not just for showing up for weekend duty with a headache.

[China Guy]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

I was in the National Guard for 11 years (1981-1992), the last six of them as an active duty administrator (AGR). Records are routinely destroyed after a certain point, when they are no longer relevent. I've seen some of the records that do exist, and they look pretty typical for what I saw when I was in. (Yes, we enlisted scum used to peak at the OER's to see what these idiots were saying about each other.)

Was your time in the guards, a decade give or take after Nam relevant? I'm not trying to be snarky - I simply don't know.

Let's not trot out the voted for war meme. The President of the US of A asked for authorization so he would have the credible threat of force during negotiation. Now maybe it was naive or politically expedient and/or both to take the President at his word. That said, the vote was to give the President the option to go to war rather than voting for the war. I don't think you can spin that into "he was for the war before he was against it" for Iraq with a straight face.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by China Guy

Was your time in the guards, a decade give or take after Nam relevant? I'm not trying to be snarky - I simply don't know..

Only relevent in the regard that the people who are convinced Bush was "AWOL" from the Guard are absolutely convinced the records were purged to protect him. This is why Dan Rather thought he hit the mother lode when Col. Burkett faked documents on his Word Program. But the reality is that records are routinely destroyed and the lack of records don't really prove anything sinister.


.

Let's not trot out the voted for war meme. The President of the US of A asked for authorization so he would have the credible threat of force during negotiation. Now maybe it was naive or politically expedient and/or both to take the President at his word. That said, the vote was to give the President the option to go to war rather than voting for the war. I don't think you can spin that into "he was for the war before he was against it" for Iraq with a straight face.

Are you seriously going to try to claim that he gave Bush the authority to go after the man who had humiliated his father and think that he only wanted it for "Negotiation" purposes? Come on, we were sending four Army divisions to theatre.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by JimH52

But Kerry was actually fighting in the war, and not laying out from a hangover or getting Dad to call him for him. Kerry actually won medals for engaging in combat, not just for showing up for weekend duty with a headache.

The point of the Swift Vet's protests was that Kerry had gamed the system, claiming purple hearts for superficial injuries and then using them to get a free ticket out of theatre. Now, I don't blame either man for gaming the system, because it's designed to be gamed, especially by the officers.

Also, Bush did flight training, which was not without it share of risk.


Now, look Bush was an awful president, but he was probably the president we deserved. Just like his father was part of that "Greatest Generation", he was part of that lesser generation that was all about "me". The fault lies not within the stars but within ourselves.

[China Guy]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

Are you seriously going to try to claim that he gave Bush the authority to go after the man who had humiliated his father and think that he only wanted it for "Negotiation" purposes? Come on, we were sending four Army divisions to theatre.

Sadam humiliated Bush Sr?

Yes, actually, as I wrote maybe it was naivity, policial expediency and/or a combination, but Bush sold Congress on giving a credible threat. That keeps getting spun along with all of the other spin for Bush's worst behaviors and mistakes ("they were for the war before they were against it" "no one could have foreseen the financial crisis" etc)

[Do Not Taunt]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

Kerry's problem with the Swift Vets had a lot to do with John Kerry, not Karl Rove or Madison Avenue. He really thought he could sneak past on his medals (the ones he CLAIMED he threw back at Congress in the 1970's) and no one would dare challenge him on it. Well, someone did. People who didn't like being accused of murdering children 35 years ago and never forgave Kerry for slandering them in that way. No one was really all that mad because he claimed a Purple Heart for a superficial wound. they were mad because he got in front of Congress and said they were over there raping and murdering people.

I don't know how this thread became about Kerry's Vietnam service, but since we're here anyway.. What did Kerry say after returning from the war that you think made people get so mad? Did he accuse specific people of specific atrocities? Or just generally point out that atrocities were occurring in Vietnam? Were any of his claims untrue? How many?

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

I don't know how this thread became about Kerry's Vietnam service, but since we're here anyway.. What did Kerry say after returning from the war that you think made people get so mad? Did he accuse specific people of specific atrocities? Or just generally point out that atrocities were occurring in Vietnam? Were any of his claims untrue? How many?

I think it went that way when someone claimed that Kerry's reputation was ruined by horrible evil money by a rich guy, not that some vets had a valid gripe with Kerry or that he was being disingenuous about his past.

Specifically, what Kerry did was testify in front of congress about attrocities that he had 'documented' as co-chair of Vietnam Vets Against the War. (His other co-chair was a lying sack of manure who had never set foot in Vietnam and got discharged over an injury suffered in a basketball game.)

Kerry's specific testimony included the following -

"They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."

In short, if I were a Vietnam vet, I'd be darned upset about this, even 33 years later. I'd be more upset about that than Bush being in the National Guard.

To bring it back to the point, Rightwingers see George Soros behind every corner, and lefists see the Koch brothers.. but the fact is, there has to be some meat on that sandwich.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by China Guy

Sadam humiliated Bush Sr?

I think to the degree that Bush Sr. was voted out of Office and Saddam stayed in power, that was considered a humiliation. And then Saddam tried to have the guy whacked.

Yes, actually, as I wrote maybe it was naivity, policial expediency and/or a combination, but Bush sold Congress on giving a credible threat. That keeps getting spun along with all of the other spin for Bush's worst behaviors and mistakes ("they were for the war before they were against it" "no one could have foreseen the financial crisis" etcc

If it was either, it was inexcusable.

If it was "naivity", this guy was on the Senate Intelligence Committee. WHich means he was seeing all the reports the rest of us weren't seeing. If it were obvious a bill of goods was being manufactured, he was the guy in a position to see it. Unless he wasn't competent enough to realize he was being sold a bill of goods. (Again, his whole claim to fame was to have stood up against a war based on 'lies'.)

If it was political expediency- that he knew a lie was being manufactured, but he looked at some polls and realized that they'd be putting his picture up with Saddam and Bin Laden like they did to Max Cleland if he objected, and he really wanted to be president, then he was kind of contemptable.

Okay, I'll admit, it's politics, it's a dirty game, and they usually weed out the normal people out of politics in student elections, only the incurables go on to be professional politicians.

[China Guy]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

Kerry's specific testimony included the following -

"They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."

It's been documented enough that these happened to a degree greater than the odd outlier.

The claims of Saddam trying to whack Bush Sr on a Kuwait visit is dubious at best.

Bush Jr publicly sold the American people and their representatives in Congress on the need to have a credible threat in order to negotiate. Seems more than likely he was lying through his teeth and he was going to invade come hell or high water, with or without authorization for the credible threat. You can read it as every person that voted for it was tacitly supporting the invasion. I personally take it at face value. YMMV.

[Chronos]

In short, if I were a Vietnam vet, I'd be darned upset about this, even 33 years later.

Darned straight, I'd be upset about my brothers in arms committing atrocities, too.

Or is that not what you meant?

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Darned straight, I'd be upset about my brothers in arms committing atrocities, too.

Or is that not what you meant?

Stories of attrocities were largely lies. For instance, there is the famous story about throwing a VC out of a helicopter...
Never actually happened when they interviewed people where it supposedly happened. ( A dead body was dropped from a helicopter, but it was already dead and in a body bag.) But to hear Kerry and the other anti-war types tell it, it was 'raining men' in Vietnam, so many VC being thrown out of helicopters.

Fact is, attrocities were probalby rarer in Vietnam than other wars.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by China Guy

It's been documented enough that these happened to a degree greater than the odd outlier.

Except as I stated above, a lot of those stories weren't documented. Everyone knew the guy who knew a guy who saw the VC thrown out of the Helicopter... but then you find out the story wasn't actually true.

The claims of Saddam trying to whack Bush Sr on a Kuwait visit is dubious at best.

Well, Bill Clinton took it serious enough to launch a bombing attack on Iraqi Intelligence HQ at the time. Keep in mind, this was when Bush and all his folks were gone.

Bush Jr publicly sold the American people and their representatives in Congress on the need to have a credible threat in order to negotiate. Seems more than likely he was lying through his teeth and he was going to invade come hell or high water, with or without authorization for the credible threat. You can read it as every person that voted for it was tacitly supporting the invasion. I personally take it at face value. YMMV.

Come on, anyone who has been in the military can tell you you don't send four divisions to theatre if you are just planning to 'negotiate'. You simple don't pull back the hammer that far unless you are fully willing to let it drop.

Again, more likely, Kerry figured taking a moral stand would doom his chances, and that makes him contemptable. Bush at least believed in what he was doing, and give him credit, when public opinion turned against him on the matter, he stuck to his guns and toughed it out.

Kerry was for the war before he was against it...

[smiling bandit]

Originally Posted by SeldomSeen

In other words, speculate.
Play with semantics much?

Not at all. The Koch's make money by providing a service - storing oil. The actual price of oil is relatively unimportant. You may as well claim that granaries are "speculating" in wheat. You don't need speculation, though it's not actually a bad thing.

However, it's evident this thread has gone off the rails. Feel free to make another if you want to debate the actual OP.

[Do Not Taunt]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

Kerry's specific testimony included the following -

"They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."

Well, without context, I'm not sure how to evaluate that. This could very well be true for some values of 'They.'

[Recovering Republican]

In this case, "They" were supposed Vietnam Vets who testified to supposed attrocities at the behest of Vietnam Vets Against the War. Except, more often than not, they could have been called "Yardbirds against the War", because most of them were slackers who never got anywhere near a rice paddy, such as Al Hubbard, who was never in Vietnam, lied about his rank and under what circumstances he was discharged under.

But the best way to take a pack of nasty lies is to get a nice clean cut white guy like John Kerry to spew them in his nice upper crust accent, and give them credibility.

You know what, the longer I'm on this thread, the more I'm forgiving of Bush. Yeah, he screwed up the economy and just about everything else he touched, but Kerry was really sort of a low-life with no ethics.

So bottom line. Kerry tried to rewrite his history from traitor anti-war protestor to rah-rah war hero, and the guys he served with called BS on him. Good for them.

The Koch brothers can scream about Ayers and Reverend Wright all day. Richard Mellon Scaife could scream about Monica. Soros can slander Bush's drunkeness. But most people don't care about that. There has to be meat on the sandwich if you make a complaint about someone.

[Do Not Taunt]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

In this case, "They" were supposed Vietnam Vets who testified to supposed attrocities at the behest of Vietnam Vets Against the War. Except, more often than not, they could have been called "Yardbirds against the War", because most of them were slackers who never got anywhere near a rice paddy, such as Al Hubbard, who was never in Vietnam, lied about his rank and under what circumstances he was discharged under.

For context, here was the quote I had responded to:

"They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."

Perhaps I didn't read this closely the first time, but if 'They' in this quote, which I understand to be from Kerry, refers to people who actually testified to committing atrocities, and those people actually did testify to committing atrocities (whether they actually committed them or not), then I'm having trouble understanding the direction of outrage. Kerry's not making a first-hand claim here, he's explicitly reporting on what others have said. If those statements are lies, shouldn't your outrage be directed at those who lied first-hand?

What is your beef with Kerry here? Do you think he knowingly lent credence to stories he knew to be false? Were there atrocities committed by American troops in Vietnam? Were any of those referenced by Kerry in this statement? What portion of the atrocities he indirectly refers to actually happened?

What this has always smelled like to me is that some Vietnam vets grew up hearing about how their parents were heroes in WWII, thought Vietnam was their turn to get that glory, and were permanently disappointed that Vietnam wasn't actually a glorious struggle. But that's not the war protesters' fault. The blame goes with their leaders who directed them into a ridiculous war, not the protesters who pointed out its injustice.

You know what, the longer I'm on this thread, the more I'm forgiving of Bush. Yeah, he screwed up the economy and just about everything else he touched, but Kerry was really sort of a low-life with no ethics.

I agree that Bush screwed up everything he touched, but disagree with the implication here that he isn't a low-life with no ethics. As for Kerry, that seems to be more of an IMHO than a statement corroborated with any kind of actual fact in evidence in this thread.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

You know what, the longer I'm on this thread, the more I'm forgiving of Bush. Yeah, he screwed up the economy and just about everything else he touched, but Kerry was really sort of a low-life with no ethics.

So bottom line. Kerry tried to rewrite his history from traitor anti-war protestor to rah-rah war hero, and the guys he served with called BS on him. Good for them.

Like so much else you have written here, you have this wrong. In fact, you have it backwards.

Kerry had ethics. That's why he went from rah-rah war hero to anti-war protestor.

It's already been shown that you are utterly wrong about "the guys he served with"; at best it was a guy he served with.

Do facts matter at all to you, or do you, like so many other Republicans, just make up shit and then declare it be "truth"? Because so far, even when people show you that your facts aren't actually true, you fail to re-evaluate your position or opinion, and instead argue more vociferously for an unsupported conclusion. At least, that's what I've seen from you in this thread.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

Do facts matter at all to you, or do you, like so many other Republicans, just make up shit and then declare it be "truth"? Because so far, even when people show you that your facts aren't actually true, you fail to re-evaluate your position or opinion, and instead argue more vociferously for an unsupported conclusion. At least, that's what I've seen from you in this thread.

I don't think he's recovered enough yet.

[JimH52]

The Koch brothers have enough money, power, and influence to use oil to affect the economy. Their speculation has been enough to raise oil prices and therefore keep efforts by the administration ro revive the economy in check. When the economy begins to improve, oil prices rise and the economy tanks again. Speculation on a large scale could very well be doing just that.

[puddleglum]

Speculation is good for the economy in that it smooths price changes. The Koch brothers do not have enough money to corner the market for oil, if they are speculating on price moves it means that other speculators agree with them, or the Koch brothers investments would not make any difference. If the Koch brothers are correct and oil will be more valuable in the future raising the price now sends a signal that pursuing alternate energy sources is valuable so more investment will be done in that. Also more oil will be produced now by producers in response to the price hike. This increased supply will lower the price. If the Koch's are wrong about how valuable oil will be in the future they will lose alot of money and be unable to fund the mind control rays which Republicans use to fool the voters. Then the left will have to find someone else to play Emannuel Goldstein.

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by puddleglum

If the Koch's are wrong about how valuable oil will be in the future they will lose alot of money and be unable to fund the mind control rays which Republicans use to fool the voters. Then the left will have to find someone else to play Emannuel Goldstein.

Nah, they are counting on the profits of today as I would not be surprised his own researchers should be telling them that in the future most governments will have to acknowledge the real costs of the carbon pollution.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/0...bon-pollution/

Koch Industries, the private company of the billionaire Koch brothers, is one of the primary sources of carbon pollution in the United States. However, the actual emissions profile of the diversified giant, with its oil and gas, chemicals, cattle, forestry, and synthetics holdings, is unknown, because of the lack of mandatory carbon reporting in the United States.

Brad Johnson has the story — and his estimates of the Koch carbon pollution.

Koch Climate Denial Is Dirty Self Interest. The virulence of the Koch brothers’ opposition to climate policy “” to anything that would make polluters instead of society pay for the cost of their pollution “” is purely a matter of self-interest. The immense profitability of their carbon holdings depends on their freedom to pollute without consequence “” a toxic freedom they have sold to the American public, and particularly the Tea Party faithful organized by the various Koch front groups, as inherent to the American dream. If their pollution was fairly priced in a free-market system such as the cap-and-trade markets the Koch successfully demonized in Washington (but failed in their attempt to do so in California), the Kochs would be facing costs of anywhere from $1 billion to $40 billion a year. Spending well less than $1 billion a year on their political and philanthropic activities, the Kochs have made a brilliant investment to defend their killer business model.

The Carbon Liability Of The Kochs Is Hundreds Of Billions Of Dollars. Over the lifetime of the Koch Industries, as it has grown from a $100 million enterprise built on oil refining in Stalinist Russia to one of the largest private companies in the world, its cumulative carbon footprint rivals that of most nations. Experts estimate that the social cost of carbon “” the true cost to society of global warming pollution “” is between $30 and $300 per ton of carbon dioxide. The potential liability the Kochs face for having knowingly destabilized the global climate system “” and funded a propaganda network to prevent political action to end their pollution “” represents practically the whole of their wealth.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

Like so much else you have written here, you have this wrong. In fact, you have it backwards.

Kerry had ethics. That's why he went from rah-rah war hero to anti-war protestor..

Actually, the word I would look for is "oppurtunistic". He realized in MA, you get points for selling out your country. But on the National Stage, it's "Gee, where did I put those medals?"

His fellow vets called shennanigans on him, and rightfully so.


.

It's already been shown that you are utterly wrong about "the guys he served with"; at best it was a guy he served with..

How do you define "served with"? Yes only ONE GUY on his boat thought he was a traitor, but guys on the other boats that worked out that base and his superiors were disgusted by his behavior, as they should be.


.

Do facts matter at all to you, or do you, like so many other Republicans, just make up shit and then declare it be "truth"? Because so far, even when people show you that your facts aren't actually true, you fail to re-evaluate your position or opinion, and instead argue more vociferously for an unsupported conclusion. At least, that's what I've seen from you in this thread.

First, he wasn't a hero. He's a guy who claimed purple hearts for owies. Not that this is a bad thing in and of itself, because lots of career guys did that.

Second, he and every other anti-war protestor was a traitor, and ANY other country but ours would have imprisoned them or shot them. In fact, that is EXACTLY what we did to such traitors during the World Wars. (Well, we didn't shoot many of them, but they all got to know nice prison cells.)

Debates on wars END the minute the first shot is fired. You fight until they give up or they are all dead. THAT'S war. Every war we've fought since Vietnam has been based on "well, if we drag this stuff on long enough, they'll give up." It was a terrible precedent to set.

More to the point, guy, if Kerry was SOOOOO flippin' proud of his anti-war activities, why did he try so hard to deny them? Why not run on that? Why not take the Beach at the convention with Jane Fonda and Tom Hadyn and the rest of the traitors?

Because in the time since all the cool kids were doing it, Americans realized we shafted the Vietnam vets and Ho Chi Mihn and his buddies were not swell guys.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

I don't think he's recovered enough yet.

No, I'm just a cynic.

The Republicans are the party of the rich. This is why I can't really support them at this point. They've put the interest of the wealthy above the rest of us.

The Democrats, how do I put this... are sissies. Well, that isn't the word I want to use. the one I want to use could proably apply to cats.

I'd like to see a Democratic Party of JFK, FDR and Truman, one that was on the side of working folks, but understood American interests came first.

A pity we don't have that party.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

What is your beef with Kerry here? Do you think he knowingly lent credence to stories he knew to be false? Were there atrocities committed by American troops in Vietnam? Were any of those referenced by Kerry in this statement? What portion of the atrocities he indirectly refers to actually happened?.

My beef is that he and the people he was involved with intentionally looked for these kinds of stories, repeated them with no attempt to verify them.

Not to be crude here, but if I said that someone had told me that your mother was a less than virtuous woman, I don't think you'd be saying, "Well, gee, that's just what you heard." I would suspect you'd lay me out, and rightfully so.

What this has always smelled like to me is that some Vietnam vets grew up hearing about how their parents were heroes in WWII, thought Vietnam was their turn to get that glory, and were permanently disappointed that Vietnam wasn't actually a glorious struggle. But that's not the war protesters' fault. The blame goes with their leaders who directed them into a ridiculous war, not the protesters who pointed out its injustice..

Or maybe they rightfully feel that they were fighting a just cause, and the behavior of the Communists after they won justified that. (You know, "boat people" "re-education camps" and "Killing fields" were added to the lexicon thanks to these wonderful people like Kerry and Fonda, who are glamorized in Vietnamese museums.

I would make the argument the way the war was fought was criminal in its ineptitude.

.

I agree that Bush screwed up everything he touched, but disagree with the implication here that he isn't a low-life with no ethics. As for Kerry, that seems to be more of an IMHO than a statement corroborated with any kind of actual fact in evidence in this thread.

You mean other than he made slanderous lies about the troops, and then tried to hide it.

The thing is, I think Bush is actually a decent guy who just didn't have the skills to do the job. Kerry was a guy who betrayed his brothers in arms for political gain, and then tried to deny he had done so. But someone put it on tape. I also think that we'd have been in just as much trouble if Kerry had won in 2004. I don't think he'd have been able to extracate us from Iraq (Obama still hasn't) prevent Katrina or the Housing Bubble collapse.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

Actually, the word I would look for is "oppurtunistic". He realized in MA, you get points for selling out your country. But on the National Stage, it's "Gee, where did I put those medals?"

His fellow vets called shennanigans on him, and rightfully so.

Not really. You are misremembering or mischaracterizing nearly every bit of the timeline and his motivations. Unless you have real evidence, not just from the voices in your or other people's heads, that show that his stated intentions were lies, I'm gonna have to believe the man himself.

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

How do you define "served with"? Yes only ONE GUY on his boat thought he was a traitor, but guys on the other boats that worked out that base and his superiors were disgusted by his behavior, as they should be.

I define "served with" as, well, "served with". Not "served at the same time" or "served in the same country" or "served in the same general area but had no interactions of any kind". Apparently, you define "with" differently than, oh, just about everyone else who speaks English.

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

First, he wasn't a hero. He's a guy who claimed purple hearts for owies. Not that this is a bad thing in and of itself, because lots of career guys did that.

First, I never said he was a hero. So nice strawman you set up there; how did it feel to try and knock it down and not succeed?

You know why you didn't succeed?

Because you don't appear to know the first thing about Purple Hearts or how they are awarded, or what they are awarded for.

You don't claim or apply or do anything else to have a Purple Heart awarded; it happens automatically to every single soldier who meets the criteria established by the DoD. And you know what that criteria includes? I'll tell you, since you obviously don't know: owies. That's right; being wounded or killed in the line of duty gets soldiers a Purple Heart. Do you have evidence that Kerry wasn't wounded? Because there's plenty of evidence, including a necessary treatment/evaluation form from an army medic that says he was.

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

Second, he and every other anti-war protestor was a traitor, and ANY other country but ours would have imprisoned them or shot them. In fact, that is EXACTLY what we did to such traitors during the World Wars. (Well, we didn't shoot many of them, but they all got to know nice prison cells.)

So it's "EXACTLY" what we did, except it isn't what we did? Do you have any idea how ridiculous this makes you sound? I mean, you're completely wrong. You're even wrong about being wrong about what "EXACTLY" we didn't do.

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

Debates on wars END the minute the first shot is fired. You fight until they give up or they are all dead. THAT'S war.

What if they want to give up, but some of us don't want to let them give up under the terms they want? Are you saying we can't debate that, because all debate must cease? How can we agree on terms if we can't debate them?

This is just dogmatic, ill-informed and ludicrous, and isn't at all supported by any events in any war this country has ever fought.

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

Every war we've fought since Vietnam has been based on "well, if we drag this stuff on long enough, they'll give up." It was a terrible precedent to set.

Sure it has. By the way, are you interested in real estate? I have some land in Florida I'd like to talk to you about.

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

More to the point, guy, if Kerry was SOOOOO flippin' proud of his anti-war activities, why did he try so hard to deny them? Why not run on that? Why not take the Beach at the convention with Jane Fonda and Tom Hadyn and the rest of the traitors?

Because in the time since all the cool kids were doing it, Americans realized we shafted the Vietnam vets and Ho Chi Mihn and his buddies were not swell guys.

I don't think your recovery is going all that well. You seem to be stuck in a loop of denial and bad information. Good luck with that.

[Ají de Gallina]

Originally Posted by smiling bandit

On the actual topic at hand, Lee Fang (who wrote the article) has no idea what he's talking about.

The Kochs do not speculate on oil. That's a pure investment activity. What they do is buy it at low prices and hold it, in actual giant tanks they own, until somone wants to buy it. It's most definitely not the same thing: the global supply chain desperately needs this service done, and if the Kochs didn't, the refineries would have to. For various and sundry reasons, they choose not to. But the Koch brothers' actions don't change the price of oil. In fact, it actually smooths the price of oil. This kind of smoothing is a huge part of the modern economy, and it's what keeps swings in oil prices to a point based solely on the underlying supply, and not how recently the giant tanker rolled up.

If you want to debate the policies favored by the Kochs, fine - although it's stupid. If you want to pretend their some threats to republic, whatever - and hat involves, how do we say it, "highly selective" judgment. But people who know nothing about their business should not listen to other people who write moronic and content-free hit pieces

Originally Posted by SeldomSeen

In other words, speculate.
Play with semantics much?

You can't affect the price of oil by storing it, especially if you're a private individual. There is simply not enogh capacity to store it. The largest oil tanker can hold 4 million barrels or about 1 hour of the world's total consumption.
By speculation most people understand "storing for the purpose of influencing the price" not simply "storing to take advantage of price differences". Also, a 4 mill-barrel would be sitting of 400 million dollars, not producing nay money at all.

-------
Can the whole "Bush teh suxx0r" stuff go someplace else?

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

Not really. You are misremembering or mischaracterizing nearly every bit of the timeline and his motivations. Unless you have real evidence, not just from the voices in your or other people's heads, that show that his stated intentions were lies, I'm gonna have to believe the man himself.

Yes, because we know politicians are such a trustworthy lot. Again, I keep asking, if Kerry was SOOOOOO darned proud of what he did back then, why did he try to hide it? (no one answers that question.)

I define "served with" as, well, "served with". Not "served at the same time" or "served in the same country" or "served in the same general area but had no interactions of any kind". Apparently, you define "with" differently than, oh, just about everyone else who speaks English..

Well, no. I served with guys in my platoon, my company and my battallion. They all knew who I was. So someone in another company with me who says "Sgt. B. was a jerk" can honestly have said to have served with me.


.

First, I never said he was a hero. So nice strawman you set up there; how did it feel to try and knock it down and not succeed?

You know why you didn't succeed?

Because you don't appear to know the first thing about Purple Hearts or how they are awarded, or what they are awarded for..

Again, guy, I served in the Army for 11 years. And, yes, there were guys who claimed purple hearts for superficial injuries. And this was nothing new. My dad said in WWII, there were guys who claimed PH's for cutting their hands opening C-rations.

Let's get real here. Kerry earned 3 purple hearts in a period of about 90 days, and wasn't off duty for a single day. People who were with him on at least two of those incidents question them.

.

So it's "EXACTLY" what we did, except it isn't what we did? Do you have any idea how ridiculous this makes you sound? I mean, you're completely wrong. You're even wrong about being wrong about what "EXACTLY" we didn't do. .

No, actually, we did. Eugene Debs, Commie socialist scumwad who protested against WWI was locked up. In world war II, they locked up Ernst Kuhn, the leader of the German-American "bund". (Pro-Nazi group.) Kerry and Fonda would have looked just smashing in stripes.

.

What if they want to give up, but some of us don't want to let them give up under the terms they want? Are you saying we can't debate that, because all debate must cease? How can we agree on terms if we can't debate them?.

Unconditional surrender is always best. That was the mistake we made in WWI, we let Germany surrender on her terms. Oooops. That didn't work out, some of them didn't realize they lost.

.

I don't think your recovery is going all that well. You seem to be stuck in a loop of denial and bad information. Good luck with that.

No, guy, the problem is that you all think you got robbed in 2004. You submitted a flawed candidate you thought could pull the wool over people's eyes. You thought they wouldn't dare challenge his sleazy anti-war activity because then you'd bring up Bush's dubious Guard record.

You would have us belived that a group of veterans who served WITH Kerry from Admirals to gunner's mates, would be rightfully offended by the way he acted 30 years before.

Politics is image. Kerry tried to present a false one. So many better guys have had their careers sunk by single words. Kerry's was sunk by hundreds of them.

[ElvisL1ves]

Recovery is one day at a time, so I'm told.

Keep working at it, RR.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Recovery is one day at a time, so I'm told.

Keep working at it, RR.

Well, it's hard to stay on the wagon when the other side keeps insisting their foulups weren't foulups.