Pat Robertson calls for assasination AGAIN in his APOLOGY

[Hardrock69]

The Christian minister called for the murder of the President of Venezuela, in an apology he repeated the call for murder: is this the voice of Christianity?
By Mark Biskeborn

Pat Robertson has called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez, the elected President of Venezuela. The founder and chairman of the Christian Broadcasting Network, an ordained minister and leader of a Christian church, Robertson claims he spoke out of frustration.

In his apology, Robinson said he was misunderstood, “misinterpreted.” So he wanted “to clarify remarks made on the Monday, August 22nd edition of The 700 Club where I ad-libbed a comment following a very brilliant analysis by Dale Hurd of the danger that the United States faces from the out-of-control dictator of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez. In this story, Chavez repeatedly claimed that Americans were ‘trying to assassinate him.’”

But even in his apology, Robertson repeated his call to assassinate Chavez:

“If you look back just a few years, there was a popular coup that overthrew him[Chavez]; and what did the United States State Department do about it? Virtually nothing; and as a result, within about 48 hours, that coup was broken, Chavez was back in power. But we had a chance to move in. He has destroyed the Venezuelan economy, and he’s going to make that a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent. I don’t know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go ahead and do it. It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don’t think any oil shipments will stop. But this man is a terrific danger, and this is in our sphere of influence, so we can’t let this happen.”

This is not an apology since again the Christian minister calls for Chavez’s assassination. This makes us wonder about Robertson's mental stability. But there are other aspects of him that we are clear about.

• Even though Robertson claims to be a Christian, in calling for the murder of another man, an elected official in a sovereign country, this represents an outrageous distortion of Christ’s teachings.

• As a Christian leader calling for murder, Robertson places himself among the type of fundamentalists that in his statement he calls “Muslim extremism.”

• Robertson has lost all sense of ethics, and therefore he cannot possibly maintain any credibility in the Christian community.

• Any Christian community that still supports Robertson after twice advocating murder, is not adhering to Christ’s teachings.

Robertson’s Christian Fatwa, a religious call to murder someone he judges as an enemy, symbolizes the confused and vicious thinking of more than one man. It expresses the Bush Administration’s immoral foreign policy, its extremist militarism, its warlord and judgmental approach to war declared in the name of God. Nothing could be more irrational, emotionally charged and extremely dangerous to a democracy, especially one with the most powerful military in the world.

Mr. Pat Robertson, if you want a man dead, please don’t use God’s name. And who do you expect to do this killing that you request? Some kid from Central Point, Oregon? Well, I’m not going. And let's assume that someone agrees with you, some lost soul follows you like you’re a prophet -- who else do you have on your hit list? How did you come up with your list? Don't tell us God inspired it, we have already heard your exploitation of God's name.

Of course you would never murder anyone; you only call for others to do the murdering. In this way you again are like those who occupy the White House. The Bush Administration, in the name of Christianity, lied outright in order to justify a war that has killed tens of thousands of people, civilian and military personnel, and has squandered hundreds of billions of dollars. But it is not the Bush Administration's kids who are doing the killing, and are being killed. I understand both you and the Bush Administration want other Americans -- good, trusting, patriotic Americans -- to do your dirty killing. As I said, not me.

Mr. Pat Robertson, I suggest that you go back to praying for your soul, and stop thinking about the murder of God's children, and stop thinking about the flow of oil. You desperately need to reread the teachings of Jesus Christ.


http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1152

[DLR'sCock]

Now what is the thing that makes Chavez such a bad guy? Oh yeah I thought he wanted to share the countries wealth, ie Oil profits, with the common people right???


Such a horrible man.

[Satan]

Thanks Pat! It's a great week for business down here every time he says something stupid like that :D

[Hardrock69]

Hey if I had my way, him and Jerry Falwell would arrive on your doorstep sucking Jim Bakker's cock while letting Jimmy Swaggart fuck them in the ass...

[BigBadBrian]

Great job, Hardrock, but that's not what he really said. Unlike you, I took the time to actually look it up. Here's what he really said in his apology statement:

I want to take this opportunity to clarify remarks made on the Monday, August 22nd edition of The 700 Club where I adlibbed a comment following a very brilliant analysis by Dale Hurd of the danger that the United States faces from the out-of-control dictator of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez. In this story, Col. Chavez repeatedly claimed that Americans were “trying to assassinate him.”

In my frustration that the U.S. and the world community are ignoring this threat, I said the following:

Thanks, Dale. If you look back just a few years, there was a popular coup that overthrew him; and what did the United States State Department do about it? Virtually nothing; and as a result, within about 48 hours, that coup was broken, Chavez was back in power. But we had a chance to move in. He has destroyed the Venezuelan economy, and he’s going to make that a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent. I don’t know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go ahead and do it. It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don’t think any oil shipments will stop. But this man is a terrific danger, and this is in our sphere of influence, so we can’t let this happen. We have the Monroe Doctrine, and we have other doctrines that we have announced, and without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil that could hurt us very badly. We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don’t need another 200-billion-dollar war to get rid of one strong-arm dictator. It’s a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.

Is it right to call for assassination? No, and I apologize for that statement. I spoke in frustration that we should accommodate the man who thinks the U.S. is out to kill him.

Col. Chavez has found common cause with terrorists such as the noted assassin Carlos the Jackal, has visited Iran reportedly to gain access to nuclear technology, and has referred to Saddam Hussein and Fidel Castro as his comrades. Col. Chavez also intends to fund the violent overthrow of democratically elected governments throughout South America, beginning with neighboring Colombia.

As I report the news daily from around the world, I am acutely conscious of the fact that our nation is at war. Not only are there active wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but there is a war of terror being waged against civilized nations throughout the world.

We are in the midst of a war that is draining vast amounts of our treasure and is costing the blood of our armed forces. I am a person who believes in peace, but not peace at any price. However, I said before the war in Iraq began that the wisest course would be to wage war against Saddam Hussein, not the whole nation of Iraq. When faced with the threat of a comparable dictator in our own hemisphere, would it not be wiser to wage war against one person rather than finding ourselves down the road locked in another bitter struggle with a whole nation?

The brilliant Protestant theologian, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who lived under the hellish conditions of Nazi Germany, is reported to have said:

“If I see a madman driving a car into a group of innocent bystanders, then I can’t, as a Christian, simply wait for the catastrophe and then comfort the wounded and bury the dead. I must try to wrestle the steering wheel out of the hands of the driver.”

On the strength of this reasoning, Bonhoeffer decided to lend his support to those in Germany who had joined together in an attempt to assassinate Adolf Hitler. Bonhoeffer was imprisoned and killed by the Nazis, but his example deserves our respect and consideration today.

There are many who disagree with my comments, and I respect their opinions. There are others who think that stopping a dictator is the appropriate course of action. In any event, the incredible publicity surrounding my remarks has focused our government’s attention on a growing problem which has been largely ignored.

LINK (http://www.cbn.com/about/pressrelease_hugochavez.asp)

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by DLR'sCock
Now what is the thing that makes Chavez such a bad guy? Oh yeah I thought he wanted to share the countries wealth, ie Oil profits, with the common people right???


Such a horrible man.

As usual Cock, you are completely uninformed. Typical.

Go back and pull the sheets over your head and let the world go by.

:gulp:

[Nickdfresh]

Here's what ROBERTSON didn't say (like what a lying, hypocritical douche bag the old, senile fuck bag is). Posted by SESH:

For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness"

-Timothy 6:10

Pat Robertson's Business Practices

Pat Robertson is a wealthy man. An extremely wealthy man-some estimates put his net worth at 140 million. He lives on the top of a Virginia mountain, in a huge mansion with a private airstrip. He owns the Ice Capades, a small hotel, diamond mines, and until recently, International Family Entertainment, parent company of the Family Channel. How does a televangelist, who is supposedly involved in non-profit work, manage to create such a fortune for himself? Apparently, between dealing with murderous dictators and ripping off senior citizens, its not that hard.

Pat the Media Mogul

The Pat Robertson success story starts with the Family Channel. He started it in 1977, using money donated to his Christian Broadcasting Network, in order to increase viewership potential of the 700 Club, and filled the rest of the time with cheesy old TV shows. The popularity of the channel soon grew, and it began to turn large profits by 1989, meaning that it could no longer legally be a part of the non-profit CBN. So what does Robertson decide to do? He partners up with TCI, and arranges for CBN to sell the Family Channel to himself and his son (Tim Robertson) for next to nothing. He then took the company public in 1992, with the stock sales making him a wealthy man, to the tune of 90 million dollars. In other words, he took money that people had donated to CBN for the purpose of spreading Christianity, and used it to build himself a media empire. Recently, Pat sold off the Family Channel to Mr.-Anti-Family-Values himself, Rupert Murdoch, the man behind "Melrose Place" and "Married...With Children." Of course, this sale increased his fortune even more. Is all of this legal? Barely. Ethical? Hardly. Something you would expect from a true man of God? Most definitely not. Pat could have sold the Family Channel to someone else, and returned the profits to CBN, seeing as it was CBN donor money that started it in the first place, but he chose the road to massive personal gain.

Pat the Scam Artist

With his ill-gained fortune now in place, Pat experimented with a number of new businesses, the most interesting among them being American Benefits Plus/Kalo Vita. This was a multi-level marketing scheme along the lines of Amway and Avon. Here, Robertson recruited people across the country (starting in '91-'92), as many as 20,000 people (many of them retirees) to sell coupon books. He told them in training seminars that his program was backed by the Bible, and that they could earn $15,000-$20,000 a month. Things didn't go that well with the coupon books, though, and Pat suddenly decide to change the company into Kalo Vita, and sell vitamins. Problem was, this left people with coupon books unsold, and when they tried to send the books back to AFB/Kalo Vita, they found out that they would not be refunded their money. One 76 year-old woman in in Indianapolis was stuck with $7,000 worth of unsold coupon books, and had to refinance her home. During the subsequent investigation, it was found that CBN had "loaned" money to AFB during its founding, almost 3 million dollars.

Diamond Pat

Another one of Robertson's more notorious business deals is the recently exposed diamond mine case. In this ingenious venture, Robertson saw an opportunity in the country formerly named Zaire (now the Congo) for diamond mines. The former Zaire is a country rich in natural resources, including diamonds, but these resources were thus far being plundered by its (former) dictator, the brutal Mobuto Sese Seko. Mobuto (who recently died of cancer) was one of the world's richest men, while his people lived in grinding poverty. It was often noted that he could have cured all of his country's ills by writing a personal check. Mobuto had been trying to come to the US to try to improve relations, but the State Department refused to grant him a visa, due to his lengthy human rights violations (see the Pat's Dictator Friends page for more info). In all of this, the clever Pat Robertson saw an opportunity. The two became close associates, and Mobuto allowed Pat to open diamond mines in Zaire, under the name of the African Development Company, while Pat tried to persuade the State Department to allow Mobuto entry into the US. Ultimately, it was found out that Pat had been using CBN money and equipment to aid his diamond mining operation in Zaire (see the News page for more details). A good deal for Pat, seeing as he employed people in Zaire for ridiculously low wages, and managed to use CBN's infrastructure to cut costs even more.

Ultimately, one is struck by the constant use of non-profit, donor money used to fund Pat's schemes, and the total lack of ethics that this man has. Anyone thinking about sending money to CBN to "promote the gospel" should definitely take note; chances are that your money will end up being used to increase the fortune of one Marion "Pat" Robertson instead. For even more information on Pat's business practices, I encourage you to check out Rob Boston's book entitled "The Most Dangerous Man in America? Pat Robertson and the Rise of the Christian Coalition," from which some of my information comes.

Personally, I think ROBERTSON should assassinate himself, but that just me...:)

[Guitar Shark]

Did he comment solely through that press release, or did he actually show some balls and apologize on air?

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Here's what ROBERTSON didn't say (like what a lying, hypocritical douche bag the old, senile fuck bag is). Posted by SESH:

For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness"

-Timothy 6:10

Pat Robertson's Business Practices

Pat Robertson is a wealthy man. An extremely wealthy man-some estimates put his net worth at 140 million. He lives on the top of a Virginia mountain, in a huge mansion with a private airstrip. He owns the Ice Capades, a small hotel, diamond mines, and until recently, International Family Entertainment, parent company of the Family Channel. How does a televangelist, who is supposedly involved in non-profit work, manage to create such a fortune for himself? Apparently, between dealing with murderous dictators and ripping off senior citizens, its not that hard.


and blah blah blah.......



For crying out loud, people, if you are going to trying to weave a story, trying to get SOME facts straight.

Pat Robertson doesn't live at the top of some mountain in Virginia. Ha lives about a mile from me in Virginia Beach, about 10 miles from the COAST. :rolleyes:

I think they are confusing him with Jerry Falwell, who DOES live at the top of a mountain.

Also, I know a guy who works at CBN. Robertson uses commercial airlines and private charters and doesn't own his own craft or have his own strip. He uses Norfolk International just like everyone else around here.

I stopped right there as that story is obviously BS.

:gulp:

[Nickdfresh]

It was originally posted by SESH, you can ask him about it...

Perhaps you'll be more skeptical on articles re. people you hate in the future?

[Satan]

Tabernacle Baptist Church
E. L. Bynum, Pastor
1911 34th Street
Lubbock, Texas 79411
Pat Robertson And Diamonds

Televangelist Robertson's Humanitarian Planes
Used For Diamond Mining Firm

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. (AP) -Airplanes sent to Zaire by evangelist Pat Robertson's tax- exempt humanitarian organization were used almost exclusively for his diamond mining business, say two pilots who flew them.

Three airplanes were flown to Zaire in September 1994 by Operation Blessing.

However, chief pilot Robert Hinkle said only one or two of the roughly 40 flights during his six months in the country could be considered humanitarian.

All the rest of the flights were mining-related, he told The (Norfolk) Virginia-Pilot.

Robertson's spokesman first denied the accounts by Hinkle and a co-pilot, Tahir Brohi of England. Later, Gene Kapp, vice president for public relations at Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network, said the planes turned out to be unsuitable for medical relief and that Robertson reimbursed Operation Blessing for their use.

"Without Mr. Robertson's generous overture, Operation Blessing would have incurred further expenses with its aircraft," he said.

Robertson refused to be interviewed directly, the newspaper said in Sunday's editions. Calls to his office on Sunday were not answered.

Hinkle, from Chandler, Ariz., said he had assumed the flights would be for humanitarian work.

"We hauled medical supplies one time," Hinkle said in a telephone interview. "It might have been about 500 pounds at the most. It was a very minimal amount." The planes were capable of carrying about 7,000 pounds, he said.

Notes that Hinkle kept during most of the flights contain entries for 36 flights, the newspaper said. Of the 17 that mention the purpose of the trip, 15 are related to diamond mining.

Robertson's company, African Development Co., based in the Zairian capital of Kinshasa, sought to dredge diamonds from a remote jungle riverbed. Robertson is the president and sole shareholder of the company.

The company ended up losing millions of dollars, and is now the center of a lawsuit in which Robertson is trying to recoup some of his losses from a mining equipment manufacturer.

Zaire was a hot topic on "The 700 Club," Robertson's daily religious TV show, with regular reports in in 1994 on the work done by six Operation Blessing volunteer medical teams sent to help refugees from Rwanda.

During one broadcast in December 1994 Robertson showed snapshots taken on a trip to Zaire. The newspaper said Robertson didn't tell viewers the airstrip was built so planes could bring in mining equipment.

--Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 4-28-97

Comments By E. L. Bynum

If any of the fans of Pat Robertson or his 700 Club read this, please take note. You had better get your offerings in for Operation Blessing, and Pat Robertson. He may get a word of knowledge about pearl diving, oil drilling, or gold mining. He will need your funds for this or some other scheme he has going.

I imagine that Pat Robertson being in the diamond mining business, will come as a big surprise to some of his supporters. They might check into what other great enterprises he is involved in, and where he got the money for all of this. This is just a thought. A hint to the wise should be sufficient.

[DLR'sCock]

OK, well will someone tell me what is so bad about this guy Chavez, or on the other side what is so good about him?

As far as I understand he was voted in by the people, and the majority of the poor and underclass support Chavez. I thought it was the elite and the wealthy in Venezuela that aren't too happy with him.

Now, if there is a hint of truth to that supposedly Chavez claims to want to help out the poor by using the countries oil profits, well there you go that sounds like a potential commie right?? I don't really care, it doesn't matter, but if there is truth to that, I can see how the eliteand very wealthy would not be happy about that. FORD could you please enlighten me, I really don't know, thanks.



Hey BBB why don't you shut your fucking fat mouth up already, quick the bullshit tough talk and go over to Iraq already. All you ever prove everyday is how much fo an asshole you truly are. The troops need a BIG fat guy like you. I am sure your wisdom and skills could be quite useful over there.



please already shut up, and go figth like the man you claim to be....you love fighting right? so go...

[FORD]

Originally posted by DLR'sCock
OK, well will someone tell me what is so bad about this guy Chavez, or on the other side what is so good about him?

As far as I understand he was voted in by the people, and the majority of the poor and underclass support Chavez. I thought it was the elite and the wealthy in Venezuela that aren't too happy with him.

Hey BBB why don't you shut your fucking fat mouth up already, quick the bullshit tough talk and go over to Iraq already. All you ever prove everyday is how much fo an asshoel you truly are. The troops need a BIG guy like you. I am sure your wisdom and skills could be quite useful over there.



please already shut up, and go figth like the man you claim to be....you love fighting right? so go...

The deal with Chavez is that he's sitting on the #3 largest sized pool of oil in the world, and that he doesn't like the BCE.

He's no dictator, but a twice elected President. Unlike you know who.

[DLR'sCock]

Originally posted by FORD
The deal with Chavez is that he's sitting on the #3 largest sized pool of oil in the world, and that he doesn't like the BCE.

He's no dictator, but a twice elected President. Unlike you know who.

FORD could you please elaborate, I know that Venezuela has a huge Oil supply. Do you know what are his policies are domestically and foreign and with the US?


Hell there are more than 50 million perhaps more than a 150 million people in the US that don't like ol' Bush and henchmen, too bad there are over 100 million people that don't vote. At least Bush still has BigBadBlunder and Warpig!

What was that approval rating today? Oh yeah 40%, and 56% disapprove...


People do get pissed about their gas when they're driving a gas guzzler, like me, but i accept it.....eventually I will have to buy a fuel efficient car, but my car is so kool......lol

[Warham]

Unlike Hussein?

[FORD]

Originally posted by DLR'sCock
FORD could you please elaborate, I know that Venezuela has a huge Oil supply. Do you know what are his policies are domestically and foreign and with the US?

Venezuela: Bush's next oil war?

Stuart Munckton

03/14/05 "Green Left" - - A statement released on March 8 and signed by almost 400 Venezuelan journalists accused the US government and media of a campaign to prepare the ground for a US military attack on oil-rich Venezuela.

According to translation of the statement posted at the Venezuela Analysis website, it begins by declaring: “As it was done in the past to Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, Chile, Grenada, and Haiti, the government of the United States today targets the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela with all its media and propaganda power. In those brother nations, such campaigns served as the preamble for an armed invasion by the main global military power.”

The journalists claim the aim of the current US campaign of “lies, distortion, and manipulation” is the “overthrow President Hugo Chavez Frias' democratic government”.

In February, the Venezuelan government publicly accused the US government of plotting to assassinate Chavez. Tensions were further heightened when the Venezuelan government announced it had detected the secret presence of “US Marines, along with military planes and amphibious vehicles” on the Caribbean island of Curacao, just 75 kilometres from the Venezuelan mainland, according to an Associated Press report on March 1.

The announcement, by Venezuelan Navy Commander Armando Laguna, sent a wave of panic in Venezuela about an “imminent US invasion”, according to a March 1 Venezuela Analysis report.

National Assembly deputy William Lara claimed the US military presence was part of "a plan to intimidate and provoke by the US".

Venezuela Analysis reported on March 5 that the US ambassador to Venezuela, William Brownfield, had expressed regret at the “lack of communication” over the incident. The Vheadline website reported on March 8 that the Curacao government had categorically stated that it would not allow the island to be the base for any attack on Venezuela.

Venezuela's accusations against Washington were given added credibility when Venezuelan Vice-President Jose Rangel told the media that former US ambassador to Venezuela Charles Shapiro had informed him of a potential plot to kill Chavez.

According to a March 9 Vheadline report, current US ambassador Brownfield confirmed that Shapiro had informed the Venezuelan government that US officials had information of a potential assassination attempt. Brownfield denied that the US government was party to the plot.

However, during a visit to India in early March, Chavez publicly reiterated his accusation that the US was plotting to assassinate him, declaring that “if something happens to me, there is only one person responsible for it, and his name is George W. Bush”.

Oil threat
According to a March 5 South Asia Media website report, Chavez repeated his threat to cease selling Venezuelan oil to the US in the event of any US or US-backed attack on Venezuela.

While Washington has been hostile to the Venezuelan government ever since Chavez's election in December 1998, a public campaign by both government officials and the US media has been underway since Condoleezza Rice became US secretary of state in January.

Referring to Chavez in a January 26 speech to a US Senate foreign relations committee, Rice said that Bush administration was “very concerned about a democratically elected leader who governs in an illiberal way”.

This was the start of a ceaseless campaign against the Venezuelan government waged by US officials and the US media. Highlights have included the director of the CIA, Peter Goss, publicly targeting Venezuela as the leading Latin America nation the US is concerned about and a TV documentary run by Fox News in early February under the title The Iron Fist of Hugo Chavez.

The essence of the campaign has been to demonise Chavez, who has won nine national elections in six years, by claiming that he is moving to establish a dictatorship and using Venezuela's oil wealth to support “terrorists” in Colombia and “destabilising” Bolivia.

The Chavez government denies providing material assistance to any armed groups in Colombia or to any of the groups inside Bolivia that are organising ongoing protests against the neoliberal policies of the Bolivian government. The US government has provided no concrete evidence to support its charges.

Nonetheless, the US State Department, in its annual human rights report, released in February, accused the Venezuelan government of having a “poor” human rights record. The report singled out alleged harassment of political opponents and charged that Chavez government officials had “increased their control over the judicial system”.

Rangel denounced the report as “more lies, more falsifications, more hypocrisy” and declared that the US had “no moral authority” to criticise Venezuela. He accused Washington of being the biggest violator of human rights in the world, singling out the “murder” of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan and the violation of human rights in the US-operated “concentration camp” at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The US human rights group Washington Office on Latin America also criticised the report for singling out Venezuela for alleged breaches of human rights while letting pro-US regimes like Colombia off the hook. Despite an increase in Colombia of politically motivated murders, the State Department report claimed the human rights situation there has improved.

US corporate interests
Behind Washington's propaganda campaign against Chavez, however, is not any concern about the growth of “tyranny” in Venezuela, but rather concern over the threat posed by the Chavez government to the profits of US corporations. Chavez is leading a popular process known as the “Bolivarian revolution” that is challenging US domination in the region and redistributing wealth and political power to the 80% of Venezuelans who live in poverty.

Venezuela supplies up to 15% of US oil imports and the US purchases up to 60% of Venezuela's oil output. A key goal of the Chavez government has been ensuring full government control over Venezuela's oil industry in order to use its earnings to eradicate poverty. This has put Venezuela at odds with US oil corporations, and therefore at odds with the US government.

In November, Chavez announced that his government would begin to enforce the law passed in 2001 that calls for a dramatic increase in the royalties foreign corporations pay to the Venezuelan government for the extraction of oil inside Venezuela. ExxonMobil has denounced the increase and is considering mounting a legal challenge, according to a February 28 Venezuela Analysis report.

In December, Venezuela signed an agreement with China that includes plans for Venezuela to sell large amounts of oil to China. Although China does not currently have the refining capacity to deal with Venezuela's high-sulphur oil, the agreement sparked concern among US commentators about the potential for Venezuela to either cease or significantly decrease its oil sales to the US.

This concern was further fuelled when, on February 3, Chavez publicly stated his displeasure at what he considered was Venezuelan oil “subsidising Mr Bush”. Although Venezuela has repeatedly insisted it does not intend to cease oil sales to the US, Chavez is clearly looking to diversify Venezuela's oil markets and reduce its dependency on selling oil to the US.

The Venezuelan government has also begun cracking down on corporate tax evasion, fining and temporarily closing down businesses that fail to obey the law. McDonald's and Coca-Cola have been two high-profile targets of the campaign, forced to shut down their operations in Venezuela this year for two days for failing to have their books in order.

The anti-tax evasion campaign has netted the Venezuelan government a 50% increase in tax revenue, which the government is using to fund a 24% increase in the minimum wage.

On top of this, since winning an August 15 referendum on continuing his presidency, Chavez has been pushing for a significant deepening of the Venezuelan revolutionary process. In an article posted on March 8 on the Seven Oaks magazine website, Derrick O'Keefe commented: “There is no doubt that the United States government understands the significance of the current direction of the process in Venezuela. An oil-rich country with a radical, anti-imperialist government which has received repeated, indisputable democratic mandates and now advocates for socialism, the government in Caracas poses the gravest ‘threat of a good example' since the Cuban Revolution of 1959.”

The combination of Washington's isolation in Latin America and its need for Venezuelan oil is likely to keep at bay the threat of a direct military attack by the US, but it is also clear the Bush administration is preparing the ground for an attack of some sort against the Chavez government.

From Green Left Weekly, March 16, 2005.Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

http://207.44.245.159/article8261.htm

[Hardrock69]

Brian is barking up the wrong tree again.

If he would pull his head out of his ass long enough he might actually think to go bitch at the person who actually wrote the fucking articles.

Fucking moron.
:rolleyes:

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by DLR'sCock




Hey BBB why don't you shut your fucking fat mouth up already, quick the bullshit tough talk and go over to Iraq already.

You talk tough for a dickless four foot tall CUNT.

Shut up and don't bother me any more girlie-boy.

The last time I heard, supporting a political position was not a crime in this country.

Shut your piehole....or go fill it with your boyfriends cock.

:gulp:

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by DLR'sCock
FORD could you please elaborate, I know that Venezuela has a huge Oil supply. Do you know what are his policies are domestically and foreign and with the US?




Use Google, you lazy-assed bastard.

:gulp:

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Hardrock69
Brian is barking up the wrong tree again.



I think not.

You posted an article that used an incomplete quote....a lie.

I caught you in that lie.

It's really that simple.

That's what this thread is about, nothing more, nothing less.

If you guys care to start another thread talking about Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell, their ministries, or even some of their shady business dealings, I probably won't participate because I really don't care for those guys myself.

:gulp:

[ODShowtime]

Venezuela supplies up to 15% of US oil imports and the US purchases up to 60% of Venezuela's oil output. A key goal of the Chavez government has been ensuring full government control over Venezuela's oil industry in order to use its earnings to eradicate poverty. This has put Venezuela at odds with US oil corporations, and therefore at odds with the US government.

That is the sort of thing that will land you in hot water with gw&friends.

[scorpioboy33]

god bbbrian is an idiot

[DLR'sCock]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
You talk tough for a dickless four foot tall CUNT.

Shut up and don't bother me any more girlie-boy.

The last time I heard, supporting a political position was not a crime in this country.

Shut your piehole....or go fill it with your boyfriends cock.

:gulp:




Girlie boy??? Is that what your daddy called you when he used to bend you over? Or does he still call you that?

Hey fat boy, your mommy is calling. She said the short bus is here and ready to take you back to school.



Nope it's not a crime, but each day you reveal your lacking in morality, character, and selfish views of the world.


Iraq is waiting for you, time to for you to put your money where that mouth is.

[DLR'sCock]

Originally posted by FORD
Venezuela: Bush's next oil war?

Stuart Munckton

03/14/05 "Green Left" - - A statement released on March 8 and signed by almost 400 Venezuelan journalists accused the US government and media of a campaign to prepare the ground for a US military attack on oil-rich Venezuela.

According to translation of the statement posted at the Venezuela Analysis website, it begins by declaring: “As it was done in the past to Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, Chile, Grenada, and Haiti, the government of the United States today targets the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela with all its media and propaganda power. In those brother nations, such campaigns served as the preamble for an armed invasion by the main global military power.”

The journalists claim the aim of the current US campaign of “lies, distortion, and manipulation” is the “overthrow President Hugo Chavez Frias' democratic government”.

In February, the Venezuelan government publicly accused the US government of plotting to assassinate Chavez. Tensions were further heightened when the Venezuelan government announced it had detected the secret presence of “US Marines, along with military planes and amphibious vehicles” on the Caribbean island of Curacao, just 75 kilometres from the Venezuelan mainland, according to an Associated Press report on March 1.

The announcement, by Venezuelan Navy Commander Armando Laguna, sent a wave of panic in Venezuela about an “imminent US invasion”, according to a March 1 Venezuela Analysis report.

National Assembly deputy William Lara claimed the US military presence was part of "a plan to intimidate and provoke by the US".

Venezuela Analysis reported on March 5 that the US ambassador to Venezuela, William Brownfield, had expressed regret at the “lack of communication” over the incident. The Vheadline website reported on March 8 that the Curacao government had categorically stated that it would not allow the island to be the base for any attack on Venezuela.

Venezuela's accusations against Washington were given added credibility when Venezuelan Vice-President Jose Rangel told the media that former US ambassador to Venezuela Charles Shapiro had informed him of a potential plot to kill Chavez.

According to a March 9 Vheadline report, current US ambassador Brownfield confirmed that Shapiro had informed the Venezuelan government that US officials had information of a potential assassination attempt. Brownfield denied that the US government was party to the plot.

However, during a visit to India in early March, Chavez publicly reiterated his accusation that the US was plotting to assassinate him, declaring that “if something happens to me, there is only one person responsible for it, and his name is George W. Bush”.

Oil threat
According to a March 5 South Asia Media website report, Chavez repeated his threat to cease selling Venezuelan oil to the US in the event of any US or US-backed attack on Venezuela.

While Washington has been hostile to the Venezuelan government ever since Chavez's election in December 1998, a public campaign by both government officials and the US media has been underway since Condoleezza Rice became US secretary of state in January.

Referring to Chavez in a January 26 speech to a US Senate foreign relations committee, Rice said that Bush administration was “very concerned about a democratically elected leader who governs in an illiberal way”.

This was the start of a ceaseless campaign against the Venezuelan government waged by US officials and the US media. Highlights have included the director of the CIA, Peter Goss, publicly targeting Venezuela as the leading Latin America nation the US is concerned about and a TV documentary run by Fox News in early February under the title The Iron Fist of Hugo Chavez.

The essence of the campaign has been to demonise Chavez, who has won nine national elections in six years, by claiming that he is moving to establish a dictatorship and using Venezuela's oil wealth to support “terrorists” in Colombia and “destabilising” Bolivia.

The Chavez government denies providing material assistance to any armed groups in Colombia or to any of the groups inside Bolivia that are organising ongoing protests against the neoliberal policies of the Bolivian government. The US government has provided no concrete evidence to support its charges.

Nonetheless, the US State Department, in its annual human rights report, released in February, accused the Venezuelan government of having a “poor” human rights record. The report singled out alleged harassment of political opponents and charged that Chavez government officials had “increased their control over the judicial system”.

Rangel denounced the report as “more lies, more falsifications, more hypocrisy” and declared that the US had “no moral authority” to criticise Venezuela. He accused Washington of being the biggest violator of human rights in the world, singling out the “murder” of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan and the violation of human rights in the US-operated “concentration camp” at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The US human rights group Washington Office on Latin America also criticised the report for singling out Venezuela for alleged breaches of human rights while letting pro-US regimes like Colombia off the hook. Despite an increase in Colombia of politically motivated murders, the State Department report claimed the human rights situation there has improved.

US corporate interests
Behind Washington's propaganda campaign against Chavez, however, is not any concern about the growth of “tyranny” in Venezuela, but rather concern over the threat posed by the Chavez government to the profits of US corporations. Chavez is leading a popular process known as the “Bolivarian revolution” that is challenging US domination in the region and redistributing wealth and political power to the 80% of Venezuelans who live in poverty.

Venezuela supplies up to 15% of US oil imports and the US purchases up to 60% of Venezuela's oil output. A key goal of the Chavez government has been ensuring full government control over Venezuela's oil industry in order to use its earnings to eradicate poverty. This has put Venezuela at odds with US oil corporations, and therefore at odds with the US government.

In November, Chavez announced that his government would begin to enforce the law passed in 2001 that calls for a dramatic increase in the royalties foreign corporations pay to the Venezuelan government for the extraction of oil inside Venezuela. ExxonMobil has denounced the increase and is considering mounting a legal challenge, according to a February 28 Venezuela Analysis report.

In December, Venezuela signed an agreement with China that includes plans for Venezuela to sell large amounts of oil to China. Although China does not currently have the refining capacity to deal with Venezuela's high-sulphur oil, the agreement sparked concern among US commentators about the potential for Venezuela to either cease or significantly decrease its oil sales to the US.

This concern was further fuelled when, on February 3, Chavez publicly stated his displeasure at what he considered was Venezuelan oil “subsidising Mr Bush”. Although Venezuela has repeatedly insisted it does not intend to cease oil sales to the US, Chavez is clearly looking to diversify Venezuela's oil markets and reduce its dependency on selling oil to the US.

The Venezuelan government has also begun cracking down on corporate tax evasion, fining and temporarily closing down businesses that fail to obey the law. McDonald's and Coca-Cola have been two high-profile targets of the campaign, forced to shut down their operations in Venezuela this year for two days for failing to have their books in order.

The anti-tax evasion campaign has netted the Venezuelan government a 50% increase in tax revenue, which the government is using to fund a 24% increase in the minimum wage.

On top of this, since winning an August 15 referendum on continuing his presidency, Chavez has been pushing for a significant deepening of the Venezuelan revolutionary process. In an article posted on March 8 on the Seven Oaks magazine website, Derrick O'Keefe commented: “There is no doubt that the United States government understands the significance of the current direction of the process in Venezuela. An oil-rich country with a radical, anti-imperialist government which has received repeated, indisputable democratic mandates and now advocates for socialism, the government in Caracas poses the gravest ‘threat of a good example' since the Cuban Revolution of 1959.”

The combination of Washington's isolation in Latin America and its need for Venezuelan oil is likely to keep at bay the threat of a direct military attack by the US, but it is also clear the Bush administration is preparing the ground for an attack of some sort against the Chavez government.

From Green Left Weekly, March 16, 2005.Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

http://207.44.245.159/article8261.htm




US corporate interests
Behind Washington's propaganda campaign against Chavez, however, is not any concern about the growth of “tyranny” in Venezuela, but rather concern over the threat posed by the Chavez government to the profits of US corporations. Chavez is leading a popular process known as the “Bolivarian revolution” that is challenging US domination in the region and redistributing wealth and political power to the 80% of Venezuelans who live in poverty.

[b]Venezuela supplies up to 15% of US oil imports and the US purchases up to 60% of Venezuela's oil output. A key goal of the Chavez government has been ensuring full government control over Venezuela's oil industry in order to use its earnings to eradicate poverty. This has put Venezuela at odds with US oil corporations, and therefore at odds with the US government.




So, I was right, I knew I heard that somewhere. The guy wants the Gov't of the people of Venezuela to control the Oil in Venezuela to help out the people of Venezuela.


Wow, this guy is SATAN!!!

That's why the poor love him and rich hate him.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by DLR'sCock

So, I was right, I knew I heard that somewhere. The guy wants the Gov't of the people of Venezuela to control the Oil in Venezuela to help out the people of Venezuela.


Wow, this guy is SATAN!!!

That's why the poor love him and rich hate him.

Cock, you are so dumb, I'll bet you couldn't find your ass with both hands....unblindfolded.

Care to wager?


:gulp:

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Cock, you are so dumb, I'll bet you couldn't find your ass with both hands....unblindfolded.

Care to wager?


:gulp:


I didn't think so.

:gulp:

[Hardrock69]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
I think not.

You posted an article that used an incomplete quote....a lie.

I caught you in that lie.

It's really that simple.

That's what this thread is about, nothing more, nothing less.

If you guys care to start another thread talking about Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell, their ministries, or even some of their shady business dealings, I probably won't participate because I really don't care for those guys myself.

:gulp:

No goober, you caught the author of that article in that lie.

So go to his house and castrate his ass.

I did not write the article, so go bitch at somebody else.
Like your local televangelist.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Hardrock69
No goober, you caught the author of that article in that lie.

So go to his house and castrate his ass.

I did not write the article, so go bitch at somebody else.
Like your local televangelist.

:rolleyes:

You used that article.

Read them before you post them.

:D

[Warham]

Sounds like the New York Times: posting articles before checking the facts.

[Hardrock69]

Ooooh. excuse me. :rolleyes:

Here...go cry to this motherfucker:

mbiskeborn@hotmail.com

[FORD]

OK, so we have two lying right wing sons of bitches from the same state, one who calls for assassinating heads of state, and the other who made money peddling lies about our last LEGAL president, and BOTH of whom pissed all over the victims of 9-11-01 and their families, not to mention the teachings of Christ himself.

But the argument is over who lives on a mountain and who lives by the beach??

fucking pathetic. :rolleyes:

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Warham
Sounds like the New York Times: posting articles before checking the facts.

That's liberals in general.

:gulp:

[FORD]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
That's NewsHax, CNS, Drudge, and FAUX in general.

:gulp:

[Hardrock69]

Hey I provided BBB with the proper link to go whine and bitch about his gay lover being slandered in the press.

He is obviously too lazy to do anything with the info I provided except complain.

[Hardrock69]

I vote for Chavez. Anyone who is out to actually help the poor is ok in my book. Unlike GW Chimp, who is out to steal from the poor to give to the rich...

:rolleyes:

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by FORD
OK, so we have two lying right wing sons of bitches from the same state, one who calls for assassinating heads of state, and the other who made money peddling lies about our last LEGAL president, and BOTH of whom pissed all over the victims of 9-11-01 and their families, not to mention the teachings of Christ himself.

But the argument is over who lives on a mountain and who lives by the beach??

fucking pathetic. :rolleyes:

LMMFAO, I think there is a lack of focus blowing in the breeze.

This whole deal is just reason number one why i hate being lumped into the definition of a Christian.
Anyone who even thinks killing people for any reason is a good idea, ain't no damn Christian or anything close to it.

He's just another whack job that thinks God agree's with him and told him so in a private one on one chat with God.

But it does raise questions for our prophetic church leaders.
If the bible speaks of things to come to pass, How do they justify their ideas to do things to alter those facts?

God says everything that is happening will happen and has already happened, right?
So what does that say about our church leaders who speak about changing the outcome?

It tells me loud and clear that they are full of shit, that's exactly what it says to me.
It screams that they actually have no faith in God's plan, because it is all laid out for us all in Revelation and nothing can change what God has set in motion.

Just remember, for every bad guy we kill or remove from power there are thousands if not millions waiting in the wings to replace them.
Then the question becomes, "How much worse than the last guy will this one be?"

We are set on a pre-determined course here, prophetic leaders should have this well understood and not be mouthing off with Anti-Christian attitudes, frustrated or otherwise, that leads people to believe that WE are the one's in control.

We aren't, and killing Chavez won't stop a damn thing that is headed our way.
And the question isn't about good vs. evil or left vs. right. the question is that if the end were to come today...Would you be ready to meet God?

You can't stop the inevitable, but you can prepare your soul for the final journey and THAT is what is really important to us all as individuals.

[FORD]

True. And Chavez isn't a bad guy anyway.

BUY CITGO GAS!

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
Sounds like the New York Times: posting articles before checking the facts.

Sounds Like the Bush Administration: starting wars before checking the facts.

[Redballjets88]

god bbbrian is an idiot

no he is one of the only reasonable people on this site...politically wise

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by FORD
True. And Chavez isn't a bad guy anyway.

BUY CITGO GAS!

I don't know much about the guy other than the poor seem to like him while the rich want him dead.

I use Sunoco gas since they don't import their product from the mid-east.
BP is another good company to support that doesn't import mid-east crude.

Shell, I cut up my gas card for them once i learned how much they actually do import.
I'll be damned if i ever gas up there again.

Here is a breakdown of who owns the gas companies, but just because they are American owned doesn't mean they don't import their crude.


Chevron American
Coastal American
Conoco American
Esso American
Exxon American
Gas Express American
Getty American
Gulf American
Hess American
Kerr-McGee American
Marathon American
Martin American
Mobil American
Murphy USA American
Pate American
Petro American
Phillips 66 American
Sergaz American
Sinclair American
Sonoco American
Spur American
Star Kleen American
STP Fuel Centers American
Sunoco American
Tenneco American
Texaco American
Ultramar American
Union 76 American
Zephyr American
Amoco UK
Arco UK
Boron UK
BP UK
Citgo Venezuela
Futura FIN
Red Rooster Canada
Shell Netherlands
Sohio UK
Standard UK
Total France

The only companies i know for sure on this list that absolutely DO NOT import their crude from the Middle East is Sunoco and BP.

The rest of them get it where the price is best because to them, it doesn't matter.
But to me, it does.

I cut up my Shell card and got me a Sunoco card instead.
Until recently i only used Sunoco's 94 octane for my V-8 Mopars.
The Windstar (which is my daily driver) got Shell's 87 octane stuff cause it's cheaper and the van runs great on just about anything out there.

But keep in mind, it isn't about who owns them, it's about where they buy their crude initially.
I won't support a gas company that uses Middle Eastern Oil today or in the future.

[scorpioboy33]

Originally posted by Cathedral
I don't know much about the guy other than the poor seem to like him while the rich want him dead.

I use Sunoco gas since they don't import their product from the mid-east.
BP is another good company to support that doesn't import mid-east crude.

Shell, I cut up my gas card for them once i learned how much they actually do import.
I'll be damned if i ever gas up there again.

Here is a breakdown of who owns the gas companies, but just because they are American owned doesn't mean they don't import their crude.


Chevron American
Coastal American
Conoco American
Esso American
Exxon American
Gas Express American
Getty American
Gulf American
Hess American
Kerr-McGee American
Marathon American
Martin American
Mobil American
Murphy USA American
Pate American
Petro American
Phillips 66 American
Sergaz American
Sinclair American
Sonoco American
Spur American
Star Kleen American
STP Fuel Centers American
Sunoco American
Tenneco American
Texaco American
Ultramar American
Union 76 American
Zephyr American
Amoco UK
Arco UK
Boron UK
BP UK
Citgo Venezuela
Futura FIN
Red Rooster Canada
Shell Netherlands
Sohio UK
Standard UK
Total France

The only companies i know for sure on this list that absolutely DO NOT import their crude from the Middle East is Sunoco and BP.

The rest of them get it where the price is best because to them, it doesn't matter.
But to me, it does.

I cut up my Shell card and got me a Sunoco card instead.
Until recently i only used Sunoco's 94 octane for my V-8 Mopars.
The Windstar (which is my daily driver) got Shell's 87 octane stuff cause it's cheaper and the van runs great on just about anything out there.

But keep in mind, it isn't about who owns them, it's about where they buy their crude initially.
I won't support a gas company that uses Middle Eastern Oil today or in the future.

Buddy I think it's awesome that you are so well informed and take a stand based on what you find. Well Done!

[DLR'sCock]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
I didn't think so.

:gulp:


What's with this interest in my ass? I would gather that your interest in my ass is similar to your fascination with the gay culture. All of the references you use and your obsession with homos and asses must come from the good ol' days sharing quality time in the shed with paw....

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Cathedral
I don't know much about the guy other than the poor seem to like him while the rich want him dead.

I use Sunoco gas since they don't import their product from the mid-east.
BP is another good company to support that doesn't import mid-east crude.

Shell, I cut up my gas card for them once i learned how much they actually do import.
I'll be damned if i ever gas up there again.

Here is a breakdown of who owns the gas companies, but just because they are American owned doesn't mean they don't import their crude.


Chevron American
Coastal American
Conoco American
Esso American
Exxon American
Gas Express American
Getty American
Gulf American
Hess American
Kerr-McGee American
Marathon American
Martin American
Mobil American
Murphy USA American
Pate American
Petro American
Phillips 66 American
Sergaz American
Sinclair American
Sonoco American
Spur American
Star Kleen American
STP Fuel Centers American
Sunoco American
Tenneco American
Texaco American
Ultramar American
Union 76 American
Zephyr American
Amoco UK
Arco UK
Boron UK
BP UK
Citgo Venezuela
Futura FIN
Red Rooster Canada
Shell Netherlands
Sohio UK
Standard UK
Total France

The only companies i know for sure on this list that absolutely DO NOT import their crude from the Middle East is Sunoco and BP.

The rest of them get it where the price is best because to them, it doesn't matter.
But to me, it does.

I cut up my Shell card and got me a Sunoco card instead.
Until recently i only used Sunoco's 94 octane for my V-8 Mopars.
The Windstar (which is my daily driver) got Shell's 87 octane stuff cause it's cheaper and the van runs great on just about anything out there.

But keep in mind, it isn't about who owns them, it's about where they buy their crude initially.
I won't support a gas company that uses Middle Eastern Oil today or in the future.

I used to like MOBIL gas (supposedly it has more detergents and keeps things cleaner), but lately I've tried to buy SUNOCO or CITGO as much as possible. NOCO is a local gas company that imports it's fuels from CANADA...So I get them too.

[Warham]

I buy my gas from the most sinful company I can find.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
I buy my gas from the most sinful company I can find.

HALLIBURTON?

Isn't $16.43 a gallon kind of expensive?

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by scorpioboy33
Buddy I think it's awesome that you are so well informed and take a stand based on what you find. Well Done!

Thanks for saying so, but i have made mistakes in the past that makes me a bit hard to convince these days, and much more careful about blowing my gasket.

Last weekend for instance, I stopped in at the annual family reunion on my way to Tennessee and found myself surrounded by Ford people that have all switched to Toyota's.

All my damn life all i ever heard from my Dad and his brothers is how Dodge was junk and Ford was the A-Class American Vehicle, to which i scream, "BULLSHIT!"
Hell, I remember not even 20 years ago how they themselves did nothing but slam foreign cars, now they all drive them? WTF?

It did get a little ugly though, my niece is pretty proud of her '05 Toyota whatever the hell it is.
Anyway, she and her Scion owning brother decided to tag team me and try to explain to me how much better their cars are than American made cars.
They have each only owned one car a piece at this point of their young lives, I have owned damn near 30 cars since i was 16 and only one was a foreign car i inherited, which by the way was the biggest piece of shit money pit i ever owned on 4 wheels.

The biggest and basically only point they could make was that they run better, and i say "BULLSHIT" to that because i don't give a fucking damn if i have to repair my American vehicles every weekend, THEY ARE AMERICAN SUPPORTING AUTOMOBILES!

But the fact is, I have never owned an unreliable American made car, NEVER.
I own 3 vehicles right now, a '99 Dodge Ram, a '72 Charger 500 project car, and a '96 Ford Windstar i drive daily, and with no trouble at all from either.
I'm about to buy a '68 Newport from a buddy for cheap too.

The thing about cars and their reliability is dependant upon the owner and how they maintain their cars. if you neglect ANY vehicle for long it will break down on you, be it made overseas or in America that is just a fact of life.
Secondly, every auto manufacturer produces a lemon from time to time, and i owned one of Toyota's lemons, i just didn't have to buy it and it cost me $600 just to learn it was fucked and going to run in the thousands to fix, so i junked it.

I wear my Buy American shirt with pride, and someone always has to challenge me on that...well fuck that, I support my own countries bottom line and answer to nobody for that.
Like i've said, I have owned damn near 30 cars and have seen nothing in my world that leads me to believe that foreign cars are any better or worse than an American made ride, period.

It's tough, i can't deny that. but if anyone really wants to support this economy and not those who have sights set on dominating us and owning everything about our lives, you can be a bit more choosey and learn which companies make products that support our economy, and only buy their products because they do still exist, for now anyway.

A vast majority of people don't understand this and have bought into the whole "Foriegn is better" concept, to which i very loudly scream "BULLSHIT", in their general direction.

But at the end of the day they will do what they want and i'll do what i have no choice but to do and Buy American whenever humanly possible...

Ya know, I can't help but think that if we all focused more on whats going on in our own land and banded together to make a better more productive future for ourselves...things would get much better.

Our leaders certainly don't have anyone's best interests in mind beyond their own, that's a fact.
Hard working Americans built this country and not a damn one of us should ever allow that to be taken away or sold from under us.

Just think about it, what can we possibly get out of lining another countries pockets when it only takes away our independance in the long run?
China saves twice as much a year as America does now, and they got that way by buying American companies from Americans and that should NOT be allowed to happen, NAFTA proved that already.

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I used to like MOBIL gas (supposedly it has more detergents and keeps things cleaner), but lately I've tried to buy SUNOCO or CITGO as much as possible. NOCO is a local gas company that imports it's fuels from CANADA...So I get them too.

For the money, quality and performance you cannot beat Sunoco's 94 octane.
Until a few days ago i was also a Shell customer.
But once i learned they import middle eastern crude i cut up my gas card and paid my balance off, i'm done with them.

I'm not the only one who is becoming aware of what i buy and who it supports, that is a growing trend that President Bush has pioneered himself and he doesn't even understand that yet.

I won't cry about gas prices now though, trust me, we have been lucky that it isn't higher than it is.
Then again, I write my work related fuel off on my taxes and my employer pays me fuel compensation on top of that, so it doesn't really cost me what it does the average consumer.

If i had to estimate what i actually pay a gallon out of my pocket for my personal fuel, it would probably be around $1.25 to $1.75 per gallon.

So i really don't have a right to bitch about it since i'm exempt from feeling the pinch at the moment.

And here's a tip for all of you:
Your car will get much better gas mileage if you keep the tank full at all times. when it gets to about 3/4's of a tank, top it off and keep it full.
An automobile burns more fuel quicker when the tank gets low and fumes begin to burn as opposed to keeping the fumes to minimum and the engine burning a higher concentration of fuel more efficiently.

Ever notice how a gas guage moves to empty faster the closer the needle gets to Empty?
That's because an empty tank has more fumes in it that helps the fuel evaporate faster as the engine runs.
If the tank is full there are less fumes and the gas evaporates much slower, hence, increasing the over-all mileage.

[FORD]

They got 94 octane out there?

You cant find that shit around here. 91/92 is our alleged "super premium" whatever. Hell some of the desolate western states are even worse. Can't remember if it was Idaho or Utah where the high end was 89. And we're talking fucking Rocky Mountain states here. What the fuck are they thinking?? Probably contributed to the transmission problems I had on that road trip :(

They got the 94 up in Canada though. Plus I think they blend it with 10% ethanol up there. That shit burns really nice on a road trip.

Not that I'm taking one this summer. For obvious reasons.

[rustoffa]

Try feeding 10-dollars worth to a stroker with Moroso thrown in so it'll act right.

Goddamn, I shoulda' stuck with the stock fat bobs.

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by FORD
They got 94 octane out there?

You cant find that shit around here. 91/92 is our alleged "super premium" whatever. Hell some of the desolate western states are even worse. Can't remember if it was Idaho or Utah where the high end was 89. And we're talking fucking Rocky Mountain states here. What the fuck are they thinking?? Probably contributed to the transmission problems I had on that road trip :(

They got the 94 up in Canada though. Plus I think they blend it with 10% ethanol up there. That shit burns really nice on a road trip.

Not that I'm taking one this summer. For obvious reasons.

Oh yeah we got that, I love the 94 octane because my V-8's run fucking killer on it.
My truck will knock and ping like a son of a bitch if i use less than 92 since it's a carbed engine.
The 3.8 in the Ford is fuel injected so it runs good on the cheap shit.

But when the Charger is done, and it has a 440 going in it, that car will be strictly a weekend cruiser for the car shows around town.
I'll trailer it to take it to the Mopar Nationals in Columbus.

I should maybe think about getting a 4 banger though, just for work so i could actually make a profit on my gas allowance, lol.

But that '06 Rumble Bee is calling my name real hard, like a menstrual cramp, lmmfao.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Cathedral
I don't know much about the guy other than the poor seem to like him while the rich want him dead.


That's usually a sign of a good guy isn't it?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by FORD
They got 94 octane out there?

You cant find that shit around here. 91/92 is our alleged "super premium" whatever. Hell some of the desolate western states are even worse. Can't remember if it was Idaho or Utah where the high end was 89. And we're talking fucking Rocky Mountain states here. What the fuck are they thinking?? Probably contributed to the transmission problems I had on that road trip :(

They got the 94 up in Canada though. Plus I think they blend it with 10% ethanol up there. That shit burns really nice on a road trip.

Not that I'm taking one this summer. For obvious reasons.

SUNOCO used to have it here until about three years ago, the additives are a no no in NEW YORK State now. Our best is 93-octane.