Venezuela's Chavez sworn in again, vows 'socialism or death'

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

My, how very American of you.

Why would you say that, do you really care about Venezuala, what about Paraguay or Ghana or nicaragua or bolivia, or sri lanka. Venezuala and its politics affects me very little and as such I wont be a bs liar and say I care about it when in reality i dont.

If telling everyone on here the truth is being American, then yankee doodle fricken dadnee you holier than though..... never mind.

MYK

[Vulcan]

Since the Monroe Doctrine and it's Roosevelt Corollary of 1904, "stating that in the event of flagrant wrong doing by a Latin American state, the US. had the right to intervene in its internal affairs." Nothing has changed as far as I know. Chavez should be nervous.

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?...octrine&gwp=16

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Why would you say that, do you really care about Venezuala, what about Paraguay or Ghana or nicaragua or bolivia, or sri lanka. Venezuala and its politics affects me very little and as such I wont be a bs liar and say I care about it when in reality i dont.

If telling everyone on here the truth is being American, then yankee doodle fricken dadnee you holier than though..... never mind.

MYK

You could say the same about Saudi Arabia, Russia... China. None of the domestic political activities of these places have any direct bearing upon you personally, really.

Venezuela internationally/politically/economically isn't as 'insignificant' as all the countries you mentioned, its oil reserves and membership in OPEC make it a country that needs to be watched (by those who care about international economics/politics).

Its not like we're discussing Madagascar here (crappy island nation off the coast of Africa...?)... Chavez/Venezuela have graced American news channels on several occasions over the past few years. He's not a 'nobody' by anyone's standards. If you don't care for international politics no worries, but no need to trumpet that fact to those who do.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

You could say the same about Saudi Arabia, Russia... China. None of the domestic political activities of these places have any direct bearing upon you personally, really.

Venezuela internationally/politically/economically isn't as 'insignificant' as all the countries you mentioned, its oil reserves and membership in OPEC make it a country that needs to be watched (by those who care about international economics/politics).

Its not like we're discussing Madagascar here (crappy island nation off the coast of Africa...?)... Chavez/Venezuela have graced American news channels on several occasions over the past few years. He's not a 'nobody' by anyone's standards. If you don't care for international politics no worries, but no need to trumpet that fact to those who do.

Actually Americans now adays would say "Huh....so how does that affect us? Will that change our terror alert colour?"

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Why would you say that, do you really care about Venezuala, what about Paraguay or Ghana or nicaragua or bolivia, or sri lanka. Venezuala and its politics affects me very little and as such I wont be a bs liar and say I care about it when in reality i dont.

If telling everyone on here the truth is being American, then yankee doodle fricken dadnee you holier than though..... never mind.

MYK

Dear Spaz

The fact that you or I do or do not care about a country or any country and its politics was simply not what I was getting at. There's a difference between knowing you don't care about something, and stating so in an arrogant fashion. Do you not agree?

That's why I threw the stereotypical American comment out there. No need to get all worked up about it.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Actually Americans now adays would say "Huh....so how does that affect us? Will that change our terror alert colour?"

Common misconception that americans are aware/care about the terror alert status.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Common misconception that americans are aware/care about the terror alert status.

Maybe it's the media then.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I don't understand the relevance to what I posted.

I'm not defending chavez, I just think it's silly to say his fears of foreign intervention are 'comical'.

Do coup's not happen in South America?

Intervention can mean a lot of things.

In my original post, I said Chavez's scaremongering around the threat of an "imminent American invasion" was comical. . . . . which it is.

You're the guy who came along later and started talking about coups, a different thing, after which I pointed out Chavez would know all about coups since he participated in one.

Nevertheless, if Chavez follows through on his economic plans, all America probably has to do is wait a requisite amount of time for the Venezuelan economy to cave in . . . . and given the way he is concentrating power to himself, it probably wouldn't be a surprise to see a confluence of all those factors leading to a coup at some point, particularly given the history of the country.

The sad thing is, in a world awash in cash looking for places to invest, where all four corners of the globe are growing in sync for the first time in decades, Venezuela appears to be cutting itself off from access to that cash with nationalization schemes.

Cowperson

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Dear Spaz

That was funny!

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Intervention can mean a lot of things.

In my original post, I said Chavez's scaremongering around the threat of an "imminent American invasion" was comical. . . . . which it is.

You're the guy who came along later and started talking about coups, a different thing, after which I pointed out Chavez would know all about coups since he participated in one.

Nevertheless, if Chavez follows through on his economic plans, all America probably has to do is wait a requisite amount of time for the Venezuelan economy to cave in . . . . and given the way he is concentrating power to himself, it probably wouldn't be a surprise to see a confluence of all those factors leading to a coup at some point, particularly given the history of the country.

The sad thing is, in a world awash in cash looking for places to invest, where all four corners of the globe are growing in sync for the first time in decades, Venezuela appears to be cutting itself off from access to that cash with nationalization schemes.

Cowperson

Technically a coup d'etat and an invasion are different, but the result is basically the same - regime change. If the US was to invade Venezuela, it's not like they would allow Chavez to continue to be the leader. If there was a coup, it would probably be lead by the US.

As far as I am concerned, oil-economics and regular economics are two completely seperate things. The regularities (supply/demand, invisible hand...) disapear whenever oil is involved. I honestly do not think any country, with the vast supply of oil that Venezuela has, has to worry about their economy. They don't need investment, we're not talking about Ethiopia here, they're self-sufficent. It's not like foreign governments are going to say "Hey, this oil came from Venezuela, let's not pay the market price per barrel." Where's the logic? The only end result would be, that I can see, is Venezuelian (government owned) oil companies making the huge money rather than the typical big oil and the money going back to the people of Venezuela. Ignoring their huge oil reserves and saying their economy will fail is not very realistic.

I chalk your mentality up to NEP flashbacks, which really, is not applicable in this situation.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

That was funny!

Technically a coup d'etat and an invasion are different, but the result is basically the same - regime change. If the US was to invade Venezuela, .

Do you seriously think American paratroopers are going to imminently rain down on Venezuela?

Yes, that is very funny.

As to a coup, I wasn't talking about a coup but, when someone else brought it up, noted that Chavez knows all about them.

As far as I am concerned, oil-economics and regular economics are two completely seperate things. The regularities (supply/demand, invisible hand...) disapear whenever oil is involved. I honestly do not think any country, with the vast supply of oil that Venezuela has, has to worry about their economy. They don't need investment, we're not talking about Ethiopia here, they're self-sufficent. It's not like foreign governments are going to say "Hey, this oil came from Venezuela, let's not pay the market price per barrel." Where's the logic? The only end result would be, that I can see, is Venezuelian (government owned) oil companies making the huge money rather than the typical big oil and the money going back to the people of Venezuela. Ignoring their huge oil reserves and saying their economy will fail is not very realistic.

I chalk your mentality up to NEP flashbacks, which really, is not applicable in this situation

So a Petro-country can ignore the world around it?

That's not usually the case.

One example:

Iran's oil industry has raked in record amounts of cash during three years of high oil prices. But a new U.S. campaign to dry up financing for oil and natural gas development poses a threat to the republic's ability to continue exporting oil over the next two decades, many analysts say.

The campaign comes at a moment of unique vulnerability for Iran's oil industry, which also faces challenges from rising domestic energy consumption, international isolation, a populist spending spree by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and trouble closing contracts with foreign oil companies — a recipe for potential disaster in a nation with one of the world's largest reservoirs of oil.

"If the government does not control the consumption of oil products in Iran … and at the same time, if the projects for increasing the capacity of the oil and protection of the oil wells will not happen, within 10 years, there will not be any oil for export," Mohammed Hadi Nejad-Hosseinian, Iran's deputy oil minister for international affairs, said in a telephone interview.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines

Another example is Mexico and its publicly owned oil industry:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGAAJN9JG1.DTL

The problem tends to be a drying up of investment capital . . . . the problem of money flowing where its most welcome and avoiding places where it isn't.

Cowperson

[Lurch]

I think Red Mile Style would have a point if Petro-countries actually reinvested the money, aka Norway. However, a nationalized oil company in most countries is a lot like an income trust - all the benefits get paid out as dividends or bribes or silly social programs, i.e government spending. The only difference is that the income fund has the ability to go back to investors and raise new money - Venezuela will not sucker foreign capital again for decades.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by fotze

What money do they need, the oil just flows up from the ground into the gas tank. Isn't that why gas stations are positioned where they are? They just stick the end of the gas hose into the well and voila, car gas forever.

Would certainly explain why there really isn't three types of gas and its a big rip off by the oil companies.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Do you seriously think American paratroopers are going to imminently rain down on Venezuela?

Yes, that is very funny.

As to a coup, I wasn't talking about a coup but, when someone else brought it up, noted that Chavez knows all about them.

I think you should look at the US' record in Latin America, and I think you will realize how not-shocking it would be if the US was to install a dictator in Venezuela, like they've done many a time before in many states. Hell, look what they're doing in Iraq, Afghanistan... What makes you think Venezuela, of all states, has immunity from the US? Does the name "Pol Pot" ring any bells? How about "Guevera". Or what about Cuba... are you unfamiliar with Cuba's situation? I could go on if you like. I have a feeling you're one of those people that will not consider this until Faux News is reporting Al Queda in Venezuela.

Originally Posted by Cowperson

As far as I am concerned, oil-economics and regular economics are two completely seperate things. The regularities (supply/demand, invisible hand...) disapear whenever oil is involved. I honestly do not think any country, with the vast supply of oil that Venezuela has, has to worry about their economy. They don't need investment, we're not talking about Ethiopia here, they're self-sufficent. It's not like foreign governments are going to say "Hey, this oil came from Venezuela, let's not pay the market price per barrel." Where's the logic? The only end result would be, that I can see, is Venezuelian (government owned) oil companies making the huge money rather than the typical big oil and the money going back to the people of Venezuela. Ignoring their huge oil reserves and saying their economy will fail is not very realistic.

I chalk your mentality up to NEP flashbacks, which really, is not applicable in this situation

So a Petro-country can ignore the world around it?

That's not usually the case.

One example:

Iran's oil industry has raked in record amounts of cash during three years of high oil prices. But a new U.S. campaign to dry up financing for oil and natural gas development poses a threat to the republic's ability to continue exporting oil over the next two decades, many analysts say.

The campaign comes at a moment of unique vulnerability for Iran's oil industry, which also faces challenges from rising domestic energy consumption, international isolation, a populist spending spree by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and trouble closing contracts with foreign oil companies — a recipe for potential disaster in a nation with one of the world's largest reservoirs of oil.

"If the government does not control the consumption of oil products in Iran … and at the same time, if the projects for increasing the capacity of the oil and protection of the oil wells will not happen, within 10 years, there will not be any oil for export," Mohammed Hadi Nejad-Hosseinian, Iran's deputy oil minister for international affairs, said in a telephone interview.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines

From that article, I get the impression that there is more to this story than you're catching on to.

The efforts by the United States and its allies over the last few months to persuade international banks and oil companies to pull out of Iran threaten dozens of projects, including development of Iran's two massive new oil fields that could expand output by 800,000 barrels a day over the next four years.

And as nations such as Japan begin to back out of Iran oil development under U.S. pressure, the government in Tehran is being forced to dig into its own reserve funds to get crucial new projects off the ground.

But Nejad-Hosseinian said Iran had recognized the gravity of the threat and launched steps to head it off, including new "smart" rationing cards, scheduled for distribution in March to check skyrocketing sales of cheap gasoline, and an overhaul of Iran's historically stingy contract terms in an attempt to lure big oil companies into skirting the U.S. roadblocks.

Iran also is hoping to turn to China and Russia for help. But U.S. officials already have warned that they will seek to hold China accountable under Washington's unilateral sanctions laws if it proceeds with a $16-billion project to develop Iran's North Pars gas field. China also has signed a memorandum of understanding under which it may take on development of the Yadavaran field in southwestern Iran, expected to boost production by 300,000 barrels a day.

What is going on in Iran, has almost absolutely nothing to do with oil companies, but rather the US wanting to put embargos on Iran with a political motive. According to your own article, the US is not allowing anyone to deal with Iran, which obviously will lead to a level of desperation for Iran to cooperate.

Are you unfamiliar with the Bush administration and the huge stake they have in oil? The only saving grace Iran has is that they are NATIONALLY starting projects because no international organization, state or corporation is allowed to. IF Iran had a nationalized oil company, they wouldn't have to rely on foreign investment, as that oil would be already be flowing. But since they are not nationalized they are now the US' bitch.

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Another example is Mexico and its publicly owned oil industry:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGAAJN9JG1.DTL

The problem tends to be a drying up of investment capital . . . . the problem of money flowing where its most welcome and avoiding places where it isn't.

Cowperson

I love it when people's links blow up in their face. Yes, let's look at that article, shall we?


Despite its troubles, Pemex is still a giant. It is the largest corporation in Mexico and the fifth-largest oil firm in the world, with average daily production in 2005 of about 3.3 million barrels of oil, 4.8 million cubic feet of natural gas and 435,000 barrels of natural gas liquids. It is the second-largest oil source of U.S. imported oil, after Canada, at a daily average of 1.9 million barrels.
The huge rise in international petroleum prices has been a godsend for the nation, if not for Pemex itself.

The price rise -- from about $12 per barrel in 1999 to more than $70 currently -- has injected tens of billions of dollars into the federal government's coffers. Pemex's revenues this year are expected to be about $89 billion, with 59 percent of this amount siphoned off by the government through tax and dividend payments totaling about $52 billion.
This flood of revenue has allowed Fox to opt for a conservative version of economic pump-priming. Instead of boosting spending, he has overseen strengthening government reserves and cutting federal borrowing, thus allowing bank credit to expand by almost 500 percent during his term, according to government data. The result has been an explosion of consumer purchases and home building.
Lopez Obrador hopes to spread around that wealth in a more traditional Mexican way -- slashing Pemex's gasoline pump prices, which average about $2.50 per gallon, and cutting taxes on natural gas and electricity.

Mexico is a third world country, and while corupt as ****, at least some of the revenues are going to the poor people of that country - which is more than what would if it was big oil.

Dude, you need to read more than the first three paragraphs of these articles you're linking.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

I think you should look at the US' record in Latin America, and I think you will realize how not-shocking it would be if the US was to install a dictator in Venezuela, like they've done many a time before in many states. Hell, look what they're doing in Iraq, Afghanistan... What makes you think Venezuela, of all states, has immunity from the US? Does the name "Pol Pot" ring any bells? How about "Guevera". Or what about Cuba... are you unfamiliar with Cuba's situation? I could go on if you like. I have a feeling you're one of those people that will not consider this until Faux News is reporting Al Queda in Venezuela.



From that article, I get the impression that there is more to this story than you're catching on to.

The efforts by the United States and its allies over the last few months to persuade international banks and oil companies to pull out of Iran threaten dozens of projects, including development of Iran's two massive new oil fields that could expand output by 800,000 barrels a day over the next four years.

And as nations such as Japan begin to back out of Iran oil development under U.S. pressure, the government in Tehran is being forced to dig into its own reserve funds to get crucial new projects off the ground.

But Nejad-Hosseinian said Iran had recognized the gravity of the threat and launched steps to head it off, including new "smart" rationing cards, scheduled for distribution in March to check skyrocketing sales of cheap gasoline, and an overhaul of Iran's historically stingy contract terms in an attempt to lure big oil companies into skirting the U.S. roadblocks.

Iran also is hoping to turn to China and Russia for help. But U.S. officials already have warned that they will seek to hold China accountable under Washington's unilateral sanctions laws if it proceeds with a $16-billion project to develop Iran's North Pars gas field. China also has signed a memorandum of understanding under which it may take on development of the Yadavaran field in southwestern Iran, expected to boost production by 300,000 barrels a day.

What is going on in Iran, has almost absolutely nothing to do with oil companies, but rather the US wanting to put embargos on Iran with a political motive. According to your own article, the US is not allowing anyone to deal with Iran, which obviously will lead to a level of desperation for Iran to cooperate.

Are you unfamiliar with the Bush administration and the huge stake they have in oil? The only saving grace Iran has is that they are NATIONALLY starting projects because no international organization, state or corporation is allowed to. IF Iran had a nationalized oil company, they wouldn't have to rely on foreign investment, as that oil would be already be flowing. But since they are not nationalized they are now the US' bitch.



I love it when people's links blow up in their face. Yes, let's look at that article, shall we?


Despite its troubles, Pemex is still a giant. It is the largest corporation in Mexico and the fifth-largest oil firm in the world, with average daily production in 2005 of about 3.3 million barrels of oil, 4.8 million cubic feet of natural gas and 435,000 barrels of natural gas liquids. It is the second-largest oil source of U.S. imported oil, after Canada, at a daily average of 1.9 million barrels.
The huge rise in international petroleum prices has been a godsend for the nation, if not for Pemex itself.

The price rise -- from about $12 per barrel in 1999 to more than $70 currently -- has injected tens of billions of dollars into the federal government's coffers. Pemex's revenues this year are expected to be about $89 billion, with 59 percent of this amount siphoned off by the government through tax and dividend payments totaling about $52 billion.
This flood of revenue has allowed Fox to opt for a conservative version of economic pump-priming. Instead of boosting spending, he has overseen strengthening government reserves and cutting federal borrowing, thus allowing bank credit to expand by almost 500 percent during his term, according to government data. The result has been an explosion of consumer purchases and home building.
Lopez Obrador hopes to spread around that wealth in a more traditional Mexican way -- slashing Pemex's gasoline pump prices, which average about $2.50 per gallon, and cutting taxes on natural gas and electricity.

Mexico is a third world country, and while corupt as ****, at least some of the revenues are going to the poor people of that country - which is more than what would if it was big oil.

Dude, you need to read more than the first three paragraphs of these articles you're linking.

Obviously your post is incomprehensible partisan gibberish and does nothing to answer the points.

From your partisan position, it appears your head is going to explode if you have to honestly concede the obvious, that being that the United States of America is no where near to or interested in militarily "invading Venezuela" as the Chavez has been scaremongering.

That's the only point I made. Others brought up coups to which I blithely and accurately noted that it would take one to know one.

Second, the links very obviously support the point that without a platform that encourages the investment of outside capital, both Mexican and Iranian oil production will decline, taking their petro economies with them in all probability as well as any programming that might exist for the poor.

In the end, that probably means the socialist will be hated by the poor.

You'll note in my sentence in my first post in this thread, that I thought spreading Venezuelan petro wealth around to the poorer folks was a good idea.

However, I said its a stupid idea to scare away investment capital, particularly when, as our friend Lurch supports, you're spending all your petro dollars on corruption and the poor instead of allocating something to reinvestment so the non-renewable resource can continue to flow and support programs.

The wisest leader would probably be letting private oil companies take all the risk of developing and exploiting oil and gas fields while taking a cut to use in programs for the poor . . . . the depth of that cut obviously too much in Iran, where it appears to discourage involvement and some might say too little in Alberta where development is going overboard.

Hey, this is kind of cool . . . . I'm actually in an argument for about the second time in a year.

Cowperson

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Obviously your post is incomprehensible partisan gibberish and does nothing to answer the points.

Obviously you can not address my points and resort to calling my points incomprehensible, partisan gibberish. Nice. I would prefer arguing with facts, but each to it's own.

Originally Posted by Cowperson

From your partisan position, it appears your head is going to explode if you have to honestly concede the obvious, that being that the United States of America is no where near to or interested in militarily "invading Venezuela" as the Chavez has been scaremongering.

How many times has the US invaded a country and full out publicized it's decision to do so beforehand? Doesn't that go against basic warfare, taking away the whole element of surprise? The fact remains that you have just as much proof that the US isn't going to invade Venezuela as I do for the opposite. The only advantage I have is history, which isn't much, but it's more than what you have.

Originally Posted by Cowperson

That's the only point I made. Others brought up coups to which I blithely and accurately noted that it would take one to know one.

I am willing to say that there are coups that can be just. Just like there can be just wars. If you have an oppresive dictator, obviously a coup would be a good idea. And since we know that democratic elections are taking place and that Chavez is NOT a dictator, obviously it is the will of the people. Now, look at everything Chavez has accomplished for his people, obviously the decision to overthrow the government was a good one.

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Second, the links very obviously support the point that without a platform that encourages the investment of outside capital, both Mexican and Iranian oil production will decline, taking their petro economies with them in all probability as well as any programming that might exist for the poor.

No, that's not very obvious from the links at all. That's obviously what you decided to take from the links. I took a completely different message from the links. The fact remains that if Iran was nationalized they wouldn't have a reason for concern if foreign investment left, as they would have the infrastructure in place to continue on. And in the case of Mexico, pemex is a very successful company that has enabled a 500% increase in state bank credit, amoung other things since 2000, plus is the only reason why Mexico's economy would stay afloat if foreign investment left thus preventing a recession and ensuring future projects will be completed.

Originally Posted by Cowperson

In the end, that probably means the socialist will be hated by the poor.

Yeah, from the title of this thread, it really looks like the poor Venezuelians really hate Chavez...

Plus, when you have Venezuelian oil companies giving out oil for heating American homes who can not afford it, it looks like the socialist is adored by the poor, even in the US:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...157172,00.html

Originally Posted by Cowperson

You'll note in my sentence in my first post in this thread, that I thought spreading Venezuelan petro wealth around to the poorer folks was a good idea.

So, unless big oil to you is considered the poorer folks, I'm not sure about your contradiction...

Originally Posted by Cowperson

However, I said its a stupid idea to scare away investment capital, particularly when, as our friend Lurch supports, you're spending all your petro dollars on corruption and the poor instead of allocating something to reinvestment so the non-renewable resource can continue to flow and support programs.

Again, I take those wonderful links you provided by pointing out what Mexico has been able to accomplish through it's oil revenue. In fact, Fox has taken a very Conservative approach, rather than "silly social programs". Pemex is the world's fifth largest oil company, you don't think their profits are enough to reinvest? Jeez, if Pemex can't afford it, what hope is there for any of us?

Originally Posted by Cowperson

The wisest leader would probably be letting private oil companies take all the risk of developing and exploiting oil and gas fields while taking a cut to use in programs for the poor . . . . the depth of that cut obviously too much in Iran, where it appears to discourage involvement and some might say too little in Alberta where development is going overboard.

Yes, let's look at the Albertan economy. First of all, what is the economy's role within society? A Conservative would probably say foremost to provide jobs for it's citizens. So, flying workers in from say, the other side of the country like Newfoundland would then mean the economy is very inefficent. A shortage of workers would lead one to believe the economy is inefficent. Economically, does it make sense that the province that is the source of Canadian oil, has the highest utility rate in the country? Highest health-care premiums? Highest insurance rates? So, you're saying the "wisest" leader would agree to have such an inefficent economy?

That's just crazy talk!

Okay, but you said the development in Alberta is overboard. Touche. I agree.

But, the argument that allowing big oil to "take all the risk and give a cut to the poor" has no foundation. Because, we all know what that leads to, huge, HUGE profits for the oil companies and people who can not afford to heat their homes. Again, I point to the fact that thousands of American homes rely on Venezuelian oil, that Venezuela gives away for free, while American oil companies are amoung the richest in the world. Is this just? Does this make sense to you? Why should big oil capitalize on what a state owns anyway? Why shouldn't the state capitalize on it for it's own people rather than giving hundreds of billions of dollars to foreign oil companies, never letting that money going to the people who need it? The system that you speak of is already being done all around the world, and if you're happy with the way the world is looking out from your perch in Calgary, you're completely oblivious to the injustices that are taking place as a result of the oil industry.

I, personally, hate the disparity. The wars. The economic, political, cultural games. I am not happy with the way things are going currently, and I welcome changes to this system. Big oil are the most morally incomprehensible on the planet. But, Chavez can achieve great things for his people from the oil industry and can give a good name to at least one oil company.

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Hey, this is kind of cool . . . . I'm actually in an argument for about the second time in a year.

Cowperson

This is about my second argument today...

[Cowperson]

Obviously this is a waste of time.

Cowperson

[Red Mile Style]

COWPERSON! QUICK LOOK OUT BEHIND YOU!!!!

It's the NEP!!!!!

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

COWPERSON! QUICK LOOK OUT BEHIND YOU!!!!

It's the NEP!!!!!

If you were capable of using the search engine function on this site - which seems doubtful at this point given your apparent inability to drag two coherent thoughts to a single conclusion - you would probably learn I've never used the term NEP or National Energy Program at Calgarypuck.com.

Nor did I reference it in this thread. Nor did it occur to me to reference it as it relates to this topic.

You, however, seem to have a pre-occupation with it for some reason.

Meanwhile we go in circles . . . .

Anyhoo, I'm sure you're a delightfully idealistic young lady but I'm off in search of a beer.

Cowperson

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by fotze

But you're a reformed alcoholic! See what you've done now!

Actually, I'm trying to start drinking again . . . . it hasn't been going very well but I'm plucky.

Cowperson

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

If you were capable of using the search engine function on this site - which seems doubtful at this point given your apparent inability to drag two coherent thoughts to a single conclusion - you would probably learn I've never used the term NEP or National Energy Program at Calgarypuck.com.

Nor did I reference it in this thread. Nor did it occur to me to reference it as it relates to this topic.

You, however, seem to have a pre-occupation with it for some reason.

Meanwhile we go in circles . . . .

Anyhoo, I'm sure you're a delightfully idealistic young lady but I'm off in search of a beer.

Cowperson

See, that's your first mistake, I'm not delightful at all

If this was in real life, I would join you for that beer. Unfortunately I am at the office because for some reason I've spent most of the afternoon talking about Chavez and neglecting that deadline of mine...

Plus, I'm on the other side of the country.