Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (172401)	10/12/2005 9:46:28 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>> For example, can you imagine any liberal posting those sentences with Clinton substituted for Bush. That is a partisan debate that is beyond the topic of our discussion. Chances are that for some the partisan line would overweigh and for others it would not. However this does not diminish the validity of my facts in support of my opinion any more than you can pick your facts according to your beliefs. >> I don't know that that is the case. Is this a wilful ignorance or will showing your the facts change your mind? >> Most of that is related to energy prices No. >> which would be about the same regardless of who was in the WH. And no again. The reason is that (a) oil imports are not big enough to change the value of USD on international markets and (b) having had Iraqi oil supply still in the market and some sanctions lifted on investing in Iran would have made big differences in price of oil. Now you could argue that the war is worth the price of oil or that investing in Iran is a bad idea, but that is a different debate and does not change the fact that another set of policies would have had a material effect on the price of oil...as would in fact a good energy self sufficiency policy.