What'll You Have: Sex or Oil?

[McGyver]

As America (and much of the world) remains in awe over the aftermath of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and the tough questions about the adequacy of the Bush administration’s federal response, the extraordinary and never before seen price spikes in oil and gasoline, and questions arising over those companies involved in the cleanup and rebuilding efforts – And, whether a Democrat-run administration, such as that of former President Bill Clinton, would have managed a better federal response and “fairer” rebuilding – I pose the following political question:

“What’ll you have: sex or oil?”

The phrasing of the above question may seem a bit brash, yet it is these two topics that seem to arise with the most frequency with the current, and preceding administrations: “sex” during the Clinton Administration, and now “oil” with the Bush Administration.

I don’t use these words in demeaning ways, rather in factual terms, but with a twist of humor. Sorry, I couldn't resist!

With former President, his policies and priorities had much to do with helping people, and his affinity for pretty women. Should any single word ever be used to aptly define his Presidency, I think it will be “sex.”

Similarly, it is widely viewed that President Bush is not a real "people" person, and that his policies and priorities have much to do with “ownership,” and often ownership of “oil.” During his Presidency, we have observed oil, oil, oil …. moving up, up, up, with many of the same oil-related companies benefiting the most. Should any single word ever be used to most aptly define his Presidency, I think it will be “oil.”

Now in the wake of Katrina and Rita, and not excluding the ongoing war in Iraq, it’s as though there is a Presidential election underway. Knowing what you know now, who would you VOTE for? Would you choose “sex,” or choose “oil,” as the most valued “commodity” in your life?

By: Stephen Dolle
a.k.a. McGyver
Dolle Communications
www.diaceph.com

 

[TRCSF]

Tough question.

How many thousands of innocent people does the sex kill?

 

[Tarheel]

I'm going to have to argue with you calling Monica Lewinsky a "pretty" woman :yuck:

 

[Rabid]

Hmmmm, Clinton or Bush?
Sex or Oil?
Steak dinner or a kick in the groin?

Tough decision.

 

[pattylou]

I actually always thought Bill's sex drive was a plus. It showed he was passionate.

Forget the oil. I'd rather have someone who is sexual than someone who is sexually repressed, any day of the week. (no pun intended.)

(My problem with Clinton was infidelity and perjury, not sex.)

 

[Poncho]

On the quantum scale, oilly sex and sexy oil are posibilities also.

 

[Evo]

Would you choose “sex,” or choose “oil,” as the most valued “commodity” in your life?

I'd have to go with oil. I can have sex by myself but it won't power my car. Not that I've tried.

 

[russ_watters]

I'll go with oil as well. Clinton was having sex in his office while he should have been saving the lives of the million people murdered in Rwanda.

 

[deckart]

I've already got plenty of the sex, so I'll take the oil.

 

[Pengwuino]

I'd have to go with oil. I can have sex by myself but it won't power my car. Not that I've tried.

But can oil be used to make sex better?

oh wait a minute...

 

[Moonbear]

I think I'd opt for sex. It's a good way to spend cold, dark winters when you run out of oil. :uhh: Wait, can I have enough oil to fly to Hawaii before I give it up completely?

 

[Moonbear]

But can oil be used to make sex better?

oh wait a minute...

Yeah, this either/or choice is really tough. Vegetable oil is still allowed, right? :tongue2:

 

[Burnsys]

i prefer to ride in a bicicle and don't ever have sex again

 

[Smurf]

Tough question.

How many thousands of innocent people does the sex kill?

about 460,000 since 1981. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763859.html

 

[Moonbear]

i prefer to ride in a bicicle and don't ever have sex again

What kind of seat do you have on that bicycle?!

 

[edward]

I'll go with oil as well. Clinton was having sex in his office while he should have been saving the lives of the million people murdered in Rwanda.

The situation in Africa hasn't changed under the oily mans watch. Over 200,000 have been killed in Darfur recently.

At least sex is natural. Killing people for oil is not.

 

[Pengwuino]

about 460,000 since 1981. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763859.html

and that's just ONE disease!

 

[McGyver]

I've already got plenty of the sex, so I'll take the oil.

Deckart,

Well, get out your wallet. That sex just got more expensive. It'll cost you more in gas to get to where you used to go ... to have sex.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Deckart,

Well, get out your wallet. That sex just got more expensive. It'll cost you more in gas to get to where you used to go ... to have sex.

unless it was over the internet :tongue:

 

[McGyver]

But, Could There be More in this Reasoning?

This question can really cause one to think. It is both humor, and a philosophical/political question. I have read the various posts with great interests.

When I was a younger man, I would have chose “sex” without hesitation. Oil (gas) was cheap, and sex was always on my mind, and available. Sex and dating were pretty cheap, as women were in abundance. They say a male thinks about sex once every six seconds. That seemed about right until I got older, and began thinking more with logic, i.e. towards “oil.” But, as a man ages and sex becomes less available, sex related costs increase, and upset this reasoning. When both rise (as oil has sharply in the past year), you’re in a pickle.

Historically, liberal or socialist political views assign more value to people - rather than land, oil, and hard assets, the priority held by conservatives. In its strict interpretation, the question would read, “Do you favor people, or favor land?” But due to tactics in U.S. politics becoming increasingly clever, the above no longer suffices. When one peals back the outer political cover, the issue today is “sex” vs. “oil.”

President Bush has been outspoken with his views of an ownership society. His administration truly seemed disconnected to the serious disaster unfolding after Katrina, as it had to do with people, rather than land, oil, and hard assets. Soon, and conveniently, the price of oil and gas began to spiral without supporting and rational reason.

I still remember President Clinton waving his finger on TV, saying, “I did not have sex with that woman.” I was offended by the later revelations of his sexual indiscretions. In hindsight, he was a people person, and these things happen. But he didn’t kill anyone, nor did his actions bring high prices or stir fear upon Americans. He may have even helped men’s marital rights – perhaps even-ing the balance a bit for men.

The political sector that would seem to have the most difficulty in answering this question may be the religious right. Sex is needed for reproduction, and reproduction is a family value. The religious right does seem a bit consumed with restrictions on “sex” that I believe would compel them to choose “oil.” In contrast, the view held by most responders to the question posed a year ago, as to “what kind of auto would Jesus drive if he were alive today,” those responses seemed to indicate Jesus would be a conservationist, and as such in this question, could not choose “oil.”

Take the challenge of your true political beliefs. Answer, and explain your answer to the question: “What’ll you have, sex or oil?”

Stephen Dolle
a.k.a. McGyver
Dolle Communications
www.diaceph.com

 

[Smurf]

I don't understand this question. Clinton didn't make sex cost more, Bush is making oil cost more. I shall choose sex because that way nothing gets more expensive...

 

[2CentsWorth]

Really, what this gets back to is the earlier discussion of whether one is a social conservative (and sees infidelity to be a great crime) or a fiscal conservative (and sees self-serving agendas that result in record deficits) and what you feel has more negative impact. Obviously the pro big business (especially oil companies) policies of Bush will affect me far more.

 

[McGyver]

Really, what this gets back to is the earlier discussion of whether one is a social conservative (and sees infidelity to be a great crime) or a fiscal conservative (and sees self-serving agendas that result in record deficits) and what you feel has more negative impact. Obviously the pro big business (especially oil companies) policies of Bush will affect me far more.

It also relates to choosing "which" you value more in your life, if you had to choose one over the other. You must also factor in economic and other influences on costs, plus opportunity costs, such as engaging a war against Iraq, that impact life and costs in America. All these things change the playing field, and untimately influence your decision. You may also want to use a forwardlooking formula of 1 to 2 years.

Do you put more emphasis on "things of the flesh" or "things of the earth," and how far would you go, and what would you be willing to pay to sustain your priority.

You can bank on this discussion being key in the 2008 Presidential election.

 

[Pengwuino]

You can bank on this discussion being key in the 2008 Presidential election.

Are you sure?

"Hilary 2008: More hot sex or more oil" campaign buttons maybe?

 

[Pengwuino]

I don't understand this question. Clinton didn't make sex cost more, Bush is making oil cost more. I shall choose sex because that way nothing gets more expensive...

Yah... I really don't believe in that supply and demand thing either. It's all Bush's fault.

 

[Smurf]

Yah... I really don't believe in that supply and demand thing either. It's all Bush's fault.

I disagree. Supply and Demand principles are perfectly accurate. What I don't believe is that invading Iraq was supposed to have an effect on that. Liberals obviously don't understand economics.

 

[McGyver]

Are you sure?

"Hilary 2008: More hot sex or more oil" campaign buttons maybe?

It will be swim suit, or perhaps even formal gown calendars, featuring Hillary Clinton and Condolesa Rice. And a good trainer could be well worth his/her fees.

 

[Pengwuino]

It will be swim suit, or perhaps even formal gown calendars, featuring Hillary Clinton and Condolesa Rice. And a good trainer could be well worth his/her fees.

I'm moving to Italy

 

[pattylou]

I disagree. Supply and Demand principles are perfectly accurate. What I don't believe is that invading Iraq was supposed to have an effect on that. Liberals obviously don't understand economics.

As I understand it:

The argument is something like: by establishing a friendly democracy in an oil-rich country, America's future oil interests are better protected than otherwise.

The argument isn't that we're stealing oil, or affecting supply/demand - but oil is peaking and historically wars have been over resources. So when considering a dwindling resource and looking to the future, we are more likely to have enough oil if we have been involved with establishing the leadersip in that country.

Something like that.

 

[2CentsWorth]

It also relates to choosing "which" you value more in your life, if you had to choose one over the other. You must also factor in economic and other influences on costs, plus opportunity costs, such as engaging a war against Iraq, that impact life and costs in America. All these things change the playing field, and untimately influence your decision. You may also want to use a forwardlooking formula of 1 to 2 years.

Do you put more emphasis on "things of the flesh" or "things of the earth," and how far would you go, and what would you be willing to pay to sustain your priority.

You can bank on this discussion being key in the 2008 Presidential election.

Do people want a job and the basics for survival? If you are destitute, who gives a damn about sex? Besides, sex can be obtained fairly easily at no charge, even for homeless people.

On a serious note, the effects of Clinton's infidelity versus Bush's invasion of Iraq can't be compared.