| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Kook claims (was Beneteau Makes Racing Boats?)
Stephen Trapani wrote:
jeff wrote: Stephen Trapani wrote: jeff wrote: Stephen Trapani wrote: jeff wrote: Think about what you're saying. Cheney, who was selected by Bush as his running mate, so badly wanted to be *vice-president* that he surreptitiously promised to sacrifice the well being of the country so these companies could make billions and billions of dollars in profits. No. He did it out of habit. It's the system he knows, the people he trusts. It just turns out that his friends, relatives, associates etc. are the ones who make money. So anyone with a habit of taking such huge risk What risk? I'd bet that Cheney could reveal the identity of a secret agent just for political purposes and get away with it! So you think massive corruption worth billions isn't much of a risk. I see. When you make the rules, the risks are minimal. When your chief-of-staff will take the fall, the risks are minimal. And for billions of dollars, the risks are acceptable. If you're connected enough, the SEC doesn't bother to investigate when you dump stock a few weeks before announcing major losses. Only a few ever get punished - that's only when the crimes are in the Enron scale. to do so much for the people he loves Omigod! You're pouring it so thick! No, this is your theory. You're saying he's doing it for his friends. He must love them or really really like them, or what? Why is he doing this then if it's not love? Oh, I thought you were claiming he (or "they" in general) do it "for love of country." No, as I said, favors are given because that's the way the system works. Give someone from a well connected family a small stake in a business, perhaps a baseball team, and suddenly a stadium is built with public funds. Out of love? No, that's something you keep bringing up. Its a way of life. Seriously, with rhetoric like this you're pretty much admitting you're full of ****! but not for himself is generally considered a wonderful wonderful person, right? I mean the story is normally how evil of a person it takes to do what he does. Do these pieces really seem to fit? Perfectly! Your nonsense is a perfect example of "repeat the bull**** often enough and enough of the naive voters may buy it." How many of the voters thought the last election was really about gay marriage? Don't you get what I'm saying? Now you seem to be suggesting Cheney doesn't love his "chums" that he is acquiring billions for. Why is he doing it then????? He's just some freak of nature who has a habit of trying to steal billions of dollars for someone else? No, he's just dealing in the world he helped create. You're trying to base an argument on "rich people would never commit a crime because they have too much to loose." It hasn't really gotten average citizens of democratic countries any more rights, priviliges, or benefits than any form of government that has come before it, or more than any other country currently on earth. Ah, so now you're claiming the rich and powerful deserve anything they can grab because some of the people have more rights. No, *you* are the one who said things are the same as they've been for thousands of years before democracy existed. Not exactly the same, obviously, but unchanged in many ways. Perhaps you should read a basic history book. Read about the Patricians and Plebeians in ancient Rome. Even after centuries of fighting when the Plebeians were given equal rights, the wealthy families ruled. All that really changed was that Plebeians could rise to power as the old Patrician families died out. Whether the common folk have right stamped on bronze tablets, or written in the Magna Carta or the Constitution doesn't change the fact that the rich and powerful are rich and powerful. The children of the wealthy get their "youthful excesses" expunged, while the same violation means 15 years for others. One could go on all day on this theme, but only a fool believes the rich and poor are really equal under the law. Well, the average rich individual supports many many times more of the governments expenses than the average poor person. You know that, right? Well duh, they enjoy a privileged position. They even pay a larger percentage of their income. Did you know that? That is one of the myths that Rush loves to spout, but it simply is not true. If you think I'm wrong, bring it on! They do have ways of making it less, but it's still way way more than the poor guy. Like, say, a million dollars compared to five thousand. Do you have a point here? Because someone just getting by only pays $5K in taxes, someone else making millions should only pay $5K? It's very easy to see this as unfair, especially if the rich person worked hard for his money. He isn't using any more of the government than the poor person. Oh, really??? What color is the sky in your world, Steve? Why is he having to pay so much more? Why do you resent him being able to decrease it? Did I say I resent it? Frankly, I benefit from it! Everyone has a right to lobby for their position. The question is, why do the conservatives love to make up nonsense to support their positions? The answer is, their policies only benefit to top few percent, so they need issues like gay marriage to win elections! Democracy is just a farce meant to hold the ordinary person down as has happened for millennia. Have I got that right? Yes, that is the label the right wingnuts like to pin on anyone that protests against their crimes. So, okay, you think democracy has helped the average person, but not much. I'm not trying to quantify anything. Democracy has made a profound difference. But the rich and powerful are still rich and powerful. They're still getting screwed. Or, what are you saying? Its a fact of life that people who do not look out for their own interest get screwed. Its a fact of life that some people in power will misuse that power. Are you claiming any different? |
Kook claims (was Beneteau Makes Racing Boats?)
jeff wrote:
Stephen Trapani wrote: jeff wrote: Stephen Trapani wrote: jeff wrote: Stephen Trapani wrote: jeff wrote: Think about what you're saying. Cheney, who was selected by Bush as his running mate, so badly wanted to be *vice-president* that he surreptitiously promised to sacrifice the well being of the country so these companies could make billions and billions of dollars in profits. No. He did it out of habit. It's the system he knows, the people he trusts. It just turns out that his friends, relatives, associates etc. are the ones who make money. So anyone with a habit of taking such huge risk What risk? I'd bet that Cheney could reveal the identity of a secret agent just for political purposes and get away with it! So you think massive corruption worth billions isn't much of a risk. I see. When you make the rules, the risks are minimal. When your chief-of-staff will take the fall, the risks are minimal. And for billions of dollars, the risks are acceptable. If you're connected enough, the SEC doesn't bother to investigate when you dump stock a few weeks before announcing major losses. Only a few ever get punished - that's only when the crimes are in the Enron scale. In my lifetime, Nixon has gotten in criminal trouble he couldn't get himself out of, so has Clinton, and so have about fifteen Congressmen that I can recall. All for offenses that pale in comparison to the supposed corruption we're discussing here. I'm not sure why you think they are all above the law. I mean, back in the seventies I used to believe the whole trilateral commission/ rich people ruling the world stuff. But upon further thought and observation it just doesn't wash. to do so much for the people he loves Omigod! You're pouring it so thick! No, this is your theory. You're saying he's doing it for his friends. He must love them or really really like them, or what? Why is he doing this then if it's not love? Oh, I thought you were claiming he (or "they" in general) do it "for love of country." No, as I said, favors are given because that's the way the system works. Give someone from a well connected family a small stake in a business, perhaps a baseball team, and suddenly a stadium is built with public funds. Out of love? No, that's something you keep bringing up. Its a way of life. Ah, so now you're saying Cheney got his payback *before* he was VP. When he acquired the shares of Halliburton, the Bush/Cheney ticket wasn't even a gleam in anyone's eye. Cheney certainly wasn't on the fast track to any big position of power at the time, so in order for your theory to make sense, tens of thousands of never was's are being groomed and paid large amounts just in case they end up as vice-president. That's the only way it could work, right? Like, no one could have known, say, six years ago, the position Obama would be in now, but just in case, him and many others like him are being given favors and whatever, *large* favors, worth billions, just in case. Have I got that right? Seriously, with rhetoric like this you're pretty much admitting you're full of ****! but not for himself is generally considered a wonderful wonderful person, right? I mean the story is normally how evil of a person it takes to do what he does. Do these pieces really seem to fit? Perfectly! Your nonsense is a perfect example of "repeat the bull**** often enough and enough of the naive voters may buy it." How many of the voters thought the last election was really about gay marriage? Don't you get what I'm saying? Now you seem to be suggesting Cheney doesn't love his "chums" that he is acquiring billions for. Why is he doing it then????? He's just some freak of nature who has a habit of trying to steal billions of dollars for someone else? No, he's just dealing in the world he helped create. You're trying to base an argument on "rich people would never commit a crime because they have too much to loose." No, my argument is that the logistics of your scenario (which BTW qualifies as a giant conspiracy, terminology-wise) doesn't make sense. The money/favor trail would be too easy to trace and there are too many rabid reporter types out there who are searching for such money trails, many of them on Cheney himself, right this minute, I'm sure. Most of the conspiracy theorists who investigate start realizing this so they stop proposing that guys like Cheney are doing it for themselves and suggest they are doing it for someone else, which makes even less sense, as I've explained previously. It hasn't really gotten average citizens of democratic countries any more rights, priviliges, or benefits than any form of government that has come before it, or more than any other country currently on earth. Ah, so now you're claiming the rich and powerful deserve anything they can grab because some of the people have more rights. No, *you* are the one who said things are the same as they've been for thousands of years before democracy existed. Not exactly the same, obviously, but unchanged in many ways. Perhaps you should read a basic history book. Been there, done that. Read about the Patricians and Plebeians in ancient Rome. Even after centuries of fighting when the Plebeians were given equal rights, the wealthy families ruled. All that really changed was that Plebeians could rise to power as the old Patrician families died out. That system, of course, was not a liberal democracy, like ours. Whether the common folk have right stamped on bronze tablets, or written in the Magna Carta or the Constitution doesn't change the fact that the rich and powerful are rich and powerful. Yes, well, a free economy *should* reward those who do more to earn more, shouldn't it? I mean if I discover the cure for cancer, shouldn't I be able to make lots of money and live in the lap of luxury? We want a society like that don't we? For god's sake, let's make even more of a reward for the guy who discovers the cure for cancer, and the guy who builds me a reasonably priced car that runs on water, and the guy who makes great Chinese food within fifteen minutes of my home! Don't you agree? The children of the wealthy get their "youthful excesses" expunged, while the same violation means 15 years for others. One could go on all day on this theme, but only a fool believes the rich and poor are really equal under the law. Well, the average rich individual supports many many times more of the governments expenses than the average poor person. You know that, right? Well duh, they enjoy a privileged position. They even pay a larger percentage of their income. Did you know that? That is one of the myths that Rush loves to spout, but it simply is not true. If you think I'm wrong, bring it on! No point in arguing about that, the point is that they pay way way more per person than poor people. At least you're not arguing with that. They do have ways of making it less, but it's still way way more than the poor guy. Like, say, a million dollars compared to five thousand. Do you have a point here? Because someone just getting by only pays $5K in taxes, someone else making millions should only pay $5K? Well, I'm not saying they should pay the same, I am saying they are contributing way way more, financially, to our society/govt already, they don't use that much more than any one else without paying for it and I don't understand why this inequity is not taken into consideration by the left. It looks a lot like people who want to do more for the poor, but not themselves, they want someone else to pay for it. This is morally inferior, not morally superior. It's very easy to see this as unfair, especially if the rich person worked hard for his money. He isn't using any more of the government than the poor person. Oh, really??? What color is the sky in your world, Steve? So he needs more police protection, he drives more on federal roads, he uses more what? And while you're at it, explain how he uses 200 times more free federal government services than the poor guy. Why is he having to pay so much more? Why do you resent him being able to decrease it? Did I say I resent it? Frankly, I benefit from it! Everyone has a right to lobby for their position. The question is, why do the conservatives love to make up nonsense to support their positions? The answer is, their policies only benefit to top few percent, so they need issues like gay marriage to win elections! The policy of reducing taxes for those who earn more is supposed to benefit the economy by creating more incentive to make more business. Doesn't that make any sense? Democracy is just a farce meant to hold the ordinary person down as has happened for millennia. Have I got that right? Yes, that is the label the right wingnuts like to pin on anyone that protests against their crimes. So, okay, you think democracy has helped the average person, but not much. I'm not trying to quantify anything. Democracy has made a profound difference. But the rich and powerful are still rich and powerful. Right, they create more, earn more because of the value they create, and can spend more. This is the best system anyone has thought of so far. But to deduce from this that Cheney is part of some massive conspiracy doesn't wash. Stephen |
Kook claims (was Beneteau Makes Racing Boats?)
Stephen Trapani wrote:
jeff wrote: Stephen Trapani wrote: jeff wrote: Stephen Trapani wrote: jeff wrote: Stephen Trapani wrote: jeff wrote: Think about what you're saying. Cheney, who was selected by Bush as his running mate, so badly wanted to be *vice-president* that he surreptitiously promised to sacrifice the well being of the country so these companies could make billions and billions of dollars in profits. No. He did it out of habit. It's the system he knows, the people he trusts. It just turns out that his friends, relatives, associates etc. are the ones who make money. So anyone with a habit of taking such huge risk What risk? I'd bet that Cheney could reveal the identity of a secret agent just for political purposes and get away with it! So you think massive corruption worth billions isn't much of a risk. I see. When you make the rules, the risks are minimal. When your chief-of-staff will take the fall, the risks are minimal. And for billions of dollars, the risks are acceptable. If you're connected enough, the SEC doesn't bother to investigate when you dump stock a few weeks before announcing major losses. Only a few ever get punished - that's only when the crimes are in the Enron scale. In my lifetime, Nixon has gotten in criminal trouble he couldn't get himself out of, so has Clinton, Really, I thought Clinton was "acquitted." and so have about fifteen Congressmen that I can recall. All for offenses that pale in comparison to the supposed corruption we're discussing here. Well frankly, I wasn't discussing anything specific here. You seem to be defending some Cheney/Halliburton crimes. But yes, I would say that if the truth was told it would reveal issues that are far worse than a blow job. But its hard to call it all "corruption" in the traditional sense. For instance, the current credit crisis was caused by relaxing the rules and ignoring all the signs. Was that criminal? Maybe a few will take the fall but most of the guilty have pocketed the cash and are free. I'm not sure why you think they are all above the law. I mean, back in the seventies I used to believe the whole trilateral commission/ rich people ruling the world stuff. But upon further thought and observation it just doesn't wash. Odd, I was skeptical at the time, but now I'm more of a believer. However, I'm not claiming it a global conspiracy, I'm claiming just the opposite: the system works differently for those at the top. Its like the old SNL skit with Eddie Murphy disguised as a white man who finds everything is free for him. to do so much for the people he loves Omigod! You're pouring it so thick! No, this is your theory. You're saying he's doing it for his friends. He must love them or really really like them, or what? Why is he doing this then if it's not love? Oh, I thought you were claiming he (or "they" in general) do it "for love of country." No, as I said, favors are given because that's the way the system works. Give someone from a well connected family a small stake in a business, perhaps a baseball team, and suddenly a stadium is built with public funds. Out of love? No, that's something you keep bringing up. Its a way of life. Ah, so now you're saying Cheney got his payback *before* he was VP. I'm not saying there was any specific payback. You're the one who's insisting there can't be anything fishy unless you can find a specific payback. When he acquired the shares of Halliburton, the Bush/Cheney ticket wasn't even a gleam in anyone's eye. Cheney certainly wasn't on the fast track to any big position of power at the time, so in order for your theory to make sense, My theory? What's my theory? And Cheney already had a "big position," he had been the Secretary of Defense, before that the Minority Whip. If you go through all the records you find a number of links between the Bush family, Halliburton, Dresser and Kellogg (KBR). Cheney has a nice nest egg, perhaps $30-100 million from his tenure at Halliburton, he has no need of a financial "payback." tens of thousands of never was's are being groomed and paid large amounts just in case they end up as vice-president. That's the only way it could work, right?s Sorry, this gibberish has nothing to do with what I'm saying. Cheney was picked as VP because he was a Bush family friend who could be trusted to play the game the "Bush" way. Like, no one could have known, say, six years ago, the position Obama would be in now, but just in case, him and many others like him are being given favors and whatever, *large* favors, worth billions, just in case. Have I got that right? Only in your warped view of the world. Why are you claiming that the only explanation for the Halliburton scandal is that years earlier someone was groomed to be in the position. How about, Cheney showed as minority whip that he could do a good job as the elder Bush's Secretary of Defense. Then Halliburton decided that a former Secretary of Defense who ran the First Gulf War, and had fed them lots of business, might be useful as a CEO. Then he happens to buy Dresser (Bush's grand daddy just happened to be a director and daddy worked there) and so on. Then Halliburton gets massive no-bid contracts and Cheney ends up worth $100 million. Now, I'm not claiming there was a conspiracy here, or even that there was anything illegal (though I'm guessing there was), I'm only claiming things seemed to work out very nicely for Mr. Cheney. Perhaps the stockholders of Halliburton's competition don't see it the same way. Perhaps the US public doesn't think they got their money's worth. But it worked out just fine for Cheney and his friends. No, he's just dealing in the world he helped create. You're trying to base an argument on "rich people would never commit a crime because they have too much to loose." No, my argument is that the logistics of your scenario (which BTW qualifies as a giant conspiracy, terminology-wise) doesn't make sense. I've said its not a conspiracy, its a way of life. The money/favor trail would be too easy to trace and there are too many and why does there have to be a trail? The SEC investigation against Bush from his Harken Oil days never quite happened. Does there need to be a trail? rabid reporter types out there who are searching for such money trails, many of them on Cheney himself, right this minute, I'm sure. And they will never find it. However, his Chief-of-Staff was convicted - that should say something. Most of the conspiracy theorists who investigate start realizing this so they stop proposing that guys like Cheney are doing it for themselves and suggest they are doing it for someone else, which makes even less sense, as I've explained previously. Actually, they probably think its the right thing to do. Nixon always thought he was doing the right thing. No, *you* are the one who said things are the same as they've been for thousands of years before democracy existed. Not exactly the same, obviously, but unchanged in many ways. Perhaps you should read a basic history book. Been there, done that. but you failed to take George Santayana's advice Read about the Patricians and Plebeians in ancient Rome. Even after centuries of fighting when the Plebeians were given equal rights, the wealthy families ruled. All that really changed was that Plebeians could rise to power as the old Patrician families died out. That system, of course, was not a liberal democracy, like ours. Really? In some ways it was more liberal. I thought it was interest that there were two Consuls, one Patrician and one Plebeian. Can you imagine two co-presidents, one Republican and one Democrat? Whether the common folk have right stamped on bronze tablets, or written in the Magna Carta or the Constitution doesn't change the fact that the rich and powerful are rich and powerful. Yes, well, a free economy *should* reward those who do more to earn more, shouldn't it? I mean if I discover the cure for cancer, shouldn't I be able to make lots of money and live in the lap of luxury? We want a society like that don't we? For god's sake, let's make even more of a reward for the guy who discovers the cure for cancer, and the guy who builds me a reasonably priced car that runs on water, and the guy who makes great Chinese food within fifteen minutes of my home! Don't you agree? Ah, so that should include being able to break, bend, or bypass any law? I don't mind that they have money, and I expect them to lobby to keep more. However, they tend to cross the line on occasion. The children of the wealthy get their "youthful excesses" expunged, while the same violation means 15 years for others. One could go on all day on this theme, but only a fool believes the rich and poor are really equal under the law. Well, the average rich individual supports many many times more of the governments expenses than the average poor person. You know that, right? Well duh, they enjoy a privileged position. They even pay a larger percentage of their income. Did you know that? That is one of the myths that Rush loves to spout, but it simply is not true. If you think I'm wrong, bring it on! No point in arguing about that, the point is that they pay way way more per person than poor people. At least you're not arguing with that. Lots of poor people pay almost nothing, because they have almost nothing. Its hard to make a government work based on what the poorest people can contribute. They do have ways of making it less, but it's still way way more than the poor guy. Like, say, a million dollars compared to five thousand. Do you have a point here? Because someone just getting by only pays $5K in taxes, someone else making millions should only pay $5K? Well, I'm not saying they should pay the same, I am saying they are contributing way way more, financially, to our society/govt already, they don't use that much more than any one else without paying for it and I don't understand why this inequity is not taken into consideration by the left. Very strange argument you're making. You're saying that the person who makes 700K a year doesn't use 10 times the services as the person who make 70K a year, so why should he pay 10 times the taxes? Interesting argument, but its hard to really put a dollar value on very safe communities, high quality health care and education, etc. Is it worth 10 times as much? But more to the point, is it worth it to invest 10 times as much in the future society to to ensure that your children have a safe society? It looks a lot like people who want to do more for the poor, but not themselves, they want someone else to pay for it. This is morally inferior, not morally superior. Ah, its the fault of the poor! Every criticism of conservatives is answered by "its the lefty commies who hate America and want to give everything to the poor!" Yes, only the rich know how to live properly. It's very easy to see this as unfair, especially if the rich person worked hard for his money. He isn't using any more of the government than the poor person. Oh, really??? What color is the sky in your world, Steve? So he needs more police protection, he drives more on federal roads, he uses more what? And while you're at it, explain how he uses 200 times more free federal government services than the poor guy. I don't know any rich person who would trade places with a poor person so he could pay less in taxes. I don't know who your hypothetical people are - the truly poor get very little, they can't use roads, the can't get health insurance, they can't get medications, and so on. But if you're comparing to the lower middle class, which is beginning to pay, by percentage, at a level close to rich, them you're comparing to someone whose income is at the $10 million (or more) a year level. This seems like a pretty extreme case. But, even so, the super rich who live in my town seem quite happy to pay the property tax on a $10 million house, even though its probably 50 times the national average. Why is he having to pay so much more? Why do you resent him being able to decrease it? Did I say I resent it? Frankly, I benefit from it! Everyone has a right to lobby for their position. The question is, why do the conservatives love to make up nonsense to support their positions? The answer is, their policies only benefit to top few percent, so they need issues like gay marriage to win elections! The policy of reducing taxes for those who earn more is supposed to benefit the economy by creating more incentive to make more business. Doesn't that make any sense? Trickle down? VooDoo economics? Its certainly appreciated by rich people, but its never been shown to work. Perhaps it made more sense when the marginal tax rate on the super rich was extremely high, but lowering their effective rate from 27% to 22% didn't help the common folk that much. So, okay, you think democracy has helped the average person, but not much. I'm not trying to quantify anything. Democracy has made a profound difference. But the rich and powerful are still rich and powerful. Right, they create more, earn more because of the value they create, and can spend more. This is the best system anyone has thought of so far. And you think it would be even better if the laws did not apply to the rich? But to deduce from this that Cheney is part of some massive conspiracy doesn't wash. Omigod! There's a massive conspiracy? I'll bet you think the Democratic Party is massive conspiracy to steal the country and give it to the poor! |
Right-wingnut Kook claims ((was Kook claims)was Beneteau Makes Racing Boats?))
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
... Capt. JG wrote: "Stephen Trapani" wrote in message http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...022202189.html You provide a link to an account of a past presidents income to disprove my statement that people are keeping close tabs on him? To demonstrate that you were exaggerating his income? To confirm that he makes most of it on the speaking circuit like I said? Man, I'd hate to see what you would provide if you were trying to *support* my position! Stephen I guess you don't remember typing, "I know he made close to that before he got in office," which is clearly wrong. Man, I'd hate to see you actually look at the facts! The article did mention that they were close to broke when Hillary was elected because they spent so much on campaigning, but it didn't say how much they made prior to that. Did you mean to post some facts about that? Stephen Do your own research! The Clintons were not very well off in the scheme of things compared to Bush/Cheney. Please feel free to site the instance in the article that said the Clintons used their money for campaining and that was why they were broke. BTW, this was before Bill was elected. I think you need to re-read the article. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Kook claims (was Beneteau Makes Racing Boats?)
Roger Long wrote:
"jeff" wrote Sorry, this gibberish has nothing to do with what I'm saying. Cheney was picked as VP because he was a Bush family friend who could be trusted to play the game the "Bush" way. I think you got that backwards? Bush being a simpleton who would toe the line was also an important part of the selection process. I won't argue much with that, but Cheney didn't pick him, Cheney was brought in to do the VP selection and surprise, surprise, he was the best choice! I'm sure that you would never find a "paper trail" of the "conspiracy" to make W the president. And I don't view this as a "smoke filled room" where "they" went down a list of viable simpletons and stopped at W; I think the Bush camp made it clear that they would create an environment very friendly to the needs of their peers. No one else at the time had quite the credentials to pull that off - McCain was the only competition, but Carl Rove took care of that ... |
Kook claims (was Beneteau Makes Racing Boats?)
In article ,
jeff wrote: Stephen Trapani wrote: jeff wrote: Stephen Trapani wrote: jeff wrote: Stephen Trapani wrote: jeff wrote: Stephen Trapani wrote: jeff wrote: Think about what you're saying. Cheney, who was selected by Bush as his running mate, so badly wanted to be *vice-president* that he surreptitiously promised to sacrifice the well being of the country so these companies could make billions and billions of dollars in profits. No. He did it out of habit. It's the system he knows, the people he trusts. It just turns out that his friends, relatives, associates etc. are the ones who make money. So anyone with a habit of taking such huge risk What risk? I'd bet that Cheney could reveal the identity of a secret agent just for political purposes and get away with it! So you think massive corruption worth billions isn't much of a risk. I see. When you make the rules, the risks are minimal. When your chief-of-staff will take the fall, the risks are minimal. And for billions of dollars, the risks are acceptable. If you're connected enough, the SEC doesn't bother to investigate when you dump stock a few weeks before announcing major losses. Only a few ever get punished - that's only when the crimes are in the Enron scale. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7444083.stm A BBC investigation estimates that around $23bn (£11.75bn) may have been lost, stolen or just not properly accounted for in Iraq. For the first time, the extent to which some private contractors have profited from the conflict and rebuilding has been researched by the BBC's Panorama using US and Iraqi government sources. A US gagging order is preventing discussion of the allegations. The order applies to 70 court cases against some of the top US companies. While George Bush remains in the White House, it is unlikely the gagging orders will be lifted. To date, no major US contractor faces trial for fraud or mismanagement in Iraq. -- Molesworth |
Kook claims (was Beneteau Makes Racing Boats?)
jeff wrote:
Roger Long wrote: "jeff" wrote Sorry, this gibberish has nothing to do with what I'm saying. Cheney was picked as VP because he was a Bush family friend who could be trusted to play the game the "Bush" way. I think you got that backwards? Bush being a simpleton who would toe the line was also an important part of the selection process. I won't argue much with that, but Cheney didn't pick him, Cheney was brought in to do the VP selection and surprise, surprise, he was the best choice! I'm sure that you would never find a "paper trail" of the "conspiracy" to make W the president. And I don't view this as a "smoke filled room" where "they" went down a list of viable simpletons and stopped at W; I think the Bush camp made it clear that they would create an environment very friendly to the needs of their peers. No one else at the time had quite the credentials to pull that off - McCain was the only competition, but Carl Rove took care of that ... Don't forget, in order for this conspiracy to work, they had to rig the other side of the ticket too! Too close to call, you know! Why, what would happen to our world ruling organization if the leader of the most powerful nation in the world is against us?!! I wonder how they got to Obama... Stephen |
Right-wingnut Kook claims ((was Kook claims)was BeneteauMakes Racing Boats?))
Capt. JG wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "Stephen Trapani" wrote in message http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...022202189.html You provide a link to an account of a past presidents income to disprove my statement that people are keeping close tabs on him? To demonstrate that you were exaggerating his income? To confirm that he makes most of it on the speaking circuit like I said? Man, I'd hate to see what you would provide if you were trying to *support* my position! Stephen I guess you don't remember typing, "I know he made close to that before he got in office," which is clearly wrong. Man, I'd hate to see you actually look at the facts! The article did mention that they were close to broke when Hillary was elected because they spent so much on campaigning, but it didn't say how much they made prior to that. Did you mean to post some facts about that? Stephen Do your own research! The Clintons were not very well off in the scheme of things compared to Bush/Cheney. Please feel free to site the instance in the article that said the Clintons used their money for campaining and that was why they were broke. "Indeed, the Clintons -- who left the White House with an estimated $12 million in legal debts rung up during the Whitewater, campaign fundraising and Monica S. Lewinsky investigations..." BTW, this was before Bill was elected. I think you need to re-read the article. Remember what this discussion was about? You know, the part you were wrong about so you changed the subject? Don't you remember? About whether Clinton was hiding payoffs from all the favors he did while he was president? I said past presidents and VPs are watched carefully, so it would be next to impossible for them to get any significant payoffs. You responded by claiming Clinton was making 100 million per year? Then you posted a link where a reporter knew his exact income? Stephen |
Kook claims (was Beneteau Makes Racing Boats?)
Stephen Trapani wrote:
jeff wrote: I'm sure that you would never find a "paper trail" of the "conspiracy" to make W the president. And I don't view this as a "smoke filled room" where "they" went down a list of viable simpletons and stopped at W; I think the Bush camp made it clear that they would create an environment very friendly to the needs of their peers. No one else at the time had quite the credentials to pull that off - McCain was the only competition, but Carl Rove took care of that ... Don't forget, in order for this conspiracy to work, they had to rig the other side of the ticket too! Too close to call, you know! Why, what would happen to our world ruling organization if the leader of the most powerful nation in the world is against us?!! I wonder how they got to Obama... You keep creating this "straw man argument" of a conspiracy so you can shoot it down. Its just the opposite: Bush offered himself to the business world as the man who would relax all restrictions and allow them to write their own "regulations." No conspiracy, just the way the game is played. As for picking the Democratic candidate, they didn't have to pick, they had a plan for either. |
Right-wingnut Kook claims ((was Kook claims)was Beneteau Makes Racing Boats?))
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
... Capt. JG wrote: "Stephen Trapani" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "Stephen Trapani" wrote in message http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...022202189.html You provide a link to an account of a past presidents income to disprove my statement that people are keeping close tabs on him? To demonstrate that you were exaggerating his income? To confirm that he makes most of it on the speaking circuit like I said? Man, I'd hate to see what you would provide if you were trying to *support* my position! Stephen I guess you don't remember typing, "I know he made close to that before he got in office," which is clearly wrong. Man, I'd hate to see you actually look at the facts! The article did mention that they were close to broke when Hillary was elected because they spent so much on campaigning, but it didn't say how much they made prior to that. Did you mean to post some facts about that? Stephen Do your own research! The Clintons were not very well off in the scheme of things compared to Bush/Cheney. Please feel free to site the instance in the article that said the Clintons used their money for campaining and that was why they were broke. "Indeed, the Clintons -- who left the White House with an estimated $12 million in legal debts rung up during the Whitewater, campaign fundraising and Monica S. Lewinsky investigations..." BTW, this was before Bill was elected. I think you need to re-read the article. Remember what this discussion was about? You know, the part you were wrong about so you changed the subject? Don't you remember? About whether Clinton was hiding payoffs from all the favors he did while he was president? I said past presidents and VPs are watched carefully, so it would be next to impossible for them to get any significant payoffs. You responded by claiming Clinton was making 100 million per year? Then you posted a link where a reporter knew his exact income? Stephen You can keep trying to twist the facts, but the truth is that there are no requirements for presidents (current or former) to publish their tax returns. The Bushs and Cheneys were wealthy before they took office and will be wealthier when they leave office. The Clintons were relatively less well off when they got to the White House, and eventually, they paid their debts and Bill made a lot of money after he left office. Bush and Cheney will make far more money for themselves (much of it will not be examined after they leave office) and much more for their friends. Bush and Cheney's "friends" are big oil, who now will not be forced to be taxed on money they made from the run-up of gas prices. I guess an extra $36B is a nice payment for Bush/Cheney and the Republicans in the Senate. Vote McCain for four more years of the same! -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Right-wingnut Kook claims ((was Kook claims)was BeneteauMakes Racing Boats?))
wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 10:06:27 -0700, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Stephen Trapani" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "Stephen Trapani" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "Stephen Trapani" wrote in message http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...022202189.html You provide a link to an account of a past presidents income to disprove my statement that people are keeping close tabs on him? To demonstrate that you were exaggerating his income? To confirm that he makes most of it on the speaking circuit like I said? Man, I'd hate to see what you would provide if you were trying to *support* my position! Stephen I guess you don't remember typing, "I know he made close to that before he got in office," which is clearly wrong. Man, I'd hate to see you actually look at the facts! The article did mention that they were close to broke when Hillary was elected because they spent so much on campaigning, but it didn't say how much they made prior to that. Did you mean to post some facts about that? Stephen Do your own research! The Clintons were not very well off in the scheme of things compared to Bush/Cheney. Please feel free to site the instance in the article that said the Clintons used their money for campaining and that was why they were broke. "Indeed, the Clintons -- who left the White House with an estimated $12 million in legal debts rung up during the Whitewater, campaign fundraising and Monica S. Lewinsky investigations..." BTW, this was before Bill was elected. I think you need to re-read the article. Remember what this discussion was about? You know, the part you were wrong about so you changed the subject? Don't you remember? About whether Clinton was hiding payoffs from all the favors he did while he was president? I said past presidents and VPs are watched carefully, so it would be next to impossible for them to get any significant payoffs. You responded by claiming Clinton was making 100 million per year? Then you posted a link where a reporter knew his exact income? Stephen You can keep trying to twist the facts, but the truth is that there are no requirements for presidents (current or former) to publish their tax returns. The Bushs and Cheneys were wealthy before they took office and will be wealthier when they leave office. The Clintons were relatively less well off when they got to the White House, and eventually, they paid their debts and Bill made a lot of money after he left office. Bush and Cheney will make far more money for themselves (much of it will not be examined after they leave office) and much more for their friends. Bush and Cheney's "friends" are big oil, who now will not be forced to be taxed on money they made from the run-up of gas prices. I guess an extra $36B is a nice payment for Bush/Cheney and the Republicans in the Senate. Vote McCain for four more years of the same! It was the Bush Administration that relaxed the rules regarding oil speculation. That certainly worked to the advantage of some folks and heavily against the interests of MOST folks. Way off. You know that it is foreign oil driving up the prices, right? You must not know that the rules you refer to are wrt domestic oil speculation. I don't know how much domestic speculation has been stimulated as a result, but if much has, that would drive down the price of oil. It can't drive up the price. Stephen |
Right-wingnut Kook claims ((was Kook claims)was Beneteau Makes Racing Boats?))
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
... wrote: On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 10:06:27 -0700, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Stephen Trapani" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "Stephen Trapani" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "Stephen Trapani" wrote in message http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...022202189.html You provide a link to an account of a past presidents income to disprove my statement that people are keeping close tabs on him? To demonstrate that you were exaggerating his income? To confirm that he makes most of it on the speaking circuit like I said? Man, I'd hate to see what you would provide if you were trying to *support* my position! Stephen I guess you don't remember typing, "I know he made close to that before he got in office," which is clearly wrong. Man, I'd hate to see you actually look at the facts! The article did mention that they were close to broke when Hillary was elected because they spent so much on campaigning, but it didn't say how much they made prior to that. Did you mean to post some facts about that? Stephen Do your own research! The Clintons were not very well off in the scheme of things compared to Bush/Cheney. Please feel free to site the instance in the article that said the Clintons used their money for campaining and that was why they were broke. "Indeed, the Clintons -- who left the White House with an estimated $12 million in legal debts rung up during the Whitewater, campaign fundraising and Monica S. Lewinsky investigations..." BTW, this was before Bill was elected. I think you need to re-read the article. Remember what this discussion was about? You know, the part you were wrong about so you changed the subject? Don't you remember? About whether Clinton was hiding payoffs from all the favors he did while he was president? I said past presidents and VPs are watched carefully, so it would be next to impossible for them to get any significant payoffs. You responded by claiming Clinton was making 100 million per year? Then you posted a link where a reporter knew his exact income? Stephen You can keep trying to twist the facts, but the truth is that there are no requirements for presidents (current or former) to publish their tax returns. The Bushs and Cheneys were wealthy before they took office and will be wealthier when they leave office. The Clintons were relatively less well off when they got to the White House, and eventually, they paid their debts and Bill made a lot of money after he left office. Bush and Cheney will make far more money for themselves (much of it will not be examined after they leave office) and much more for their friends. Bush and Cheney's "friends" are big oil, who now will not be forced to be taxed on money they made from the run-up of gas prices. I guess an extra $36B is a nice payment for Bush/Cheney and the Republicans in the Senate. Vote McCain for four more years of the same! It was the Bush Administration that relaxed the rules regarding oil speculation. That certainly worked to the advantage of some folks and heavily against the interests of MOST folks. Way off. You know that it is foreign oil driving up the prices, right? You must not know that the rules you refer to are wrt domestic oil speculation. I don't know how much domestic speculation has been stimulated as a result, but if much has, that would drive down the price of oil. It can't drive up the price. Stephen Huh? Where did you get that? Any uncertainty drives the price up. The source is irrelevant. It's not like it's our oil vs. Saudi oil. Oil is oil, and it fluctuates on the world market. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Right-wingnut Kook claims ((was Kook claims)was Beneteau Makes Racing Boats?))
wrote in message
... On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:49:46 -0700, Stephen Trapani wrote: wrote: On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 10:06:27 -0700, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Stephen Trapani" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "Stephen Trapani" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "Stephen Trapani" wrote in message http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...022202189.html You provide a link to an account of a past presidents income to disprove my statement that people are keeping close tabs on him? To demonstrate that you were exaggerating his income? To confirm that he makes most of it on the speaking circuit like I said? Man, I'd hate to see what you would provide if you were trying to *support* my position! Stephen I guess you don't remember typing, "I know he made close to that before he got in office," which is clearly wrong. Man, I'd hate to see you actually look at the facts! The article did mention that they were close to broke when Hillary was elected because they spent so much on campaigning, but it didn't say how much they made prior to that. Did you mean to post some facts about that? Stephen Do your own research! The Clintons were not very well off in the scheme of things compared to Bush/Cheney. Please feel free to site the instance in the article that said the Clintons used their money for campaining and that was why they were broke. "Indeed, the Clintons -- who left the White House with an estimated $12 million in legal debts rung up during the Whitewater, campaign fundraising and Monica S. Lewinsky investigations..." BTW, this was before Bill was elected. I think you need to re-read the article. Remember what this discussion was about? You know, the part you were wrong about so you changed the subject? Don't you remember? About whether Clinton was hiding payoffs from all the favors he did while he was president? I said past presidents and VPs are watched carefully, so it would be next to impossible for them to get any significant payoffs. You responded by claiming Clinton was making 100 million per year? Then you posted a link where a reporter knew his exact income? Stephen You can keep trying to twist the facts, but the truth is that there are no requirements for presidents (current or former) to publish their tax returns. The Bushs and Cheneys were wealthy before they took office and will be wealthier when they leave office. The Clintons were relatively less well off when they got to the White House, and eventually, they paid their debts and Bill made a lot of money after he left office. Bush and Cheney will make far more money for themselves (much of it will not be examined after they leave office) and much more for their friends. Bush and Cheney's "friends" are big oil, who now will not be forced to be taxed on money they made from the run-up of gas prices. I guess an extra $36B is a nice payment for Bush/Cheney and the Republicans in the Senate. Vote McCain for four more years of the same! It was the Bush Administration that relaxed the rules regarding oil speculation. That certainly worked to the advantage of some folks and heavily against the interests of MOST folks. Way off. You know that it is foreign oil driving up the prices, right? You must not know that the rules you refer to are wrt domestic oil speculation. I don't know how much domestic speculation has been stimulated as a result, but if much has, that would drive down the price of oil. It can't drive up the price. Stephen I'll bet you aren't even aware that US oil companies are EXPORTING oil. That's right. Regardless of where they get their oil, they are always ready willing and able to re-sell it to whomever will pay the highest price for it. US Oil companies regularly sell oil to places such as China who will pay more than they can get for it domestically. That's why drilling in Anwar won't do anything at all for U.S. energy needs. They want that oil so they can sell it to China for big bucks, not to make the US more "energy independent". Realistically, it will be difficult to be truly energy independent. What we need to do is make the painful transition to non-oil-based personal transportation. I think it's a mis-statement to say we should reduce our dependence on "foreign" oil. Rather, we should reduce our dependence on oil, period. We can't eliminate it, but increasing CAFE standards significantly, will reduce our demand. Much like some western Euro countries, we should be moving much more aggressively in the direction of alternative energy. Oh well... this isn't really about sailing, so..... -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Right-wingnut Kook claims ((was Kook claims)was BeneteauMakes Racing Boats?))
Capt. JG wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message ... wrote: On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 10:06:27 -0700, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Stephen Trapani" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "Stephen Trapani" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "Stephen Trapani" wrote in message http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...022202189.html You provide a link to an account of a past presidents income to disprove my statement that people are keeping close tabs on him? To demonstrate that you were exaggerating his income? To confirm that he makes most of it on the speaking circuit like I said? Man, I'd hate to see what you would provide if you were trying to *support* my position! Stephen I guess you don't remember typing, "I know he made close to that before he got in office," which is clearly wrong. Man, I'd hate to see you actually look at the facts! The article did mention that they were close to broke when Hillary was elected because they spent so much on campaigning, but it didn't say how much they made prior to that. Did you mean to post some facts about that? Stephen Do your own research! The Clintons were not very well off in the scheme of things compared to Bush/Cheney. Please feel free to site the instance in the article that said the Clintons used their money for campaining and that was why they were broke. "Indeed, the Clintons -- who left the White House with an estimated $12 million in legal debts rung up during the Whitewater, campaign fundraising and Monica S. Lewinsky investigations..." BTW, this was before Bill was elected. I think you need to re-read the article. Remember what this discussion was about? You know, the part you were wrong about so you changed the subject? Don't you remember? About whether Clinton was hiding payoffs from all the favors he did while he was president? I said past presidents and VPs are watched carefully, so it would be next to impossible for them to get any significant payoffs. You responded by claiming Clinton was making 100 million per year? Then you posted a link where a reporter knew his exact income? Stephen You can keep trying to twist the facts, but the truth is that there are no requirements for presidents (current or former) to publish their tax returns. The Bushs and Cheneys were wealthy before they took office and will be wealthier when they leave office. The Clintons were relatively less well off when they got to the White House, and eventually, they paid their debts and Bill made a lot of money after he left office. Bush and Cheney will make far more money for themselves (much of it will not be examined after they leave office) and much more for their friends. Bush and Cheney's "friends" are big oil, who now will not be forced to be taxed on money they made from the run-up of gas prices. I guess an extra $36B is a nice payment for Bush/Cheney and the Republicans in the Senate. Vote McCain for four more years of the same! It was the Bush Administration that relaxed the rules regarding oil speculation. That certainly worked to the advantage of some folks and heavily against the interests of MOST folks. Way off. You know that it is foreign oil driving up the prices, right? You must not know that the rules you refer to are wrt domestic oil speculation. I don't know how much domestic speculation has been stimulated as a result, but if much has, that would drive down the price of oil. It can't drive up the price. Stephen Huh? Where did you get that? Any uncertainty drives the price up. The source is irrelevant. It's not like it's our oil vs. Saudi oil. Oil is oil, and it fluctuates on the world market. "Domestic speculation" refers to people looking for and presumably finding oil in US territory. Finding more oil, especially locally, drives down the price of oil for the US. Understand now? Stephen |
Right-wingnut Kook claims ((was Kook claims)was Beneteau Makes Racing Boats?))
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
... Vote McCain for four more years of the same! It was the Bush Administration that relaxed the rules regarding oil speculation. That certainly worked to the advantage of some folks and heavily against the interests of MOST folks. Way off. You know that it is foreign oil driving up the prices, right? You must not know that the rules you refer to are wrt domestic oil speculation. I don't know how much domestic speculation has been stimulated as a result, but if much has, that would drive down the price of oil. It can't drive up the price. Stephen Huh? Where did you get that? Any uncertainty drives the price up. The source is irrelevant. It's not like it's our oil vs. Saudi oil. Oil is oil, and it fluctuates on the world market. "Domestic speculation" refers to people looking for and presumably finding oil in US territory. Finding more oil, especially locally, drives down the price of oil for the US. Understand now? Stephen Oh, so you're talking about drilling for oil in ANWAR and other pristine wilderness areas. Understand completely. And, no, it won't make any difference. Why don't we set up a drilling rig in your backyard if you're so inclined. Oil is sold on the world market, as Salty pointed out. Not only will it have minimal effect, the amount that we could realistically extract wouldn't come online for a decade. Understand now? -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Right-wingnut Kook claims ((was Kook claims)was Beneteau Makes Racing Boats?))
wrote in message
... On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:44:58 -0700, "Capt. JG" wrote: I'll bet you aren't even aware that US oil companies are EXPORTING oil. That's right. Regardless of where they get their oil, they are always ready willing and able to re-sell it to whomever will pay the highest price for it. US Oil companies regularly sell oil to places such as China who will pay more than they can get for it domestically. That's why drilling in Anwar won't do anything at all for U.S. energy needs. They want that oil so they can sell it to China for big bucks, not to make the US more "energy independent". Realistically, it will be difficult to be truly energy independent. What we need to do is make the painful transition to non-oil-based personal transportation. I think it's a mis-statement to say we should reduce our dependence on "foreign" oil. Rather, we should reduce our dependence on oil, period. We can't eliminate it, but increasing CAFE standards significantly, will reduce our demand. Much like some western Euro countries, we should be moving much more aggressively in the direction of alternative energy. Oh well... this isn't really about sailing, so..... Don't overlook the rest of the picture. Oil isn't just for powering transportataion and heating. Every bit of plastic, including Neal's plaid polyester leisure suit, is made from petroleum, as are many other things. I was hoping to overlook that particular application. :) -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Right-wingnut Kook claims ((was Kook claims)was BeneteauMakes Racing Boats?))
Capt. JG wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message ... Vote McCain for four more years of the same! It was the Bush Administration that relaxed the rules regarding oil speculation. That certainly worked to the advantage of some folks and heavily against the interests of MOST folks. Way off. You know that it is foreign oil driving up the prices, right? You must not know that the rules you refer to are wrt domestic oil speculation. I don't know how much domestic speculation has been stimulated as a result, but if much has, that would drive down the price of oil. It can't drive up the price. Stephen Huh? Where did you get that? Any uncertainty drives the price up. The source is irrelevant. It's not like it's our oil vs. Saudi oil. Oil is oil, and it fluctuates on the world market. "Domestic speculation" refers to people looking for and presumably finding oil in US territory. Finding more oil, especially locally, drives down the price of oil for the US. Understand now? Stephen Oh, so you're talking about drilling for oil in ANWAR and other pristine wilderness areas. Maybe, and maybe new methods of extraction can be devised to preserve such areas. But the main source of US oil is shale which is more expensive to extract, but is very abundant. Relaxing the rules regarding accessing this resource will stimulate production and drive down prices. Understand completely. And, no, it won't make any difference. Any reason I should believe you when what you're saying makes no sense? Why don't we set up a drilling rig in your backyard if you're so inclined. Great! I'll be rich! Oil is sold on the world market, as Salty pointed out. He neglected to mention that transportation costs play a big role in the price of oil to eventual consumers. So the price of US oil will go down. Not only will it have minimal effect, the amount that we could realistically extract wouldn't come online for a decade. Understand now? I definitely have a better understanding of your level of knowledge in this area. Stephen |
Right-wingnut Kook claims ((was Kook claims)was Beneteau Makes Racing Boats?))
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
... Capt. JG wrote: "Stephen Trapani" wrote in message ... Vote McCain for four more years of the same! It was the Bush Administration that relaxed the rules regarding oil speculation. That certainly worked to the advantage of some folks and heavily against the interests of MOST folks. Way off. You know that it is foreign oil driving up the prices, right? You must not know that the rules you refer to are wrt domestic oil speculation. I don't know how much domestic speculation has been stimulated as a result, but if much has, that would drive down the price of oil. It can't drive up the price. Stephen Huh? Where did you get that? Any uncertainty drives the price up. The source is irrelevant. It's not like it's our oil vs. Saudi oil. Oil is oil, and it fluctuates on the world market. "Domestic speculation" refers to people looking for and presumably finding oil in US territory. Finding more oil, especially locally, drives down the price of oil for the US. Understand now? Stephen Oh, so you're talking about drilling for oil in ANWAR and other pristine wilderness areas. Maybe, and maybe new methods of extraction can be devised to preserve such areas. But the main source of US oil is shale which is more expensive to extract, but is very abundant. Relaxing the rules regarding accessing this resource will stimulate production and drive down prices. I love that! Maybe. And, maybe we'll ruin the environment even more than we currently do. That's the classic.. relax the rules instead of change your behavior. After all, big oil cares about us. Understand completely. And, no, it won't make any difference. Any reason I should believe you when what you're saying makes no sense? Why don't we set up a drilling rig in your backyard if you're so inclined. Great! I'll be rich! Oil is sold on the world market, as Salty pointed out. He neglected to mention that transportation costs play a big role in the price of oil to eventual consumers. So the price of US oil will go down. Huh? It's world market. What part of "world" don't you understand. Not only will it have minimal effect, the amount that we could realistically extract wouldn't come online for a decade. Understand now? I definitely have a better understanding of your level of knowledge in this area. Because you say so. Got it. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Right-wingnut Kook claims ((was Kook claims)was BeneteauMakes Racing Boats?))
Capt. JG wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "Stephen Trapani" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "Stephen Trapani" wrote in message http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...022202189.html You provide a link to an account of a past presidents income to disprove my statement that people are keeping close tabs on him? To demonstrate that you were exaggerating his income? To confirm that he makes most of it on the speaking circuit like I said? Man, I'd hate to see what you would provide if you were trying to *support* my position! Stephen I guess you don't remember typing, "I know he made close to that before he got in office," which is clearly wrong. Man, I'd hate to see you actually look at the facts! The article did mention that they were close to broke when Hillary was elected because they spent so much on campaigning, but it didn't say how much they made prior to that. Did you mean to post some facts about that? Stephen Do your own research! The Clintons were not very well off in the scheme of things compared to Bush/Cheney. Please feel free to site the instance in the article that said the Clintons used their money for campaining and that was why they were broke. "Indeed, the Clintons -- who left the White House with an estimated $12 million in legal debts rung up during the Whitewater, campaign fundraising and Monica S. Lewinsky investigations..." BTW, this was before Bill was elected. I think you need to re-read the article. Remember what this discussion was about? You know, the part you were wrong about so you changed the subject? Don't you remember? About whether Clinton was hiding payoffs from all the favors he did while he was president? I said past presidents and VPs are watched carefully, so it would be next to impossible for them to get any significant payoffs. You responded by claiming Clinton was making 100 million per year? Then you posted a link where a reporter knew his exact income? Stephen You can keep trying to twist the facts, but the truth is that there are no requirements for presidents (current or former) to publish their tax returns. The Bushs and Cheneys were wealthy before they took office and will be wealthier when they leave office. The Clintons were relatively less well off when they got to the White House, and eventually, they paid their debts and Bill made a lot of money after he left office. You must have lost track of what we were talking about because you are now supporting my position. Funny. Past presidents and the like can easily do very well income-wise speaking, writing books and a variety of legal ways, just like Clinton has done, and so they have no reason at all to do huge favors for anyone while they are in office. Stephen |
Right-wingnut Kook claims ((was Kook claims)was Beneteau Makes Racing Boats?))
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
... You must have lost track of what we were talking about because you are now supporting my position. Funny. Past presidents and the like can easily do very well income-wise speaking, writing books and a variety of legal ways, just like Clinton has done, and so they have no reason at all to do huge favors for anyone while they are in office. Your contention was that politicians will not seek profit for their friends while in office, and now you're claiming that they don't because they'll make money after they leave office. In addition, you said that former Presidents and VP are somehow accountable, and that their finances are "tracked" with some requirement to do that. Both statements are patently absurd. You claimed that Clinton came into office well off. I provided a link that disproved this. I also provided a link that shows that Cheney was wealthy and will likely be more so after he leaves office, all the while enriching his oil buddies. You claimed that this will be closely monitored, which is also absurd. Politicians have and will continue to break laws to enrich their friends. Bush and Cheney are prime examples. When asked by Martha Raddatz of ABC his reaction to 70% of the people disagreeing with the reason and prosecution of the Iraqi war, Cheney's response was, and I quote, "So?" Cheney would and has sacrificed what is good for the US in the name of big oil and flawed ideology. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Right-wingnut Kook claims ((was Kook claims)was Beneteau Makes Racing Boats?))
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:44:58 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote: Much like some western Euro countries, we should be moving much more aggressively in the direction of alternative energy. Iowa has had one oil well that produced 69 barrels, so they looked elsewhere for energy. We came up with wind. The state of Iowa manufactures windmills, and gets 5% of its electricity from them. The rest of the world is agressively pursuing nuclear. We should be. Turn all those surplus weapons into power, for openers. Alcohol is a cruel hoax. Turning food into fuel is insane. The poorest people will starve Casady |
Right-wingnut Kook claims ((was Kook claims)was Beneteau Makes Racing Boats?))
In article ,
(Richard Casady) wrote: On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:44:58 -0700, "Capt. JG" wrote: Much like some western Euro countries, we should be moving much more aggressively in the direction of alternative energy. Iowa has had one oil well that produced 69 barrels, so they looked elsewhere for energy. We came up with wind. The state of Iowa manufactures windmills, and gets 5% of its electricity from them. The rest of the world is agressively pursuing nuclear. We should be. Turn all those surplus weapons into power, for openers. Alcohol is a cruel hoax. Turning food into fuel is insane. The poorest people will starve From todays' Times: Scientists find bugs that eat waste and excrete petrol http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle4133668.ece -- Molesworth |
Right-wingnut Kook claims ((was Kook claims)was Beneteau Makes Racing Boats?))
wrote in message
... On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 18:44:04 GMT, (Richard Casady) wrote: On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:44:58 -0700, "Capt. JG" wrote: Much like some western Euro countries, we should be moving much more aggressively in the direction of alternative energy. Iowa has had one oil well that produced 69 barrels, so they looked elsewhere for energy. We came up with wind. The state of Iowa manufactures windmills, and gets 5% of its electricity from them. The rest of the world is agressively pursuing nuclear. We should be. Turn all those surplus weapons into power, for openers. Alcohol is a cruel hoax. Turning food into fuel is insane. The poorest people will starve Yeah, but the more that starve, the fewer will be consuming energy. Over population is the root of the entire problem, and any other "solution" is merely a stop-gap temporary bandaid. I'm not saying that we should let people starve, but I am saying we need to stop reproducing at greater than the mortality rate. We are past the point where "zero population growth" is enough. We need to work the numbers back down. I would even halt all funding for further research into ways to extend life. It's counterproductive to overall survival. The right-wingnut administration promotes abstinence only programs, which have been shown not to work. And, even the laudable efforts of the Bush administration to provide HIV meds is tainted and diminished by the requirement of requiring that these programs be the only ones used... Even when a country wants to use it's own money for condom distribution, it can't or risk losing funding for medication. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:40 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com