"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
More than enough money to supply all that stuff disappeared into
the
companies run by Cheney's chums. Twice as much of our money was
spent to
give the USCG the equipment they need and they didn't get so much
as a
usable RIB out of it.
Any clue why a politician would want to risk life in prison to make
their "chums" rich? People spout this so much and never stop to
think of how ridiculous it is. These are bad, evil people taking
huge risks for someone else?? It doesn't make a bit of sense.
Huh? People risk jail time all the time for profit motive. They do it
for themselves and for others, which is not mutually exclusive.
Let's try again. The popular contention is that all these politicians
are making decisions so that their *friends* can profit, not
themselves. As we all know, high profile politicians like presidents
and vice-presidents have their finances highly scrutinized until the
day they die. Any large influx of money would shortly be obvious to
the entire world, so we all know they can't get any significant
kickbacks or profit of any sort remotely related to any companies who
profited while the politician was in office.
Really? After they leave office? Bill Clinton, to use the counter
example, made $100M last year. Do you know all the details?
I know he made close to that before he got in office and he makes a
great deal on the speaking circuit. I also know that there are
multitudes of reporters investigating him in hopes of a big story, just
like there are for every ex-president.

Nope. Wrong again:

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!


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

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

"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

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

"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

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

"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

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

"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

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