| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Beneteau Makes Racing Boats?
|
Beneteau Makes Racing Boats?
Roger Long wrote:
"Dennis Pogson" wrote Is this another case of the CG simply taking the view that "it's only $300,000, let the insurers pick up the tab"? Now that the CG is nearly as overstretched and underfunded as the rest of the military, and deprived of proper equipment by the the hidiously corrupt supply contractor / procurement system that sees everything as a money siphon from the taxpayers and cares not one whit for the safety or security of the nation, they have not unreasonably adopted an unwritten policy that their job is to save people; not toys. After all, there is only so much they can do. If I were out there risking my life on an aging cutter or aircraft looking at a toy boat owned by the kind of fat cat that deprived me of the proper equipment to do my job and keep me safe to be alive to do it, hell, I'd let the damn thing sink too. So your solution to others having more than you is to do what you can to see that they lose it, if you get the chance. Hmm. I know that not all, in fact very few, sailors actually fit into this category but, if I were on of those dedicated and courageous and dedicated people out there who had been waiting for new equipment and had been following the Deepwater fiasco, it would be an easy attitude to slip into. It's also the only rational prioritization response at the command structure level to the task / resources ratio forced on them. Why is it that the conservatives who get so worked up about private lifestyle issues and taxes never seem to get very exercised about the massive theft that is military procurement or the fact that the soldiers they put "Support our Troops" bumper stickers on their cars about are in Iraq without proper body armor or mine resistant vehicles? The answer is that you misunderstand what you oppose. Conservatives generally see the problem as belonging to the system and instead of wanting to dump more money into that system like liberals always want to do, they want to change the system so that the problems you speak of are eliminated. One great way to do so is the free people up to choose the best products and services. In other words, let people profit from creating better products and services, the best products and services will succeed. The worst will fail. This is what capitalism accomplishes, if free. 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. People mindlessly repeat the propaganda they have been fed by talk radio Hmm. You do realize you are mindlessly repeating propaganda you've been fed by talk radio too, right? Stephen |
Beneteau Makes Racing Boats?
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
... Why is it that the conservatives who get so worked up about private lifestyle issues and taxes never seem to get very exercised about the massive theft that is military procurement or the fact that the soldiers they put "Support our Troops" bumper stickers on their cars about are in Iraq without proper body armor or mine resistant vehicles? The answer is that you misunderstand what you oppose. Conservatives generally see the problem as belonging to the system and instead of wanting to dump more money into that system like liberals always want to Always?? So, this isn't about conservatism vs. liberalism in your argument. It's about good vs. evil. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_conservative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_liberal do, they want to change the system so that the problems you speak of are eliminated. One great way to do so is the free people up to choose the best products and services. In other words, let people profit from creating better products and services, the best products and services will succeed. The worst will fail. This is what capitalism accomplishes, if free. This the Univ. of Chicago style of argument that has been shown over and over to not work (if you're interested, there are lots of examples out there, the justification for Iraq war included). Capitalism must be moderated with a societal safety net in order to take full advantage of its benefits. "Pure" capitalism doesn't work as advertised. 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. People mindlessly repeat the propaganda they have been fed by talk radio Hmm. You do realize you are mindlessly repeating propaganda you've been fed by talk radio too, right? Or, he's actually thinking. Either could be true. The right-wingnut talk radio shows are fairly popular as well last I checked. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Beneteau Makes Racing Boats?
Capt. JG wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message ... Why is it that the conservatives who get so worked up about private lifestyle issues and taxes never seem to get very exercised about the massive theft that is military procurement or the fact that the soldiers they put "Support our Troops" bumper stickers on their cars about are in Iraq without proper body armor or mine resistant vehicles? The answer is that you misunderstand what you oppose. Conservatives generally see the problem as belonging to the system and instead of wanting to dump more money into that system like liberals always want to Always?? So, this isn't about conservatism vs. liberalism in your argument. It's about good vs. evil. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_conservative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_liberal do, they want to change the system so that the problems you speak of are eliminated. One great way to do so is the free people up to choose the best products and services. In other words, let people profit from creating better products and services, the best products and services will succeed. The worst will fail. This is what capitalism accomplishes, if free. This the Univ. of Chicago style of argument that has been shown over and over to not work (if you're interested, there are lots of examples out there, the justification for Iraq war included). Capitalism must be moderated with a societal safety net in order to take full advantage of its benefits. "Pure" capitalism doesn't work as advertised. 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. People mindlessly repeat the propaganda they have been fed by talk radio Hmm. You do realize you are mindlessly repeating propaganda you've been fed by talk radio too, right? Or, he's actually thinking. Either could be true. The right-wingnut talk radio shows are fairly popular as well last I checked. To get back to the subject. On UK television tonight we had a film of the rescue services (lifeboat) going out to a £500,000 motor yacht, allegedly the first in this country to be driven by biofuels. Unfortunately, someone neglected to "engineer" the steering which was said to be hydraulic. I have sailed on several machines fitted with hydraulic steering all of which were utterly useless. This particular system leaked badly, leaving them without steerage. (Must have had only one engine, aren't we carrying this fuel-cost excuse a little too far?) Could it be they charged up the steering system with hydraulic biofuel? The vessel was towed to safety by the lifeboatmen, one of whom mentioned that their own vessel was considerably less expensive than the rescued vessel. Red faces all round! No secondary steering sytem, not even an emergency tiller! Bet I could have got her home using the bow thruster! Dennis. |
Beneteau Makes Racing Boats?
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 21:33:16 +0100, "Dennis Pogson"
wrote: ... On UK television tonight we had a film of the rescue services (lifeboat) going out to a £500,000 motor yacht, allegedly the first in this country to be driven by biofuels. .... Dennis. The UK is a small country, no doubt. Nowhere more than 150 miles from the sea possibly. But I was struck again, visiting Walsall and Birmingham in the Midlands last week i.e as far as it gets from the ocean, how the Lifeboat service is never far from their consciousness. I saw collecting boxes in the pubs and a poster on some public building. Then there were the radio marine gale forecasts - for Malin, Hebrides, Bailey, Thames, Cromarty, Forth, Dogger Bank Biscay, Dover, Lundy, The names allbecome familiar from long repetition. Brian W |
Beneteau Makes Racing Boats?
"Capt. JG" wrote in message easolutions... This the Univ. of Chicago style of argument that has been shown over and over to not work (if you're interested, there are lots of examples out there, the justification for Iraq war included). Capitalism must be moderated with a societal safety net in order to take full advantage of its benefits. "Pure" capitalism doesn't work as advertised. Where has it been shown not to work? Give one real example of a laissez faire economy that demonstrated this over at least a two decade span. Tell us what "working" is. Capitalism can have and has had private safety nets without government intervention. What is "pure" capitalism and were has it existed? What schools of economic thought preceded the "University of Chicago" style of argument on which the U of C arguments are based? |
Beneteau Makes Racing Boats?
"Road Rage!" wrote in message
... "Capt. JG" wrote in message easolutions... This the Univ. of Chicago style of argument that has been shown over and over to not work (if you're interested, there are lots of examples out there, the justification for Iraq war included). Capitalism must be moderated with a societal safety net in order to take full advantage of its benefits. "Pure" capitalism doesn't work as advertised. Where has it been shown not to work? Give one real example of a laissez faire economy that demonstrated this over at least a two decade span. Tell us what "working" is. Well, sockpuppet, I suggest doing some reading. I'm sure you're head will explode, but Naomi Klein wrote a very nice book about it... Disaster Capitalism. Capitalism can have and has had private safety nets without government intervention. Can and does/have are two different things. What is "pure" capitalism and were has it existed? Unfettered capitalism. No gov't rules/regs. It hasn't existed, but it's been attempted. Chile comes to mind under that paragon of humanity Pinochete. Even he couldn't do it, although he tried. What schools of economic thought preceded the "University of Chicago" style of argument on which the U of C arguments are based? Keynesian... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics Vs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Beneteau Makes Racing Boats?
Brian Whatcott wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 21:33:16 +0100, "Dennis Pogson" wrote: ... On UK television tonight we had a film of the rescue services (lifeboat) going out to a £500,000 motor yacht, allegedly the first in this country to be driven by biofuels. ... Dennis. The UK is a small country, no doubt. Nowhere more than 150 miles from the sea possibly. But I was struck again, visiting Walsall and Birmingham in the Midlands last week i.e as far as it gets from the ocean, how the Lifeboat service is never far from their consciousness. I saw collecting boxes in the pubs and a poster on some public building. Then there were the radio marine gale forecasts - for Malin, Hebrides, Bailey, Thames, Cromarty, Forth, Dogger Bank Biscay, Dover, Lundy, The names allbecome familiar from long repetition. Brian W Yes, it's interesting to see the way our emergency services have developed as compared to the US. Hard to say which is the best way to go. The way our lifeboat service co-ordinates with the other services (eg Coastguard helicopters) must be unique. The BBC radio forecasts are still used by most mariners, although there are now so many alternative sources, including your mobile phone, that any yachtsman who puts to sea without knowing the weather would be an idiot. On the only-150-miles-from-the-sea thing, we all had a laugh this week when an American Travel brochure, discussing Aviemore (in the Scottish Highlands), stated that it was "quite close" to Tower Bridge, Buckingham Palace, and the Houses of Parliament. Aviemore is around 600 miles from all of these places, and with gas at $10.38 a (British) gallon, your tourists would find it an expensive trip in their hired BMW! Can't blame them for trying though! We need the tourists! Dennis. |
Beneteau Makes Racing Boats?
"Capt. JG" wrote in message news:pYudnZbFvawqtNfVnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d@bayareasolut ions... "Road Rage!" wrote in message ... "Capt. JG" wrote in message easolutions... This the Univ. of Chicago style of argument that has been shown over and over to not work (if you're interested, there are lots of examples out there, the justification for Iraq war included). Capitalism must be moderated with a societal safety net in order to take full advantage of its benefits. "Pure" capitalism doesn't work as advertised. Where has it been shown not to work? Give one real example of a laissez faire economy that demonstrated this over at least a two decade span. Tell us what "working" is. Well, sockpuppet, I suggest doing some reading. I'm sure you're head will explode, but Naomi Klein wrote a very nice book about it... Disaster Capitalism. One problem with that book is that it fails to distinguish between economic and political systems. Did you find that also? Capitalism can have and has had private safety nets without government intervention. Can and does/have are two different things. Yes they are. There were no government safety nets before 1900 in the US. It was all private. Social inequality and suffering exploded when government got involved in the charity industry. Such safety nets as the "war on drugs", the "Great Society, the "New Deal" resulted in even greater incarcerations for victimless crimes, increased poverty and crime. The New Deal was the greatest environmental disaster the world has ever seen. What is "pure" capitalism and were has it existed? Unfettered capitalism. No gov't rules/regs. It hasn't existed, but it's been attempted. The lack of a government is needed for unfettered capitalism. Under unfettered capitalism there would be no war, taxes pay for war. The existence of government is why unfettered capitalism will never exist. Chile comes to mind under that paragon of humanity Pinochete. Even he couldn't do it, although he tried. Nice slam. Why not bring up FDR and the internment camps or Truman and the nuking of Japan and innocent people as examples of the outcome of capaitalism when controlled by the left? What schools of economic thought preceded the "University of Chicago" style of argument on which the U of C arguments are based? Keynesian... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics Vs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman Clueless! Go back a few hundred years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Bastiat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_smith Did your head explode yet? The thing you fail to realize is that there is only one economic system. What exists in the world today are distortions of that system by political systems and they will all fail, some will take longer than others. Politicization of the economic system will eventually end it. Politics in science is no longer science, politics in education becomes indoctrination, politics in social systems increases misery, politics in anything destroys it. So why do so many look to politicians and lawyers to solve society's ills? Especially since politicians and lawyers are held in such low regard? |
Beneteau Makes Racing Boats?
On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 09:31:29 +0100, "Dennis Pogson"
wrote: On the only-150-miles-from-the-sea thing, we all had a laugh this week when an American Travel brochure, discussing Aviemore (in the Scottish Highlands), stated that it was "quite close" to Tower Bridge, Buckingham Palace, and the Houses of Parliament. Aviemore is around 600 miles from all of these places, and with gas at $10.38 a (British) gallon, your tourists would find it an expensive trip in their hired BMW! Can't blame them for trying though! We need the tourists! Dennis. A mile is a very elastic thing in Britain, I find. The three last miles to Shrewsbury for instance. That's a medieval town, enclosed on three sides by a loop of the river Severn which guards the castle and Abbey. It took me an hour plus to cover three miles (as the crow flies) get to my destination, even using a (non-road-mapped) GPS, because I missed my turn. At one point, I found myself driving through an "allotment" (a survival of the shared land ownership thing for town-dwellers) ending up at the river bank - on the wrong side! Brian W |
Beneteau Makes Racing Boats?
"Road Rage!" wrote in message
... This the Univ. of Chicago style of argument that has been shown over and over to not work (if you're interested, there are lots of examples out there, the justification for Iraq war included). Capitalism must be moderated with a societal safety net in order to take full advantage of its benefits. "Pure" capitalism doesn't work as advertised. Where has it been shown not to work? Give one real example of a laissez faire economy that demonstrated this over at least a two decade span. Tell us what "working" is. Well, sockpuppet, I suggest doing some reading. I'm sure you're head will explode, but Naomi Klein wrote a very nice book about it... Disaster Capitalism. One problem with that book is that it fails to distinguish between economic and political systems. Did you find that also? My last response to you, then off to the bozo bin, so enjoy it while you can. Firstly, there is no distinction in the modern world. Secondly, it did quite nicely, as best as she could IMHO. Capitalism can have and has had private safety nets without government intervention. Can and does/have are two different things. Yes they are. There were no government safety nets before 1900 in the US. It was all private. Social inequality and suffering exploded when government got involved in the charity industry. Such safety nets as the "war on drugs", the "Great Society, the "New Deal" resulted in even greater incarcerations for victimless crimes, increased poverty and crime. The New Deal was the greatest environmental disaster the world has ever seen. The Great Society was, in a large measure, a success, and would have done better had we not gotten so entrenched in Vietnam. Johnson, despite his many faults, was succeeding with things like civil rights reform and a better safety net. The New Deal has saved millions from untold suffering. Feel free to disagree. The War on Drugs was not a safety net. It's a puritanical program that the majority of the people think they support, when in fact, it's a boondoggle. What is "pure" capitalism and were has it existed? Unfettered capitalism. No gov't rules/regs. It hasn't existed, but it's been attempted. The lack of a government is needed for unfettered capitalism. Under unfettered capitalism there would be no war, taxes pay for war. The existence of government is why unfettered capitalism will never exist. Yes. The first sentence is true. The second sentence indicates to me that you don't know much about economics, and implementing this brings us to systems such as Russia's oligarchy. Anyone seriously advocating no gov't either isn't thinking clearly or is delusional... well, unless you're John Lennon. Chile comes to mind under that paragon of humanity Pinochete. Even he couldn't do it, although he tried. Nice slam. Why not bring up FDR and the internment camps or Truman and the nuking of Japan and innocent people as examples of the outcome of capaitalism when controlled by the left? Not a slam, but a fact on the ground. Not sure what the interment camps have to do with capitalism, but it sure sounded nice. Truman... left??? You sound like a right-wingnut... LOL What schools of economic thought preceded the "University of Chicago" style of argument on which the U of C arguments are based? Keynesian... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics Vs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman Clueless! Go back a few hundred years: Ah, so we're supposed to model our society from the middle ages. Why not just follow bin laden. Much easier and he's a bit more contemporary, since he uses capitalistic societies to do his bidding. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Bastiat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_smith Did your head explode yet? Clearly yours is about to! The thing you fail to realize is that there is only one economic system. What exists in the world today are distortions of that system by political systems and they will all fail, some will take longer than others. Politicization of the economic system will eventually end it. Politics in science is no longer science, politics in education becomes indoctrination, politics in social systems increases misery, politics in anything destroys it. Yes, money is money. We get it. The rest is a rationalization for the f*ck-everyone-else mentality. So why do so many look to politicians and lawyers to solve society's ills? Especially since politicians and lawyers are held in such low regard? Because they're not willing to get involved and solve them. But, that's my opinion. Vote for McCain! Another four more years! -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Beneteau Makes Racing Boats?
"Capt. JG" wrote in message easolutions... The War on Drugs was not a safety net. It's a puritanical program that the majority of the people think they support, when in fact, it's a boondoggle. One would expect an admitted illegal recreational drug abuser to have such an opinion. Yes, money is money. We get it. The rest is a rationalization for the f*ck-everyone-else mentality. Isn't that exactly the attitude you adhere to when raising your hand and flipping off the laws of the society you claim to support when you admittedly break the law and flaunt your breaking of the law in public as in your many posts about your using illegal drugs? There is one thing liberals like you are always consistent about - you are consistently hypocrites. -- Gregory Hall |
Beneteau Makes Racing Boats?
On Jun 6, 4:48*am, "Roger Long" wrote:
"Dennis Pogson" wrote Is this another case of the CG simply taking the view that "it's only $300,000, let the insurers pick up the tab"? Now that the CG is nearly as overstretched and underfunded as the rest of the military, and deprived of proper equipment by the the hidiously corrupt supply contractor / procurement system that sees everything as a money siphon from the taxpayers and cares not one whit for the safety or security of the nation, they have not unreasonably adopted an unwritten policy that their job is to save people; not toys. Sad state of affairs indeed with the Deepwater rip-off. How many millions were wasted on the buckling boats? Causing a ahortage of cutter all around the USA. No doubt costing many many tax paying mariners thier vessels and lives. I did hear they just took delivery of a new 400 + ft high endurance cutter. They will use it tracking drug runners most likely and forget about American mariners. *After all, there is only so much they can do. You bet, and with fuel now 4 bucks a gallon you should never expect a tow unless your close by and lucky. *If I were out there risking my life on an aging cutter or aircraft looking at a toy boat owned by the kind of fat cat that deprived me of the proper equipment to do my job and keep me safe to be alive to do it, hell, I'd let the damn thing sink too. I would not. Perhaps it's time to create a homeland Security Navy and get the USCG back to helping American's in need. *I know that not all, in fact very few, sailors actually fit into this category but, if I were on of those dedicated and courageous and dedicated people out there who had been waiting for new equipment and had been following the Deepwater fiasco, it would be an easy attitude to slip into. Damn sure would be. But what a guys yacht compared to the 100 million + dollars put in the legacy cutters that are now heading to the scrap pile? Or 112 million speny on a un-needed tilt roter UAV no one wants? 70 million for dock upgrades for the Eagle, 110 for the USDCG R&D center ect.ect..ect... 24 Billion and only one cutter has hit the seas, Now the airforce just fired it's leaders over gross incompentancy I think it's time to do the same in the USCG. *It's also the only rational prioritization response at the command structure level to the task / resources ratio forced on them. They can put fuel bills on credit cards and never pay the bills, whats another couple 100 million in dept? Why is it that the conservatives who get so worked up about private lifestyle issues and taxes never seem to get very exercised about the massive theft that is military procurement or the fact that the soldiers they put "Support our Troops" bumper stickers on their cars about are in Iraq without proper body armor or mine resistant vehicles? * 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. The USCG has shifted to far from it mission to protect American assets and lives. The motto is to be always ready, well ask for a tow as see just how ready they are. People mindlessly repeat the propaganda they have been fed by talk radio about the democrats social programs but, follow the money and where it has actually been going. *It's been going everywhere but where it needs to go and most of it ending up in China. Bull, The Chinese could cut a 100 ft boat in half and add 23 ft without totally ****ing up the boat so bad that it has to be scrapped. They are so afraid of the boats they will not sell them surplus with the defects for fear of lawsuits. **** even a stupid coon ass like Bob with a pencil and napkin could draft up a better plan to alter a boat. Fred -- Roger Long |
Beneteau Makes Racing Boats?
|
Beneteau Makes Racing Boats?
On 2008-06-07 14:18:39 -0400, "Gregory Hall" said:
"Capt. JG" wrote in message easolutions... The War on Drugs was not a safety net. It's a puritanical program that the majority of the people think they support, when in fact, it's a boondoggle. One would expect an admitted illegal recreational drug abuser to have such an opinion. But some of us who don't partake feel the same. The "war on drugs" is as misguided and destructive as prohibition was. -- Jere Lull Xan-à-Deux -- Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/ Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/ |
Beneteau Makes Racing Boats?
On 2008-06-06 15:01:43 -0400, "Capt. JG" said:
Hmm. You do realize you are mindlessly repeating propaganda you've been fed by talk radio too, right? Or, he's actually thinking. Either could be true. The right-wingnut talk radio shows are fairly popular as well last I checked. Surprisingly, it seems that *only* the right-wingnut talk shows are interesting enough to survive. The left-wingnut shows were so deadly dull boring. -- Jere Lull Xan-à-Deux -- Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/ Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/ |
Beneteau Makes Racing Boats?
On 2008-06-06 03:47:50 -0400, "Dennis Pogson"
said: wrote: http://www.hometownannapolis.com/cgi...8/06_03-29/TOP Fred Also a mystery is where all the water was coming from, unless the rudder had actually broken off at the stock. My "read" is that's what happened. A slight chance is that the broken rudder punched a different hole in the hull, but it sounds like the water was coming in at the rudder shaft's entry. That they were swinging back and forth tells me they had no effective control over the rudder. (We got towed in sans our rudder last season, a scary ride in the 4' waves we had at the time.) I'm a bit surprised that they couldn't put something in that hole to slow the flow, but I can accept that it wasn't possible for some reason, possibly because they seemed to do everything else pretty right. -- Jere Lull Xan-à-Deux -- Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/ Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/ |
Beneteau Makes Racing Boats?
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 19:18:10 -0500, Brian Whatcott
wrote: Then there were the radio marine gale forecasts - for Malin, Hebrides, Bailey, Thames, Cromarty, Forth, Dogger Bank Biscay, Dover, Lundy, The names allbecome familiar from long repetition. Enjoy! http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/ukweath...g_forecast.ram |
Beneteau Makes Racing Boats?
On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 23:15:18 +0100, Goofball_star_dot_etal
wrote: On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 19:18:10 -0500, Brian Whatcott wrote: Then there were the radio marine gale forecasts - for Malin, Hebrides, Bailey, Thames, Cromarty, Forth, Dogger Bank Biscay, Dover, Lundy, The names allbecome familiar from long repetition. Enjoy! http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/ukweath...g_forecast.ram Ah yes: I see that Dogger Bank is now Dogger, and there are a couple of unfamilar locations - but still all of the old weather magic! Brian W |
Beneteau Makes Racing Boats?
"Jere Lull" wrote in message
news:200806081346428930-jerelull@maccom... The "war on drugs" is as misguided and destructive as prohibition was. -- Jere Lull Xan-à-Deux -- Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/ Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/ You were responding to a known liar, thief, and stalker, aka Neal Warren, but I agree with your statement. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Beneteau Makes Racing Boats?
"Jere Lull" wrote in message
news:2008060813464311272-jerelull@maccom... On 2008-06-06 15:01:43 -0400, "Capt. JG" said: Hmm. You do realize you are mindlessly repeating propaganda you've been fed by talk radio too, right? Or, he's actually thinking. Either could be true. The right-wingnut talk radio shows are fairly popular as well last I checked. Surprisingly, it seems that *only* the right-wingnut talk shows are interesting enough to survive. The left-wingnut shows were so deadly dull boring. -- Jere Lull Xan-à-Deux -- Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/ Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/ Yes, the truth is often boring. Actually, I never have listened to either, since I find the right-wingnut stuff to be intellectually insulting, and I don't need to be convinced by the left-wingnuts about who is truly evil. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Kook claims (was Beneteau Makes Racing Boats?)
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. So the kooks, who have to come up with some motive for their contention of corruption, are then relegated to claiming the politician is doing it all for their friends. As if there is or ever has been any type of criminal who does such a thing. I've never heard of any criminal who wasn't going to profit from his crime if he succeeded. Has anyone else? People just don't break the law for that reason. It's not part of human psychology. Never has been. And yet the kook claims goes on and on because no one ever stops for five seconds to think about how ridiculous it is. Stephen |
Kook claims (was Beneteau Makes Racing Boats?)
Stephen Trapani wrote:
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. So the kooks, who have to come up with some motive for their contention of corruption, are then relegated to claiming the politician is doing it all for their friends. As if there is or ever has been any type of criminal who does such a thing. I've never heard of any criminal who wasn't going to profit from his crime if he succeeded. Has anyone else? People just don't break the law for that reason. It's not part of human psychology. Never has been. You're either very naive, or you think the readers are. The entire business and political world works on favors given without an explicit promise of the favor returned. Most of us only see this on a small scale: the vendor gives an extra portion, knowing that it will create goodwill that will come back eventually. But if you give a sizable contribution to one politician, that will guarantee a favorable hearing not just with that politician, but with all others of his party. And when a businessman gets favorable treatment from politicians, essentially stealing from the common folk, is he called a thief? Nope, he's called a "conservative." (OK, a few are called Democrats) And yet the kook claims goes on and on because no one ever stops for five seconds to think about how ridiculous it is. Are these the kooks who are still wondering where their investment in Enron went to? |
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 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? So the kooks, who have to come up with some motive for their contention of corruption, are then relegated to claiming the politician is doing it all for their friends. As if there is or ever has been any type of criminal who does such a thing. I've never heard of any criminal who wasn't going to profit from his crime if he succeeded. Has anyone else? You're right. Cheney is a criminal, and he will profit. So will Bush and his oil buddies. Certainly, they won't be glad to ensure his cushy life after he leaves office. He only netted them billions. People just don't break the law for that reason. It's not part of human psychology. Never has been. And yet the kook claims goes on and on because no one ever stops for five seconds to think about how ridiculous it is. Yeah, like you. Stephen -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Kook claims (was Beneteau Makes Racing Boats?)
|
Kook claims (was Beneteau Makes Racing Boats?)
jeff wrote:
Stephen Trapani wrote: 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. So the kooks, who have to come up with some motive for their contention of corruption, are then relegated to claiming the politician is doing it all for their friends. As if there is or ever has been any type of criminal who does such a thing. I've never heard of any criminal who wasn't going to profit from his crime if he succeeded. Has anyone else? People just don't break the law for that reason. It's not part of human psychology. Never has been. You're either very naive, or you think the readers are. The entire business and political world works on favors given without an explicit promise of the favor returned. Most of us only see this on a small scale: the vendor gives an extra portion, knowing that it will create goodwill that will come back eventually. But if you give a sizable contribution to one politician, that will guarantee a favorable hearing not just with that politician, but with all others of his party. And when a businessman gets favorable treatment from politicians, essentially stealing from the common folk, is he called a thief? Nope, he's called a "conservative." (OK, a few are called Democrats) 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. Does that really make sense to you? Usually the contention is that they are "friends" or "chums." You're saying they may or may not be friends, but they were instrumental in get him to be vice-president and he was so grateful and cares so little about the country? 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 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. So the kooks, who have to come up with some motive for their contention of corruption, are then relegated to claiming the politician is doing it all for their friends. As if there is or ever has been any type of criminal who does such a thing. I've never heard of any criminal who wasn't going to profit from his crime if he succeeded. Has anyone else? You're right. Cheney is a criminal, and he will profit. So will Bush and his oil buddies. Certainly, they won't be glad to ensure his cushy life after he leaves office. He only netted them billions. Do you repeat this so many times in gets imprinted in your brain? Like I said, if you want it to stay there, don't actually think about it for more than five seconds or you will see how dumb it is. So you think they will secretly be much richer? Or you think they will obviously be much richer and no one will care? Which insane theory do you subscribe to? Stephen |
Kook claims (was Beneteau Makes Racing Boats?)
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
... wrote: On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 07:12:53 -0700, Stephen Trapani wrote: 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. So the kooks, who have to come up with some motive for their contention of corruption, are then relegated to claiming the politician is doing it all for their friends. As if there is or ever has been any type of criminal who does such a thing. I've never heard of any criminal who wasn't going to profit from his crime if he succeeded. Has anyone else? People just don't break the law for that reason. It's not part of human psychology. Never has been. And yet the kook claims goes on and on because no one ever stops for five seconds to think about how ridiculous it is. Stephen I think that if you look hard enough, or even not that hard, you can find instances where someone didi something to help others get rich, and then was rewarded by those peole with gifts, such as a amnsion to live in, and all bills for the mansion being paid. We had a local "Italian businessman" who kept his mouth shut and did his time, rather than trade some information for his freedom. When he got out, "someone" bought him a very nice restaurant to help him get back on his feet. Don't worry about when Cheney gets his cut. He'll get it, if he hasn't already. Really? You think he's much richer than he was? Or soon will be? And no one will be able to tell? Stephen He's rich and will get richer... he's not required to release his tax returns: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag... 7C0A9679C8B63 -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
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 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 So the kooks, who have to come up with some motive for their contention of corruption, are then relegated to claiming the politician is doing it all for their friends. As if there is or ever has been any type of criminal who does such a thing. I've never heard of any criminal who wasn't going to profit from his crime if he succeeded. Has anyone else? You're right. Cheney is a criminal, and he will profit. So will Bush and his oil buddies. Certainly, they won't be glad to ensure his cushy life after he leaves office. He only netted them billions. Do you repeat this so many times in gets imprinted in your brain? Like I said, if you want it to stay there, don't actually think about it for more than five seconds or you will see how dumb it is. So you think they will secretly be much richer? Or you think they will obviously be much richer and no one will care? Which insane theory do you subscribe to? Yes. See the other link. I subscribe to the insane theory of reality over wishful thinking. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Kook claims (was Beneteau Makes Racing Boats?)
Stephen Trapani wrote:
jeff wrote: Stephen Trapani wrote: 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. So the kooks, who have to come up with some motive for their contention of corruption, are then relegated to claiming the politician is doing it all for their friends. As if there is or ever has been any type of criminal who does such a thing. I've never heard of any criminal who wasn't going to profit from his crime if he succeeded. Has anyone else? People just don't break the law for that reason. It's not part of human psychology. Never has been. You're either very naive, or you think the readers are. The entire business and political world works on favors given without an explicit promise of the favor returned. Most of us only see this on a small scale: the vendor gives an extra portion, knowing that it will create goodwill that will come back eventually. But if you give a sizable contribution to one politician, that will guarantee a favorable hearing not just with that politician, but with all others of his party. And when a businessman gets favorable treatment from politicians, essentially stealing from the common folk, is he called a thief? Nope, he's called a "conservative." (OK, a few are called Democrats) 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. Does that really make sense to you? Absolutely. In fact, the only question is that its worked so well (after a fashion) for thousands of years, is it worth changing? The "moderate-liberal" position is that its the only game in town, but that a portion can be siphoned off for the social welfare. The thing that most people don't see clearly is that the country is controlled by a fairly small group, 2-5% of country. Nothing is going to change that, it has gone on for thousands of years. Periodically, people join the "club," while others fall out. The group is mostly Republican, but there are some Democrats, and some with mixed allegiance. They do business between themselves, bending or adjusting the rules as suits their needs. The political parties haggle over minor issues, pushing the tax rates a few percent one way or the other. When the Republicans control the rich get a bit richer until they screw things totally with their greed; then the Democrats get control and the social programs and ecology get a boost until they screw things up with their blundering and greed and the cycle continues. Usually the contention is that they are "friends" or "chums." You're saying they may or may not be friends, but they were instrumental in get him to be vice-president and he was so grateful and cares so little about the country? It has nothing to do with what he "cares about the country." Its the game he knows how to play. I'm sure he believes everything is "for the good of the country," its just that he believes that what's good for those in power is good for everyone. |
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 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 |
Kook claims (was Beneteau Makes Racing Boats?)
Don't worry about when Cheney gets his cut. He'll get it, if he hasn't
already. Stephen Trapani wrote: Really? You think he's much richer than he was? Or soon will be? And no one will be able to tell? This is an article from *before* Cheney became Vice-President. http://www.icij.org/Content.aspx?id=225 And does nobody recall the scandal over the no-bid contracts? The "lost" gov't property? Vice President Cheney's attempt to fire the Air Force auditors (commissioned officers of that service) who uncovered the total non-performance of several of his cronies companies? The censure for fiscal conflict of interest by a Republican-controlled Senate? His promise to donate $60 of his Halliburton profits to charity (so far unfulfilled AFAIK)? How quickly we forget. Yes, America has the gov't it deserves, apparently. Fresh ones- Doug King |
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 ... 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 |
Right-wingnut Kook claims ((was Kook claims)was BeneteauMakes Racing Boats?))
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 |
Kook claims (was Beneteau Makes Racing Boats?)
wrote:
Don't worry about when Cheney gets his cut. He'll get it, if he hasn't already. Stephen Trapani wrote: Really? You think he's much richer than he was? Or soon will be? And no one will be able to tell? This is an article from *before* Cheney became Vice-President. http://www.icij.org/Content.aspx?id=225 And does nobody recall the scandal over the no-bid contracts? The "lost" gov't property? Vice President Cheney's attempt to fire the Air Force auditors (commissioned officers of that service) who uncovered the total non-performance of several of his cronies companies? The censure for fiscal conflict of interest by a Republican-controlled Senate? His promise to donate $60 of his Halliburton profits to charity (so far unfulfilled AFAIK)? Man, what deep deep love he has for his friends that he would do *so much* just for them! Isn't it funny how only Presidents and the highest ranking politicians seem to love their friends so much that they break laws to make massive amounts of money just for them? Why doesn't anyone else on earth love their friends so much???? Stephen |
Kook claims (was Beneteau Makes Racing Boats?)
jeff wrote:
Stephen Trapani wrote: jeff wrote: Stephen Trapani wrote: 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. So the kooks, who have to come up with some motive for their contention of corruption, are then relegated to claiming the politician is doing it all for their friends. As if there is or ever has been any type of criminal who does such a thing. I've never heard of any criminal who wasn't going to profit from his crime if he succeeded. Has anyone else? People just don't break the law for that reason. It's not part of human psychology. Never has been. You're either very naive, or you think the readers are. The entire business and political world works on favors given without an explicit promise of the favor returned. Most of us only see this on a small scale: the vendor gives an extra portion, knowing that it will create goodwill that will come back eventually. But if you give a sizable contribution to one politician, that will guarantee a favorable hearing not just with that politician, but with all others of his party. And when a businessman gets favorable treatment from politicians, essentially stealing from the common folk, is he called a thief? Nope, he's called a "conservative." (OK, a few are called Democrats) 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 to do so much for the people he loves 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? Does that really make sense to you? Absolutely. In fact, the only question is that its worked so well (after a fashion) for thousands of years, is it worth changing? The "moderate-liberal" position is that its the only game in town, but that a portion can be siphoned off for the social welfare. The thing that most people don't see clearly is that the country is controlled by a fairly small group, 2-5% of country. Nothing is going to change that, it has gone on for thousands of years. So what you are saying is that democracy is a farce. 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. Democracy is just a farce meant to hold the ordinary person down as has happened for millennia. Have I got that right? Stephen |
Kook claims (was Beneteau Makes Racing Boats?)
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! to do so much for the people he loves Omigod! You're pouring it so thick! 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? Does that really make sense to you? Absolutely. In fact, the only question is that its worked so well (after a fashion) for thousands of years, is it worth changing? The "moderate-liberal" position is that its the only game in town, but that a portion can be siphoned off for the social welfare. The thing that most people don't see clearly is that the country is controlled by a fairly small group, 2-5% of country. Nothing is going to change that, it has gone on for thousands of years. So what you are saying is that democracy is a farce. Not at all, but it isn't Utopia or Walden. The rich and powerful still run the show, democracy simply puts limits on certain aspects, shapes how the game is played. 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. 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. 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. |
Kook claims (was Beneteau Makes Racing Boats?)
This is an article from *before* Cheney became Vice-President.
http://www.icij.org/Content.aspx?id=225 And does nobody recall the scandal over the no-bid contracts? The "lost" gov't property? Vice President Cheney's attempt to fire the Air Force auditors (commissioned officers of that service) who uncovered the total non-performance of several of his cronies companies? The censure for fiscal conflict of interest by a Republican-controlled Senate? His promise to donate $60 of his Halliburton profits to charity (so far unfulfilled AFAIK)? Stephen Trapani wrote: Man, what deep deep love he has for his friends that he would do *so much* just for them! Ahem... did you miss the part about how much Mr. Cheney is pocketing? For himself, I mean? No friends required there, besides I suspect that anybody would be friends with a man who handed them hundreds of millions of dollars. Returning the favor with various kinds of political support would truly be a no-brainer. .... Why doesn't anyone else on earth love their friends so much???? Hand me $60 million and I'll be your best friend, too. Unfortunately, some of Vice President Cheney's friends & associates have also been rewarded with a rather embarrassing jail sentences. Probably more will be joining them as more info about his dealings become public. Money can buy happiness (or at least rent it for long time) but it can't stave off justice. Regards Doug King |
Kook claims (was Beneteau Makes Racing Boats?)
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. 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? 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? Does that really make sense to you? Absolutely. In fact, the only question is that its worked so well (after a fashion) for thousands of years, is it worth changing? The "moderate-liberal" position is that its the only game in town, but that a portion can be siphoned off for the social welfare. The thing that most people don't see clearly is that the country is controlled by a fairly small group, 2-5% of country. Nothing is going to change that, it has gone on for thousands of years. So what you are saying is that democracy is a farce. Not at all, but it isn't Utopia or Walden. The rich and powerful still run the show, democracy simply puts limits on certain aspects, shapes how the game is played. 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. 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? They even pay a larger percentage of their income. Did you know 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. 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. Why is he having to pay so much more? Why do you resent him being able to decrease it? 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. They're still getting screwed. Or, what are you saying? Stephen |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:58 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com