JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
John H. wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:57:40 -0400, NotNow wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:15:02 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 08:44:09 -0400, NotNow wrote:
So recent history has no bearing on what's happening today?
Never said that. But the history that counts starts today.
Cool! Guess that means I don't have to pay my car payment because I
didn't buy the car today?

Your thinking is flawed. What has happened in the past DOES have a
bearing on today. We're still spending money in Iraq, for instance.
Yes, Obama is. One must wonder why he is still there if so many
liberals think Iraq was a bad idea.
--
Maybe because he is doing what HE thinks is right, as opposed to doing
what Rush thinks is right.
I believe Rush thought Iraq was a good idea. I guess he and BO are
thinking alike on this issue.

As long as we all understand whose war it is now.
--
John H
Do you think it would be easier to withdraw from a war that someone
started for some unknown reason, or to have not started it in the first
place? Are you of the mindset that what happened in the past has no
bearing on what happens now?

Listen, fact is Obama ran on the promise that he had a plan to pull us
out of Afghanistan, Iraq, Gitmo.. promised he would be transparent,
reach across the isle... And that was just in one speech. So, really he
didn't have a plan for any of these issues. And you all bought it.
Remember, half the country didn't...


You didn't answer my questions.

JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
John H. wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 12:18:37 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Sep 2, 2:32 pm, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:15:02 -0400, NotNow wrote:
Your thinking is flawed. What has happened in the past DOES have a
bearing on today. We're still spending money in Iraq, for instance.
Yes, Obama is. One must wonder why he is still there if so many
liberals think Iraq was a bad idea.
--
because we know bush ****ed it up so bad that we now have to clean the
mess up before we leave. i know that, to rednecks, they think liberals
want to cut and run, but that shows how little rednecks know about
anything
Uh, uh, what mess?
--
John H

The infrastructure is in shambles, Bush promised to rebuild it.

It's a lot better than when we went in. Girls are in school for one...


Bull****!!!

"The reasons for the intense support for al-Zaidi is that the people of
Iraq have been experiencing the grim realities of life after the
U.S.-led invasion and occupation of their country in 2003. Iraq’s
physical infrastructure, destroyed by the invasion, continues to be in
disrepair despite the Bush administration’s claims that $69 billion has
been invested in Iraq. At least 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died owing
to the occupation. Two million Iraqis have been forced to flee the
country and live in squalid refugee camps. The number of internally
displaced persons is said to be even larger."

Max Boot, neocon editorialist and Senior Fellow at the Council of
Foreign Relations (CFR) wrote in an opinion column that; "It was no
accident that he [Rumsfeld] neglected the kind of post-invasion planning
needed to implement the sweeping changes envisioned by his boss, George
W. Bush, and his erstwhile deputy, Paul Wolfowitz."

Daniel Goure, neocon nuclear-warhawk, summed it up on the CFR website.
"It is either an illegal, immoral, or mistaken enterprise foisted on the
American public by a neo-con [servative] cabal or a legitimate, even
noble, enterprise gone awry by the hubris of those at the White House
and Pentagon. From the failures of intelligence and the lack of a plan
for stability and reconstruction..."

"The draft report, mentioned in the first paragraph above and with a
preliminary title of; Hard Lessons: The Iraq Reconstruction Experience,
states that, "... the US Government was not adequately prepared to carry
out the reconstruction mission it took on..." - again ignoring the fact
that this was not so much a failure of government as it was a disastrous
failure of free market economics."

How does current power generation compare with the Saddam era?
"Experts say power disruptions and brownouts also occurred under Saddam
but that service is even less reliable now. "There's no question that
[power outages] are worse now," says a UN development official, who
would only speak on condition of anonymity. After the first Gulf War,
when U.S. planes shelled Iraqi power stations and disrupted much of the
country's electricity grid, Saddam's government acted relatively quickly
to restore service, especially in Baghdad"

What is the status of Iraq’s oil production?
"Oil output, which constitutes roughly half of Iraq's gross domestic
product, is still well below its prewar level of 2.5 million barrels per
day (bpd), an output that was already attenuated because of UN sanctions
against Saddam's regime. Despite $1.7 billion of U.S. investment, Iraq
is still producing below 2 million bpd, well short of its official OPEC
quota of 3.5 million bpd. Monthly oil revenues from exports remain a
meager $2.9 billion (by comparison, Saudi Arabia, the world's top oil
producer, had monthly revenues last year of around $13 billion). U.S.
officials are eager to boost Iraq's oil revenues to support the newly
formed government and help pay for a number of planned projects. Iraq
holds one of the world's largest untapped reserves of oil but its
existing fields are sorely outdated and underdeveloped."

And on and on.....

In article ,
says...

JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
John H. wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:57:40 -0400, NotNow wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:15:02 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 08:44:09 -0400, NotNow wrote:
So recent history has no bearing on what's happening today?
Never said that. But the history that counts starts today.
Cool! Guess that means I don't have to pay my car payment because I
didn't buy the car today?

Your thinking is flawed. What has happened in the past DOES have a
bearing on today. We're still spending money in Iraq, for instance.
Yes, Obama is. One must wonder why he is still there if so many
liberals think Iraq was a bad idea.
--
Maybe because he is doing what HE thinks is right, as opposed to doing
what Rush thinks is right.
I believe Rush thought Iraq was a good idea. I guess he and BO are
thinking alike on this issue.

As long as we all understand whose war it is now.
--
John H
Do you think it would be easier to withdraw from a war that someone
started for some unknown reason, or to have not started it in the first
place? Are you of the mindset that what happened in the past has no
bearing on what happens now?

Listen, fact is Obama ran on the promise that he had a plan to pull us
out of Afghanistan, Iraq, Gitmo.. promised he would be transparent,
reach across the isle... And that was just in one speech. So, really he
didn't have a plan for any of these issues. And you all bought it.
Remember, half the country didn't...


You didn't answer my questions.

Obama did, he said he had a plan, period. He didn't have a clue...

--
Wafa free since 2009

JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
John H. wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:57:40 -0400, NotNow wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:15:02 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 08:44:09 -0400, NotNow wrote:
So recent history has no bearing on what's happening today?
Never said that. But the history that counts starts today.
Cool! Guess that means I don't have to pay my car payment because I
didn't buy the car today?

Your thinking is flawed. What has happened in the past DOES have a
bearing on today. We're still spending money in Iraq, for instance.
Yes, Obama is. One must wonder why he is still there if so many
liberals think Iraq was a bad idea.
--
Maybe because he is doing what HE thinks is right, as opposed to doing
what Rush thinks is right.
I believe Rush thought Iraq was a good idea. I guess he and BO are
thinking alike on this issue.

As long as we all understand whose war it is now.
--
John H
Do you think it would be easier to withdraw from a war that someone
started for some unknown reason, or to have not started it in the first
place? Are you of the mindset that what happened in the past has no
bearing on what happens now?
Listen, fact is Obama ran on the promise that he had a plan to pull us
out of Afghanistan, Iraq, Gitmo.. promised he would be transparent,
reach across the isle... And that was just in one speech. So, really he
didn't have a plan for any of these issues. And you all bought it.
Remember, half the country didn't...

You didn't answer my questions.

Obama did, he said he had a plan, period. He didn't have a clue...


You didn't answer my questions.

In article ,
says...

JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
John H. wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:57:40 -0400, NotNow wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:15:02 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 08:44:09 -0400, NotNow wrote:
So recent history has no bearing on what's happening today?
Never said that. But the history that counts starts today.
Cool! Guess that means I don't have to pay my car payment because I
didn't buy the car today?

Your thinking is flawed. What has happened in the past DOES have a
bearing on today. We're still spending money in Iraq, for instance.
Yes, Obama is. One must wonder why he is still there if so many
liberals think Iraq was a bad idea.
--
Maybe because he is doing what HE thinks is right, as opposed to doing
what Rush thinks is right.
I believe Rush thought Iraq was a good idea. I guess he and BO are
thinking alike on this issue.

As long as we all understand whose war it is now.
--
John H
Do you think it would be easier to withdraw from a war that someone
started for some unknown reason, or to have not started it in the first
place? Are you of the mindset that what happened in the past has no
bearing on what happens now?
Listen, fact is Obama ran on the promise that he had a plan to pull us
out of Afghanistan, Iraq, Gitmo.. promised he would be transparent,
reach across the isle... And that was just in one speech. So, really he
didn't have a plan for any of these issues. And you all bought it.
Remember, half the country didn't...

You didn't answer my questions.

Obama did, he said he had a plan, period. He didn't have a clue...


You didn't answer my questions.

Ok, here is your answer. I don't know. How's that. Of course I didn't
get to be POTUS on the basis that I did... So now answer mine, did Obama
lie, or was he clueless?

--
Wafa free since 2009

Gene wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 09:27:18 -0400, NotNow penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|Gene wrote:
| On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:46:05 -0400, NotNow wrote:
|
| http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MNFT19FC7K.DTL
|
| If we are going to have socialized medicine, why reinvent the wheel?
| Let's just put everybody under the VA administration for health care
| and, from what most of you folks say, everybody should be happy....
|
| Why wouldn't that work?
|
|I'm guessing it would be acceptable to many here if it weren't for the
|fact that there's a liberal in office.

I find the silence deafening!

Plus, this thread has gone on for so long that I doubt any facts are
now to be found.....



For many years, the VA's health services have been seriously
underfunded. The previous occupant of the White House went to war
without consider the impact the returning wounded would have on the
military's medical delivery systems for active and separated service
personnel.

I see no reason for a federal medical service for "civilians." What is
needed is a system that properly oversights control and operation of
private health insurance companies. I think the Federal Employee Health
Benefit Act provides the model. A "public" insurer owned by the
taxpayers could easily be added to that sort of mix.

At some point you have to ask yourself exactly what the "for profit"
health insurance industry does to improve health care or delivery of
same, aside from a 30% profit to the corporation and its owners.

In article ,
says...

JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
John H. wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:57:40 -0400, NotNow wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:15:02 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 08:44:09 -0400, NotNow wrote:
So recent history has no bearing on what's happening today?
Never said that. But the history that counts starts today.
Cool! Guess that means I don't have to pay my car payment because I
didn't buy the car today?

Your thinking is flawed. What has happened in the past DOES have a
bearing on today. We're still spending money in Iraq, for instance.
Yes, Obama is. One must wonder why he is still there if so many
liberals think Iraq was a bad idea.
--
Maybe because he is doing what HE thinks is right, as opposed to doing
what Rush thinks is right.
I believe Rush thought Iraq was a good idea. I guess he and BO are
thinking alike on this issue.

As long as we all understand whose war it is now.
--
John H
Do you think it would be easier to withdraw from a war that someone
started for some unknown reason, or to have not started it in the first
place? Are you of the mindset that what happened in the past has no
bearing on what happens now?
Listen, fact is Obama ran on the promise that he had a plan to pull us
out of Afghanistan, Iraq, Gitmo.. promised he would be transparent,
reach across the isle... And that was just in one speech. So, really he
didn't have a plan for any of these issues. And you all bought it.
Remember, half the country didn't...

You didn't answer my questions.
Obama did, he said he had a plan, period. He didn't have a clue...

You didn't answer my questions.
Ok, here is your answer. I don't know. How's that. Of course I didn't
get to be POTUS on the basis that I did... So now answer mine, did Obama
lie, or was he clueless?

Neither. He made a timing mistake. He didn't realize fully how much Bush
****ed things up.

So your answer is "clueless". I can accept that.

Again, putting words on my mouth. Not to worry, it happens a lot when a
conservative has nothing but spin.

liberal = bad
conservative = good.
Got it.
Now I've got some elderly folks to kill off.....

Can you start with the pink army please?

--
Wafa free since 2009

On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 08:56:20 -0400, NotNow wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:57:40 -0400, NotNow wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:15:02 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 08:44:09 -0400, NotNow wrote:
So recent history has no bearing on what's happening today?
Never said that. But the history that counts starts today.
Cool! Guess that means I don't have to pay my car payment because I
didn't buy the car today?

Your thinking is flawed. What has happened in the past DOES have a
bearing on today. We're still spending money in Iraq, for instance.
Yes, Obama is. One must wonder why he is still there if so many
liberals think Iraq was a bad idea.
--
Maybe because he is doing what HE thinks is right, as opposed to doing
what Rush thinks is right.

I believe Rush thought Iraq was a good idea. I guess he and BO are
thinking alike on this issue.

As long as we all understand whose war it is now.
--
John H

Do you think it would be easier to withdraw from a war that someone
started for some unknown reason, or to have not started it in the first
place? Are you of the mindset that what happened in the past has no
bearing on what happens now?

It's BO's war. He could have been out long ago. Makes no difference
who started it.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 13:42:42 -0400, NotNow wrote:

JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
John H. wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:57:40 -0400, NotNow wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:15:02 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 08:44:09 -0400, NotNow wrote:
So recent history has no bearing on what's happening today?
Never said that. But the history that counts starts today.
Cool! Guess that means I don't have to pay my car payment because I
didn't buy the car today?

Your thinking is flawed. What has happened in the past DOES have a
bearing on today. We're still spending money in Iraq, for instance.
Yes, Obama is. One must wonder why he is still there if so many
liberals think Iraq was a bad idea.
--
Maybe because he is doing what HE thinks is right, as opposed to doing
what Rush thinks is right.
I believe Rush thought Iraq was a good idea. I guess he and BO are
thinking alike on this issue.

As long as we all understand whose war it is now.
--
John H
Do you think it would be easier to withdraw from a war that someone
started for some unknown reason, or to have not started it in the first
place? Are you of the mindset that what happened in the past has no
bearing on what happens now?
Listen, fact is Obama ran on the promise that he had a plan to pull us
out of Afghanistan, Iraq, Gitmo.. promised he would be transparent,
reach across the isle... And that was just in one speech. So, really he
didn't have a plan for any of these issues. And you all bought it.
Remember, half the country didn't...

You didn't answer my questions.
Obama did, he said he had a plan, period. He didn't have a clue...

You didn't answer my questions.
Ok, here is your answer. I don't know. How's that. Of course I didn't
get to be POTUS on the basis that I did... So now answer mine, did Obama
lie, or was he clueless?

Neither. He made a timing mistake. He didn't realize fully how much Bush
****ed things up.

So your answer is "clueless". I can accept that.

Again, putting words on my mouth. Not to worry, it happens a lot when a
conservative has nothing but spin.

liberal = bad
conservative = good.
Got it.
Now I've got some elderly folks to kill off.....

didn't realize=clueless

Wake up, Loog. The guy has you mesmerized or ****ed off because you
voted for him. I hope it's the latter, but it sounds more and more
like the former.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 09:02:05 -0400, NotNow wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 12:18:37 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Sep 2, 2:32 pm, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:15:02 -0400, NotNow wrote:
Your thinking is flawed. What has happened in the past DOES have a
bearing on today. We're still spending money in Iraq, for instance.
Yes, Obama is. One must wonder why he is still there if so many
liberals think Iraq was a bad idea.
--

because we know bush ****ed it up so bad that we now have to clean the
mess up before we leave. i know that, to rednecks, they think liberals
want to cut and run, but that shows how little rednecks know about
anything

Uh, uh, what mess?
--
John H


The infrastructure is in shambles, Bush promised to rebuild it.

Bull****. And, you know it. That's not BO's excuse for staying there.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.