Yeah but, .......................... breast milk is best served at 98.6
degrees.


"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 09:08:22 -0700, "jps" wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .

The way the Dems are screaming for money from Iraqi oil, after
screaming
that
Bush was doing this only for oil (as were you, jcs), I can't see how
the
whole
mess of cirrhotic liverals can stand to see themselves in the mirror.

Is that why Kennedy's hair looks worse every day?


Yes, yes, John. You bet. It was a humanitarian mission all along and
oil
had nothing to do with it. Right.

It's a bad plan gone bad. No matter how much you attempt to piece it
back
together into something that doesn't look like an preemptive, arrogant
unsupportable disaster, the more foolish you all look.

Wolfowitz was predicting Iraq would pay for its own rebuilding with oil
money. Bush didn't want to wait for a coalition to form because he
wanted
to commandeer the situation.

They just didn't calculate real good.

Guess who's going to pay for it? That's right, you and me. How much do
you
think those tax cuts are worth now? -$%

Spin away Mr. No Spin.

In other words, you were wrong. Sarcasm doesn't change facts.


John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

"JohnH" wrote in message
...

In other words, you were wrong. Sarcasm doesn't change facts.

I was wrong about what? You don't think we'd be controlling their oil
business if this hadn't gone so poorly?

Are you some kind of whaco polyanna?

They didn't have a freakin' plan, they thought we'd be welcomed with open
arms, we thought their oil production capabilities were in better shape, we
thought their infrastructure was in better shape, we thought they had WMDs,
we thought they were trying to build a NOOKULAR capacity, we thought we'd
kick their entire security infrastructure out, we thought they could exist
without jobs....

This all adds up to a bunch of illogical assumptions. Are you saying that
it's equally illogical to assume that the Bush Admin. planned on controlling
their oil production?

With all the stupid assumptions they made, what makes this one so much less
logical?????

Get with it John. We elected an ideological fool and he installed his band
of like minded fools to run the country and squander our resources.

How much is that tax cut worth to you now, sucker????

If you believe that Bush is not a good president, what are you doing
productive to get you candidate elected? I hope you don't think you are
making a difference with your posts in rec.boats?


"jps" wrote in message
...
"JohnH" wrote in message
...

In other words, you were wrong. Sarcasm doesn't change facts.

I was wrong about what? You don't think we'd be controlling their oil
business if this hadn't gone so poorly?

Are you some kind of whaco polyanna?

They didn't have a freakin' plan, they thought we'd be welcomed with open
arms, we thought their oil production capabilities were in better shape,
we
thought their infrastructure was in better shape, we thought they had
WMDs,
we thought they were trying to build a NOOKULAR capacity, we thought we'd
kick their entire security infrastructure out, we thought they could exist
without jobs....

This all adds up to a bunch of illogical assumptions. Are you saying that
it's equally illogical to assume that the Bush Admin. planned on
controlling
their oil production?

With all the stupid assumptions they made, what makes this one so much
less
logical?????

Get with it John. We elected an ideological fool and he installed his
band
of like minded fools to run the country and squander our resources.

How much is that tax cut worth to you now, sucker????

JohnH wrote:
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 21:24:35 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:


Indeed, we bombed Iraq to smithereens and have to date found no
significant amounts of evidence to back up our "justification" for the
invasion. Why should the Iraqis pay for the stupidity and deceit of
George W. Bush?

"We bombed Iraq to smithereens..." Did you mean to say that, Harry? Even the
CL's on the hill don't make such blithely ignorant statements. This was the most
"collateral damage free" war that ever was!

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD


You must be inhaling your boat's exhaust fumes. We've destroyed all
sorts of infrastructure in Iraq, bridges, roads, airports, plus dozens
and dozens of significant buildings.

--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 14:56:50 -0700, "jps" wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .

In other words, you were wrong. Sarcasm doesn't change facts.

I was wrong about what? You don't think we'd be controlling their oil
business if this hadn't gone so poorly?

Are you some kind of whaco polyanna?

They didn't have a freakin' plan, they thought we'd be welcomed with open
arms, we thought their oil production capabilities were in better shape, we
thought their infrastructure was in better shape, we thought they had WMDs,
we thought they were trying to build a NOOKULAR capacity, we thought we'd
kick their entire security infrastructure out, we thought they could exist
without jobs....

This all adds up to a bunch of illogical assumptions. Are you saying that
it's equally illogical to assume that the Bush Admin. planned on controlling
their oil production?

With all the stupid assumptions they made, what makes this one so much less
logical?????

Get with it John. We elected an ideological fool and he installed his band
of like minded fools to run the country and squander our resources.

How much is that tax cut worth to you now, sucker????

Hysteria doesn't work either.

Maybe you should just hush.


John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 19:05:32 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 21:24:35 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:


Indeed, we bombed Iraq to smithereens and have to date found no
significant amounts of evidence to back up our "justification" for the
invasion. Why should the Iraqis pay for the stupidity and deceit of
George W. Bush?

"We bombed Iraq to smithereens..." Did you mean to say that, Harry? Even the
CL's on the hill don't make such blithely ignorant statements. This was the most
"collateral damage free" war that ever was!

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD


You must be inhaling your boat's exhaust fumes. We've destroyed all
sorts of infrastructure in Iraq, bridges, roads, airports, plus dozens
and dozens of significant buildings.

Don't know of any significant bridges we destroyed. We destroyed almost no
infrastructure. We did destroy several of your buddy's castles. I'm sure you
find those terribly significant.

'Course, I could be wrong. If I am, I'm sure you have some facts to support all
this supposed infrastructure destruction.


John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

"Bill Cole" wrote in message
news:rM1fb.481822$Oz4.321064@rwcrnsc54...
If you believe that Bush is not a good president, what are you doing
productive to get you candidate elected? I hope you don't think you are
making a difference with your posts in rec.boats?

My efforts are certainly not restricted to rec.boats.

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 14:56:50 -0700, "jps" wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .

In other words, you were wrong. Sarcasm doesn't change facts.

I was wrong about what? You don't think we'd be controlling their oil
business if this hadn't gone so poorly?

Are you some kind of whaco polyanna?

They didn't have a freakin' plan, they thought we'd be welcomed with open
arms, we thought their oil production capabilities were in better shape,
we
thought their infrastructure was in better shape, we thought they had
WMDs,
we thought they were trying to build a NOOKULAR capacity, we thought we'd
kick their entire security infrastructure out, we thought they could
exist
without jobs....

This all adds up to a bunch of illogical assumptions. Are you saying
that
it's equally illogical to assume that the Bush Admin. planned on
controlling
their oil production?

With all the stupid assumptions they made, what makes this one so much
less
logical?????

Get with it John. We elected an ideological fool and he installed his
band
of like minded fools to run the country and squander our resources.

How much is that tax cut worth to you now, sucker????


Hysteria doesn't work either.

There's no hysteria here. I've been saying the same **** all along. Bury
your head in the sand up to your ass if that what makes you comfy.

Maybe you should just hush.

The only folks who're doin' the hushin' are the ones who got nothin' to say.
I don't blame you for being astonished at how badly things turned out.

attaboy, now you are going in the right direction. So what else are you
doing to get rid of the Bush?

"jps" wrote in message
...
"Bill Cole" wrote in message
news:rM1fb.481822$Oz4.321064@rwcrnsc54...
If you believe that Bush is not a good president, what are you doing
productive to get you candidate elected? I hope you don't think you are
making a difference with your posts in rec.boats?

My efforts are certainly not restricted to rec.boats.

"Bill Cole" wrote in message
news:Le5fb.483972$cF.169905@rwcrnsc53...
attaboy, now you are going in the right direction. So what else are you
doing to get rid of the Bush?

Everything I can.