*JimH* wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...


P.Fritz wrote:
"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...


NOYB wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:


The economy is great. Unemployment is low, and GDP is up. The
stock
market is undervalued IMHO. People got burned by the corporate
accounting scandals and irrational growth from the dot-coms and
IPO's...and turned to a safer investment: real estate. Real
estate
is
the new millenium's new stock market.


That's a crock.

BUSH JOB LOSSES NEAR 3 MILLION: "Our economy is strong," President
George
W. Bush declared on May 31, citing as evidence job growth during
the
past
two years and a 5.1 percent unemployment rate. What Bush didn't
mention
was how many jobs have been lost in his entire four-year-plus
tenure.

Irrelevant. There's been a *NET GAIN* of nearly a million jobs while
he's
been President...and almost 3 1/2 million in the last two years.

Yeah, sure. Let's say that a certain person's worth five years ago was
$1 million. Because of poor investments, four years ago, your worth
was
down to $500,000. This year your worth went up to $750,000. Following
your analogy, you actually gained! But, wait, look......there's a
$250,000 deficit, not including inflation, etc.



Fact: There are more people working today than in 2000.

Fact: There have been 23 straight months of net gains in the employment
numbers

Fact: If you add up the net gains and the net losses each month since
Bush
has been in office, you end up with a total net gain of almost 900,000
jobs.

Fact: You're a dimwit


Fact: He is the "King of the NG idiots"

Fact: You are anywhere near bright enough to post one single post or
reply without your childish, boorish, petty name calling. Why to ****
can't you grow up? Really Fritz, you DO know that people here don't
give you one ounce of respect, nor credibility because of your childish
actions, don't you?


"You are anywhere near bright enough..."? "Why to f*#k..."? OMG, how
funny.

Idiots ARE easily amused!

"*JimH*" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...


P.Fritz wrote:
"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...


NOYB wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:


The economy is great. Unemployment is low, and GDP is up. The
stock
market is undervalued IMHO. People got burned by the corporate
accounting scandals and irrational growth from the dot-coms and
IPO's...and turned to a safer investment: real estate. Real
estate
is
the new millenium's new stock market.


That's a crock.

BUSH JOB LOSSES NEAR 3 MILLION: "Our economy is strong," President
George
W. Bush declared on May 31, citing as evidence job growth during
the
past
two years and a 5.1 percent unemployment rate. What Bush didn't
mention
was how many jobs have been lost in his entire four-year-plus
tenure.

Irrelevant. There's been a *NET GAIN* of nearly a million jobs
while
he's
been President...and almost 3 1/2 million in the last two years.

Yeah, sure. Let's say that a certain person's worth five years ago
was
$1 million. Because of poor investments, four years ago, your worth
was
down to $500,000. This year your worth went up to $750,000. Following
your analogy, you actually gained! But, wait, look......there's a
$250,000 deficit, not including inflation, etc.



Fact: There are more people working today than in 2000.

Fact: There have been 23 straight months of net gains in the
employment
numbers

Fact: If you add up the net gains and the net losses each month since
Bush
has been in office, you end up with a total net gain of almost 900,000
jobs.

Fact: You're a dimwit


Fact: He is the "King of the NG idiots"

Fact: You are anywhere near bright enough to post one single post or
reply without your childish, boorish, petty name calling. Why to ****
can't you grow up? Really Fritz, you DO know that people here don't
give you one ounce of respect, nor credibility because of your childish
actions, don't you?


"You are anywhere near bright enough..."? "Why to f*#k..."? OMG, how
funny.

Kevin is projecting his own shortcomings again.....LMAO........or maybe he
was smoking the cash crop again.

And he wonders why he is the "King of the NG idiots"

wrote in message
oups.com...


*JimH* wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...


P.Fritz wrote:
"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...


NOYB wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:


The economy is great. Unemployment is low, and GDP is up. The
stock
market is undervalued IMHO. People got burned by the corporate
accounting scandals and irrational growth from the dot-coms and
IPO's...and turned to a safer investment: real estate. Real
estate
is
the new millenium's new stock market.


That's a crock.

BUSH JOB LOSSES NEAR 3 MILLION: "Our economy is strong,"
President
George
W. Bush declared on May 31, citing as evidence job growth during
the
past
two years and a 5.1 percent unemployment rate. What Bush didn't
mention
was how many jobs have been lost in his entire four-year-plus
tenure.

Irrelevant. There's been a *NET GAIN* of nearly a million jobs
while
he's
been President...and almost 3 1/2 million in the last two years.

Yeah, sure. Let's say that a certain person's worth five years ago
was
$1 million. Because of poor investments, four years ago, your worth
was
down to $500,000. This year your worth went up to $750,000.
Following
your analogy, you actually gained! But, wait, look......there's a
$250,000 deficit, not including inflation, etc.



Fact: There are more people working today than in 2000.

Fact: There have been 23 straight months of net gains in the
employment
numbers

Fact: If you add up the net gains and the net losses each month
since
Bush
has been in office, you end up with a total net gain of almost
900,000
jobs.

Fact: You're a dimwit


Fact: He is the "King of the NG idiots"

Fact: You are anywhere near bright enough to post one single post or
reply without your childish, boorish, petty name calling. Why to ****
can't you grow up? Really Fritz, you DO know that people here don't
give you one ounce of respect, nor credibility because of your childish
actions, don't you?


"You are anywhere near bright enough..."? "Why to f*#k..."? OMG, how
funny.

Idiots ARE easily amused!


Yes you are.

NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


NOYB wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:


The economy is great. Unemployment is low, and GDP is up. The stock
market is undervalued IMHO. People got burned by the corporate
accounting scandals and irrational growth from the dot-coms and
IPO's...and turned to a safer investment: real estate. Real estate is
the new millenium's new stock market.


That's a crock.

BUSH JOB LOSSES NEAR 3 MILLION: "Our economy is strong," President
George
W. Bush declared on May 31, citing as evidence job growth during the
past
two years and a 5.1 percent unemployment rate. What Bush didn't mention
was how many jobs have been lost in his entire four-year-plus tenure.

Irrelevant. There's been a *NET GAIN* of nearly a million jobs while
he's
been President...and almost 3 1/2 million in the last two years.

Yeah, sure. Let's say that a certain person's worth five years ago was
$1 million. Because of poor investments, four years ago, your worth was
down to $500,000. This year your worth went up to $750,000. Following
your analogy, you actually gained! But, wait, look......there's a
$250,000 deficit, not including inflation, etc.



Fact: There are more people working today than in 2000.

Fact: U.S. unemployment rate in 2000 - 4%
U.S. unemployment rate in 2004 - 5%

Fact: There have been 23 straight months of net gains in the employment
numbers

Fact: Still a larger percentage of Americans without a job.

Fact: If you add up the net gains and the net losses each month since Bush
has been in office, you end up with a total net gain of almost 900,000 jobs.

Fact: And still fewer jobs than in 2000.

Fact: You're a dimwit

Fact: Childish name calling will give you SO much credibility.

... Current battery technology is terrible.

Only in comparison to fossil fuel technology. It may be physically
impossible to store as much energy in electro-chemical bonds per pound as
is available in a pound of gasoline.


Jeff Rigby wrote:
For fixed storage, weight is not the issue, it's economics. IF you have 10
batterys in a state like Arizona for for use at night, that might work but
for Florida where we get cloudy days you might need 30 batterys. And every
2-3 years you need to replace those batterys. Not economical at the current
cost for fuel unless you live outside the power grid and transporting fuel
is too prohibative in cost economics again.


Well, Jeff, a lot of people are doing it. I assume they've weighed out
the cost & benefit; if it doesn't actually save them significant cash
then maybe they value independence that much.

You seem to overestimate the need for batteries, probably their cost
too, and how much a household that is set up to run efficiently would use.

I'm not trying to sell you such a system, but they exist, they're
practical, and they're more popular than you'd think.





I'd love to live in N. Carolina by a stream that I could use to provide
hydo-electic power, to be totally self contained. Ain't happening.

Not many suitable locations, and what there are, the land is expensive
enough that you'd be much better off with an off-the-shelf battery/solar
charge 24V DC system.



I googled and look what I found:

"With regard to the three individuals cited in the CIA report and "revealed"
by the Times, two of the individuals have been known since January 2004 when
the Scandal information was first publicized in Iraq. The first American is
Iraqi-born Samir Vincent who has lived in the U.S. since 1958 and once
organized a delegation of Iraqi religious leaders to visit the U.S. and meet
with former president Jimmy Carter. And the other person is Shaker
Al-Khafaji who has historically had an indepth involvement with the Hussein
regime. He is described by The Middle East Mediar Reseach Institute (MEMRI)
as "the pro-Saddam chairman of the 17th conference of Iraqi expatriates,"
and financed a film by Scott Ritter, former UN inspector, [which argued]
against UN sanctions, admitted to having financial ties to the Hussein
regime, been active in the anti-Iraq-war movement and accompanied
Congressmen Jim McDermott (D- Wash.), Mike Thompson (D-Calif), and David
Bonior (D-Mich) to Baghdad prior to Gulf War II in 2002 to criticize the
impending war."


So how come FOX News isn't shouting aboout how Jimmy Carter is
implicated in the oil-for-food scandal? ;)

There are at least 2 other people with Repub & VP connections not
mentioned in this article. But I'm impressed that you actually looked.

DSK

wrote in message
ups.com...
Why to ****...

I can't take it any longer! The damn saying is "Why *the* ****..." and "Why
*the* hell..."

It's NOT "Why *to* ****..." and "Why *to* hell..."

Now go back to beating on your keyboard, Kevin.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 15:21:15 +0000, NOYB wrote:


First reform: admit that there may have been something to the US
claims
that weapons and weapons equipment had been moved before the war.

Uh, the UN report says nothing about equipment being moved *before*
the
war. The report is concerned with known dual use equipment that the
UN
was actively monitoring until the war. Much of that equipment has now
gone missing while under nominal US control.

It's interesting you are willing to miss- characterize the report from
the evil UN, but completely ignore the US' own Iraq Survey Group's
main
findings. Iraq did not possess chemical or biological weapons, and
only
had aspirations of nuclear weapons. It further states, quite clearly,
that there is no evidence that WMD was moved to Syria.

Saying "we found no evidence" is a lot different from "there were no
weapons moved". Duelfer emphatically clarified this point when he
issued his assessment.

The report *did* mention that the transfer may have taken place, but
that the ISG could not confirm nor absolutely deny that it ever took
place.



So, based on this, you're comfortable assuming that the transfer DID
take place? What does that accomplish? Answer carefully. This is a trap.

It allows the Russians to hide their involvement in helping Saddam build
post-embargo WMD's.




So now it's my turn to ask you a question:
How does this help Syria?

(Hint: Putin just made a trip to Israel. What issue did the Israelis
want to discuss?)


Even more interesting: How does it help Russia?

If the Russians were wangling to maintain access to oil, they were
certainly doing it the old way, which works just fine - play one party
against the other by giving arms to whoever is most useful. Hey....we do
that sometimes, too. Works great, usually. This leads to an important
question: Since this sort of power brokering often results in no violence,
but lots of fear and respect, why do you suppose your president chose a
way which accomplished the exact opposite?

Because we couldn't afford to let this one play out. Imagine what would
have happened to oil prices (and our economy) if we let al Qaeda oust us
from Saudi Arabia, and overthrow the House of Saud. Meanwhiel Saddam
continued to sell oil to Russia, China, Syria, etc. and re-arm himself in
violation of the embargo.

Our economy would have gone to ****, our military weakened, China, Russia,
Syria, and Iraq's military strengthened, and Iran would have obtained nukes
with no US presence on either border.

"DSK" wrote in message
...
No comment on your attempted lying by editing that wikipedia quote, NOBBY?
It's not like you to give up so easy when when you're losing.


Cheap labor. Less stringent environmental standards.

That was the case well before 1998, when manufacturing jobs peaked.

If the Clinton economy was so terrible, how come manufacturing jobs
continued to grow?


NOYB wrote:
Actually, they didn't. Manufacturing jobs peaked at 17,708,000 jobs in
June of 1998.

Really? I seem to recall that Clinton was President from 1992 to 2000.
Isn't 1998 almost right at the end?


Now you're learning! The manufacturing jobs peak happened in 1998...two
years before Clinton left office. The mass exodus started then...and
continues today. Picture a roller coaster. We reached the zenith in 1998,
and it's been all down hill from there.


For the mathematically impaired folks (like yourself) that's about a 4%
drop in the number of manufacturing jobs over the last 2 1/2 years of
Clinton's presidency.

Very good

You think it's good that Clinton presided over a 2 1/2 year period where
manufacturing jobs declined by 4%?



... That shows that a pretty clear downwards trend had already begun at
least 2 years before Bush took office.

Yes, by golly, a 2 percent drop in the very last part of Clinton's 2nd
term,

You really can't follow a thread, can you?

4% drop...not 2%.


following the largest sustained peacetime economic boom in history. Now
look at Bush's record... he took a downward trend and let it get far worse.

At least you admit that he inherited a "downward trend".





How come you still haven't explained why President Bush didn't say last
year, 'Yes we have lost a lot of jobs but we're gaining them back"

Because he *did* say that.
No, he didn't Nobby. If you're going to lie, at least make it *slightly*
difficult to disprove. The RNC put up a huge smokescreen campaign based on
the household survey statistics, which weren't intended to be used as a
labor indicator at all.


I've got news for you:
The conventional wisdom is changing. There has been a huge discrepancy
between the Household and Payroll surveys. Historically, folks (at the CBO
and Fed) relied more heavily on the payroll data. However, things are
beginning to change. Even the most hardened conventionalists admit that the
real job picture falls somewhere between the two surveys. The more
progressive and sophisticated analysts are going so far as to state that the
household survey is the more accurate of the two.

"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 15:21:15 +0000, NOYB wrote:


First reform: admit that there may have been something to the US
claims
that weapons and weapons equipment had been moved before the war.

Uh, the UN report says nothing about equipment being moved *before* the
war. The report is concerned with known dual use equipment that the UN
was actively monitoring until the war. Much of that equipment has now
gone missing while under nominal US control.

It's interesting you are willing to miss- characterize the report from
the evil UN, but completely ignore the US' own Iraq Survey Group's main
findings. Iraq did not possess chemical or biological weapons, and only
had aspirations of nuclear weapons. It further states, quite clearly,
that there is no evidence that WMD was moved to Syria.

Saying "we found no evidence" is a lot different from "there were no
weapons moved". Duelfer emphatically clarified this point when he issued
his assessment.

The report *did* mention that the transfer may have taken place, but that
the ISG could not confirm nor absolutely deny that it ever took place.

The Russians just about admitted when they complained about some of their
nationals being killed by our planes that they were removing
"incriminating technology" from Irag into Syria. Speculation was they
they were moving records, advanced SAM systems, GPS jamming systems,
Computers, missles and other equipment that they weren't allowed to sell
Saddam. Trucks were seen loading at sites north of Bagdad and driving
east. Since they had information on our satellite systems they could time
the travel so that we couldn't see where they went.


The day after we hit that convoy in early April, Condi Rice (an expert on
the former Soviet Union) went to Moscow to meet with Putin. Perhaps to say
"we know what you're doing. Cut it out, stay on the sidelines, and we'll
agree to keep it under lids."

Deputy undersecretary of defense, John Shaw, exposed the Russian involvement
right before the election, but we were still trying to use diplomatic
maneuvering with the them.

Interestingly, right after Shaw was silenced by the White House, Putin came
out and practically endorsed Bush. The backroom deal had been struck.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
...


The Russians just about admitted when they complained about some of their
nationals being killed by our planes that they were removing
"incriminating technology" from Irag into Syria. Speculation was they
they were moving records, advanced SAM systems, GPS jamming systems,
Computers, missles and other equipment that they weren't allowed to sell
Saddam. Trucks were seen loading at sites north of Bagdad and driving
east. Since they had information on our satellite systems they could
time the travel so that we couldn't see where they went.


Frankly, who could blame them for having equipment there? There's only so
far you can go with testing certain technologies before you finally have
to try them in real world situations. We are no different. Remember some
of the news reports in the first days of Desert Storm? All the networks
were reporting comments from the military, and even companies like
Raytheon, about new technologies we were pleased with (or those which
needed work).

Well no kidding. But the UN didn't have sanctions on Iraq in the 80's. In
the 90's, the sanctions were in place, and Russia was a signatory to them.