| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Bush administration good for boaters!
Well, the numbers are out. Boat sales up 21% vs. this time last year. Guess
the Bush administration is doing a great job and the economny is improving! ____________ Just stopped by to see what's going on after being gone about 6 months. The group looks like it's improving... maybe up to 50% boating related posts? I actually saw one from Harry. I gotta hand it to him though... serious passion for his beliefs. Just wish he was on the Republican side! BTW, where's Skippy? -- Keith __ What's the use of happiness? It can't buy you money. -Henny Youngman |
Bush administration good for boaters!
Well, the numbers are out. Boat sales up 21% vs. this time last year. Guess
the Bush administration is doing a great job and the economny is improving! Near zero interest rates are the main reason for improved big-ticket sales in all categories. The Bush administration removed all the money for dredging the ICW and other areas from the budget. How is that "good for boaters"? |
Bush administration good for boaters!
"Keith" wrote: Well, the numbers are out. Boat sales up 21% vs. this time last year. Guess the Bush administration is doing a great job and the economny is improving! I may be wrong, but I think I saw a post sometime about last year being very low for boat sales. So when Bush's policies help to bring down sales and then they finally go up some it looks good? Well, I suppose that's the same type of mind that can here President Bush say, "We have a plan to reduce the deficit in 5 years" and not think, "Gee, when you took over there was a huge surplus and now now only do you run budget deficts every year but you've increased spending and put ....." Bla bla bla. By this point you either see the truth or you don't. ____________ Just stopped by to see what's going on after being gone about 6 months. The group looks like it's improving... maybe up to 50% boating related posts? Of course 6 months ago was January... But, hey, I appreciate that your post was pretty much positivly toned. That's what we need more or around here, whether for boating or for OT posts. As for me, We've been working on Delilah now for about 2.5 years. Over the weekend we got the trailer (that we made) back from the painters. It looks GREAT! This past weekend we wired up the lights and ran all the brake lines. We were missing 4 adapter/fittings so could not finish the brakes. We're quite optimistic that NEXT WEEEKEND will be the trailer run. If everything goes well then we'll have an "official" launch & christening the following weekend. Yea! It's been a long & interesting trip and we haven't even left the dock yet. Oh, and THANKS to all the people here that gave advise & opinion along the way. Gary |
Bush administration good for boaters!
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
... During Clinton's eight years, some 22 million jobs were added to the economy. Fun facts (and don't think I'm slamming Clinton's entire record, because Bush would've done the same thing, if he could figure out how): One way Clinton created jobs was by personally lobbying the Saudis to be sure they made a series of enormous commercial aircraft purchases from Boeing, instead of Airbus. Just one problem: They couldn't afford to pay for them, so they finagled the cash in a number of other ways. One reason they couldn't afford the purchase is that Saudi ministers get what they quaintly call "commissions" when foreign companies sell to them. In the case of the aircraft, estimates of the commissions range as high as 45% of the purchase price. Similar commissions are paid for the purchase of military equipment. Saudi Arabia is the single largest consumer of American defense machinery, next to our own armed forces. They buy the stuff, but don't use it much, since we're pretty much their sworn protectors in the region. |
Bush administration good for boaters!
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... During Clinton's eight years, some 22 million jobs were added to the economy. Fun facts (and don't think I'm slamming Clinton's entire record, because Bush would've done the same thing, if he could figure out how): One way Clinton created jobs was by personally lobbying the Saudis to be sure they made a series of enormous commercial aircraft purchases from Boeing, instead of Airbus. Just one problem: They couldn't afford to pay for them, so they finagled the cash in a number of other ways. One reason they couldn't afford the purchase is that Saudi ministers get what they quaintly call "commissions" when foreign companies sell to them. In the case of the aircraft, estimates of the commissions range as high as 45% of the purchase price. Similar commissions are paid for the purchase of military equipment. Saudi Arabia is the single largest consumer of American defense machinery, next to our own armed forces. They buy the stuff, but don't use it much, since we're pretty much their sworn protectors in the region. What's important is that the Saudis bought from Boeing, not from Airbus, and while I am aware that Boeing buys supplies from all over the world, buying Boeing planes means jobs for Americans and buying Airbus planes mean jobs for overseas workers. |
Bush administration good for boaters!
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... During Clinton's eight years, some 22 million jobs were added to the economy. Fun facts (and don't think I'm slamming Clinton's entire record, because Bush would've done the same thing, if he could figure out how): One way Clinton created jobs was by personally lobbying the Saudis to be sure they made a series of enormous commercial aircraft purchases from Boeing, instead of Airbus. Just one problem: They couldn't afford to pay for them, so they finagled the cash in a number of other ways. One reason they couldn't afford the purchase is that Saudi ministers get what they quaintly call "commissions" when foreign companies sell to them. In the case of the aircraft, estimates of the commissions range as high as 45% of the purchase price. Similar commissions are paid for the purchase of military equipment. Saudi Arabia is the single largest consumer of American defense machinery, next to our own armed forces. They buy the stuff, but don't use it much, since we're pretty much their sworn protectors in the region. What's important is that the Saudis bought from Boeing, not from Airbus, and while I am aware that Boeing buys supplies from all over the world, buying Boeing planes means jobs for Americans and buying Airbus planes mean jobs for overseas workers. Here's the good part: Like feeding Bon Bons to a fat lady who has no self control, we send a constant stream of salesmen to the Saudis to be sure they keep buying from us, in return for our oil addiction. Problem: In addition to their uncontrolled spending at OUR trough, the entire Sa'ud family competes with one another in terms of spending on yachts & huge homes all over the world. They're bankrupting the country. The Muslim Brotherhood sees us as being intimately connected with the likely collapse of the Saudi economy due to what you or I would agree is completely outrageous behavior by people in power. |
Bush administration good for boaters!
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 13:19:28 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote: Gary Warner wrote: "Keith" wrote: Well, the numbers are out. Boat sales up 21% vs. this time last year. Guess the Bush administration is doing a great job and the economny is improving! I may be wrong, but I think I saw a post sometime about last year being very low for boat sales. So when Bush's policies help to bring down sales and then they finally go up some it looks good? Well, I suppose that's the same type of mind that can here President Bush say, "We have a plan to reduce the deficit in 5 years" and not think, "Gee, when you took over there was a huge surplus and now now only do you run budget deficts every year but you've increased spending and put ....." Bla bla bla. By this point you either see the truth or you don't. You really need to roll your trouser legs up past your knees to avoid soiling them in Bush-****. As an example, compare Clinton's record on jobs with that of Dubya Bush's. During Clinton's eight years, some 22 million jobs were added to the economy. During Dubya's nearly four years, nearly 3 million jobs were lost to the economy. Some 1.1 million jobs allegedly have been returned to the economy. That leave Bush nearly 2 million jobs in the hole, compared to the number of jobs created during the Clinton years. Numerically, Bush has added *no* jobs to the economy. There are fewer jobs now than there were during the Clinton years. And *that* particular statistical truth will be appearing in television and radio commercials that will begin running in "battleground" states right after the Democratic convention. Jobs have not been added to the economy during the Bush misAdministration. We're still down by nearly two million jobs compared to the Clinton years. Clinton is no more responsible for the increases in jobs during his watch, than Bush is responsible for their loss. The economy is an entity in and of itself, which operates outside of the political machine. Most politicians know little about the intricacies of world business. The only thing they can do it to try to fool the gullible among us into believing that they (or their opponents) actually were responsible for any gains (or losses) in the economy. Certain policies may influence the economy in some small ways. But things like the dot com rise and bust, the temporary success of day trading, and the subsequent recession when real profits didn't come from the inflated overvaluation of those dot com stocks. Clinton was lucky. His presidency coincided with a period of run away economic growth. Bush wasn't so lucky. He was left with picking up the pieces after the bubble burst. Neither one had any personal stake in either economic state. Dave |
Bush administration good for boaters!
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 18:22:50 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... During Clinton's eight years, some 22 million jobs were added to the economy. Fun facts (and don't think I'm slamming Clinton's entire record, because Bush would've done the same thing, if he could figure out how): One way Clinton created jobs was by personally lobbying the Saudis to be sure they made a series of enormous commercial aircraft purchases from Boeing, instead of Airbus. Just one problem: They couldn't afford to pay for them, so they finagled the cash in a number of other ways. One reason they couldn't afford the purchase is that Saudi ministers get what they quaintly call "commissions" when foreign companies sell to them. In the case of the aircraft, estimates of the commissions range as high as 45% of the purchase price. Similar commissions are paid for the purchase of military equipment. Saudi Arabia is the single largest consumer of American defense machinery, next to our own armed forces. They buy the stuff, but don't use it much, since we're pretty much their sworn protectors in the region. What's important is that the Saudis bought from Boeing, not from Airbus, and while I am aware that Boeing buys supplies from all over the world, buying Boeing planes means jobs for Americans and buying Airbus planes mean jobs for overseas workers. Here's the good part: Like feeding Bon Bons to a fat lady who has no self control, we send a constant stream of salesmen to the Saudis to be sure they keep buying from us, in return for our oil addiction. Problem: In addition to their uncontrolled spending at OUR trough, the entire Sa'ud family competes with one another in terms of spending on yachts & huge homes all over the world. They're bankrupting the country. The Muslim Brotherhood sees us as being intimately connected with the likely collapse of the Saudi economy due to what you or I would agree is completely outrageous behavior by people in power. But according to Harry, it's ok as long as they're buying from us and giving our workers jobs. Perhaps you do see a bigger picture than Harry does..... Dave |
Bush administration good for boaters!
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 13:19:28 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: Gary Warner wrote: "Keith" wrote: Well, the numbers are out. Boat sales up 21% vs. this time last year. Guess the Bush administration is doing a great job and the economny is improving! I may be wrong, but I think I saw a post sometime about last year being very low for boat sales. So when Bush's policies help to bring down sales and then they finally go up some it looks good? Well, I suppose that's the same type of mind that can here President Bush say, "We have a plan to reduce the deficit in 5 years" and not think, "Gee, when you took over there was a huge surplus and now now only do you run budget deficts every year but you've increased spending and put ....." Bla bla bla. By this point you either see the truth or you don't. You really need to roll your trouser legs up past your knees to avoid soiling them in Bush-****. As an example, compare Clinton's record on jobs with that of Dubya Bush's. During Clinton's eight years, some 22 million jobs were added to the economy. During Dubya's nearly four years, nearly 3 million jobs were lost to the economy. Some 1.1 million jobs allegedly have been returned to the economy. That leave Bush nearly 2 million jobs in the hole, compared to the number of jobs created during the Clinton years. Numerically, Bush has added *no* jobs to the economy. There are fewer jobs now than there were during the Clinton years. And *that* particular statistical truth will be appearing in television and radio commercials that will begin running in "battleground" states right after the Democratic convention. Jobs have not been added to the economy during the Bush misAdministration. We're still down by nearly two million jobs compared to the Clinton years. Clinton is no more responsible for the increases in jobs during his watch, than Bush is responsible for their loss. The economy is an entity in and of itself, which operates outside of the political machine. Most politicians know little about the intricacies of world business. The only thing they can do it to try to fool the gullible among us into believing that they (or their opponents) actually were responsible for any gains (or losses) in the economy. Certain policies may influence the economy in some small ways. But things like the dot com rise and bust, the temporary success of day trading, and the subsequent recession when real profits didn't come from the inflated overvaluation of those dot com stocks. Clinton was lucky. His presidency coincided with a period of run away economic growth. Bush wasn't so lucky. He was left with picking up the pieces after the bubble burst. Neither one had any personal stake in either economic state. Dave Is that your FINAL answer? |
Bush administration good for boaters!
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 18:22:50 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... During Clinton's eight years, some 22 million jobs were added to the economy. Fun facts (and don't think I'm slamming Clinton's entire record, because Bush would've done the same thing, if he could figure out how): One way Clinton created jobs was by personally lobbying the Saudis to be sure they made a series of enormous commercial aircraft purchases from Boeing, instead of Airbus. Just one problem: They couldn't afford to pay for them, so they finagled the cash in a number of other ways. One reason they couldn't afford the purchase is that Saudi ministers get what they quaintly call "commissions" when foreign companies sell to them. In the case of the aircraft, estimates of the commissions range as high as 45% of the purchase price. Similar commissions are paid for the purchase of military equipment. Saudi Arabia is the single largest consumer of American defense machinery, next to our own armed forces. They buy the stuff, but don't use it much, since we're pretty much their sworn protectors in the region. What's important is that the Saudis bought from Boeing, not from Airbus, and while I am aware that Boeing buys supplies from all over the world, buying Boeing planes means jobs for Americans and buying Airbus planes mean jobs for overseas workers. Here's the good part: Like feeding Bon Bons to a fat lady who has no self control, we send a constant stream of salesmen to the Saudis to be sure they keep buying from us, in return for our oil addiction. Problem: In addition to their uncontrolled spending at OUR trough, the entire Sa'ud family competes with one another in terms of spending on yachts & huge homes all over the world. They're bankrupting the country. The Muslim Brotherhood sees us as being intimately connected with the likely collapse of the Saudi economy due to what you or I would agree is completely outrageous behavior by people in power. But according to Harry, it's ok as long as they're buying from us and giving our workers jobs. Perhaps you do see a bigger picture than Harry does..... Dave Dave, I see a larger picture than almost anyone. I chalk this up to my continual use of old technology: Brains and books. You can learn about the latter on the web. ROFL! The former....too late for that. |
Bush administration good for boaters!
Dave Hall wrote:
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 13:19:28 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: Gary Warner wrote: "Keith" wrote: Well, the numbers are out. Boat sales up 21% vs. this time last year. Guess the Bush administration is doing a great job and the economny is improving! I may be wrong, but I think I saw a post sometime about last year being very low for boat sales. So when Bush's policies help to bring down sales and then they finally go up some it looks good? Well, I suppose that's the same type of mind that can here President Bush say, "We have a plan to reduce the deficit in 5 years" and not think, "Gee, when you took over there was a huge surplus and now now only do you run budget deficts every year but you've increased spending and put ....." Bla bla bla. By this point you either see the truth or you don't. You really need to roll your trouser legs up past your knees to avoid soiling them in Bush-****. As an example, compare Clinton's record on jobs with that of Dubya Bush's. During Clinton's eight years, some 22 million jobs were added to the economy. During Dubya's nearly four years, nearly 3 million jobs were lost to the economy. Some 1.1 million jobs allegedly have been returned to the economy. That leave Bush nearly 2 million jobs in the hole, compared to the number of jobs created during the Clinton years. Numerically, Bush has added *no* jobs to the economy. There are fewer jobs now than there were during the Clinton years. And *that* particular statistical truth will be appearing in television and radio commercials that will begin running in "battleground" states right after the Democratic convention. Jobs have not been added to the economy during the Bush misAdministration. We're still down by nearly two million jobs compared to the Clinton years. Clinton is no more responsible for the increases in jobs during his watch, than Bush is responsible for their loss. You've written to Dubya's handlers, of course, telling them to stop taking credit for non-existent job growth? |
Bush administration good for boaters!
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... Clinton is no more responsible for the increases in jobs during his watch, than Bush is responsible for their loss. The economy is an entity in and of itself, which operates outside of the political machine. ... To some extent I agree. Economies go in cycles and are dependent on hundreds of thousands of variables, most of which are not controllable by the political parties or administrations of the US. On the other hand, you make it sound like a president and his administration has almost no effect on the US economy. I submit that while the Clinton administration was lucky to reign over a prosperous time, they also made many right decisions that helped that time continue and helped the US economy. Some examples are that instead of spending all the revenue they ren surpluses. (And this goes counter to the line the Democrats just spend spend spend on social programs.) I also believe that Clinton's efforts of diplomacy and as well as his general "calm" and his aligning the US with the world gave many people both inside and outside the US a calm & secure feeling. And that this helped lead to prosperous times. ~ Compare that with Bush who, even as the ecomomy was tanking gave tax cuts and continued to spend like there was no problem. Yes, I do understand that tax-cuts might stimulate business & the economy. And Yes I understand and agree that in some cases government spending can be a way to revive an economy. I just think President Bush didn't use these tools well. Also, I feel that from the moment George Bush took office he started creating a feeling of unease in the US and all around the world. When people feel that a war could break out at any minute and the the future is uncertain, business and economies tend not to thrive. (Unless there is huge spending on war, which can create jobs & technological advances, but has huge "costs" of it's own.) |
you guys are so easy!
Haha! I even paid Harry a compliment and he completely missed it.
See Ya'll around election time. -- Keith __ "Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment." - Will Rogers "Gary Warner" wrote in message ... "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... Clinton is no more responsible for the increases in jobs during his watch, than Bush is responsible for their loss. The economy is an entity in and of itself, which operates outside of the political machine. ... To some extent I agree. Economies go in cycles and are dependent on hundreds of thousands of variables, most of which are not controllable by the political parties or administrations of the US. On the other hand, you make it sound like a president and his administration has almost no effect on the US economy. I submit that while the Clinton administration was lucky to reign over a prosperous time, they also made many right decisions that helped that time continue and helped the US economy. Some examples are that instead of spending all the revenue they ren surpluses. (And this goes counter to the line the Democrats just spend spend spend on social programs.) I also believe that Clinton's efforts of diplomacy and as well as his general "calm" and his aligning the US with the world gave many people both inside and outside the US a calm & secure feeling. And that this helped lead to prosperous times. ~ Compare that with Bush who, even as the ecomomy was tanking gave tax cuts and continued to spend like there was no problem. Yes, I do understand that tax-cuts might stimulate business & the economy. And Yes I understand and agree that in some cases government spending can be a way to revive an economy. I just think President Bush didn't use these tools well. Also, I feel that from the moment George Bush took office he started creating a feeling of unease in the US and all around the world. When people feel that a war could break out at any minute and the the future is uncertain, business and economies tend not to thrive. (Unless there is huge spending on war, which can create jobs & technological advances, but has huge "costs" of it's own.) |
Bush administration good for boaters!
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Gary Warner wrote: "Keith" wrote: Well, the numbers are out. Boat sales up 21% vs. this time last year. Guess the Bush administration is doing a great job and the economny is improving! I may be wrong, but I think I saw a post sometime about last year being very low for boat sales. So when Bush's policies help to bring down sales and then they finally go up some it looks good? Well, I suppose that's the same type of mind that can here President Bush say, "We have a plan to reduce the deficit in 5 years" and not think, "Gee, when you took over there was a huge surplus and now now only do you run budget deficts every year but you've increased spending and put ....." Bla bla bla. By this point you either see the truth or you don't. You really need to roll your trouser legs up past your knees to avoid soiling them in Bush-****. As an example, compare Clinton's record on jobs with that of Dubya Bush's. During Clinton's eight years, some 22 million jobs were added to the economy. During Dubya's nearly four years, nearly 3 million jobs were lost to the economy. Some 1.1 million jobs allegedly have been returned to the economy. That leave Bush nearly 2 million jobs in the hole, compared to the number of jobs created during the Clinton years. Once again, your numbers are wrong. There have been 1.512 million jobs created in the last 10 months...even if you use the flawed Payroll Survey Data. The number of "lost jobs" never reached 3 million. I believe it was 2.6 million at its highest. Nearly 1.5 million of those were lost in the 6 months after 9/11 due to particularly extraordinary circumstances. |
Bush administration good for boaters!
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... During Clinton's eight years, some 22 million jobs were added to the economy. Fun facts (and don't think I'm slamming Clinton's entire record, because Bush would've done the same thing, if he could figure out how): One way Clinton created jobs was by personally lobbying the Saudis to be sure they made a series of enormous commercial aircraft purchases from Boeing, Funny that you mention Boeing, Doug. Boeing cut 48,000 jobs in 1999 and 2000...which were the last 2 years of the Clinton misAdministration. http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seatt...07/story3.html In previous years, a cutback of that magnitude would have set off alarms in boardrooms, government offices and homes statewide, and for good reason. Earlier Boeing downturns coincided with statewide recessions in the early 1980s and early 1970s. But many leading economists don't expect a Boeing-led recession this time -- not as long as the healthy sectors of the state and national economies stay that way. "If Boeing is the only change, and all other things remain the same, then I don't think we'll see a recession here," said Chang Mook Sohn, executive director of the state Office of the Forecast Council. --------------------------------------------------- It looks like Chang was wrong about his recession prediction. Signs of a recession were beginning to peak in late 1999 and 2000. Wall Street was the first to notice...but the Democrats *still* can't admit it. |
Bush administration good for boaters!
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 18:22:50 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... During Clinton's eight years, some 22 million jobs were added to the economy. Fun facts (and don't think I'm slamming Clinton's entire record, because Bush would've done the same thing, if he could figure out how): One way Clinton created jobs was by personally lobbying the Saudis to be sure they made a series of enormous commercial aircraft purchases from Boeing, instead of Airbus. Just one problem: They couldn't afford to pay for them, so they finagled the cash in a number of other ways. One reason they couldn't afford the purchase is that Saudi ministers get what they quaintly call "commissions" when foreign companies sell to them. In the case of the aircraft, estimates of the commissions range as high as 45% of the purchase price. Similar commissions are paid for the purchase of military equipment. Saudi Arabia is the single largest consumer of American defense machinery, next to our own armed forces. They buy the stuff, but don't use it much, since we're pretty much their sworn protectors in the region. What's important is that the Saudis bought from Boeing, not from Airbus, and while I am aware that Boeing buys supplies from all over the world, buying Boeing planes means jobs for Americans and buying Airbus planes mean jobs for overseas workers. Here's the good part: Like feeding Bon Bons to a fat lady who has no self control, we send a constant stream of salesmen to the Saudis to be sure they keep buying from us, in return for our oil addiction. Problem: In addition to their uncontrolled spending at OUR trough, the entire Sa'ud family competes with one another in terms of spending on yachts & huge homes all over the world. They're bankrupting the country. The Muslim Brotherhood sees us as being intimately connected with the likely collapse of the Saudi economy due to what you or I would agree is completely outrageous behavior by people in power. But according to Harry, it's ok as long as they're buying from us and giving our workers jobs. Perhaps you do see a bigger picture than Harry does..... Dave Dave, I see a larger picture Drug-induced hallucinations, Doug? Oh, the colors! |
Bush administration good for boaters!
NOYB wrote:
During Clinton's eight years, some 22 million jobs were added to the economy. During Dubya's nearly four years, nearly 3 million jobs were lost to the economy. Some 1.1 million jobs allegedly have been returned to the economy. That leave Bush nearly 2 million jobs in the hole, compared to the number of jobs created during the Clinton years. Once again, your numbers are wrong. There have been 1.512 million jobs created in the last 10 months...even if you use the flawed Payroll Survey Data. The number of "lost jobs" never reached 3 million. I believe it was 2.6 million at its highest. Nearly 1.5 million of those were lost in the 6 months after 9/11 due to particularly extraordinary circumstances. You're still using the wrong terms, fella. There was no net job gain as a result of the Bush Administration. The Bush Administration is still in the "lost jobs" column and will be through the elections. The number of jobs in this country now is less than it was during the Clinton years, during which 22 million jobs were added to the economy. Bush can't get us back to the total during the Clinton years...there has been NO job gain under Bush. None. Zip. Zilch. |
Bush administration good for boaters!
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 19:28:00 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: Dave, I see a larger picture than almost anyone. I chalk this up to my continual use of old technology: Brains and books. You can learn about the latter on the web. ROFL! The former....too late for that. Since you like to contemplate the bigger picture, perhaps you might enjoy reading this: http://www.ainsof.com/view.htm Granted, it's not "old technology", but it does bring an interesting perspective to our current middle east situation, and makes our strategy look a little less random, and unguided. Dave |
Bush administration good for boaters!
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 16:01:56 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote: Dave Hall wrote: On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 13:19:28 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: Gary Warner wrote: "Keith" wrote: Well, the numbers are out. Boat sales up 21% vs. this time last year. Guess the Bush administration is doing a great job and the economny is improving! I may be wrong, but I think I saw a post sometime about last year being very low for boat sales. So when Bush's policies help to bring down sales and then they finally go up some it looks good? Well, I suppose that's the same type of mind that can here President Bush say, "We have a plan to reduce the deficit in 5 years" and not think, "Gee, when you took over there was a huge surplus and now now only do you run budget deficts every year but you've increased spending and put ....." Bla bla bla. By this point you either see the truth or you don't. You really need to roll your trouser legs up past your knees to avoid soiling them in Bush-****. As an example, compare Clinton's record on jobs with that of Dubya Bush's. During Clinton's eight years, some 22 million jobs were added to the economy. During Dubya's nearly four years, nearly 3 million jobs were lost to the economy. Some 1.1 million jobs allegedly have been returned to the economy. That leave Bush nearly 2 million jobs in the hole, compared to the number of jobs created during the Clinton years. Numerically, Bush has added *no* jobs to the economy. There are fewer jobs now than there were during the Clinton years. And *that* particular statistical truth will be appearing in television and radio commercials that will begin running in "battleground" states right after the Democratic convention. Jobs have not been added to the economy during the Bush misAdministration. We're still down by nearly two million jobs compared to the Clinton years. Clinton is no more responsible for the increases in jobs during his watch, than Bush is responsible for their loss. You've written to Dubya's handlers, of course, telling them to stop taking credit for non-existent job growth? As soon as you write to Clinton and tell him that nothing he directly did, lead to the budget surplus....... Dave |
Bush administration good for boaters!
On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 16:05:02 -0400, "Gary Warner"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . Clinton is no more responsible for the increases in jobs during his watch, than Bush is responsible for their loss. The economy is an entity in and of itself, which operates outside of the political machine. ... To some extent I agree. Economies go in cycles and are dependent on hundreds of thousands of variables, most of which are not controllable by the political parties or administrations of the US. On the other hand, you make it sound like a president and his administration has almost no effect on the US economy. I submit that while the Clinton administration was lucky to reign over a prosperous time, they also made many right decisions that helped that time continue and helped the US economy. I would certainly like a list of just what those "decisions" were. Remember, congress creates the bills. The president either approves or vetoes those bills. Someexamples are that instead of spending all the revenue they ren surpluses. (And this goes counter to the line the Democrats just spend spend spend on social programs.) Do you think that the budget surplus just might have more to do with a republican controlled congress for the first time in decades? The "contract with america" spearheaded the effort to cut government spending. Clinton had little choice but to go along, with the notable exceptions of when he held the government payroll hostage and then blamed it on the congress' "unwillingness" to do things "his way". I also believe that Clinton's efforts of diplomacy and as well as his general "calm" and his aligning the US with the world gave many people both inside and outside the US a calm & secure feeling. The same "calm" he used when he passed up the opportunity to take Osama Bin Laden from the Sudanese? Or perhaps the calm he displayed when indiscriminately bombing those aspirin factories to take the public's eyes off of the depositions in the Paula Jones trial? And that this helped lead to prosperous times. ~ Compare that with Bush who, even as the ecomomy was tanking gave tax cuts and continued to spend like there was no problem. Yes, I do understand that tax-cuts might stimulate business & the economy. Then you should understand why it was necessary. The economy was on a downturn before election 2000. The recession was official before Bush's first budget hit the floor. The tax cuts were a good way to prop up the core spending of the American consumer. Since the recession was not overly deep, and has been recovering for the last year or so, it could be effectively argued that this was a good strategy. And Yes I understand and agree that in some cases government spending can be a way to revive an economy. I just think President Bush didn't use these tools well. Also, I feel that from the moment George Bush took office he started creating a feeling of unease in the US and all around the world. When people feel that a war could break out at any minute and the the future is uncertain, business and economies tend not to thrive. (Unless there is huge spending on war, which can create jobs & technological advances, but has huge "costs" of it's own.) Of course, having a fanatical terrorist group fly planes into some high profile targets on U.S. soil just might have a much broader effect on economic "uncertainty". But I guess that's Bush's fault too...... Dave |
Bush administration good for boaters!
Dave Hall wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 16:05:02 -0400, "Gary Warner" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message . .. Clinton is no more responsible for the increases in jobs during his watch, than Bush is responsible for their loss. The economy is an entity in and of itself, which operates outside of the political machine. ... To some extent I agree. Economies go in cycles and are dependent on hundreds of thousands of variables, most of which are not controllable by the political parties or administrations of the US. On the other hand, you make it sound like a president and his administration has almost no effect on the US economy. I submit that while the Clinton administration was lucky to reign over a prosperous time, they also made many right decisions that helped that time continue and helped the US economy. I would certainly like a list of just what those "decisions" were. Remember, congress creates the bills. The president either approves or vetoes those bills. Someexamples are that instead of spending all the revenue they ren surpluses. (And this goes counter to the line the Democrats just spend spend spend on social programs.) Do you think that the budget surplus just might have more to do with a republican controlled congress for the first time in decades? The "contract with america" spearheaded the effort to cut government spending. Clinton had little choice but to go along, with the notable exceptions of when he held the government payroll hostage and then blamed it on the congress' "unwillingness" to do things "his way". I also believe that Clinton's efforts of diplomacy and as well as his general "calm" and his aligning the US with the world gave many people both inside and outside the US a calm & secure feeling. The same "calm" he used when he passed up the opportunity to take Osama Bin Laden from the Sudanese? Or perhaps the calm he displayed when indiscriminately bombing those aspirin factories to take the public's eyes off of the depositions in the Paula Jones trial? And that this helped lead to prosperous times. ~ Compare that with Bush who, even as the ecomomy was tanking gave tax cuts and continued to spend like there was no problem. Yes, I do understand that tax-cuts might stimulate business & the economy. Then you should understand why it was necessary. The economy was on a downturn before election 2000. The recession was official before Bush's first budget hit the floor. The tax cuts were a good way to prop up the core spending of the American consumer. Since the recession was not overly deep, and has been recovering for the last year or so, it could be effectively argued that this was a good strategy. And Yes I understand and agree that in some cases government spending can be a way to revive an economy. I just think President Bush didn't use these tools well. Also, I feel that from the moment George Bush took office he started creating a feeling of unease in the US and all around the world. When people feel that a war could break out at any minute and the the future is uncertain, business and economies tend not to thrive. (Unless there is huge spending on war, which can create jobs & technological advances, but has huge "costs" of it's own.) Of course, having a fanatical terrorist group fly planes into some high profile targets on U.S. soil just might have a much broader effect on economic "uncertainty". But I guess that's Bush's fault too...... Dave Probably. |
Bush administration good for boaters!
A rather impressive statistic NOYB, but you miss 3 very important facts.
#1) An article published December 4, 1998 being used as fact for what happened in 1999 and 2000 #2) Boeing announced Dec. 1 that it will shed 48,000 jobs throughout the company in 1999 and 2000, largely because the economic crisis in Asia is battering Boeing's customers. Largely because of the economic crisis in Asia. #3) And this is the biggest clue If Boeing follows through on its plan, the company will eliminate about 20 percent of the 238,000 workers that it had on its payroll in June. The company did not say how many jobs would be lost in Washington state. If is a very strong word... It says that it hadn't happened. Tell you what, if you want yourself to look credible on this, perhaps you can locate the actual numbers for what did happen rather than relying on the premonitions you are quoting. "NOYB" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... During Clinton's eight years, some 22 million jobs were added to the economy. Fun facts (and don't think I'm slamming Clinton's entire record, because Bush would've done the same thing, if he could figure out how): One way Clinton created jobs was by personally lobbying the Saudis to be sure they made a series of enormous commercial aircraft purchases from Boeing, Funny that you mention Boeing, Doug. Boeing cut 48,000 jobs in 1999 and 2000...which were the last 2 years of the Clinton misAdministration. http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seatt...07/story3.html In previous years, a cutback of that magnitude would have set off alarms in boardrooms, government offices and homes statewide, and for good reason. Earlier Boeing downturns coincided with statewide recessions in the early 1980s and early 1970s. But many leading economists don't expect a Boeing-led recession this time -- not as long as the healthy sectors of the state and national economies stay that way. "If Boeing is the only change, and all other things remain the same, then I don't think we'll see a recession here," said Chang Mook Sohn, executive director of the state Office of the Forecast Council. --------------------------------------------------- It looks like Chang was wrong about his recession prediction. Signs of a recession were beginning to peak in late 1999 and 2000. Wall Street was the first to notice...but the Democrats *still* can't admit it. |
Bush administration good for boaters!
|
Bush administration good for boaters!
So Dave Hall
Is that Lead as in the metal, or Lead as in the Lead Rope used to guide the (in this case) Surplus? I realize it is a heavy burden for you, seeing that President Clinton took hold of that Lead rope and showed America the way to recovery. Only to watch pResident Bush attach all that Lead to it and watch it collapse. "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 16:01:56 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: You've written to Dubya's handlers, of course, telling them to stop taking credit for non-existent job growth? As soon as you write to Clinton and tell him that nothing he directly did, lead to the budget surplus....... Dave |
Bush administration good for boaters!
wrote in message ink.net... A rather impressive statistic NOYB, but you miss 3 very important facts. #1) An article published December 4, 1998 being used as fact for what happened in 1999 and 2000 #2) Boeing announced Dec. 1 that it will shed 48,000 jobs throughout the company in 1999 and 2000, largely because the economic crisis in Asia is battering Boeing's customers. Largely because of the economic crisis in Asia. #3) And this is the biggest clue If Boeing follows through on its plan, the company will eliminate about 20 percent of the 238,000 workers that it had on its payroll in June. The company did not say how many jobs would be lost in Washington state. If is a very strong word... It says that it hadn't happened. Tell you what, if you want yourself to look credible on this, perhaps you can locate the actual numbers for what did happen rather than relying on the premonitions you are quoting. They'll be easy to find. My brother was one of the mechanical engineers laid off in 1999...exactly 3 days shy of his 1 year anniversity with the company. If it had been 3 days later, Boeing would have had to pay his moving expenses when he found a new job. |
Bush administration good for boaters!
wrote in message news:5TRGc.4940 Tell you what, if you want yourself to look credible on this, perhaps you can locate the actual numbers for what did happen rather than relying on the premonitions you are quoting. Here's a great article: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/busine...oeingweb.shtml Not only does it substantiate my claim about the 1999 and 2000 layoffs, it also points out that the great majority of jobs lost in 2001 under Bush was a result of 9/11. Here's an excerpt: 2000: May: Boeing ends two years of job cuts, reducing companywide payroll from 238,400 in February 1998, to 191,500. ---------------------------------------------------- Feel better now? |
Bush administration good for boaters!
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 19:28:00 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: Dave, I see a larger picture than almost anyone. I chalk this up to my continual use of old technology: Brains and books. You can learn about the latter on the web. ROFL! The former....too late for that. Since you like to contemplate the bigger picture, perhaps you might enjoy reading this: http://www.ainsof.com/view.htm Granted, it's not "old technology", but it does bring an interesting perspective to our current middle east situation, and makes our strategy look a little less random, and unguided. Dave Full of inaccuracies. For instance, Syria is actually very LOW on the list of contributors to militant Islam. Back in the 1990s, its leader actually levelled an entire city where it was determined that the Muslim Brotherhood made its home. The whole city. Granted, the leader did this to ensure his continuing term in office, but regardless, it worked. This is why al Qaeda prefers Qatar as a hideout. According to people who know these things, the Saudis need to take drastic measures to establish law & order. Naturally, you'll ask for the year these things happened in Syria, the leader's name and the name of the city which was destroyed, but the book's at home. You can buy it, though: "Sleeping With the Devil", by Robert Baer, a retired CIA agent. The subject matter is current through mid-2003. |
Bush administration good for boaters!
"NOYB" wrote in message
... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... During Clinton's eight years, some 22 million jobs were added to the economy. Fun facts (and don't think I'm slamming Clinton's entire record, because Bush would've done the same thing, if he could figure out how): One way Clinton created jobs was by personally lobbying the Saudis to be sure they made a series of enormous commercial aircraft purchases from Boeing, Funny that you mention Boeing, Doug. Boeing cut 48,000 jobs in 1999 and 2000...which were the last 2 years of the Clinton misAdministration. http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seatt...07/story3.html In previous years, a cutback of that magnitude would have set off alarms in boardrooms, government offices and homes statewide, and for good reason. Earlier Boeing downturns coincided with statewide recessions in the early 1980s and early 1970s. Right. Because folks like you and I couldn't afford to buy jets during those periods, right? |
Bush administration good for boaters!
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: During Clinton's eight years, some 22 million jobs were added to the economy. During Dubya's nearly four years, nearly 3 million jobs were lost to the economy. Some 1.1 million jobs allegedly have been returned to the economy. That leave Bush nearly 2 million jobs in the hole, compared to the number of jobs created during the Clinton years. Once again, your numbers are wrong. There have been 1.512 million jobs created in the last 10 months...even if you use the flawed Payroll Survey Data. The number of "lost jobs" never reached 3 million. I believe it was 2.6 million at its highest. Nearly 1.5 million of those were lost in the 6 months after 9/11 due to particularly extraordinary circumstances. You're still using the wrong terms, fella. There was no net job gain as a result of the Bush Administration. The Bush Administration is still in the "lost jobs" column and will be through the elections. The number of jobs in this country now is less than it was during the Clinton years, The number of jobs in this country now is *more* than it was during the Clinton years is you look at the Household Survey Data. As opposed to the Payroll Survey Data, the Household Survey Data includes the self-employed, and those people employed in new companies that don't yet show up in the Payroll Survey Data. I know how you hate to be bored with facts, but I suggest you go to the BLS's website. http://bls.gov/cps/ces_cps_trends.pdf If you look at Chart #1, you will see that according to the Household Survey data, there are approximately 139 million people employed right now. When Clinton left office there were approximately 137 million. If you look at the "adjusted household data", you'll see that the number of currently employed is *still* higher than was employed when Clinton took office. during which 22 million jobs were added to the economy. Bush can't get us back to the total during the Clinton years...there has been NO job gain under Bush. None. Zip. Zilch. Wrong again. Look at the facts. Without the facts, you're just spewing Bull****. |
Bush administration good for boaters!
Full of inaccuracies Considering the source I'd tend to believe them than those of someone who gets his news via the mass media. . For instance, Syria is actually very LOW on the list of contributors to militant Islam. Can you substantiate that? Back in the 1990s, its leader actually levelled an entire city where it was determined that the Muslim Brotherhood made its home. The whole city. Granted, the leader did this to ensure his continuing term in office, but regardless, it worked. This is why al Qaeda prefers Qatar as a hideout. Interesting. Al Qaeda hides in the same country that we used as a base of operations for the Iraqi war? Are we blind or do they just tiptoe very quietly? I guess they were also very inept for missing the opportunity to perform terrorist attacks on the nerve center of the war. According to people who know these things, And just how do you determine who actually "knows these things"? the Saudis need to take drastic measures to establish law & order. That's rather obvious. They also have to stop the flow of money that feeds the outer network of support for terrorism. Naturally, you'll ask for the year these things happened in Syria, the leader's name and the name of the city which was destroyed, but the book's at home. You can buy it, though: "Sleeping With the Devil", by Robert Baer, a retired CIA agent. The subject matter is current through mid-2003. The problem with books is that anyone can write one. There's no guarantee that the information contained is either factual or complete. Nor is the agenda of the author always understood. Most are either self-serving, or politically motivated, such as Richard Clark's highly spun recent expose. It would help to have some verifiable corroborating evidence from other unconnected sources. Rush Limbaugh has written several books. Would you absorb his writing as absolute truth? Dave |
Bush administration good for boaters!
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: During Clinton's eight years, some 22 million jobs were added to the economy. During Dubya's nearly four years, nearly 3 million jobs were lost to the economy. Some 1.1 million jobs allegedly have been returned to the economy. That leave Bush nearly 2 million jobs in the hole, compared to the number of jobs created during the Clinton years. Once again, your numbers are wrong. There have been 1.512 million jobs created in the last 10 months...even if you use the flawed Payroll Survey Data. The number of "lost jobs" never reached 3 million. I believe it was 2.6 million at its highest. Nearly 1.5 million of those were lost in the 6 months after 9/11 due to particularly extraordinary circumstances. You're still using the wrong terms, fella. There was no net job gain as a result of the Bush Administration. The Bush Administration is still in the "lost jobs" column and will be through the elections. The number of jobs in this country now is less than it was during the Clinton years, The number of jobs in this country now is *more* than it was during the Clinton years is you look at the Household Survey Data. You can bang on those stats all you want, and they still won't be credible. The fallacies in those stats are well-known, apparently to just about everyone except you. |
Bush administration good for boaters!
Dave Hall wrote:
Full of inaccuracies Considering the source I'd tend to believe them than those of someone who gets his news via the mass media. . For instance, Syria is actually very LOW on the list of contributors to militant Islam. Can you substantiate that? What possible difrerence would that make to someone like you? |
Bush administration good for boaters!
Ok.. So what you are admitting here is that the projected loss of 48,000
jobs made in 1998 in actuality was 46,900 jobs lost. Looks to me that 1,100 projected job losses were actually saved. So I gather you took the projection to be fact and when pressured you proved your own fact wrong. If you look further into this story you have referenced, you will see that Boeing had a slow year in 1997, delivering only 375 airplanes, they then announced payroll reduction and terminations to meet that end which was followed by 563 airplane deliveries in 1998, 620 in 1999. They ended the 2 years of job cuts just in time to see the deliveries drop to 489 in 2000. You also missed this very important quote: "Boeing and the airlines were already suffering under the weight of a sluggish economy before two commercial jets destroyed the World Trade Center Towers last Tuesday, and damaged the Pentagon. A fourth airliner commandeered by hijackers crashed in Pennsylvania." Your quote: "Not only does it substantiate my claim about the 1999 and 2000 layoffs, it also points out that the great majority of jobs lost in 2001 under Bush was a result of 9/11." While an interesting take on the situation, the terrorism was nothing more than a "final straw" of an already larger problem. Please keep in mind, Boeing was scheduled to deliver 538 airplane in 2001. This number was only reduced by 38 in their projections for the year. Taking into account of "worse case scenario" Boeing projected a reduction of 120 airplanes for 2002. Congratulations NOYB, you have now learned the lesson of making sure your facts are correct before sticking your foot in your mouth. Perhaps you would be interested in location the final outcome of these job losses Boeing predicted 8 days after the terrorist attacks. (I'll give you a hint, 36,490 as of November 22, 2003. Boeing had predicted 30,000) Rather interesting side point is that now Boeing is sharing profits with the remaining work force. "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... wrote in message news:5TRGc.4940 Tell you what, if you want yourself to look credible on this, perhaps you can locate the actual numbers for what did happen rather than relying on the premonitions you are quoting. Here's a great article: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/busine...oeingweb.shtml Not only does it substantiate my claim about the 1999 and 2000 layoffs, it also points out that the great majority of jobs lost in 2001 under Bush was a result of 9/11. Here's an excerpt: 2000: May: Boeing ends two years of job cuts, reducing companywide payroll from 238,400 in February 1998, to 191,500. ---------------------------------------------------- Feel better now? |
Bush administration good for boaters!
wrote in message ink.net... Ok.. So what you are admitting here is that the projected loss of 48,000 jobs made in 1998 in actuality was 46,900 jobs lost. Looks to me that 1,100 projected job losses were actually saved. So I gather you took the projection to be fact and when pressured you proved your own fact wrong. Wow. I was off by a whopping 2%. You sure got me there. If you look further into this story you have referenced, you will see that Boeing had a slow year in 1997, delivering only 375 airplanes, they then announced payroll reduction and terminations to meet that end Sure they did. Boeing hired more than 25,000 engineers in 1998. They got rid of almost twice that many in 1999 and 2000. Trying to blame cuts in 1999 and 2000 on the 1993 WTC attack is downright comical...especially when in the next breath you discount the effect of the 9/11/01 attack. My dad has been a supplier to the aircraft industry for nearly 40 years. Boeing and Sikorsky are his two biggest accounts. My brother worked for Boeing at the exact time in question. I think I know a little bit more about this than you. But if you insist on keep making an ass of yourself, please don't let me stop you. |
Bush administration good for boaters!
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... Full of inaccuracies Considering the source I'd tend to believe them than those of someone who gets his news via the mass media. What??? I told you to read a book. . For instance, Syria is actually very LOW on the list of contributors to militant Islam. Can you substantiate that? Back in the 1990s, its leader actually levelled an entire city where it was determined that the Muslim Brotherhood made its home. The whole city. Granted, the leader did this to ensure his continuing term in office, but regardless, it worked. This is why al Qaeda prefers Qatar as a hideout. Interesting. Al Qaeda hides in the same country that we used as a base of operations for the Iraqi war? Are we blind or do they just tiptoe very quietly? I guess they were also very inept for missing the opportunity to perform terrorist attacks on the nerve center of the war. I told you to read a book. As unbelievable as it sound, the answer is "yes". That's where they hide - with another one of our supposed allies. According to people who know these things, And just how do you determine who actually "knows these things"? Gee...I don't know. How do YOU determine that? the Saudis need to take drastic measures to establish law & order. That's rather obvious. They also have to stop the flow of money that feeds the outer network of support for terrorism. The flow of money comes directly from members of the royal family. Every time we fill our gas tanks, we contribute about a buck. This is gonna be tricky. Naturally, you'll ask for the year these things happened in Syria, the leader's name and the name of the city which was destroyed, but the book's at home. You can buy it, though: "Sleeping With the Devil", by Robert Baer, a retired CIA agent. The subject matter is current through mid-2003. The problem with books is that anyone can write one. There's no guarantee that the information contained is either factual or complete. Nor is the agenda of the author always understood. Most are either self-serving, or politically motivated, such as Richard Clark's highly spun recent expose. Silly man. You provided a link that YOU apparently feel is superior to that of a retired CIA agent. What makes you think your author is 100% accurate? And, please stop flinging that crap about "the problem with books". That implies that you believe that someplace on this planet, there's an unbiased source. Please name or describe one or two. It would help to have some verifiable corroborating evidence from other unconnected sources. Yes. It would. But meanwhile, you have chosen to believe a VERY connected source for all your information, haven't you? Know who I mean? Rush Limbaugh has written several books. Would you absorb his writing as absolute truth? Is Rush Limbaugh a retired CIA agent? |
Bush administration good for boaters!
No NOYB, you make a fool of yourself when you have the facts in your own
evidence and you ignore it, and an even bigger fool when you remove the facts when they are pointed out to you just so you can attack. You know, you are so easy sometimes... I am beginning to miss the days when you weren't quite so predictable!! By the way, if you do a little research, you will find that any employee with Boeing terminated prior to 14 months on the job, does get a severance package to assist them in relocation if needed. You might want to tell your brother about it. "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... wrote in message ink.net... Ok.. So what you are admitting here is that the projected loss of 48,000 jobs made in 1998 in actuality was 46,900 jobs lost. Looks to me that 1,100 projected job losses were actually saved. So I gather you took the projection to be fact and when pressured you proved your own fact wrong. Wow. I was off by a whopping 2%. You sure got me there. If you look further into this story you have referenced, you will see that Boeing had a slow year in 1997, delivering only 375 airplanes, they then announced payroll reduction and terminations to meet that end Sure they did. Boeing hired more than 25,000 engineers in 1998. They got rid of almost twice that many in 1999 and 2000. Trying to blame cuts in 1999 and 2000 on the 1993 WTC attack is downright comical...especially when in the next breath you discount the effect of the 9/11/01 attack. My dad has been a supplier to the aircraft industry for nearly 40 years. Boeing and Sikorsky are his two biggest accounts. My brother worked for Boeing at the exact time in question. I think I know a little bit more about this than you. But if you insist on keep making an ass of yourself, please don't let me stop you. |
Bush administration good for boaters!
wrote in message nk.net... No NOYB, you make a fool of yourself when you have the facts in your own evidence and you ignore it, and an even bigger fool when you remove the facts when they are pointed out to you just so you can attack. You know, you are so easy sometimes... I am beginning to miss the days when you weren't quite so predictable!! By the way, if you do a little research, you will find that any employee with Boeing terminated prior to 14 months on the job, does get a severance package to assist them in relocation if needed. You might want to tell your brother about it. Not in 1999. It was 12 months. |
Bush administration good for boaters!
On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 16:30:34 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . Full of inaccuracies Considering the source I'd tend to believe them than those of someone who gets his news via the mass media. What??? I told you to read a book. Are books not a part of the mass media? . For instance, Syria is actually very LOW on the list of contributors to militant Islam. Can you substantiate that? Back in the 1990s, its leader actually levelled an entire city where it was determined that the Muslim Brotherhood made its home. The whole city. Granted, the leader did this to ensure his continuing term in office, but regardless, it worked. This is why al Qaeda prefers Qatar as a hideout. Interesting. Al Qaeda hides in the same country that we used as a base of operations for the Iraqi war? Are we blind or do they just tiptoe very quietly? I guess they were also very inept for missing the opportunity to perform terrorist attacks on the nerve center of the war. I told you to read a book. As unbelievable as it sound, the answer is "yes". That's where they hide - with another one of our supposed allies. According to your book. But I have not seen much evidence to support that conjecture. Even if true, it only underscores the fact that the roots of terrorism are active in most of the middle eastern Islamic countries, and they are all potential enemies. Most of my sources claim that Afghanistan and Pakistan are the current "Home" to Al Qaeda, or at least the main "cell" of it. According to people who know these things, And just how do you determine who actually "knows these things"? Gee...I don't know. How do YOU determine that? Do you always answer a question with a question? The answer of course is that you determine based on faith and whatever information fits your views. Those that are contrary you dismiss as rubbish, sort of like the stuff Harry posts. But we all do that to some degree. The difference is that there are many sources of information. Books are only one small part. Try talking to some of the people who live or have worked in the region for their perspective. the Saudis need to take drastic measures to establish law & order. That's rather obvious. They also have to stop the flow of money that feeds the outer network of support for terrorism. The flow of money comes directly from members of the royal family. Every time we fill our gas tanks, we contribute about a buck. This is gonna be tricky. Yes it is. But you have to start somewhere. Naturally, you'll ask for the year these things happened in Syria, the leader's name and the name of the city which was destroyed, but the book's at home. You can buy it, though: "Sleeping With the Devil", by Robert Baer, a retired CIA agent. The subject matter is current through mid-2003. The problem with books is that anyone can write one. There's no guarantee that the information contained is either factual or complete. Nor is the agenda of the author always understood. Most are either self-serving, or politically motivated, such as Richard Clark's highly spun recent expose. Silly man. You provided a link that YOU apparently feel is superior to that of a retired CIA agent. What makes you think your author is 100% accurate? No one is 100% accurate. But what makes you think that someone who once worked for the CIA (The same CIA that insisted Iraq had WMD) is an all-knowing source? And, please stop flinging that crap about "the problem with books". That implies that you believe that someplace on this planet, there's an unbiased source. Please name or describe one or two. All I'm saying is that you can't base your whole idealogy on the words of a few (potentially biased) authors. You have to ingest evidence from a variety of sources before you can make an informed choice. You also have to remember, writing books is a business. Publishers and authors alike are pushed to write what will sell and bring in a profit. That's why many books are jazzed up and sensationalized. Controversy and bombshell revelations are what sell books. Anyone who doesn't believe in the theory of style over substance need look no further than Bill Clinton's book. It'll sell well, but there's little useful information in it. Do you think that "reality TV" is actually REAL? The real world of facts is a rather boring read. To sell things, spice is added. You just have to be able to determine how many facts were distorted to make for a more "spicy" story. It would help to have some verifiable corroborating evidence from other unconnected sources. Yes. It would. But meanwhile, you have chosen to believe a VERY connected source for all your information, haven't you? Know who I mean? No I don't. I don't believe any ONE source for my information. I cross check practically everything, and make a judgement call from that. Rush Limbaugh has written several books. Would you absorb his writing as absolute truth? Is Rush Limbaugh a retired CIA agent? In the grand scheme of things, does it really matter? I'm sure Saddam Hussein will be writing a book in the future. Will you buy it? Would you be inclined to believe it? Dave |
Bush administration good for boaters!
|
Bush administration good for boaters! Lurch & Ambulance Chaser, 2004!
On the other hand, if you're one of the .02% of the CITIZENS that think,
don't waste your time with LGB or Lurch and the Ambulance Chaser. A couple years ago it was widely publicized that Iraq had ONE con/thief/deception artist that was ripping overyone off. In the US, we're twice as well off - we get a choice of two. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:00 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com