|
JPS's hero recants...
|
JPS's hero recants...
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
... All I see is white. Oh no! It's the end of the tunnel. |
JPS's hero recants...
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:09:11 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: Oops.... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...601287_pf.html Precis: Greenspan, who was the country's top voice on monetary policy at the time Bush decided to go to war in Iraq, has refrained from extensive public comment on it until now, but he made the striking comment in a new memoir out today that "the Iraq War is largely about oil." In the interview, he clarified that sentence in his 531-page book, saying that while securing global oil supplies was "not the administration's motive," he had presented the White House with the case for why removing Hussein was important for the global economy. "I'm saying taking Saddam out was essential," he said. But he added that he was not implying that the war was an oil grab. Oh jps must be gnashing his teeth in flustration. Poor jps. |
JPS's hero recants...
"Tom Francis" wrote in message
... On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:09:11 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Oops.... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...601287_pf.html Precis: Greenspan, who was the country's top voice on monetary policy at the time Bush decided to go to war in Iraq, has refrained from extensive public comment on it until now, but he made the striking comment in a new memoir out today that "the Iraq War is largely about oil." In the interview, he clarified that sentence in his 531-page book, saying that while securing global oil supplies was "not the administration's motive," he had presented the White House with the case for why removing Hussein was important for the global economy. "I'm saying taking Saddam out was essential," he said. But he added that he was not implying that the war was an oil grab. Oh jps must be gnashing his teeth in flustration. Poor jps. Six months ago, I would've agreed that it was an oil grab, but now, I've come to realize that the region is much more stable than when Saddam was in power. And, since there have no attacks on American soil since our arrival in Iraq, we've clearly achieved our purpose. No other factor contributed to our safety. None whatsoever. |
JPS's hero recants...
|
JPS's hero recants...
On Sep 17, 9:12?am, Tom Francis wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:09:11 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Oops.... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...07/09/16/AR200... Precis: Greenspan, who was the country's top voice on monetary policy at the time Bush decided to go to war in Iraq, has refrained from extensive public comment on it until now, but he made the striking comment in a new memoir out today that "the Iraq War is largely about oil." In the interview, he clarified that sentence in his 531-page book, saying that while securing global oil supplies was "not the administration's motive," he had presented the White House with the case for why removing Hussein was important for the global economy. "I'm saying taking Saddam out was essential," he said. But he added that he was not implying that the war was an oil grab. Oh jps must be gnashing his teeth in flustration. Poor jps. Nothing like a little controversy to sell an extra 50,000 copies. :-) |
JPS's hero recants...
On Sep 17, 9:33?am, jps wrote:
In article , says... On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:09:11 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Oops.... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...07/09/16/AR200... Precis: Greenspan, who was the country's top voice on monetary policy at the time Bush decided to go to war in Iraq, has refrained from extensive public comment on it until now, but he made the striking comment in a new memoir out today that "the Iraq War is largely about oil." In the interview, he clarified that sentence in his 531-page book, saying that while securing global oil supplies was "not the administration's motive," he had presented the White House with the case for why removing Hussein was important for the global economy. "I'm saying taking Saddam out was essential," he said. But he added that he was not implying that the war was an oil grab. Oh jps must be gnashing his teeth in flustration. Poor, poor Tom. Can't see the forest for the trees? What reason do you suppose we had for taking out a broken dictator with a fractured country and a big pool of underutilized energy, the likes of which are essential to our corporate interests, economy and infrastructure? Why do you think the "coalition of the willing" included Britain? Could it be because BP has such a big interest in the region? Who the hell do you think finances these assholes when they're running for office? Why do you think the Dems have turned into such flaming pussies? 'Cause they're feeding from the same trough. Do you think Greenspan's written words went unconsidered by he, his editor? From Mr. Fedspeak? If Greenspan is anything, he's measured. I expect the pressure to calm the rhetoric has gotten to him. You'd like to be able to dismiss it. Sorry bud, the horse is out of the barn and I'm sure Greenspan won't be the last to make this admission. jps- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - This is exactly why it's not good practice to run political trolls through the NG. Tom's attempt to "get even" from his side of the issue wouldn't appear here if he wasn't responding to your nonsense from yesterday. |
JPS's hero recants...
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Sep 17, 9:33?am, jps wrote: In article , says... On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:09:11 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Oops.... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...07/09/16/AR200... Precis: Greenspan, who was the country's top voice on monetary policy at the time Bush decided to go to war in Iraq, has refrained from extensive public comment on it until now, but he made the striking comment in a new memoir out today that "the Iraq War is largely about oil." In the interview, he clarified that sentence in his 531-page book, saying that while securing global oil supplies was "not the administration's motive," he had presented the White House with the case for why removing Hussein was important for the global economy. "I'm saying taking Saddam out was essential," he said. But he added that he was not implying that the war was an oil grab. Oh jps must be gnashing his teeth in flustration. Poor, poor Tom. Can't see the forest for the trees? What reason do you suppose we had for taking out a broken dictator with a fractured country and a big pool of underutilized energy, the likes of which are essential to our corporate interests, economy and infrastructure? Why do you think the "coalition of the willing" included Britain? Could it be because BP has such a big interest in the region? Who the hell do you think finances these assholes when they're running for office? Why do you think the Dems have turned into such flaming pussies? 'Cause they're feeding from the same trough. Do you think Greenspan's written words went unconsidered by he, his editor? From Mr. Fedspeak? If Greenspan is anything, he's measured. I expect the pressure to calm the rhetoric has gotten to him. You'd like to be able to dismiss it. Sorry bud, the horse is out of the barn and I'm sure Greenspan won't be the last to make this admission. jps- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - This is exactly why it's not good practice to run political trolls through the NG. Tom's attempt to "get even" from his side of the issue wouldn't appear here if he wasn't responding to your nonsense from yesterday. More upChuck. Right here in rec.boats. |
JPS's hero recants...
On Sep 17, 12:12 pm, Tom Francis
wrote: On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:09:11 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Oops.... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...07/09/16/AR200... Precis: Greenspan, who was the country's top voice on monetary policy at the time Bush decided to go to war in Iraq, has refrained from extensive public comment on it until now, but he made the striking comment in a new memoir out today that "the Iraq War is largely about oil." In the interview, he clarified that sentence in his 531-page book, saying that while securing global oil supplies was "not the administration's motive," he had presented the White House with the case for why removing Hussein was important for the global economy. "I'm saying taking Saddam out was essential," he said. But he added that he was not implying that the war was an oil grab. Oh jps must be gnashing his teeth in flustration. Poor jps. Not really, they will just ignore the recant and continue to talk about Greenspan saying it was about oil. |
JPS's hero recants...
|
JPS's hero recants...
In article .com,
says... On Sep 17, 12:12 pm, Tom Francis wrote: On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:09:11 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Oops.... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...07/09/16/AR200... Precis: Greenspan, who was the country's top voice on monetary policy at the time Bush decided to go to war in Iraq, has refrained from extensive public comment on it until now, but he made the striking comment in a new memoir out today that "the Iraq War is largely about oil." In the interview, he clarified that sentence in his 531-page book, saying that while securing global oil supplies was "not the administration's motive," he had presented the White House with the case for why removing Hussein was important for the global economy. "I'm saying taking Saddam out was essential," he said. But he added that he was not implying that the war was an oil grab. Oh jps must be gnashing his teeth in flustration. Poor jps. Not really, they will just ignore the recant and continue to talk about Greenspan saying it was about oil. Yes, as if he didn't pause to think about it when he wrote it. It was just a flip remark from a man who's never made a flip remark in his entire life. jps |
JPS's hero recants...
On Sep 17, 2:17 pm, jps wrote:
In article .com, says... On Sep 17, 12:12 pm, Tom Francis wrote: On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:09:11 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Oops.... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...07/09/16/AR200... Precis: Greenspan, who was the country's top voice on monetary policy at the time Bush decided to go to war in Iraq, has refrained from extensive public comment on it until now, but he made the striking comment in a new memoir out today that "the Iraq War is largely about oil." In the interview, he clarified that sentence in his 531-page book, saying that while securing global oil supplies was "not the administration's motive," he had presented the White House with the case for why removing Hussein was important for the global economy. "I'm saying taking Saddam out was essential," he said. But he added that he was not implying that the war was an oil grab. Oh jps must be gnashing his teeth in flustration. Poor jps. Not really, they will just ignore the recant and continue to talk about Greenspan saying it was about oil. Yes, as if he didn't pause to think about it when he wrote it. It was just a flip remark from a man who's never made a flip remark in his entire life. jps- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - So then, why must he recant, is he dishonest, trying to sell books? |
JPS's hero recants...
In article .com,
says... On Sep 17, 2:17 pm, jps wrote: In article .com, says... On Sep 17, 12:12 pm, Tom Francis wrote: On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:09:11 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Oops.... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...07/09/16/AR200... Precis: Greenspan, who was the country's top voice on monetary policy at the time Bush decided to go to war in Iraq, has refrained from extensive public comment on it until now, but he made the striking comment in a new memoir out today that "the Iraq War is largely about oil." In the interview, he clarified that sentence in his 531-page book, saying that while securing global oil supplies was "not the administration's motive," he had presented the White House with the case for why removing Hussein was important for the global economy. "I'm saying taking Saddam out was essential," he said. But he added that he was not implying that the war was an oil grab. Oh jps must be gnashing his teeth in flustration. Poor jps. Not really, they will just ignore the recant and continue to talk about Greenspan saying it was about oil. Yes, as if he didn't pause to think about it when he wrote it. It was just a flip remark from a man who's never made a flip remark in his entire life. jps- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - So then, why must he recant, is he dishonest, trying to sell books? He clarified his statement. "Recant" is the word Tom liberally used to describe Greenspan's clarification. Let me ask you freakin', what interest does the US have in the mideast that's more compelling than ensuring the free flow of oil? jps |
JPS's hero recants...
"jps" wrote in message ... In article .com, says... On Sep 17, 2:17 pm, jps wrote: In article .com, says... On Sep 17, 12:12 pm, Tom Francis wrote: On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:09:11 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Oops.... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...07/09/16/AR200... Precis: Greenspan, who was the country's top voice on monetary policy at the time Bush decided to go to war in Iraq, has refrained from extensive public comment on it until now, but he made the striking comment in a new memoir out today that "the Iraq War is largely about oil." In the interview, he clarified that sentence in his 531-page book, saying that while securing global oil supplies was "not the administration's motive," he had presented the White House with the case for why removing Hussein was important for the global economy. "I'm saying taking Saddam out was essential," he said. But he added that he was not implying that the war was an oil grab. Oh jps must be gnashing his teeth in flustration. Poor jps. Not really, they will just ignore the recant and continue to talk about Greenspan saying it was about oil. Yes, as if he didn't pause to think about it when he wrote it. It was just a flip remark from a man who's never made a flip remark in his entire life. jps- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - So then, why must he recant, is he dishonest, trying to sell books? He clarified his statement. "Recant" is the word Tom liberally used to describe Greenspan's clarification. Let me ask you freakin', what interest does the US have in the mideast that's more compelling than ensuring the free flow of oil? jps Sand? |
JPS's hero recants...
In article ,
says... "jps" wrote in message ... In article .com, says... On Sep 17, 2:17 pm, jps wrote: In article .com, says... On Sep 17, 12:12 pm, Tom Francis wrote: On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:09:11 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Oops.... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...07/09/16/AR200... Precis: Greenspan, who was the country's top voice on monetary policy at the time Bush decided to go to war in Iraq, has refrained from extensive public comment on it until now, but he made the striking comment in a new memoir out today that "the Iraq War is largely about oil." In the interview, he clarified that sentence in his 531-page book, saying that while securing global oil supplies was "not the administration's motive," he had presented the White House with the case for why removing Hussein was important for the global economy. "I'm saying taking Saddam out was essential," he said. But he added that he was not implying that the war was an oil grab. Oh jps must be gnashing his teeth in flustration. Poor jps. Not really, they will just ignore the recant and continue to talk about Greenspan saying it was about oil. Yes, as if he didn't pause to think about it when he wrote it. It was just a flip remark from a man who's never made a flip remark in his entire life. jps- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - So then, why must he recant, is he dishonest, trying to sell books? He clarified his statement. "Recant" is the word Tom liberally used to describe Greenspan's clarification. Let me ask you freakin', what interest does the US have in the mideast that's more compelling than ensuring the free flow of oil? jps Sand? Bzzzt. Nope, got plenty of that. Try again. |
JPS's hero recants...
"jps" wrote in message
... Let me ask you freakin', what interest does the US have in the mideast that's more compelling than ensuring the free flow of oil? jps Sand? Bzzzt. Nope, got plenty of that. Try again. Well, let's see....the Saudis are our single biggest customer for weaponry. The royals live in constant fear of their Wahhabi lunatic population, even though the government supports the very schools that produce them. The more we do to meddle in the Middle East, the more religious fanatics we **** off, the greater the perceived need for the Saudi royals to buy weapons. Lots of weapons. And, every prince involved with the purchasing of weapons skims off a few million bucks a year, more than enough to pay for their fancy digs in France, Colorado, etc.* It's just good business. Good for the defense biz, good for the real estate biz, good for the oil biz. *We're currently investigating military personnel who took "commissions" on all sorts of things involving the war in Iraq. But, in Saudi Arabia, it's legal and it's a tradition. |
JPS's hero recants...
|
JPS's hero recants...
"jps" wrote in message
... In article , says... "jps" wrote in message ... Let me ask you freakin', what interest does the US have in the mideast that's more compelling than ensuring the free flow of oil? jps Sand? Bzzzt. Nope, got plenty of that. Try again. Well, let's see....the Saudis are our single biggest customer for weaponry. The royals live in constant fear of their Wahhabi lunatic population, even though the government supports the very schools that produce them. The more we do to meddle in the Middle East, the more religious fanatics we **** off, the greater the perceived need for the Saudi royals to buy weapons. Lots of weapons. And, every prince involved with the purchasing of weapons skims off a few million bucks a year, more than enough to pay for their fancy digs in France, Colorado, etc.* It's just good business. Good for the defense biz, good for the real estate biz, good for the oil biz. *We're currently investigating military personnel who took "commissions" on all sorts of things involving the war in Iraq. But, in Saudi Arabia, it's legal and it's a tradition. It's likely an insult to not skim, as if you're too good to take free money. I think we've misplaced a couple of containers of $100 bills over there so I guess we understand something of Arab culture and tradition. Ya know, there have been a few non-fiction books which included descriptions of why and how we purchase the appropriate people in the Middle East. Sadly, the guvmint chooses to hide this reality. Remember that interesting "bank robbery" in Iraq a couple of months ago? The story died 24 hours after it appeared. I e-mailed the author of one newspaper article, who said she knew nothing more about it. Sounds like the source dried up and blew away. |
JPS's hero recants...
In article ,
says... "jps" wrote in message ... In article , says... "jps" wrote in message ... Let me ask you freakin', what interest does the US have in the mideast that's more compelling than ensuring the free flow of oil? jps Sand? Bzzzt. Nope, got plenty of that. Try again. Well, let's see....the Saudis are our single biggest customer for weaponry. The royals live in constant fear of their Wahhabi lunatic population, even though the government supports the very schools that produce them. The more we do to meddle in the Middle East, the more religious fanatics we **** off, the greater the perceived need for the Saudi royals to buy weapons. Lots of weapons. And, every prince involved with the purchasing of weapons skims off a few million bucks a year, more than enough to pay for their fancy digs in France, Colorado, etc.* It's just good business. Good for the defense biz, good for the real estate biz, good for the oil biz. *We're currently investigating military personnel who took "commissions" on all sorts of things involving the war in Iraq. But, in Saudi Arabia, it's legal and it's a tradition. It's likely an insult to not skim, as if you're too good to take free money. I think we've misplaced a couple of containers of $100 bills over there so I guess we understand something of Arab culture and tradition. Ya know, there have been a few non-fiction books which included descriptions of why and how we purchase the appropriate people in the Middle East. Sadly, the guvmint chooses to hide this reality. Remember that interesting "bank robbery" in Iraq a couple of months ago? The story died 24 hours after it appeared. I e-mailed the author of one newspaper article, who said she knew nothing more about it. Sounds like the source dried up and blew away. I imagine those folks who're hired to keep rich kids names out of the paper also work on plugging these types of leaks. |
JPS's hero recants...
"John H." wrote in message
... On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:33:20 -0700, jps wrote more political bull****: Why do you think the "coalition of the willing" included Britain? Could it be because BP has such a big interest in the region? Who the hell do you think finances these assholes when they're running for office? Why do you think the Dems have turned into such flaming pussies? 'Cause they're feeding from the same trough. Do you think Greenspan's written words went unconsidered by he, his editor? From Mr. Fedspeak? If Greenspan is anything, he's measured. I expect the pressure to calm the rhetoric has gotten to him. You'd like to be able to dismiss it. Sorry bud, the horse is out of the barn and I'm sure Greenspan won't be the last to make this admission. jps Why did you not go to Wal Mart and get some balls? Then you could take this crap to a 'real' political newsgroup! I think you and Harry would do nicely there. You are so gay, it's simply delightful. |
JPS's hero recants...
"John H." wrote in message ... Why did you not go to Wal Mart and get some balls? Then you could take this crap to a 'real' political newsgroup! I think you and Harry would do nicely there. John ...please! This is a family newsgroup. Take your lewd behaviour to alt.pottymouth |
JPS's hero recants...
"John H." wrote in message
... On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 23:29:54 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H." wrote in message . .. On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:33:20 -0700, jps wrote more political bull****: Why do you think the "coalition of the willing" included Britain? Could it be because BP has such a big interest in the region? Who the hell do you think finances these assholes when they're running for office? Why do you think the Dems have turned into such flaming pussies? 'Cause they're feeding from the same trough. Do you think Greenspan's written words went unconsidered by he, his editor? From Mr. Fedspeak? If Greenspan is anything, he's measured. I expect the pressure to calm the rhetoric has gotten to him. You'd like to be able to dismiss it. Sorry bud, the horse is out of the barn and I'm sure Greenspan won't be the last to make this admission. jps Why did you not go to Wal Mart and get some balls? Then you could take this crap to a 'real' political newsgroup! I think you and Harry would do nicely there. You are so gay, it's simply delightful. You also. I need a canopy for my Lund. It's got a cranberry red hull, light gray interior, beige wood seats. Maybe a lovely striped canopy, in grey & cranberry, to pick up both colors? Or, some third color for that festive Caribbean look? What worries me is the black fish finder, which might clash with any color I choose for the canopy. And gawd...the tackle box. Totally wrong color, but it's so expensive to get them wrapped in custom fabric nowadays. |
JPS's hero recants...
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 12:40:36 -0400, HK wrote:
More upChuck. Right here in rec.boats. More Hairy. Right here in rec.boats. |
JPS's hero recants...
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:33:20 -0700, jps wrote more
political bull****: Why do you think the "coalition of the willing" included Britain? Could it be because BP has such a big interest in the region? Who the hell do you think finances these assholes when they're running for office? Why do you think the Dems have turned into such flaming pussies? 'Cause they're feeding from the same trough. Do you think Greenspan's written words went unconsidered by he, his editor? From Mr. Fedspeak? If Greenspan is anything, he's measured. I expect the pressure to calm the rhetoric has gotten to him. You'd like to be able to dismiss it. Sorry bud, the horse is out of the barn and I'm sure Greenspan won't be the last to make this admission. jps Why did you not go to Wal Mart and get some balls? Then you could take this crap to a 'real' political newsgroup! I think you and Harry would do nicely there. |
JPS's hero recants...
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 13:35:53 -0700, jps wrote more
political bull****: Let me ask you freakin', what interest does the US have in the mideast that's more compelling than ensuring the free flow of oil? jps None. Too many of us have boats. How's the Whaler doing? |
JPS's hero recants...
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 23:29:54 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:33:20 -0700, jps wrote more political bull****: Why do you think the "coalition of the willing" included Britain? Could it be because BP has such a big interest in the region? Who the hell do you think finances these assholes when they're running for office? Why do you think the Dems have turned into such flaming pussies? 'Cause they're feeding from the same trough. Do you think Greenspan's written words went unconsidered by he, his editor? From Mr. Fedspeak? If Greenspan is anything, he's measured. I expect the pressure to calm the rhetoric has gotten to him. You'd like to be able to dismiss it. Sorry bud, the horse is out of the barn and I'm sure Greenspan won't be the last to make this admission. jps Why did you not go to Wal Mart and get some balls? Then you could take this crap to a 'real' political newsgroup! I think you and Harry would do nicely there. You are so gay, it's simply delightful. You also. |
JPS's hero recants...
"John H." wrote in message
... On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 23:29:54 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H." wrote in message . .. On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:33:20 -0700, jps wrote more political bull****: Why do you think the "coalition of the willing" included Britain? Could it be because BP has such a big interest in the region? Who the hell do you think finances these assholes when they're running for office? Why do you think the Dems have turned into such flaming pussies? 'Cause they're feeding from the same trough. Do you think Greenspan's written words went unconsidered by he, his editor? From Mr. Fedspeak? If Greenspan is anything, he's measured. I expect the pressure to calm the rhetoric has gotten to him. You'd like to be able to dismiss it. Sorry bud, the horse is out of the barn and I'm sure Greenspan won't be the last to make this admission. jps Why did you not go to Wal Mart and get some balls? Then you could take this crap to a 'real' political newsgroup! I think you and Harry would do nicely there. You are so gay, it's simply delightful. You need to relax. He You need to follow the example of those Vietnamese monks during the war. Got a can of gasoline in the garage? |
JPS's hero recants...
"John H." wrote in message ... You need to relax. He http://hytaipan.home.comcast.net/media/serenity2.html Isn't that showing disrespect to your next president? ...and you have the nerve to draw a military pension from the US Gov't! |
JPS's hero recants...
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:09:22 -0700, jps wrote:
In article , says... "jps" wrote in message ... In article , says... "jps" wrote in message ... Let me ask you freakin', what interest does the US have in the mideast that's more compelling than ensuring the free flow of oil? jps Sand? Bzzzt. Nope, got plenty of that. Try again. Well, let's see....the Saudis are our single biggest customer for weaponry. The royals live in constant fear of their Wahhabi lunatic population, even though the government supports the very schools that produce them. The more we do to meddle in the Middle East, the more religious fanatics we **** off, the greater the perceived need for the Saudi royals to buy weapons. Lots of weapons. And, every prince involved with the purchasing of weapons skims off a few million bucks a year, more than enough to pay for their fancy digs in France, Colorado, etc.* It's just good business. Good for the defense biz, good for the real estate biz, good for the oil biz. *We're currently investigating military personnel who took "commissions" on all sorts of things involving the war in Iraq. But, in Saudi Arabia, it's legal and it's a tradition. It's likely an insult to not skim, as if you're too good to take free money. I think we've misplaced a couple of containers of $100 bills over there so I guess we understand something of Arab culture and tradition. Ya know, there have been a few non-fiction books which included descriptions of why and how we purchase the appropriate people in the Middle East. Sadly, the guvmint chooses to hide this reality. Remember that interesting "bank robbery" in Iraq a couple of months ago? The story died 24 hours after it appeared. I e-mailed the author of one newspaper article, who said she knew nothing more about it. Sounds like the source dried up and blew away. I imagine those folks who're hired to keep rich kids names out of the paper also work on plugging these types of leaks. You need to relax. He http://hytaipan.home.comcast.net/media/serenity2.html |
JPS's hero recants...
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 23:29:54 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:33:20 -0700, jps wrote more political bull****: Why do you think the "coalition of the willing" included Britain? Could it be because BP has such a big interest in the region? Who the hell do you think finances these assholes when they're running for office? Why do you think the Dems have turned into such flaming pussies? 'Cause they're feeding from the same trough. Do you think Greenspan's written words went unconsidered by he, his editor? From Mr. Fedspeak? If Greenspan is anything, he's measured. I expect the pressure to calm the rhetoric has gotten to him. You'd like to be able to dismiss it. Sorry bud, the horse is out of the barn and I'm sure Greenspan won't be the last to make this admission. jps Why did you not go to Wal Mart and get some balls? Then you could take this crap to a 'real' political newsgroup! I think you and Harry would do nicely there. You are so gay, it's simply delightful. You need to relax. He |
JPS's hero recants...
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:37:31 -0300, "Don White"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . Why did you not go to Wal Mart and get some balls? Then you could take this crap to a 'real' political newsgroup! I think you and Harry would do nicely there. John ...please! This is a family newsgroup. Take your lewd behaviour to alt.pottymouth Don, shame on you. Your mind is in the gutter. Hell, I just bought 15 Top Flight D2's day before yesterday. On sale! |
JPS's hero recants...
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 23:38:04 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 23:29:54 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:33:20 -0700, jps wrote more political bull****: Why do you think the "coalition of the willing" included Britain? Could it be because BP has such a big interest in the region? Who the hell do you think finances these assholes when they're running for office? Why do you think the Dems have turned into such flaming pussies? 'Cause they're feeding from the same trough. Do you think Greenspan's written words went unconsidered by he, his editor? From Mr. Fedspeak? If Greenspan is anything, he's measured. I expect the pressure to calm the rhetoric has gotten to him. You'd like to be able to dismiss it. Sorry bud, the horse is out of the barn and I'm sure Greenspan won't be the last to make this admission. jps Why did you not go to Wal Mart and get some balls? Then you could take this crap to a 'real' political newsgroup! I think you and Harry would do nicely there. You are so gay, it's simply delightful. You also. I need a canopy for my Lund. It's got a cranberry red hull, light gray interior, beige wood seats. Maybe a lovely striped canopy, in grey & cranberry, to pick up both colors? Or, some third color for that festive Caribbean look? What worries me is the black fish finder, which might clash with any color I choose for the canopy. And gawd...the tackle box. Totally wrong color, but it's so expensive to get them wrapped in custom fabric nowadays. Take some time off from the political bull**** and paint 'em! You could surely find a color to paint the fish finder and the tackle box that wouldn't clash with your striped canopy. Here, this will help: http://www.colormatters.com/colortheory.html |
JPS's hero recants...
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 16:52:20 -0300, "Don White"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . You need to relax. He http://hytaipan.home.comcast.net/media/serenity2.html Isn't that showing disrespect to your next president? ..and you have the nerve to draw a military pension from the US Gov't! No and deservedly. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:20 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com