McCain wins Florida primary...
 

"JG2U" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 04:58:15 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 01:10:43 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
m...
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:28:33 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
news:1q42q3dpctkov86ntq2qrvji0podj2ubqo@4ax. com...
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 23:49:29 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
news:rt22q394km5fc4sed6cb19crvq1bkef4fg@4a x.com...
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 23:32:09 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
news:st12q3db6d8p8cv2evvivb4pj84cpuk4ip@ 4ax.com...
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:36:46 -0500, HK
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:43:10 -0000,
wrote:

I wonder if we will ever learn the real reason
for this war. It sure as hell wasn't WMD.

We took down Saddam so Israel wouldn't. In that regard Hillary
was
behind it 100% along with Lieberman and McCain.
The only other option was to let Israel do it on their own ...
very
unlikely or to back them and that would be worse than the mess
we
have
now.
The US has gone far out of their way to avoid using the "I"
word.
That
is why they came up with the Kurds, WMD and the idea of
democracy
for
Iraq.


Cynic that I am, I think it was because Bush had a hard-on for
Iraq
before he took office, and directed his staff to cook the intel
so
he
could justify his attack to the American people. That and the
fact
that
he had dead-ended in the hunt for bin Laden in Afghanistan.

Only problem with that fantasy is the fact that the Dems were
beating
the Iraq war drums long before Bush took office. The "intel"
was
there before Bush was even a candidate. Try again.


True, but you would need to read more than just newspapers in
order
to
understand what changed from year to year. It requires books,
which
are
heavy.


True, but books, like movies, are sometimes fictional. Even the
ones
posing as "real". It can be difficult for someone like you to
tell
the difference.


Are you saying that you will *never* read books about recent
American
history?


Are you saying that you believe *everything* you choose to read?

Do you read books that contain contrary points of view to your own,
or
do you only read books that align with your pre-conceived views?

Do you buy your books, or do you have a library card?

Do you move your lips when you read? How would you know?

Can you be anymore argumentative and contrary?

Do you sometimes feel a need to wear a jockstrap over your head?

And back to the issue...

How do you reconcile your statement that "Bush cooked the intel"
with
the fact that Dems are captured *on video* beating the wars drums
for
Iraq starting back in *1998* well before Bush took office? Think
about it... how did Bush cook *that* intel?




You first.

Are you saying you will *never* read books about recent American
history?


Read carefully. I wrote: " True, but books, like movies, are
sometimes fictional. Even the ones posing as "real". It can be
difficult for someone like you to tell the difference." Not sure how
that statement morphed into you thinking I said something about
reading, or not reading, certain types of books. The two have nothing
to do with each other, except in your mind. Short answer: No, I am
not saying that.

Now you answer my questions.


No. Not yet.

You said it could be difficult for someone like me to tell the
difference.
How would YOU tell the difference without reading the book?

Or:

After you read a book, how would you decide it was not "real"?


Sorry. No more answers from me until you've answered my last
question.

Refresher:

How do you reconcile your statement that "Bush cooked the intel"
with
the fact that Dems are captured *on video* beating the wars drums
for
Iraq starting back in *1998* well before Bush took office? Think
about it... how did Bush cook *that* intel?

Answer it now. Or just accept the fact that you were incorrect.


The answer was contained earlier in the discussion: The available
information changed from year to year, which you would've known if you'd
read books, or even read past the front page of any newspaper which
targets
grownups. Much of this information is NOT CLASSIFIED, and was clearly
spelled out by grownup news sources.


Translation: Bush didn't cook the intel. While the intel changed
slightly from time to time, the intel sources all maintained that
there were WMDs and that Iraq was a threat. Bush believed the same
intel that the Dems beilived. You were just squawking.

Clinton and Bush both cooked intelligence. Example: Remember the famous
metal tubes we found in Iraq? The ones Powell used as an example of a
nuclear project underway? Our own scientists at Oak Ridge Laboratory
examined samples of the metal and the tubes were absolutely NOT suitable for
the use claimed by the administration. Samples were sent to IAEA scientists
in Vienna, who came to the exact same conclusion. Both groups said the tubes
matched the specs for a type of artillery whose plans Iraq had probably
gotten from the Chinese.

Guess what? Two years after the scientists made their determination, Bush &
Powell still claimed those tubes were going to be used as part of a nuclear
facility. Maybe the word "cooked" is wrong in this context. How about
"ignored"?

McCain wins Florida primary...
 

wrote in message
...
On Jan 31, 12:03 am, Chuck Gould wrote:
On Jan 30, 1:16?pm, John H. wrote:





On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:47:02 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:
On Jan 30, 9:14?am, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:49:20 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

Your guess is as good as mine on this, but I think a
Hillary-Barack ticket
would be unstoppable.
Barack-Hillary would be better.

Barack/Bill Richardson would be the tough one to beat. He could say
he
was sending Richardson on the road to fill in the gaps in his
foreign
policy experience.

Hillary vs McCain will leave all of the anti-war people with no
attractive candidate. That may depress turnout and really make this
a
crap shoot. I think the solid voters at that point will be the
people
who are against Hillary no matter who else is running (the NRA
vote,
Pro-lifers and other dependable turnout)

Are you kidding? After nearly eight years of being BUSHwhacked, every
DEM in the country will vote for Hillary *or* Barack, along with a
majority of independents.

There's very little difference between Hillary or Barack on ending
Bush's war. Hillary has said she will have a formal plan for doing so
within 60 days of assuming office.

The GOP candidate will carry the GOP and a small number of
Independents.

The best thing about a Hillary or Barack vs. McCain race might be a
higher tone than we have seen coming from the Republicans in the last
two national elections. McCain isn't going to tolerate that
"swiftboat"
crap, and neither will Hillary or Obama on their side.

This is not to say it will be a sweet campaign; it'll just be cleaner
than the last two.

Oh. "Pro-lifers." Misnomer. They're not pro-life, they are
anti-abortion.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If you're looking for a clean campaign, from the D's- Obama is more
likely to run cleanly than are the Clintons. Bill's eager for some
"payback"- much too eager IMO. He's just warming up on Obama, wait and
see what he'll do to any R finalist. Won't be pretty.

On the R side, McCain or whomever wins the nomination can keep his
personal hands relatively clean. The talk show circuit will do its
best to *destroy!* the D candidate, whomever that turns out to be.
Fortunately, most of those wack jobs are just preaching to the wack
job choir- but get enough bitchy old white guys together and that can
generate a fairly substantial poliltical clout. All the R candidate
will have to say is
"I sure wish those folks wouldn't smear my opponent that way, but this
is America and we have to respect freedom of speech."

There's already an anti-Hillary propaganda movie in the can. I
understand it's a real scorcher. Maybe Michael Moore can take a few
lessons. :-)

Apparently you've never listened to ten minutes or more of Air America.
Where've you been, boy?
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Most liberals don't listen to Air America. That should be evident by
its ratings. One reason that liberalism doesn't "do better" than it
seems to do is that those who adhere to a progressive philosophy are
reluctant to sacrifice their personal ideals on the alter of "group
think". I will had it to your side, John....you guys aren't afraid to
compromise among yourselves (sometimes one heck of a lot) in order to
promote the group agenda. I don't mean that in a bad way, it's one of
the things I most admire about conservatives.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You have got to be kidding.. Repubs with groupthink? Compared to the
dems in congress? You are just not paying attention...

====================


I don't think you were spending much time in this newsgroup when the slogan
plague was at its worst. "Cut & run", stuff like that. Bush's handlers seem
to have stopped him from using that high school level **** lately, though. I
think maybe even they got sick of hearing it. He almost broke the rules a
few months ago by saying "This young democracy" a little too often
(referring to Iraq), but someone made him dump the phrase.

That's definitely group-think when you're trying to get your followers to
memorize slogans.

McCain wins Florida primary...
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...


This is the house around the corner from me

http://www.leepa.org/Scripts/Propert...lioID=10274192

price date
455,000 12/22/2004
295,000 3/15/2002
195,000 9/1/1994
133,000 8/1/1990




That's insane.


We purchased a house in Jupiter, FL in January of 2002 and paid $585K for
it. Sometime in 2005 we determined that due to family related issues up
here in MA, wintering in Florida was not going to be something we would be
doing any longer, so we contacted a realtor to put it on the market. I
expected a market appraisal of about $600-$650K, allowing for some
improvements we had made, offset by a market that was showing signs of
slowing by then.
The realtor disagreed, and she was right. It sold in November, 2005, a
month after Hurricane Wilma for $1M.

Eisboch



How big was the house?

McCain wins Florida primary...
 

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...


This is the house around the corner from me

http://www.leepa.org/Scripts/Propert...lioID=10274192

price date
455,000 12/22/2004
295,000 3/15/2002
195,000 9/1/1994
133,000 8/1/1990




That's insane.


We purchased a house in Jupiter, FL in January of 2002 and paid $585K for
it. Sometime in 2005 we determined that due to family related issues up
here in MA, wintering in Florida was not going to be something we would
be doing any longer, so we contacted a realtor to put it on the market.
I expected a market appraisal of about $600-$650K, allowing for some
improvements we had made, offset by a market that was showing signs of
slowing by then.
The realtor disagreed, and she was right. It sold in November, 2005, a
month after Hurricane Wilma for $1M.

Eisboch



How big was the house?


I forget. Probably like 3200-3400 square feet.

Eisboch

McCain wins Florida primary...
 

"JG2U" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 00:28:35 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:57:29 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
m...
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:48:19 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
news:hnl4q39j78fr68gs6i7ek5ai47shf002u8@4ax. com...
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:20:01 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


Clinton and Bush both cooked intelligence. Example: Remember the
famous
metal tubes we found in Iraq? The ones Powell used as an example of
a
nuclear project underway? Our own scientists at Oak Ridge
Laboratory
examined samples of the metal and the tubes were absolutely NOT
suitable
for
the use claimed by the administration. Samples were sent to IAEA
scientists
in Vienna, who came to the exact same conclusion. Both groups said
the
tubes
matched the specs for a type of artillery whose plans Iraq had
probably
gotten from the Chinese.

Guess what? Two years after the scientists made their determination,
Bush
&
Powell still claimed those tubes were going to be used as part of a
nuclear
facility. Maybe the word "cooked" is wrong in this context. How
about
"ignored"?


Let's assume for a moment that the story you just told is completely
factual in all respects.

Are you saying that we went to war in Iraq because of a couple of
dubious metal tubes? Really? Everybody in DC except for two were
on
a hair trigger? Wow.

I never said we went to war over metal tubes. But, Bush and Powell
**DID**
mention the tubes as "proof" that Iraq had revived its nuclear weapons
program. So, for the people who used the erroneous information, it was
one
of many reasons.


Since you assert that BOTH administrations cooked the intel, think
about this: They both fed bad intel from one or multiple agencies,
and they both were gullible enough to believe it. C'mon, you're a
conspiracy junkie, so that should play well for you.

From what I've read (in real books) so far, much of the intel given to
Bush
was as accurate as it could've been. Would you like to read a book
covering
our so-called "nonproliferation" efforts from the mid-1970s to the
present?
It will give you an excellent overview of why there are no simple
answers
with regard to intelligence efforts.


I got that covered, Doug. I merely took you to task over your simple,
knee-jerk liberal statement. As you are now asserting, there are no
simple answers.


And yet, 2-3 years after real scientists told the admin that the pipes
could
NOT be used for nuclear purposes, your president continued to use them
in
his speeches to "prove" the existence of a nuclear program.

Explain that, please.


This is getting old. As you know, the answer is "Neither one of us
can." As in, neither one of us knows *exactly* what transpired. So
we can't explain it. We can only guess.

Now go away.


No. The explanation is very simple, but just for entertainment, I want to
hear your version. Otherwise, I can only conclude that you have nothing.


You are correct, you can conclude that *you* have nothing.

Bye


I have nothing? But, you cannot explain why your president lied about those
tubes THREE YEARS after our own nuclear scientists made it clear that the
tubes could not have been used in a nuclear facility.

That's very interesting. You don't even have a theory?

McCain wins Florida primary...
 

"JG2U" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 01:29:15 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 00:28:35 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
m...
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:57:29 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
news:nsn4q39m0nd4ec7vbneo3362mfl9kood9q@4ax. com...
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:48:19 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
news:hnl4q39j78fr68gs6i7ek5ai47shf002u8@4a x.com...
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:20:01 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


Clinton and Bush both cooked intelligence. Example: Remember the
famous
metal tubes we found in Iraq? The ones Powell used as an example
of
a
nuclear project underway? Our own scientists at Oak Ridge
Laboratory
examined samples of the metal and the tubes were absolutely NOT
suitable
for
the use claimed by the administration. Samples were sent to IAEA
scientists
in Vienna, who came to the exact same conclusion. Both groups said
the
tubes
matched the specs for a type of artillery whose plans Iraq had
probably
gotten from the Chinese.

Guess what? Two years after the scientists made their
determination,
Bush
&
Powell still claimed those tubes were going to be used as part of
a
nuclear
facility. Maybe the word "cooked" is wrong in this context. How
about
"ignored"?


Let's assume for a moment that the story you just told is
completely
factual in all respects.

Are you saying that we went to war in Iraq because of a couple of
dubious metal tubes? Really? Everybody in DC except for two were
on
a hair trigger? Wow.

I never said we went to war over metal tubes. But, Bush and Powell
**DID**
mention the tubes as "proof" that Iraq had revived its nuclear
weapons
program. So, for the people who used the erroneous information, it
was
one
of many reasons.


Since you assert that BOTH administrations cooked the intel, think
about this: They both fed bad intel from one or multiple
agencies,
and they both were gullible enough to believe it. C'mon, you're a
conspiracy junkie, so that should play well for you.

From what I've read (in real books) so far, much of the intel given
to
Bush
was as accurate as it could've been. Would you like to read a book
covering
our so-called "nonproliferation" efforts from the mid-1970s to the
present?
It will give you an excellent overview of why there are no simple
answers
with regard to intelligence efforts.


I got that covered, Doug. I merely took you to task over your
simple,
knee-jerk liberal statement. As you are now asserting, there are no
simple answers.


And yet, 2-3 years after real scientists told the admin that the pipes
could
NOT be used for nuclear purposes, your president continued to use them
in
his speeches to "prove" the existence of a nuclear program.

Explain that, please.


This is getting old. As you know, the answer is "Neither one of us
can." As in, neither one of us knows *exactly* what transpired. So
we can't explain it. We can only guess.

Now go away.


No. The explanation is very simple, but just for entertainment, I want
to
hear your version. Otherwise, I can only conclude that you have nothing.


You are correct, you can conclude that *you* have nothing.

Bye


I have nothing? But, you cannot explain why your president lied about
those
tubes THREE YEARS after our own nuclear scientists made it clear that the
tubes could not have been used in a nuclear facility.

That's very interesting. You don't even have a theory?


Yep. You are claiming things that are not in evidence. (fact, not
theory) You have no proof that Bush lied, as you can't, by *any*
definition. You simply can't know. If he didn't know it was not true
when he said it, it is not a lie. Just like all those Libs didn't
know they were repeating something that wasn't true when they said it.
They were trusting the intel. The intel lied. Why can you not
understand that simple concept?

You have ten minutes to grasp this until I give Tom the signal. You
don't want that.


You said "not in evidence". Which part of what I told you do you feel is
not true, and why? I've copied it below in case you want to pretend you
forgot by tomorrow night.

I have nothing? But, you cannot explain why your president lied about those
tubes THREE YEARS after our own nuclear scientists made it clear that the
tubes could not have been used in a nuclear facility.

McCain wins Florida primary...
 

"RLM" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 01:55:52 -0500, gfretwell wrote:


You must be a local college student.


You must be an idiot.

McCain wins Florida primary...
 

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 05:47:37 GMT, "Sam" wrote:

Even better, Florida sent the Unions packing on Amendment 1, which won 64%
to 36%.
Double the homestead tax exemption, and homestead portability when you
move.

This was sold that way but it isn't really true. You don't get this
double exemption from the school tax and that is the biggest line item
on your tax bill. It really only means a couple hundred bucks a year
for most people and Charlie hasn't even explained how he will pay for
it.
This is basically the real estate agent relief act of 2008.

McCain wins Florida primary...
 

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 05:47:37 GMT, "Sam" wrote:

Even better, Florida sent the Unions packing on Amendment 1, which won 64%
to 36%.
Double the homestead tax exemption, and homestead portability when you
move.

This was sold that way but it isn't really true. You don't get this
double exemption from the school tax and that is the biggest line item
on your tax bill. It really only means a couple hundred bucks a year
for most people and Charlie hasn't even explained how he will pay for
it.
This is basically the real estate agent relief act of 2008.

Charlie has explained how to pay for it- government has to cut costs.

Sane people agree.

McCain wins Florida primary...