Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

Boats are an expense, JimH.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../MNBVVL9GK.DTL

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

On Mar 18, 9:11*am, wrote:
Boats are an expense, JimH.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...3/17/MNBVVL9GK...

When I see an article start with such a far fetched lie as this, "It
was supposed to be a quick war and a cheap one" Which of course was
never the case, I really must dismiss the rest of the article, sorry..

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

On Mar 18, 9:22*am, wrote:
On Mar 18, 9:11*am, wrote:

Boats are an expense, JimH.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...3/17/MNBVVL9GK....

When I see an article start with such a far fetched lie as this, "It
was supposed to be a quick war and a cheap one" Which of course was
never the case, I really must dismiss the rest of the article, sorry..

Well, of course!

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

On Mar 18, 9:22*am, wrote:
On Mar 18, 9:11*am, wrote:

Boats are an expense, JimH.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...3/17/MNBVVL9GK....

When I see an article start with such a far fetched lie as this, "It
was supposed to be a quick war and a cheap one" Which of course was
never the case, I really must dismiss the rest of the article, sorry..

What do you say about the fact that in Jan 2003 the Pentagon and the
White House reported that the estimate would be $50 to $60 billion
dollars? What about Paul Wolfowitz stating uncatagorically that Iraq
would pay for it's reconstruction with increased oil revenues?

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

On Mar 18, 9:28*am, wrote:
On Mar 18, 9:22*am, wrote:

On Mar 18, 9:11*am, wrote:

Boats are an expense, JimH.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...3/17/MNBVVL9GK....

When I see an article start with such a far fetched lie as this, "It
was supposed to be a quick war and a cheap one" Which of course was
never the case, I really must dismiss the rest of the article, sorry..

What do you say about the fact that in Jan 2003 the Pentagon and the
White House reported that the estimate would be $50 to $60 billion
dollars? What about Paul Wolfowitz stating uncatagorically that Iraq
would pay for it's reconstruction with increased oil revenues?

I dunno' without a lot of research, but it was never supposed to be
"cheap and easy".

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

Im still wondering what we get out of the deal,, besides broke that is.
Brad
wrote in message
...
On Mar 18, 9:28 am, wrote:
On Mar 18, 9:22 am, wrote:

On Mar 18, 9:11 am, wrote:

Boats are an expense, JimH.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...3/17/MNBVVL9GK...

When I see an article start with such a far fetched lie as this, "It
was supposed to be a quick war and a cheap one" Which of course was
never the case, I really must dismiss the rest of the article, sorry..

What do you say about the fact that in Jan 2003 the Pentagon and the
White House reported that the estimate would be $50 to $60 billion
dollars? What about Paul Wolfowitz stating uncatagorically that Iraq
would pay for it's reconstruction with increased oil revenues?

I dunno' without a lot of research, but it was never supposed to be
"cheap and easy".

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

On Mar 18, 9:46*am, "Brad Darnell" wrote:
Im still wondering what we get out of the deal,, besides broke that is.
wrote in message

...
On Mar 18, 9:28 am, wrote:





On Mar 18, 9:22 am, wrote:

On Mar 18, 9:11 am, wrote:

Boats are an expense, JimH.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...3/17/MNBVVL9GK...

When I see an article start with such a far fetched lie as this, "It
was supposed to be a quick war and a cheap one" Which of course was
never the case, I really must dismiss the rest of the article, sorry..

What do you say about the fact that in Jan 2003 the Pentagon and the
White House reported that the estimate would be $50 to $60 billion
dollars? What about Paul Wolfowitz stating uncatagorically that Iraq
would pay for it's reconstruction with increased oil revenues?

I dunno' without a lot of research, but it was never supposed to be
"cheap and easy".- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What did we gain when we freed Europe, Asia, and so many other
countries in the world? We did not go there to get paid.

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

wrote:
On Mar 18, 9:11 am, wrote:
Boats are an expense, JimH.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...3/17/MNBVVL9GK...

When I see an article start with such a far fetched lie as this, "It
was supposed to be a quick war and a cheap one" Which of course was
never the case, I really must dismiss the rest of the article, sorry..


That was the posit of the former Secretary of Defense. "War light."

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

John wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mar 18, 9:11 am, wrote:
Boats are an expense, JimH.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...3/17/MNBVVL9GK...

When I see an article start with such a far fetched lie as this, "It
was supposed to be a quick war and a cheap one" Which of course was
never the case, I really must dismiss the rest of the article, sorry..

*****************

according to Dick Cheney:

Cheney, 3/2003. "I think it'll go relatively quickly, .Weeks rather than
months."


Role In Going To War: Among a host of false pre-war statements, Cheney
claimed that Iraq may have had a role in 9/11, stating that it was "pretty
well confirmed" that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence
officials. Cheney also claimed that Saddam was "in fact reconstituting his
nuclear program" and that the U.S. would be "greeted as liberators." [Meet
the Press, 12/9/01,

The whole war was based on far fetched lies.....





It's not fair in these arguments to quote people like Cheney or Rumsfeld
or Bush. :)

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

Those countries were under attack and we only got in after we were attacked
as well. A very good reason to go to war. I do not remember Iraq being under
attack from a hostile country nor did Iraq attack us in anyway.
wrote in message
...
On Mar 18, 9:46 am, "Brad Darnell" wrote:
Im still wondering what we get out of the deal,, besides broke that is.
wrote in message

...
On Mar 18, 9:28 am, wrote:





On Mar 18, 9:22 am, wrote:

On Mar 18, 9:11 am, wrote:

Boats are an expense, JimH.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...3/17/MNBVVL9GK...

When I see an article start with such a far fetched lie as this, "It
was supposed to be a quick war and a cheap one" Which of course was
never the case, I really must dismiss the rest of the article, sorry..

What do you say about the fact that in Jan 2003 the Pentagon and the
White House reported that the estimate would be $50 to $60 billion
dollars? What about Paul Wolfowitz stating uncatagorically that Iraq
would pay for it's reconstruction with increased oil revenues?

I dunno' without a lot of research, but it was never supposed to be
"cheap and easy".- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What did we gain when we freed Europe, Asia, and so many other
countries in the world? We did not go there to get paid.

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

On Mar 18, 10:06*am, HK wrote:
John wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mar 18, 9:11 am, wrote:
Boats are an expense, JimH.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...3/17/MNBVVL9GK....

When I see an article start with such a far fetched lie as this, "It
was supposed to be a quick war and a cheap one" Which of course was
never the case, I really must dismiss the rest of the article, sorry..

*****************

according to Dick Cheney:

Cheney, 3/2003. "I think it'll go relatively quickly, .Weeks rather than
months."

Role In Going To War: Among a host of false pre-war statements, Cheney
claimed that Iraq may have had a role in 9/11, stating that it was "pretty
well confirmed" that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence
officials. Cheney also claimed that Saddam was "in fact reconstituting his
nuclear program" and that the U.S. would be "greeted as liberators." [Meet
the Press, 12/9/01,

The whole war was based on far fetched lies.....

It's not fair in these arguments to quote people like Cheney or Rumsfeld
or Bush. *:)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And of course you dismiss the fact that the same quotes were coming
from all of the most powerful democrats at the time. We will never
really know what happened back then anyway. Between Jamie Garelik and
Sandy Berger working together to hide the truth, it just will never
happen.

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

wrote:
On Mar 18, 10:06 am, HK wrote:
John wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mar 18, 9:11 am, wrote:
Boats are an expense, JimH.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...3/17/MNBVVL9GK...
When I see an article start with such a far fetched lie as this, "It
was supposed to be a quick war and a cheap one" Which of course was
never the case, I really must dismiss the rest of the article, sorry..
*****************
according to Dick Cheney:
Cheney, 3/2003. "I think it'll go relatively quickly, .Weeks rather than
months."
Role In Going To War: Among a host of false pre-war statements, Cheney
claimed that Iraq may have had a role in 9/11, stating that it was "pretty
well confirmed" that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence
officials. Cheney also claimed that Saddam was "in fact reconstituting his
nuclear program" and that the U.S. would be "greeted as liberators." [Meet
the Press, 12/9/01,
The whole war was based on far fetched lies.....
It's not fair in these arguments to quote people like Cheney or Rumsfeld
or Bush. :)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And of course you dismiss the fact that the same quotes were coming
from all of the most powerful democrats at the time. We will never
really know what happened back then anyway. Between Jamie Garelik and
Sandy Berger working together to hide the truth, it just will never
happen.


Once again, you are attempting to deflect from a statement you made
previously. The quotes from Cheney and Rumsfeld refute your claim. They
both said our involvement in Iraq would be short and relatively
inexpensive. Deny all you like, they said it.

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

On Mar 18, 10:14*am, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 18, 10:06 am, HK wrote:
John wrote:
wrote in message
....
On Mar 18, 9:11 am, wrote:
Boats are an expense, JimH.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...3/17/MNBVVL9GK...
When I see an article start with such a far fetched lie as this, "It
was supposed to be a quick war and a cheap one" Which of course was
never the case, I really must dismiss the rest of the article, sorry..
*****************
according to Dick Cheney:
Cheney, 3/2003. "I think it'll go relatively quickly, .Weeks rather than
months."
Role In Going To War: Among a host of false pre-war statements, Cheney
claimed that Iraq may have had a role in 9/11, stating that it was "pretty
well confirmed" that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence
officials. Cheney also claimed that Saddam was "in fact reconstituting his
nuclear program" and that the U.S. would be "greeted as liberators." [Meet
the Press, 12/9/01,
The whole war was based on far fetched lies.....
It's not fair in these arguments to quote people like Cheney or Rumsfeld
or Bush. *:)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And of course you dismiss the fact that the same quotes were coming
from all of the most powerful democrats at the time. We will never
really know what happened back then anyway. Between Jamie Garelik and
Sandy Berger working together to hide the truth, it just will never
happen.

Once again, you are attempting to deflect from a statement you made
previously. The quotes from Cheney and Rumsfeld refute your claim. They
both said our involvement in Iraq would be short and relatively
inexpensive. Deny all you like, they said it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Again, everyone had the same bogus information to work with. If
Billary had not spent so much time hiding it's incompetence, maybe
things would have been different. Until we find out what Sandy Berger
risked everything to hide from the 9-11 commission, the truth will
never come out. So we can all just sit around and point fingers.

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

John wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mar 18, 10:14 am, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 18, 10:06 am, HK wrote:
John wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mar 18, 9:11 am, wrote:
Boats are an expense, JimH.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...3/17/MNBVVL9GK...
When I see an article start with such a far fetched lie as this, "It
was supposed to be a quick war and a cheap one" Which of course was
never the case, I really must dismiss the rest of the article, sorry..
*****************
according to Dick Cheney:
Cheney, 3/2003. "I think it'll go relatively quickly, .Weeks rather
than
months."
Role In Going To War: Among a host of false pre-war statements, Cheney
claimed that Iraq may have had a role in 9/11, stating that it was
"pretty
well confirmed" that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi
intelligence
officials. Cheney also claimed that Saddam was "in fact reconstituting
his
nuclear program" and that the U.S. would be "greeted as liberators."
[Meet
the Press, 12/9/01,
The whole war was based on far fetched lies.....
It's not fair in these arguments to quote people like Cheney or
Rumsfeld
or Bush. :)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
And of course you dismiss the fact that the same quotes were coming
from all of the most powerful democrats at the time. We will never
really know what happened back then anyway. Between Jamie Garelik and
Sandy Berger working together to hide the truth, it just will never
happen.
Once again, you are attempting to deflect from a statement you made
previously. The quotes from Cheney and Rumsfeld refute your claim. They
both said our involvement in Iraq would be short and relatively
inexpensive. Deny all you like, they said it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Again, everyone had the same bogus information to work with. If
Billary had not spent so much time hiding it's incompetence, maybe
things would have been different. Until we find out what Sandy Berger
risked everything to hide from the 9-11 commission, the truth will
never come out. So we can all just sit around and point fingers.


***************8

Man you a piece of work!

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powel, Rice all told lies to get us in a war and of
course it is all Hilary's fault!!
You probably need to quit listening to Rush and try reading multiple news
sources.





He claims he doesn't listen to Rush. So, there must be some other source
for his confusion.

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

On Mar 18, 10:33*am, "John" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Mar 18, 10:14 am, HK wrote:





wrote:
On Mar 18, 10:06 am, HK wrote:
John wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mar 18, 9:11 am, wrote:
Boats are an expense, JimH.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...3/17/MNBVVL9GK...
When I see an article start with such a far fetched lie as this, "It
was supposed to be a quick war and a cheap one" Which of course was
never the case, I really must dismiss the rest of the article, sorry...
*****************
according to Dick Cheney:
Cheney, 3/2003. "I think it'll go relatively quickly, .Weeks rather
than
months."
Role In Going To War: Among a host of false pre-war statements, Cheney
claimed that Iraq may have had a role in 9/11, stating that it was
"pretty
well confirmed" that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi
intelligence
officials. Cheney also claimed that Saddam was "in fact reconstituting
his
nuclear program" and that the U.S. would be "greeted as liberators."
[Meet
the Press, 12/9/01,
The whole war was based on far fetched lies.....
It's not fair in these arguments to quote people like Cheney or
Rumsfeld
or Bush. :)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And of course you dismiss the fact that the same quotes were coming
from all of the most powerful democrats at the time. We will never
really know what happened back then anyway. Between Jamie Garelik and
Sandy Berger working together to hide the truth, it just will never
happen.

Once again, you are attempting to deflect from a statement you made
previously. The quotes from Cheney and Rumsfeld refute your claim. They
both said our involvement in Iraq would be short and relatively
inexpensive. Deny all you like, they said it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Again, everyone had the same bogus information to work with. If
Billary had not spent so much time hiding it's incompetence, maybe
things would have been different. Until we find out what Sandy Berger
risked everything to hide from the 9-11 commission, the truth will
never come out. So we can all just sit around and point fingers.

***************8

Man you a piece of work!

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powel, Rice *all told lies to get us in a war and of
course it is all Hilary's fault!!
You probably need to quit listening to Rush and try reading multiple news
sources.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So, what do you think Sandy was hiding from the 9-11 commission?
Something of little importance I presume..

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

wrote in message
...
On Mar 18, 9:11 am, wrote:
Boats are an expense, JimH.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...3/17/MNBVVL9GK...

When I see an article start with such a far fetched lie as this, "It
was supposed to be a quick war and a cheap one" Which of course was
never the case, I really must dismiss the rest of the article, sorry..

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

Hopefully, you also dismissed this when you heard it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w67Bk9xAAT8

It's only 11 seconds long. Real easy.

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

wrote in message
...
On Mar 18, 9:28 am, wrote:
On Mar 18, 9:22 am, wrote:

On Mar 18, 9:11 am, wrote:

Boats are an expense, JimH.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...3/17/MNBVVL9GK...

When I see an article start with such a far fetched lie as this, "It
was supposed to be a quick war and a cheap one" Which of course was
never the case, I really must dismiss the rest of the article, sorry..

What do you say about the fact that in Jan 2003 the Pentagon and the
White House reported that the estimate would be $50 to $60 billion
dollars? What about Paul Wolfowitz stating uncatagorically that Iraq
would pay for it's reconstruction with increased oil revenues?

I dunno' without a lot of research, but it was never supposed to be
"cheap and easy".

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

But, we ***DID*** expect Iraq's oil money to help pay for reconstruction.

It's not. It's going somewhere else. You are paying what Iraq should be
paying for. This should worry you. Read the article.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

On Mar 18, 10:53*am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Mar 18, 9:11 am, wrote:

Boats are an expense, JimH.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...3/17/MNBVVL9GK....

When I see an article start with such a far fetched lie as this, "It
was supposed to be a quick war and a cheap one" Which of course was
never the case, I really must dismiss the rest of the article, sorry..

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

Hopefully, you also dismissed this when you heard it.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w67Bk9xAAT8

It's only 11 seconds long. Real easy.

Yeah, and you don't wonder how things would have been different if
Bush had been given all of the relevant information, even the parts
that made Billary look bad? It's hard to play a game if you don't have
a board to start with.

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

wrote in message
...
On Mar 18, 10:53 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Mar 18, 9:11 am, wrote:

Boats are an expense, JimH.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...3/17/MNBVVL9GK...

When I see an article start with such a far fetched lie as this, "It
was supposed to be a quick war and a cheap one" Which of course was
never the case, I really must dismiss the rest of the article, sorry..

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

Hopefully, you also dismissed this when you heard
it.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w67Bk9xAAT8

It's only 11 seconds long. Real easy.

Yeah, and you don't wonder how things would have been different if
Bush had been given all of the relevant information, even the parts
that made Billary look bad? It's hard to play a game if you don't have
a board to start with.

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

Based on what we know at this point, our intelligence services had all the
relevant information. It's given to the White House in raw form, meaning
tons of paper. If Bush didn't see the relevant information, it's not because
some congressional Democrat filtered it. It was people very close to him to
had an agenda.

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 06:47:27 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

What did we gain when we freed Europe, Asia, and so many other
countries in the world? We did not go there to get paid.


WWII was started by Hitler to end the Depression and we all pitched
in. Since the US got most of the manufacturing jobs and none of the
bombings it was a win-win for us. GM, Boeing, Ford et all made lots of
money.
Plenty of money was made in this war too but, unfortunately we were
not building enough hardware here to invigorate our economy.
Some day, I suppose, economic historians will figure out who was
making all of that money we spent but I bert they were rich before and
just got a lot richer ... but isn't that always the way. Some of that
still "trickles down"
I suppose one reason they don't want to stop the war is that trillion
dollar economic engine would stop and a lot of people would be out of
work.


In between wars, we sell hardware to our enemies, like the Saudis.

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

On Mar 18, 12:57*pm, wrote:

I suppose one reason they don't want to stop the war is that trillion
dollar economic engine would stop and a lot of people would be out of
work.

Well, I do have problems with some of the reasons, but that is not one
of them..

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

wrote in message
...
On Mar 18, 12:57 pm, wrote:

I suppose one reason they don't want to stop the war is that trillion
dollar economic engine would stop and a lot of people would be out of
work.

Well, I do have problems with some of the reasons, but that is not one
of them..

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


Do you mean to say that it's OK to keep a war going because it helps our
economy? Or, did I misinterpret what you just wrote?

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

On Mar 18, 12:07*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Mar 18, 12:57 pm, wrote:

I suppose one reason they don't want to stop the war is that trillion
dollar economic engine would stop and a lot of people would be out of
work.

Well, I do have problems with some of the reasons, but that is not one
of them..

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

Do you mean to say that it's OK to keep a war going because it helps our
economy? Or, did I misinterpret what you just wrote?

You did Joe, and I will not engage you on this subject either,
geetars, boats, but not this.

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

wrote in message
...
On Mar 18, 12:07 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Mar 18, 12:57 pm, wrote:

I suppose one reason they don't want to stop the war is that trillion
dollar economic engine would stop and a lot of people would be out of
work.

Well, I do have problems with some of the reasons, but that is not one
of them..

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

Do you mean to say that it's OK to keep a war going because it helps our
economy? Or, did I misinterpret what you just wrote?

You did Joe, and I will not engage you on this subject either,
geetars, boats, but not this.

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

Well, it sure looks like that's what you said. That's why you won't engage
me on this subject. You wish you hadn't written that sentence.

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

On Mar 18, 12:44*pm, "John" wrote:

So, what do you think Sandy was hiding from the 9-11 commission?
Something of little importance I presume..
**************************8

Not sure but do you think it was anything of this magnitude?

My point is, we will never know. That's all.

Meacher sparks fury over claims on September 11 and Iraq war
September 6, 2003

* "...the war on terrorism is a smokescreen and that the US knew in advance
about the September 11 attack on New York but, for strategic reasons, chose
not to act on the warnings."
* [LINK]

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

Boats??? I come here for politics.
wrote in message
...
On Mar 18, 12:07 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Mar 18, 12:57 pm, wrote:

I suppose one reason they don't want to stop the war is that trillion
dollar economic engine would stop and a lot of people would be out of
work.

Well, I do have problems with some of the reasons, but that is not one
of them..

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

Do you mean to say that it's OK to keep a war going because it helps our
economy? Or, did I misinterpret what you just wrote?

You did Joe, and I will not engage you on this subject either,
geetars, boats, but not this.

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

"Brad Darnell" wrote in message
. ..
Boats??? I come here for politics.
wrote in message
...
On Mar 18, 12:07 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Mar 18, 12:57 pm, wrote:

I suppose one reason they don't want to stop the war is that trillion
dollar economic engine would stop and a lot of people would be out of
work.

Well, I do have problems with some of the reasons, but that is not one
of them..

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

Do you mean to say that it's OK to keep a war going because it helps our
economy? Or, did I misinterpret what you just wrote?

You did Joe, and I will not engage you on this subject either,
geetars, boats, but not this.



What do you think he meant?

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

On Mar 18, 2:30*pm, "Brad Darnell" wrote:
Boats??? I come here for wrote in message

...
On Mar 18, 12:07 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:





wrote in message

...
On Mar 18, 12:57 pm, wrote:

I suppose one reason they don't want to stop the war is that trillion
dollar economic engine would stop and a lot of people would be out of
work.

Well, I do have problems with some of the reasons, but that is not one
of them..

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

Do you mean to say that it's OK to keep a war going because it helps our
economy? Or, did I misinterpret what you just wrote?

You did Joe, and I will not engage you on this subject either,
geetars, boats, but not this.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh the stench of fish, the rotting anchor line, the bait. The stench
that follows trolls to the internet. Go for it though, got yours in
the water yet? And just to get things rolling, what is it's power
plant?

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

wrote in message
...
On Mar 18, 2:30 pm, "Brad Darnell" wrote:
Boats??? I come here for wrote
in message

...
On Mar 18, 12:07 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:





wrote in message

...
On Mar 18, 12:57 pm, wrote:

I suppose one reason they don't want to stop the war is that trillion
dollar economic engine would stop and a lot of people would be out of
work.

Well, I do have problems with some of the reasons, but that is not one
of them..

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

Do you mean to say that it's OK to keep a war going because it helps our
economy? Or, did I misinterpret what you just wrote?

You did Joe, and I will not engage you on this subject either,
geetars, boats, but not this.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh the stench of fish, the rotting anchor line, the bait. The stench
that follows trolls to the internet. Go for it though, got yours in
the water yet? And just to get things rolling, what is it's power
plant?

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

It's funny how you abandon conversations when they get too difficult, or you
can't explain something you wrote.

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

On Mar 18, 2:34*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Mar 18, 2:30 pm, "Brad Darnell" wrote:





Boats??? I come here for wrote
in message

...
On Mar 18, 12:07 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

wrote in message

....
On Mar 18, 12:57 pm, wrote:

I suppose one reason they don't want to stop the war is that trillion
dollar economic engine would stop and a lot of people would be out of
work.

Well, I do have problems with some of the reasons, but that is not one
of them..

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

Do you mean to say that it's OK to keep a war going because it helps our
economy? Or, did I misinterpret what you just wrote?

You did Joe, and I will not engage you on this subject either,
geetars, boats, but not this.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh the stench of fish, the rotting anchor line, the bait. The stench
that follows trolls to the internet. Go for it though, got yours in
the water yet? And just to get things rolling, what is it's power
plant?

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

It's funny how you abandon conversations when they get too difficult, or you
can't explain something you wrote.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What is funny is that "everyone" else understood me, you did not,
maybe your drunk again, maybe you are just trolling, or both. Either
way, most here know you can not keep up with political threads, you
are just to uninformed and closed minded, so we don't bother...

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

wrote in message
...
On Mar 18, 2:34 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Mar 18, 2:30 pm, "Brad Darnell" wrote:





Boats??? I come here for
wrote
in message

...
On Mar 18, 12:07 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

wrote in message

...
On Mar 18, 12:57 pm, wrote:

I suppose one reason they don't want to stop the war is that
trillion
dollar economic engine would stop and a lot of people would be out
of
work.

Well, I do have problems with some of the reasons, but that is not one
of them..

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

Do you mean to say that it's OK to keep a war going because it helps
our
economy? Or, did I misinterpret what you just wrote?

You did Joe, and I will not engage you on this subject either,
geetars, boats, but not this.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh the stench of fish, the rotting anchor line, the bait. The stench
that follows trolls to the internet. Go for it though, got yours in
the water yet? And just to get things rolling, what is it's power
plant?

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

It's funny how you abandon conversations when they get too difficult, or
you
can't explain something you wrote.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What is funny is that "everyone" else understood me, you did not,
maybe your drunk again, maybe you are just trolling, or both. Either
way, most here know you can not keep up with political threads, you
are just to uninformed and closed minded, so we don't bother...

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

Drunk: That's your other bail-out tactic. Why won't you explain what you
meant? Do you even remember what you meant?

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

On Mar 18, 6:43*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Mar 18, 2:34 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:





wrote in message

...
On Mar 18, 2:30 pm, "Brad Darnell" wrote:

Boats??? I come here for
wrote
in message

....
On Mar 18, 12:07 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

wrote in message

...
On Mar 18, 12:57 pm, wrote:

I suppose one reason they don't want to stop the war is that
trillion
dollar economic engine would stop and a lot of people would be out
of
work.

Well, I do have problems with some of the reasons, but that is not one
of them..

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

Do you mean to say that it's OK to keep a war going because it helps
our
economy? Or, did I misinterpret what you just wrote?

You did Joe, and I will not engage you on this subject either,
geetars, boats, but not this.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh the stench of fish, the rotting anchor line, the bait. The stench
that follows trolls to the internet. Go for it though, got yours in
the water yet? And just to get things rolling, what is it's power
plant?

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

It's funny how you abandon conversations when they get too difficult, or
you
can't explain something you wrote.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What is funny is that "everyone" else understood me, you did not,
maybe your drunk again, maybe you are just trolling, or both. Either
way, most here know you can not keep up with political threads, you
are just to uninformed and closed minded, so we don't bother...

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

Drunk: That's your other bail-out tactic. Why won't you explain what you
meant? Do you even remember what you meant?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, asswipe, for the very last time, I meant that I did not believe
that was the reason we were staying in Iraq,, asswipe. Go back and
read the frekin' thread you drunken spaghetti arm, fat, bald, slob..
how's that? Now you are back to, "until then" you stupid drunken
troll...

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

wrote in message
...
On Mar 18, 6:43 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Mar 18, 2:34 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:





wrote in message

...
On Mar 18, 2:30 pm, "Brad Darnell" wrote:

Boats??? I come here for
wrote
in message

...
On Mar 18, 12:07 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

wrote in message

...
On Mar 18, 12:57 pm, wrote:

I suppose one reason they don't want to stop the war is that
trillion
dollar economic engine would stop and a lot of people would be out
of
work.

Well, I do have problems with some of the reasons, but that is not
one
of them..

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

Do you mean to say that it's OK to keep a war going because it helps
our
economy? Or, did I misinterpret what you just wrote?

You did Joe, and I will not engage you on this subject either,
geetars, boats, but not this.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh the stench of fish, the rotting anchor line, the bait. The stench
that follows trolls to the internet. Go for it though, got yours in
the water yet? And just to get things rolling, what is it's power
plant?

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

It's funny how you abandon conversations when they get too difficult, or
you
can't explain something you wrote.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What is funny is that "everyone" else understood me, you did not,
maybe your drunk again, maybe you are just trolling, or both. Either
way, most here know you can not keep up with political threads, you
are just to uninformed and closed minded, so we don't bother...

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

Drunk: That's your other bail-out tactic. Why won't you explain what you
meant? Do you even remember what you meant?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, asswipe, for the very last time, I meant that I did not believe
that was the reason we were staying in Iraq,, asswipe. Go back and
read the frekin' thread you drunken spaghetti arm, fat, bald, slob..
how's that? Now you are back to, "until then" you stupid drunken
troll...

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


You really need to calm down. Maybe "the captain" would like a visit. I've
heard that calms you down, being on your kneepads in front of the captain.
He likes it, too.

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mar 18, 10:53 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Mar 18, 9:11 am, wrote:

Boats are an expense, JimH.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...3/17/MNBVVL9GK...
When I see an article start with such a far fetched lie as this, "It
was supposed to be a quick war and a cheap one" Which of course was
never the case, I really must dismiss the rest of the article, sorry..

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

Hopefully, you also dismissed this when you heard
it.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w67Bk9xAAT8

It's only 11 seconds long. Real easy.

Yeah, and you don't wonder how things would have been different if
Bush had been given all of the relevant information, even the parts
that made Billary look bad? It's hard to play a game if you don't have
a board to start with.

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

Based on what we know at this point, our intelligence services had all the
relevant information. It's given to the White House in raw form, meaning
tons of paper. If Bush didn't see the relevant information, it's not because
some congressional Democrat filtered it. It was people very close to him to
had an agenda.



You don't have the various intelligence agencies and organizations as
temporary way stations to hold raw information until that raw
information is passed onto the White House. Raw informaiotn is analyzed,
synthesized and summarized and the summary is given to the White House.

Idiot 2.

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 06:47:27 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

What did we gain when we freed Europe, Asia, and so many other
countries in the world? We did not go there to get paid.

WWII was started by Hitler to end the Depression and we all pitched
in. Since the US got most of the manufacturing jobs and none of the
bombings it was a win-win for us. GM, Boeing, Ford et all made lots of
money.
Plenty of money was made in this war too but, unfortunately we were
not building enough hardware here to invigorate our economy.
Some day, I suppose, economic historians will figure out who was
making all of that money we spent but I bert they were rich before and
just got a lot richer ... but isn't that always the way. Some of that
still "trickles down"
I suppose one reason they don't want to stop the war is that trillion
dollar economic engine would stop and a lot of people would be out of
work.


In between wars, we sell hardware to our enemies, like the Saudis.

It keeps the manufacturing lines staffed and operating until we need
them in the next war.

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

"BAR" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 06:47:27 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

What did we gain when we freed Europe, Asia, and so many other
countries in the world? We did not go there to get paid.

WWII was started by Hitler to end the Depression and we all pitched
in. Since the US got most of the manufacturing jobs and none of the
bombings it was a win-win for us. GM, Boeing, Ford et all made lots of
money.
Plenty of money was made in this war too but, unfortunately we were
not building enough hardware here to invigorate our economy.
Some day, I suppose, economic historians will figure out who was
making all of that money we spent but I bert they were rich before and
just got a lot richer ... but isn't that always the way. Some of that
still "trickles down"
I suppose one reason they don't want to stop the war is that trillion
dollar economic engine would stop and a lot of people would be out of
work.


In between wars, we sell hardware to our enemies, like the Saudis.

It keeps the manufacturing lines staffed and operating until we need them
in the next war.


I assume you're being saracastic or stupid, since there is NEVER a good
reason to sell weapons to our enemies.

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

"BAR" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mar 18, 10:53 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Mar 18, 9:11 am, wrote:

Boats are an expense, JimH.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...3/17/MNBVVL9GK...
When I see an article start with such a far fetched lie as this, "It
was supposed to be a quick war and a cheap one" Which of course was
never the case, I really must dismiss the rest of the article, sorry..

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

Hopefully, you also dismissed this when you heard
it.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w67Bk9xAAT8

It's only 11 seconds long. Real easy.

Yeah, and you don't wonder how things would have been different if
Bush had been given all of the relevant information, even the parts
that made Billary look bad? It's hard to play a game if you don't have
a board to start with.

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

Based on what we know at this point, our intelligence services had all
the relevant information. It's given to the White House in raw form,
meaning tons of paper. If Bush didn't see the relevant information, it's
not because some congressional Democrat filtered it. It was people very
close to him to had an agenda.

You don't have the various intelligence agencies and organizations as
temporary way stations to hold raw information until that raw information
is passed onto the White House. Raw informaiotn is analyzed, synthesized
and summarized and the summary is given to the White House.

Idiot 2.



Who filtered it? According to all reliable sources (no exceptions), no
congressional democrats were ever involved in screening the president's
reports. Only his staff can do that. Only they are capable of touching it.

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 06:47:27 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

What did we gain when we freed Europe, Asia, and so many other
countries in the world? We did not go there to get paid.
WWII was started by Hitler to end the Depression and we all pitched
in. Since the US got most of the manufacturing jobs and none of the
bombings it was a win-win for us. GM, Boeing, Ford et all made lots of
money.
Plenty of money was made in this war too but, unfortunately we were
not building enough hardware here to invigorate our economy.
Some day, I suppose, economic historians will figure out who was
making all of that money we spent but I bert they were rich before and
just got a lot richer ... but isn't that always the way. Some of that
still "trickles down"
I suppose one reason they don't want to stop the war is that trillion
dollar economic engine would stop and a lot of people would be out of
work.

In between wars, we sell hardware to our enemies, like the Saudis.
It keeps the manufacturing lines staffed and operating until we need them
in the next war.


I assume you're being saracastic or stupid, since there is NEVER a good
reason to sell weapons to our enemies.

Every country that is not named the United States of America is our
enemy. Nations have no friends just agreements of convenience.

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

"BAR" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 06:47:27 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

What did we gain when we freed Europe, Asia, and so many other
countries in the world? We did not go there to get paid.
WWII was started by Hitler to end the Depression and we all pitched
in. Since the US got most of the manufacturing jobs and none of the
bombings it was a win-win for us. GM, Boeing, Ford et all made lots of
money.
Plenty of money was made in this war too but, unfortunately we were
not building enough hardware here to invigorate our economy.
Some day, I suppose, economic historians will figure out who was
making all of that money we spent but I bert they were rich before and
just got a lot richer ... but isn't that always the way. Some of that
still "trickles down"
I suppose one reason they don't want to stop the war is that trillion
dollar economic engine would stop and a lot of people would be out of
work.

In between wars, we sell hardware to our enemies, like the Saudis.
It keeps the manufacturing lines staffed and operating until we need
them in the next war.


I assume you're being saracastic or stupid, since there is NEVER a good
reason to sell weapons to our enemies.

Every country that is not named the United States of America is our enemy.
Nations have no friends just agreements of convenience.


Idiot 3. There is NEVER a good reason to sell weapons to our enemies.

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mar 18, 10:53 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Mar 18, 9:11 am, wrote:

Boats are an expense, JimH.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...3/17/MNBVVL9GK...
When I see an article start with such a far fetched lie as this, "It
was supposed to be a quick war and a cheap one" Which of course was
never the case, I really must dismiss the rest of the article, sorry..

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

Hopefully, you also dismissed this when you heard
it.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w67Bk9xAAT8

It's only 11 seconds long. Real easy.
Yeah, and you don't wonder how things would have been different if
Bush had been given all of the relevant information, even the parts
that made Billary look bad? It's hard to play a game if you don't have
a board to start with.

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

Based on what we know at this point, our intelligence services had all
the relevant information. It's given to the White House in raw form,
meaning tons of paper. If Bush didn't see the relevant information, it's
not because some congressional Democrat filtered it. It was people very
close to him to had an agenda.
You don't have the various intelligence agencies and organizations as
temporary way stations to hold raw information until that raw information
is passed onto the White House. Raw informaiotn is analyzed, synthesized
and summarized and the summary is given to the White House.

Idiot 2.



Who filtered it? According to all reliable sources (no exceptions), no
congressional democrats were ever involved in screening the president's
reports. Only his staff can do that. Only they are capable of touching it.



Go read up on bureaucracies and come back and give us a report.