Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Aug 2008
Posts: 8,637
Default No blood for oil

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:56:05 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:39:06 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

Is Obama about to attack Libya simply to steal their oil for George
Soros? It makes sense considering that Obama gave US taxpayer money
to Soros for drilling offshore Brazil. Remember, this is an admin
that thinks the Egyptian dictator Mubarek was a good guy (Remember
what Biden said about Mubarek not being a dictator). France is just
doing what they always do, backing whoever will supply them with oil
as most of Libya’s oil goes thru France.


Let's take the first question. Is Obama attacking Libya?


Yes. Maybe you've been out fishing for the last couple days.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/u-s...fense-targets/

Of course, if you define 'attack' in certain ways, you could say that Bush
didn't attack Iraq either.
  #2   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Aug 2008
Posts: 8,637
Default No blood for oil

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:01:19 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 09:56:01 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:56:05 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:39:06 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

Is Obama about to attack Libya simply to steal their oil for George
Soros? It makes sense considering that Obama gave US taxpayer money
to Soros for drilling offshore Brazil. Remember, this is an admin
that thinks the Egyptian dictator Mubarek was a good guy (Remember
what Biden said about Mubarek not being a dictator). France is just
doing what they always do, backing whoever will supply them with oil
as most of Libya’s oil goes thru France.

Let's take the first question. Is Obama attacking Libya?


Yes. Maybe you've been out fishing for the last couple days.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/u-s...fense-targets/

Of course, if you define 'attack' in certain ways, you could say that Bush
didn't attack Iraq either.


Did Bush put troops on the ground? How is this the same?


Is Obama done with Libya? Cruise missiles and bombers are the same as we saw
over Baghdad on day one.

What is his objective?

Hey Gene, this is pointless. You will support your guy, even if he changed his
name to Bush. You can have him.

I see a hell of a lot of hypocrisy in the liberals today.

Here, do some reading. It's interesting.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-b..._b_838049.html

I'll just sit back and watch. You and the plume can do your thing.
  #4   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,596
Default No blood for oil

On 21/03/2011 11:39 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:14:00 -0700,
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 21:32:52 -0400,
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:01:19 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 09:56:01 -0400, John
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:56:05 -0400,
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:39:06 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

Is Obama about to attack Libya simply to steal their oil for George
Soros? It makes sense considering that Obama gave US taxpayer money
to Soros for drilling offshore Brazil. Remember, this is an admin
that thinks the Egyptian dictator Mubarek was a good guy (Remember
what Biden said about Mubarek not being a dictator). France is just
doing what they always do, backing whoever will supply them with oil
as most of Libya’s oil goes thru France.

Let's take the first question. Is Obama attacking Libya?

Yes. Maybe you've been out fishing for the last couple days.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/u-s...fense-targets/

Of course, if you define 'attack' in certain ways, you could say that Bush
didn't attack Iraq either.

Did Bush put troops on the ground? How is this the same?

Bush didn't put troops on the ground for over 2 years, lets see how it
goes in Libya before we start patting ourselves on the back.


Two years? From when he decided to go after Saddam, perhaps. Other
that you're just rewriting the facts.


Two years of no fly zones, following 8 years under Clinton and over a
year with GHWB.

The question is, what is our exit strategy in Libya?

We don't seem to have one for any of our other military adventures and
we are still in all of them.


Obama is going to use this as an excuse with Congress to continue his
out of control debt-spending. Nothing worse than a liberla-debtor in
debtors denial. Congress should just say balanced budget, you run out
of money you are closed down.

Then the real steps toward recovery will occur.
  #5   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,021
Default No blood for oil

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:09:57 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 21/03/2011 11:39 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:14:00 -0700,
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 21:32:52 -0400,
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:01:19 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 09:56:01 -0400, John
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:56:05 -0400,
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:39:06 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

Is Obama about to attack Libya simply to steal their oil for George
Soros? It makes sense considering that Obama gave US taxpayer money
to Soros for drilling offshore Brazil. Remember, this is an admin
that thinks the Egyptian dictator Mubarek was a good guy (Remember
what Biden said about Mubarek not being a dictator). France is just
doing what they always do, backing whoever will supply them with oil
as most of Libya’s oil goes thru France.

Let's take the first question. Is Obama attacking Libya?

Yes. Maybe you've been out fishing for the last couple days.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/u-s...fense-targets/

Of course, if you define 'attack' in certain ways, you could say that Bush
didn't attack Iraq either.

Did Bush put troops on the ground? How is this the same?

Bush didn't put troops on the ground for over 2 years, lets see how it
goes in Libya before we start patting ourselves on the back.

Two years? From when he decided to go after Saddam, perhaps. Other
that you're just rewriting the facts.


Two years of no fly zones, following 8 years under Clinton and over a
year with GHWB.

The question is, what is our exit strategy in Libya?

We don't seem to have one for any of our other military adventures and
we are still in all of them.


Obama is going to use this as an excuse with Congress to continue his
out of control debt-spending. Nothing worse than a liberla-debtor in
debtors denial. Congress should just say balanced budget, you run out
of money you are closed down.

Then the real steps toward recovery will occur.


So, when Obama called for PayGo and the Republicans said no, I guess
that makes it Obama's fault in your tiny brain.


  #6   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,596
Default No blood for oil

On 21/03/2011 12:40 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:09:57 -0600,
wrote:

On 21/03/2011 11:39 AM,
wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:14:00 -0700,
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 21:32:52 -0400,
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:01:19 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 09:56:01 -0400, John
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:56:05 -0400,
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:39:06 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

Is Obama about to attack Libya simply to steal their oil for George
Soros? It makes sense considering that Obama gave US taxpayer money
to Soros for drilling offshore Brazil. Remember, this is an admin
that thinks the Egyptian dictator Mubarek was a good guy (Remember
what Biden said about Mubarek not being a dictator). France is just
doing what they always do, backing whoever will supply them with oil
as most of Libya’s oil goes thru France.

Let's take the first question. Is Obama attacking Libya?

Yes. Maybe you've been out fishing for the last couple days.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/u-s...fense-targets/

Of course, if you define 'attack' in certain ways, you could say that Bush
didn't attack Iraq either.

Did Bush put troops on the ground? How is this the same?

Bush didn't put troops on the ground for over 2 years, lets see how it
goes in Libya before we start patting ourselves on the back.

Two years? From when he decided to go after Saddam, perhaps. Other
that you're just rewriting the facts.

Two years of no fly zones, following 8 years under Clinton and over a
year with GHWB.

The question is, what is our exit strategy in Libya?

We don't seem to have one for any of our other military adventures and
we are still in all of them.


Obama is going to use this as an excuse with Congress to continue his
out of control debt-spending. Nothing worse than a liberla-debtor in
debtors denial. Congress should just say balanced budget, you run out
of money you are closed down.

Then the real steps toward recovery will occur.


So, when Obama called for PayGo and the Republicans said no, I guess
that makes it Obama's fault in your tiny brain.


Obama, pay as you go? Who are you kidding?

PAYGO is meaningless other than the name only. You verspend $ 1.6
trillion a year and you call that pay as you go? Geez....I could sell
you a pile of common rocks and call them diamonds....

Pay as you go as opposed to Obama's lips a moving means you spend at or
less that what you take in. Obama lies. The fleabagger ways, lie, lie,
lie, then deny. And when that doesn't work make exuses.

Watch, Obama will be over budget shortly and he will either deny or make
excuses.
  #7   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,596
Default No blood for oil

On 21/03/2011 3:43 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:40:55 -0700,
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:09:57 -0600,
wrote:

On 21/03/2011 11:39 AM,
wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:14:00 -0700,
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 21:32:52 -0400,
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:01:19 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 09:56:01 -0400, John
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:56:05 -0400,
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:39:06 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

Is Obama about to attack Libya simply to steal their oil for George
Soros? It makes sense considering that Obama gave US taxpayer money
to Soros for drilling offshore Brazil. Remember, this is an admin
that thinks the Egyptian dictator Mubarek was a good guy (Remember
what Biden said about Mubarek not being a dictator). France is just
doing what they always do, backing whoever will supply them with oil
as most of Libya’s oil goes thru France.

Let's take the first question. Is Obama attacking Libya?

Yes. Maybe you've been out fishing for the last couple days.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/u-s...fense-targets/

Of course, if you define 'attack' in certain ways, you could say that Bush
didn't attack Iraq either.

Did Bush put troops on the ground? How is this the same?

Bush didn't put troops on the ground for over 2 years, lets see how it
goes in Libya before we start patting ourselves on the back.

Two years? From when he decided to go after Saddam, perhaps. Other
that you're just rewriting the facts.

Two years of no fly zones, following 8 years under Clinton and over a
year with GHWB.

The question is, what is our exit strategy in Libya?

We don't seem to have one for any of our other military adventures and
we are still in all of them.

Obama is going to use this as an excuse with Congress to continue his
out of control debt-spending. Nothing worse than a liberla-debtor in
debtors denial. Congress should just say balanced budget, you run out
of money you are closed down.

Then the real steps toward recovery will occur.


So, when Obama called for PayGo and the Republicans said no, I guess
that makes it Obama's fault in your tiny brain.


If paygo doesn't apply to the entitlements and the DoD budget it is
about as significant as cutting the NPR budget.


Paygo is so full of holes it isn't funny. Sort of like saying you have
to balance the budget unless you put it on the credit card.

It is a raving joke. Not worth the time, effort or piece of paper it is
written on.

I still stand by Congress should just say balance the budget, no new
debt - end of discussion.

I put more credence to a crack or herion addict that says they will quit
3 years from now, now give me more dope.
  #8   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,021
Default No blood for oil

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:43:19 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:40:55 -0700,
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:09:57 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 21/03/2011 11:39 AM,
wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:14:00 -0700,
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 21:32:52 -0400,
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:01:19 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 09:56:01 -0400, John
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:56:05 -0400,
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:39:06 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

Is Obama about to attack Libya simply to steal their oil for George
Soros? It makes sense considering that Obama gave US taxpayer money
to Soros for drilling offshore Brazil. Remember, this is an admin
that thinks the Egyptian dictator Mubarek was a good guy (Remember
what Biden said about Mubarek not being a dictator). France is just
doing what they always do, backing whoever will supply them with oil
as most of Libya’s oil goes thru France.

Let's take the first question. Is Obama attacking Libya?

Yes. Maybe you've been out fishing for the last couple days.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/u-s...fense-targets/

Of course, if you define 'attack' in certain ways, you could say that Bush
didn't attack Iraq either.

Did Bush put troops on the ground? How is this the same?

Bush didn't put troops on the ground for over 2 years, lets see how it
goes in Libya before we start patting ourselves on the back.

Two years? From when he decided to go after Saddam, perhaps. Other
that you're just rewriting the facts.

Two years of no fly zones, following 8 years under Clinton and over a
year with GHWB.

The question is, what is our exit strategy in Libya?

We don't seem to have one for any of our other military adventures and
we are still in all of them.

Obama is going to use this as an excuse with Congress to continue his
out of control debt-spending. Nothing worse than a liberla-debtor in
debtors denial. Congress should just say balanced budget, you run out
of money you are closed down.

Then the real steps toward recovery will occur.


So, when Obama called for PayGo and the Republicans said no, I guess
that makes it Obama's fault in your tiny brain.


If paygo doesn't apply to the entitlements and the DoD budget it is
about as significant as cutting the NPR budget.


"Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan and former Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) director Dan L. Crippen have pointed to PAYGO as
instrumental in establishing the fiscal discipline that gradually
decreased the deficit during the 1990s and ultimately led to large
surpluses."
  #9   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,021
Default No blood for oil

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:39:33 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:14:00 -0700,
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 21:32:52 -0400,
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:01:19 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 09:56:01 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:56:05 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:39:06 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

Is Obama about to attack Libya simply to steal their oil for George
Soros? It makes sense considering that Obama gave US taxpayer money
to Soros for drilling offshore Brazil. Remember, this is an admin
that thinks the Egyptian dictator Mubarek was a good guy (Remember
what Biden said about Mubarek not being a dictator). France is just
doing what they always do, backing whoever will supply them with oil
as most of Libya’s oil goes thru France.

Let's take the first question. Is Obama attacking Libya?

Yes. Maybe you've been out fishing for the last couple days.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/u-s...fense-targets/

Of course, if you define 'attack' in certain ways, you could say that Bush
didn't attack Iraq either.

Did Bush put troops on the ground? How is this the same?

Bush didn't put troops on the ground for over 2 years, lets see how it
goes in Libya before we start patting ourselves on the back.


Two years? From when he decided to go after Saddam, perhaps. Other
that you're just rewriting the facts.


Two years of no fly zones, following 8 years under Clinton and over a
year with GHWB.

The question is, what is our exit strategy in Libya?

We don't seem to have one for any of our other military adventures and
we are still in all of them.


So, because Bush couldn't tell the truth or plan that means Obama is
going to commit us to an endless war? Perhaps you should read the news
instead of relying on Fox.
  #10   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,021
Default No blood for oil

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:41:25 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:40:01 -0700,
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:39:33 -0400,
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:14:00 -0700,
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 21:32:52 -0400,
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:01:19 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 09:56:01 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:56:05 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:39:06 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

Is Obama about to attack Libya simply to steal their oil for George
Soros? It makes sense considering that Obama gave US taxpayer money
to Soros for drilling offshore Brazil. Remember, this is an admin
that thinks the Egyptian dictator Mubarek was a good guy (Remember
what Biden said about Mubarek not being a dictator). France is just
doing what they always do, backing whoever will supply them with oil
as most of Libya’s oil goes thru France.

Let's take the first question. Is Obama attacking Libya?

Yes. Maybe you've been out fishing for the last couple days.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/u-s...fense-targets/

Of course, if you define 'attack' in certain ways, you could say that Bush
didn't attack Iraq either.

Did Bush put troops on the ground? How is this the same?

Bush didn't put troops on the ground for over 2 years, lets see how it
goes in Libya before we start patting ourselves on the back.

Two years? From when he decided to go after Saddam, perhaps. Other
that you're just rewriting the facts.

Two years of no fly zones, following 8 years under Clinton and over a
year with GHWB.

The question is, what is our exit strategy in Libya?

We don't seem to have one for any of our other military adventures and
we are still in all of them.


So, because Bush couldn't tell the truth or plan that means Obama is
going to commit us to an endless war? Perhaps you should read the news
instead of relying on Fox.



MSNBC is not being any kinder about this war.


Which has nothing to do with your assertion.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Smell of Blood HK General 0 June 25th 09 07:50 PM
A little something to get the blood moving... Tom Francis - SWSports General 1 October 24th 08 02:50 PM
Blood on my mast Joe ASA 58 November 27th 06 04:13 AM
Kira draw blood yet? Joe ASA 13 December 31st 05 02:44 PM
O/T Any French blood out there? Don White General 0 July 16th 04 02:36 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:21 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 BoatBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Boats"

 

Copyright © 2017