In article ,
says...
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, 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

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.

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.

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.

In article . com,
says...

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.

The whole of my "nonsense" was a quote from Alan Greenspan, respected
economist and former Federal Reserve Chairman.

I referred to him as Honest Republican #2, the extent of my
inflammation.

You were the only one to respond to my declaration. If everyone else
can refrain from answering, why can't you?

Chuck, I really couldn't care less if anyone responds. It's also fine
if they do. It's not posted as a troll but a PSA.

jps

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.

"John H." wrote in message
news
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.

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 23:29:54 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
news
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.

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 23:29:54 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
news
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.

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
news 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