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?

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...

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.

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.

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.

"BAR" wrote in message
news
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.

"BAR" wrote in message
news
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.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
news
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.

"BAR" wrote in message
news
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
news
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.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
news
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.