wrote in message
...
On Mar 19, 8:24 am, wrote:
On Mar 18, 7:16 pm, wrote:





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...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Please don't stoop to Harry's level of childish name calling and petty
insults.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, I was kind of screwing off, but I won't continue

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


There are medicines which will help control your strange behavioral
extremes. Perhaps if you you look 2-3 counties away, you'll find a doctor
who hasn't told you never to step foot in his office again.

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"JG2U" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:34:08 -0400, "John" wrote:


"JG2U" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:22:14 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

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]



Our boy "John" is a conspiracy loony. It figures.

Conspiracy looney because I question Bush's actions and inconsistencies
surrounding 9/11?

No, partly because you posted as one of your beliefs "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".

Read that carefully. It doesn't state that Bush was told an attack
might happen, and that it could be done using airplanes, but rather
that our country knew *specifically* about the "September 11" attack,
and for "strategic" reasons allowed it to happen.

In other words, you obviously believe that with specific knowledge of
when and where, and with the ability to stop the attacks, our
government intentially and deliberately allowed the attacks to occur.

You're a nutcase.


Question for you: Considering the news thing below, **and** considering
how simple it was to prevent FURTHER hijackings after 9/11, why do you
suppose the simple measures were not in place immediately after the CIA
had its information?


ooops...missing "news thing":

"CBS reporter David Martin revealed that weeks before the attacks, the CIA
had warned Bush personally of Osama Bin Laden's intent to use hijacked
planes as missiles. That followed the damaging exposure by The Associated
Press's John Solomon of a pre-9/11 FBI memo from an officer in Phoenix
warning of suspicious Middle Eastern men training at flight schools-a
warning that went unheeded."

"JG2U" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:34:08 -0400, "John" wrote:


"JG2U" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:22:14 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

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]



Our boy "John" is a conspiracy loony. It figures.

Conspiracy looney because I question Bush's actions and inconsistencies
surrounding 9/11?

No, partly because you posted as one of your beliefs "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".

Read that carefully. It doesn't state that Bush was told an attack
might happen, and that it could be done using airplanes, but rather
that our country knew *specifically* about the "September 11" attack,
and for "strategic" reasons allowed it to happen.

In other words, you obviously believe that with specific knowledge of
when and where, and with the ability to stop the attacks, our
government intentially and deliberately allowed the attacks to occur.

You're a nutcase.


Question for you: Considering the news thing below, **and** considering how
simple it was to prevent FURTHER hijackings after 9/11, why do you suppose
the simple measures were not in place immediately after the CIA had its
information?

John wrote:
"JG2U" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:22:14 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

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]


Our boy "John" is a conspiracy loony. It figures.

Conspiracy looney because I question Bush's actions and inconsistencies
surrounding 9/11?

Yes.

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
John wrote:
"JG2U" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:22:14 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

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]


Our boy "John" is a conspiracy loony. It figures.

Conspiracy looney because I question Bush's actions and inconsistencies
surrounding 9/11?

Yes.


You would probably enjoy life in Russia.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
John wrote:
"JG2U" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:22:14 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

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]


Our boy "John" is a conspiracy loony. It figures.
Conspiracy looney because I question Bush's actions and inconsistencies
surrounding 9/11?
Yes.


You would probably enjoy life in Russia.

Idiot 3

"BAR" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
John wrote:
"JG2U" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:22:14 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

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]


Our boy "John" is a conspiracy loony. It figures.
Conspiracy looney because I question Bush's actions and inconsistencies
surrounding 9/11?
Yes.


You would probably enjoy life in Russia.

Idiot 3




I like your new signature! It's perfect.

"JG2U" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:24:17 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:34:08 -0400, "John" wrote:


"JG2U" wrote in message
m...
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:22:14 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

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]



Our boy "John" is a conspiracy loony. It figures.

Conspiracy looney because I question Bush's actions and inconsistencies
surrounding 9/11?

No, partly because you posted as one of your beliefs "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".

Read that carefully. It doesn't state that Bush was told an attack
might happen, and that it could be done using airplanes, but rather
that our country knew *specifically* about the "September 11" attack,
and for "strategic" reasons allowed it to happen.

In other words, you obviously believe that with specific knowledge of
when and where, and with the ability to stop the attacks, our
government intentially and deliberately allowed the attacks to occur.

You're a nutcase.


Question for you: Considering the news thing below, **and** considering
how
simple it was to prevent FURTHER hijackings after 9/11, why do you suppose
the simple measures were not in place immediately after the CIA had its
information?


The measures taken in the aftermath of 9/11 in the airline industry
were "simple"? Are you kidding? TSA? Retro-fitting *every*
commercial airliner with additional security equipment? Air Marshals?
Check-in procedures? Do you live in a cave? Simple?!?

These measures were in place long ago in Israel. They were not exactly a
secret. Why do you suppose they weren't implemented here?



Besides, as you know, the public, congress-critters, and media would
not have allowed such measures be taken without a smoking gun. Many
still seem to think the the measures are ineffective, and not needed.

The Israeli public doesn't seem to have a problem putting up with the
inconveniences. And about that smoking gun: Are you too young to remember
this long list of examples?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...aft_hijackings



Also, as you and your ilk has regurgitated over and over, nothing we
have done has stopped any future attack from happening. Bush gets no
credit for the lack of attacks from your kind. Now suddenly the
measures implemented by his administration have prevented further
attacks from happening? OK.

It's about time you sobered up.

Buh-bye.

I don't deny that improved airline security has prevented further attacks in
ways that involve airplanes. Where do you imagine seeing me say otherwise?

"JG2U" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:24:17 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:34:08 -0400, "John" wrote:


"JG2U" wrote in message
m...
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:22:14 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

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]



Our boy "John" is a conspiracy loony. It figures.

Conspiracy looney because I question Bush's actions and inconsistencies
surrounding 9/11?

No, partly because you posted as one of your beliefs "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".

Read that carefully. It doesn't state that Bush was told an attack
might happen, and that it could be done using airplanes, but rather
that our country knew *specifically* about the "September 11" attack,
and for "strategic" reasons allowed it to happen.

In other words, you obviously believe that with specific knowledge of
when and where, and with the ability to stop the attacks, our
government intentially and deliberately allowed the attacks to occur.

You're a nutcase.


Question for you: Considering the news thing below, **and** considering
how
simple it was to prevent FURTHER hijackings after 9/11, why do you suppose
the simple measures were not in place immediately after the CIA had its
information?


Just for the record... do you believe as the nutcase John does?

Conspiracy? No. Lame administration? Absolutely.

On Mar 19, 7:21*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message

...





JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
m...
John wrote:
"JG2U" wrote in message
m...
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:22:14 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

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]

Our boy "John" is a conspiracy loony. *It figures.
Conspiracy looney because I question Bush's actions and inconsistencies
surrounding 9/11?
Yes.

You would probably enjoy life in Russia.

Idiot 3

I like your new signature! It's perfect.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The cool thing is it updates itself by moving up one digit each time
he posts!