Date: 22 Dec 2006 01:45:27 GMT
From: Dave Hinz <>
Subject: Re: Million Mile Saab 900 SPG

On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 01:06:47 GMT, - Bob - <> wrote: > On 22 Dec 2006 00:25:44 GMT, Dave Hinz <> wrote: > >>Great. Well you're paying for a hell of a trip in a sandbox at the >>moment, and so am I. > > Yeah, well the population of the country was too foolish to see > through the obvious lies... by the time they figured it out we were in > deep. Nothing new there. You mean the ones Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy, Clinton, Schumer, Gore, and a bunch of others were telling? Here's a few. See if you recognize any of the names: "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998. "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998. "There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001. "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002. Oh, I could go on and on, but let's save time and post a link and you can reject the whole thing at once. You are familiar with, I hope? The take-away here, Bob, is that the Democrats had the _same_ bad intelligence that the Republicans had. And now that they don't like how things are going, they're looking skyward, whistling, and pretending they had nothing to do with it. That disgusts me. >>> Well, I just don't want to give away the money. Giving it to farmers >>> is slightly less revolting than giving it to Exxon. >> >>Fine. Then keep using Dino products, and those of us who actually give >>a shit will do all the heavy lifting. As usual. Meanwhile the money >>we spend in certain countries goes to fund people who hate us. > > Being willing to sacrifice has nothing to do with spending gov't money > on private enterprise. You missed my point. >>> Well, a bunch of neo-cons are making a ton of money off the war. >> >>You mean the no-bid contracts to Hallburton? >>The ones that Clinton put in place, those ones? > I'll ignore your political troll. Why? It's true. > They've spent $300b on the war, most > of it going to US companies, That's a heck of a lot bigger than > Halliburton. OK whatever. Thing is, that $300b doesn't just evaporate, it employs people in high tech businesses and industries. Who then go on to spend it on other goods and services. The money doesn't just evaporate just because you spend it, you see, it _circulates_. >>Apparently the bigger picture of getting us independant of foreign >>energy escapes you. > > Apparently the fact that private enterprise should be funded by > private money escapes you. When the good of the nation is served by giving a startup money, hell yes, fund them if it's a valid technology. We're a hell of a lot better served by that money going into something that builds _OUR_ infrastructure for long term independance. Regardless of who you decide not to buy stock in.

Return to Main Index

The content on this site may not be republished without permission. Copyright © 1988-2020 - The Saab Network -
For usage guidelines, see the Mission and Purpose Page.
[Contact | Site Map | on Facebook | on Twitter | Shop Amazon via TSN | Site Donations]