Rant
 

On Feb 7, 9:47 pm, "Tim J." wrote:
riverman typed:
...

And I think of poor Lawrence Lindsey who lost his job for predicting
that the war would cost $100-$200 Billion.

. . . and another thing. . . :)

Your alliances sure seem to shift like a reed in the wind. I doubt you would
have referred to him as "poor Lawrence Lindsey" while he was a $50,000 per
year economics consultant to Enron. How long before we see a "poor Dick
Cheney" post?


Hmm, having a bad day Tim? From you, as concerns the war and this
administration, accusations of shifting alliances sound pretty
hollow. I'll go on record (again) and say I never once supported this
war, believed the hype about WMDs, supported trumping the UN, or
accepted that it would a brief (months rather than years) or
inexpensive endeavor. I thought they were lying all along, I feel that
the majority of people who supported Bush from the beginning were
duped, and I feel absolutely and completely vindicated. ITYS.

Of course, I'm not handing out absolution to Lindsay, nor am I in a
position to. But neither am I someone who can paint every aspect of
any character with one brush (Cheney or Bush included), but in this
instance I think its poignant that the people in power used his
announcement as a lever to get rid of him while it turns out that he
was being the most pragmatic of all of them. I think it shouldn't be
hard to see that I brought his case up as evidence to Bush, Cheney,
Wolfowitz et als cruel manipulation and coverup rather than LLs
sainthood.

$50,000 per year? Hmmm, in the circle he ran in, that does sound quite
poor. But if you choose to lie down with pigs...

FWIW, I think this administration has handled the war and its periphery like
a bat that can't find its ass with both wings, but I seriously doubt you'll
ever see a "poor Hillary and Bill" post from me either.

Hillary and Bill aren't the Antichrist. I think the Anti-Clinton
backlash is just the right wing trying to deflect.

--riverman

Rant
 

On Feb 7, 6:23 pm, "riverman" wrote:

...Hillary and Bill aren't the Antichrist....

Well, that's a shame.

Wolfgang
who figures that even a small step up is still a step in the right
direction.

Rant
 

On 7 Feb 2007 16:23:39 -0800, "riverman" wrote:

On Feb 7, 9:47 pm, "Tim J." wrote:
riverman typed:
...

And I think of poor Lawrence Lindsey who lost his job for predicting
that the war would cost $100-$200 Billion.

. . . and another thing. . . :)

Your alliances sure seem to shift like a reed in the wind. I doubt you would
have referred to him as "poor Lawrence Lindsey" while he was a $50,000 per
year economics consultant to Enron. How long before we see a "poor Dick
Cheney" post?


Hmm, having a bad day Tim? From you, as concerns the war and this
administration, accusations of shifting alliances sound pretty
hollow. I'll go on record (again) and say I never once supported this
war, believed the hype about WMDs, supported trumping the UN, or
accepted that it would a brief (months rather than years) or
inexpensive endeavor. I thought they were lying all along, I feel that
the majority of people who supported Bush from the beginning were
duped, and I feel absolutely and completely vindicated. ITYS.

Of course, I'm not handing out absolution to Lindsay, nor am I in a
position to. But neither am I someone who can paint every aspect of
any character with one brush (Cheney or Bush included), but in this
instance I think its poignant that the people in power used his
announcement as a lever to get rid of him while it turns out that he
was being the most pragmatic of all of them. I think it shouldn't be
hard to see that I brought his case up as evidence to Bush, Cheney,
Wolfowitz et als cruel manipulation and coverup rather than LLs
sainthood.

Do you have any clue whatsoever what a "WMD" really is? Here's a hint:
a "dirty bomb" ain't a "WMD," it's a "WMC"...

HTH,
R

Rant
 

riverman typed:
On Feb 7, 9:47 pm, "Tim J." wrote:
riverman typed:

And I think of poor Lawrence Lindsey who lost his job for predicting
that the war would cost $100-$200 Billion.

. . . and another thing. . . :)

Your alliances sure seem to shift like a reed in the wind. I doubt
you would have referred to him as "poor Lawrence Lindsey" while he
was a $50,000 per year economics consultant to Enron. How long
before we see a "poor Dick Cheney" post?

Hmm, having a bad day Tim?

Nope. It was bright and sunny today, although a bit chilly. All is well,
thanks for caring.

From you, as concerns the war and this
administration, accusations of shifting alliances sound pretty
hollow.

Explain, please. Since you only know my stance from my postings here,
you should have a wealth of quotes at your disposal.

I'll go on record (again) and say I never once supported this
war, believed the hype about WMDs, supported trumping the UN, or
accepted that it would a brief (months rather than years) or
inexpensive endeavor. I thought they were lying all along, I feel that
the majority of people who supported Bush from the beginning were
duped, and I feel absolutely and completely vindicated. ITYS.

Yeah, I kinda knew you felt that way. Call it a hunch.

Of course, I'm not handing out absolution to Lindsay, nor am I in a
position to. But neither am I someone who can paint every aspect of
any character with one brush (Cheney or Bush included), but in this
instance I think its poignant that the people in power used his
announcement as a lever to get rid of him while it turns out that he
was being the most pragmatic of all of them. I think it shouldn't be
hard to see that I brought his case up as evidence to Bush, Cheney,
Wolfowitz et als cruel manipulation and coverup rather than LLs
sainthood.

Yes, you did bring it up that way. But O'Neil and Lindsey couldn't come
to agreement on their mother's names, let alone any budgetary concerns,
and that had been going on for many months. I'd offer that Lindsey's
fate was written before his statement about the costs of the war.

$50,000 per year? Hmmm, in the circle he ran in, that does sound
quite
poor. But if you choose to lie down with pigs...

He made $50,000 in one year as a consultant. That could have been for
ten minutes work for all we know.

FWIW, I think this administration has handled the war and its
periphery like a bat that can't find its ass with both wings, but I
seriously doubt you'll ever see a "poor Hillary and Bill" post from
me either.

Hillary and Bill aren't the Antichrist. I think the Anti-Clinton
backlash is just the right wing trying to deflect.

I could give a rat's behind about Bill/Hillary, and I clearly didn't say
anything anti-Clinton or deflect anything that way. That must just be
the left's way of trying to peg someone with (very slight, mind you)
right leanings.
--
TL,
Tim
---------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj/

Rant
 

Is that is the same idiot Mitch Daniels who is now our governor I believe
everything he touches is spoiled .Heck he is leasing our state out to
foreigners
This is why I have a bumper sticker that says
Ditch Mitch
What really makes me angry is I voted for him.
"riverman" wrote in message
oups.com...
As today's clock ticks http://tinyurl.com/cfsrc I can't help but
remember such gems as this:

"Iraq will be "an affordable endeavor" that "will not require
sustained aid" and will "be in the range of $50 billion to $60
billion." - Budget Director Mitch Daniels [Forbes 4/11/03, W. Post
3/28/03, NY Times 1/2/03, respectively]

"In terms of the American taxpayers contribution, [$1.7 billion] is it
for the US. The rest of the rebuilding of Iraq will be done by other
countries and Iraqi oil revenues...The American part of this will be 1.7
billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this." -
USAID Director Andrew Natsios, 4/23/03"

And I think of poor Lawrence Lindsey who lost his job for predicting
that the war would cost $100-$200 Billion.

Today's total: $365 Billion and rising.

--riverman

Rant
 

On Feb 8, 12:32 pm, "Tim J."
wrote:
From you, as concerns the war and this
administration, accusations of shifting alliances sound pretty
hollow.

Explain, please. Since you only know my stance from my postings here,
you should have a wealth of quotes at your disposal.

Aww ****, Tim. I don't want to spar with you. You jumped on me for
posting without an OT header, then took a wild second swipe from
fantasyland, and I'm just swiping back. I'm not going to turn this
into a petty cut-and-snip google-fest.

Myron

On the other hand, if you WANT to have CASGF.....bring it on. But for
now, mission accomplished. ;-)

Rant
 

On Feb 7, 10:09 pm, wrote:
On 7 Feb 2007 16:23:39 -0800, "riverman" wrote:





On Feb 7, 9:47 pm, "Tim J." wrote:
riverman typed:
...

And I think of poor Lawrence Lindsey who lost his job for predicting
that the war would cost $100-$200 Billion.

. . . and another thing. . . :)

Your alliances sure seem to shift like a reed in the wind. I doubt you would
have referred to him as "poor Lawrence Lindsey" while he was a $50,000 per
year economics consultant to Enron. How long before we see a "poor Dick
Cheney" post?

Hmm, having a bad day Tim? From you, as concerns the war and this
administration, accusations of shifting alliances sound pretty
hollow. I'll go on record (again) and say I never once supported this
war, believed the hype about WMDs, supported trumping the UN, or
accepted that it would a brief (months rather than years) or
inexpensive endeavor. I thought they were lying all along, I feel that
the majority of people who supported Bush from the beginning were
duped, and I feel absolutely and completely vindicated. ITYS.

Of course, I'm not handing out absolution to Lindsay, nor am I in a
position to. But neither am I someone who can paint every aspect of
any character with one brush (Cheney or Bush included), but in this
instance I think its poignant that the people in power used his
announcement as a lever to get rid of him while it turns out that he
was being the most pragmatic of all of them. I think it shouldn't be
hard to see that I brought his case up as evidence to Bush, Cheney,
Wolfowitz et als cruel manipulation and coverup rather than LLs
sainthood.

Do you have any clue whatsoever what a "WMD" really is? Here's a hint:
a "dirty bomb" ain't a "WMD," it's a "WMC"...

HTH,
R- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Do you have any idea whatsoever what "easily led by the nose" really
means?

Any firearm capable of firing multiple rounds without reloading is a
weapon of mass destruction.

Moron.

Wolfgang
let's see whether anyone here can guess what that makes a pipe bomb or
an aircraft carrier.

Rant
 

riverman typed:
snip
Aww ****, Tim. I don't want to spar with you. You jumped on me for
posting without an OT header, then took a wild second swipe from
fantasyland, and I'm just swiping back.

Yes - and for a THIRD time, no less. For the record, I read 'em all -
on-topic, off-topic, whatever. My "swipe" was for the political trolling,
not the omission of the OT, although a warning shot is always appreciated.

I'm not going to turn this into a petty cut-and-snip google-fest.

On the other hand, if you WANT to have CASGF.....bring it on.

I wouldn't have any searching to do - you've been remarkably consistant.

But for now, mission accomplished. ;-)

Works for me. Once again, you win. ;-)
--
TL,
Tim
-------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj