|
|
Rant
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
|
Rant
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. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++ And part of every ****ing dollar $ The most corrupt administration in US history - is pockets bundles Bush, Cheney et al - They are just lowlife crooks! They should be impeached , imprisoned and possibly hung! -- Fred " |
Rant
On 6 Feb 2007 16:22:37 -0800, "riverman" wrote:
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 And for what, exactly? http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...w_on_iraqi_pm/ |
Rant
riverman typed: As today's clock ticks ... Tsk, tsk - not so much as an OT warning. "Hey Troll! Tired of your status as e-leper? Losing sleep wondering how normal people behave? Wish you had a friend that wasn't just selling you life insurance? Now there's a website which offers a service for you disgusting, revolting troll addicts. Rid yourself of your pathetic addiction today by signing up at www.trollfree.org That's right, we'll help you help yourself to a life free from your vomit-inducing, shameful addiction to trolling newsgroups. The system is simple, yet effective: Basically, for a monthly fee of only $59.99 (or $79.99 for the Gold Club) you have unlimited access to computer generated, genuine Faux-newsgroups(TM). You can post a much irrational, unwanted, pointless drivel you want and it will appear in every Faux-newsgroup(TM), eliminating all the pesky crossposting. Further, our artificial intelligence team has written state of the art software which will respond indignently to all your nonsense. And the great thing is that the AI server never gets tired and _never killfiles you_. Our AI server will engage you in endless banter, guaranteeing ever longer posts, and an almost unlimited number of exclamation points and captial letters. Most importantly, real humans (what we here at TrollFree refer to as "the potential friend pool") _NEVER SEE YOUR POSTS!!!_ You get complete freedom to choose the mood of your Faux- victims(TM): Everything from "hilarious, frustrating rage" to "lament over the noise ratio". In addition, Gold Club members get "pitiful mewling" and "Omygod! You're right!". Our theory is simple: If allowed to let your socially isolating addiction run its course, even you will get fed up with yourself, and this auto-induced nausea will effect that cure you've thought was always out of your reach. The life you never thought you could have is yours for a modest monthly fee. Remember, the first step is admitting your problem. So get that credit card out and sign up for Gold Club service today, and you get 2 hours per week of controlled human contact to help you prepare for your re-introduction to productive society. You could have a real friend in just a few months! WE GUARANTEE!!!! (Visa and Mastercard only. No PayPal or Discover.) TESTIMONIALS: "Hi, I just had to write to tell you what a wonderful program you have. After only 3 months as a Gold Club member, my mailman has stopped throwing my mail into the doghouse. I even expect to have an non-confrontational exchange with a store clerk this week! THANKS TROLLFREE!" ---Fox Poopmaself "I was sceptical at first, but I'm a believer now! I haven't used the word "sheeple" or contacted a governement agency for weeks! And your website is so easy to use, even a troll can do it." ---Stoolman "What a wonderful feeling to have my fingers finally uncramp! And my colon quickly followed suit. I recommend TrollFree to all my friends...or I WILL as soon as I get some." ---MakeWidePoo" ;-) (and, yes, I stole this from somewhere else - sue me.) -- TL, Tim --------------------------- http://css.sbcma.com/timj/ |
Rant
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 21:18:10 -0500, "Tim J."
wrote: riverman typed: As today's clock ticks ... Tsk, tsk - not so much as an OT warning. Be honest: the subject "Rant" wasn't a dead giveaway, then? ;-) Frustration takes various forms, including dumping some angst on those who might have gone through the day without thinking about this slow-motion disaster... /daytripper () |
Rant
daytripper typed: On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 21:18:10 -0500, "Tim J." wrote: riverman typed: As today's clock ticks ... Tsk, tsk - not so much as an OT warning. Be honest: the subject "Rant" wasn't a dead giveaway, then? ;-) I swear, I thought he was going to rail on about the blood knot vs. surgeon's knot (like THAT'S never happened here.) -- TL, Tim --------------------------- http://css.sbcma.com/timj/ |
Rant
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 21:42:49 -0500, daytripper
wrote: On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 21:18:10 -0500, "Tim J." wrote: riverman typed: As today's clock ticks ... Tsk, tsk - not so much as an OT warning. Be honest: the subject "Rant" wasn't a dead giveaway, then? ;-) He was busy staring at the gas gauge... Frustration takes various forms, including dumping some angst on those who might have gone through the day without thinking about this slow-motion disaster... Um, are you talking about ROFF or ??? TC, R /daytripper () |
Rant
On Feb 7, 10:42 am, daytripper wrote:
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 21:18:10 -0500, "Tim J." wrote: riverman typed: As today's clock ticks ... Tsk, tsk - not so much as an OT warning. Be honest: the subject "Rant" wasn't a dead giveaway, then? ;-) Frustration takes various forms, including dumping some angst on those who might have gone through the day without thinking about this slow-motion disaster... /daytripper () Yeah, sorry about that tripper. I guess you guys are mostly on the same boat, and share the angst. It just SUCKS seeing everyone get lied to, thats all. --riverman Someone get me a pitchfork and a torch, godammit. |
Rant
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? 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. -- TL, Tim ------------------------- http://css.sbcma.com/timj |
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:58 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter