>On Nov 1, 12:20 pm, Wikking <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> Steve wrote: >> > On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 06:40:24 -0800 (PST), Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> >> > wrote:
>> >> On Nov 1, 5:54 am, Wikking <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> nobody wrote: >> >>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:32:03 -0700 (PDT), Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> >> >>>> wrote: >> >>>>> On Oct 31, 9:39 am, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> >>>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:17:25 -0400, Wikking <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> >> >>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>> Clearly we spent and will spend up to $3 trillion on a war based on >> >>>>>>> lies for Israel, Special Interests and a few fatcats. >> >>>>>> Guess Mr. Vikking has finally changed his tune since his claim that we >> >>>>>> *already* spent $3 trillion can't be supported. His new tune sounds >> >>>>>> just like "jobs created or saved" which means "we pulled this number >> >>>>>> out of our butts". >> >>>>> Hey genius... given that a lot of the DOD appropriations money spent >> >>>>> over there came from "discretionary spending" and there was even at >> >>>>> least one large shipment of cash from the Federal Reserve ($20 billion >> >>>>> was reported "missing" back in 2004; how many such losses were NOT >> >>>>> reported?) that we know of I challenge you to prove that we haven't >> >>>>> spent $3 trillion over there. It's probably a little high, but I would >> >>>>> say $2 trillion isn't out of the question. >> >>>>>http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070206130101-80952.pdf >> >>>> If you can't show $3 trillion has been spent, then just say so. >> >>>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributor...
>> >>> Rebut the Stiglitz and Bilmes research please.
>> >> Ouch... you're gonna make him think. He's not here for that. He and >> >> The Stalker are here for sniping.
>> > You're always in my sights, Milt, but taking shots at you is more like >> > stomping on bugs...
>> Not if you have to change the subject to Usenet headers...
>I'm not only in his sights; he gets a woody whenever he sees my name >on a post.
Good Lord, Milt, try to keep your sexual fantasies to yourself..
>There is a whole host of things he knows nothing about and proves it >constantly. The First Amendment, the stock markets, banking policy, >the history of the Congressional Page program, my personal life...
Speaking of the Congressional page program, Milt, don't you think your claims of having been a Congressional Page ought to be part of your professional biography?
>He used to be fun to play with, but he's not even that anymore...
Mostly because I call Milt out on some of his many lies..
for instance...
Milt Shook is too stupid to find out what a Congressional page does before claiming to have been one....
Canyon Note: Shook is apparently unaware that congressional pages don't work for any individual Congressperson.
"Of course, between commuting an hour each way to and from the Capitol every day, and trying to keep up with my studies in high school, and play JV football (I was "too skinny" for varsity, according to my moronic coach), and a few other extra curricular activities, I wouldn't have had much time for that, anyway. Especially after I blew out my knee in the fourth game of the season... damn... " --Milt Shook, http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/d4fb757cb48...
Canyon Note: Shook is apparently unaware that congressional pages attend school mornings and evenings at the Capital so they can attend sessions of Congress and couldn't possibly continue going to his hometown school, let alone take part in extra curricular activities there...
Steve wrote: > On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 11:35:54 -0800 (PST), Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>> On Nov 1, 12:20 pm, Wikking <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>> Steve wrote: >>>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 06:40:24 -0800 (PST), Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> On Nov 1, 5:54 am, Wikking <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>> nobody wrote: >>>>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:32:03 -0700 (PDT), Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Oct 31, 9:39 am, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:17:25 -0400, Wikking <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Clearly we spent and will spend up to $3 trillion on a war based on >>>>>>>>>> lies for Israel, Special Interests and a few fatcats. >>>>>>>>> Guess Mr. Vikking has finally changed his tune since his claim that we >>>>>>>>> *already* spent $3 trillion can't be supported. His new tune sounds >>>>>>>>> just like "jobs created or saved" which means "we pulled this number >>>>>>>>> out of our butts". >>>>>>>> Hey genius... given that a lot of the DOD appropriations money spent >>>>>>>> over there came from "discretionary spending" and there was even at >>>>>>>> least one large shipment of cash from the Federal Reserve ($20 billion >>>>>>>> was reported "missing" back in 2004; how many such losses were NOT >>>>>>>> reported?) that we know of I challenge you to prove that we haven't >>>>>>>> spent $3 trillion over there. It's probably a little high, but I would >>>>>>>> say $2 trillion isn't out of the question. >>>>>>>> http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070206130101-80952.pdf >>>>>>> If you can't show $3 trillion has been spent, then just say so. >>>>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributor... >>>>>> Rebut the Stiglitz and Bilmes research please. >>>>> Ouch... you're gonna make him think. He's not here for that. He and >>>>> The Stalker are here for sniping. >>>> You're always in my sights, Milt, but taking shots at you is more like >>>> stomping on bugs... >>> Not if you have to change the subject to Usenet headers...
>> I'm not only in his sights; he gets a woody whenever he sees my name >> on a post.
> Good Lord, Milt, try to keep your sexual fantasies to yourself..
>> There is a whole host of things he knows nothing about and proves it >> constantly. The First Amendment, the stock markets, banking policy, >> the history of the Congressional Page program, my personal life...
> Speaking of the Congressional page program, Milt, don't you think > your claims of having been a Congressional Page ought to be part of > your professional biography?
>> He used to be fun to play with, but he's not even that anymore...
> Mostly because I call Milt out on some of his many lies..
> for instance...
[frantic attempts to change the subject snipped]
--
}(:
It is clear that the "Birthers", "Teabaggers", politicians and media hosts or pundits that purvey messages of resistance, insurrection and don't want their kids to go to school to hear the words of the POTUS have become the dupes and stooges of foreign intelligence services that wish to see the US destabilized by a bunch of fools - they must be laughing their heads off at these wingnuts who are so ready to be their pawns...
> Steve wrote: > > On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 11:35:54 -0800 (PST), Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> > > wrote:
> >> On Nov 1, 12:20 pm, Wikking <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >>> Steve wrote: > >>>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 06:40:24 -0800 (PST), Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> On Nov 1, 5:54 am, Wikking <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >>>>>> nobody wrote: > >>>>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:32:03 -0700 (PDT), Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Oct 31, 9:39 am, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:17:25 -0400, Wikking <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Clearly we spent and will spend up to $3 trillion on a war based on > >>>>>>>>>> lies for Israel, Special Interests and a few fatcats. > >>>>>>>>> Guess Mr. Vikking has finally changed his tune since his claim that we > >>>>>>>>> *already* spent $3 trillion can't be supported. His new tune sounds > >>>>>>>>> just like "jobs created or saved" which means "we pulled this number > >>>>>>>>> out of our butts". > >>>>>>>> Hey genius... given that a lot of the DOD appropriations money spent > >>>>>>>> over there came from "discretionary spending" and there was even at > >>>>>>>> least one large shipment of cash from the Federal Reserve ($20 billion > >>>>>>>> was reported "missing" back in 2004; how many such losses were NOT > >>>>>>>> reported?) that we know of I challenge you to prove that we haven't > >>>>>>>> spent $3 trillion over there. It's probably a little high, but I would > >>>>>>>> say $2 trillion isn't out of the question. > >>>>>>>>http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070206130101-80952.pdf > >>>>>>> If you can't show $3 trillion has been spent, then just say so. > >>>>>>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributor... > >>>>>> Rebut the Stiglitz and Bilmes research please. > >>>>> Ouch... you're gonna make him think. He's not here for that. He and > >>>>> The Stalker are here for sniping. > >>>> You're always in my sights, Milt, but taking shots at you is more like > >>>> stomping on bugs... > >>> Not if you have to change the subject to Usenet headers...
> >> I'm not only in his sights; he gets a woody whenever he sees my name > >> on a post.
> > Good Lord, Milt, try to keep your sexual fantasies to yourself..
> >> There is a whole host of things he knows nothing about and proves it > >> constantly. The First Amendment, the stock markets, banking policy, > >> the history of the Congressional Page program, my personal life...
> > Speaking of the Congressional page program, Milt, don't you think > > your claims of having been a Congressional Page ought to be part of > > your professional biography?
See how he pretends to know what's in my Resume/CV? The man has never met me. Is that sad or what?
> >> He used to be fun to play with, but he's not even that anymore...
> > Mostly because I call Milt out on some of his many lies..
> > for instance...
> [frantic attempts to change the subject snipped]
Oh, he'll never actually offer an argument or present a fact. You can probably just killfile him now, and save yourself the trouble.
> It is clear that the "Birthers", "Teabaggers", politicians and media > hosts or pundits that purvey messages of resistance, insurrection and > don't want their kids to go to school to hear the words of the POTUS > have become the dupes and stooges of foreign intelligence services > that wish to see the US destabilized by a bunch of fools - they must > be laughing their heads off at these wingnuts who are so ready to be > their pawns...
>Steve wrote: >> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 11:35:54 -0800 (PST), Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> >> wrote:
>>> On Nov 1, 12:20 pm, Wikking <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>> Steve wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 06:40:24 -0800 (PST), Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On Nov 1, 5:54 am, Wikking <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>> nobody wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:32:03 -0700 (PDT), Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Oct 31, 9:39 am, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:17:25 -0400, Wikking <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Clearly we spent and will spend up to $3 trillion on a war based on >>>>>>>>>>> lies for Israel, Special Interests and a few fatcats. >>>>>>>>>> Guess Mr. Vikking has finally changed his tune since his claim that we >>>>>>>>>> *already* spent $3 trillion can't be supported. His new tune sounds >>>>>>>>>> just like "jobs created or saved" which means "we pulled this number >>>>>>>>>> out of our butts". >>>>>>>>> Hey genius... given that a lot of the DOD appropriations money spent >>>>>>>>> over there came from "discretionary spending" and there was even at >>>>>>>>> least one large shipment of cash from the Federal Reserve ($20 billion >>>>>>>>> was reported "missing" back in 2004; how many such losses were NOT >>>>>>>>> reported?) that we know of I challenge you to prove that we haven't >>>>>>>>> spent $3 trillion over there. It's probably a little high, but I would >>>>>>>>> say $2 trillion isn't out of the question. >>>>>>>>> http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070206130101-80952.pdf >>>>>>>> If you can't show $3 trillion has been spent, then just say so. >>>>>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributor... >>>>>>> Rebut the Stiglitz and Bilmes research please. >>>>>> Ouch... you're gonna make him think. He's not here for that. He and >>>>>> The Stalker are here for sniping. >>>>> You're always in my sights, Milt, but taking shots at you is more like >>>>> stomping on bugs... >>>> Not if you have to change the subject to Usenet headers...
>>> I'm not only in his sights; he gets a woody whenever he sees my name >>> on a post.
>> Good Lord, Milt, try to keep your sexual fantasies to yourself..
>>> There is a whole host of things he knows nothing about and proves it >>> constantly. The First Amendment, the stock markets, banking policy, >>> the history of the Congressional Page program, my personal life...
>> Speaking of the Congressional page program, Milt, don't you think >> your claims of having been a Congressional Page ought to be part of >> your professional biography?
>>> He used to be fun to play with, but he's not even that anymore...
>> Mostly because I call Milt out on some of his many lies..
>> for instance...
>>Milt Shook is too stupid to find out what a Congressional >>page does before claiming to have been one....
>>Canyon Note: >>Shook is apparently unaware that congressional pages don't work for >>any individual Congressperson.
>>"Of course, between commuting an hour each way to and from the >>Capitol every day, and trying to keep up with my studies in >>high school, and play JV football (I was "too skinny" for >>varsity, according to my moronic coach), and a few other >>extra curricular activities, I wouldn't have had much time >>for that, anyway. Especially after I blew out my knee in the >>fourth game of the season... damn... " >>--Milt Shook, >>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/d4fb757cb48...
>>Canyon Note: >>Shook is apparently unaware that congressional pages attend >>school mornings and evenings at the Capital so they can attend >>sessions of Congress and couldn't possibly continue going to his >>hometown school, let alone take part in extra curricular >>activities there...
>On Nov 1, 4:08 pm, Wikking <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> Steve wrote: >> > On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 11:35:54 -0800 (PST), Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> >> > wrote:
>> >> On Nov 1, 12:20 pm, Wikking <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> Steve wrote: >> >>>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 06:40:24 -0800 (PST), Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> >> >>>> wrote: >> >>>>> On Nov 1, 5:54 am, Wikking <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >>>>>> nobody wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:32:03 -0700 (PDT), Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> >> >>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>> On Oct 31, 9:39 am, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:17:25 -0400, Wikking <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>> Clearly we spent and will spend up to $3 trillion on a war based on >> >>>>>>>>>> lies for Israel, Special Interests and a few fatcats. >> >>>>>>>>> Guess Mr. Vikking has finally changed his tune since his claim that we >> >>>>>>>>> *already* spent $3 trillion can't be supported. His new tune sounds >> >>>>>>>>> just like "jobs created or saved" which means "we pulled this number >> >>>>>>>>> out of our butts". >> >>>>>>>> Hey genius... given that a lot of the DOD appropriations money spent >> >>>>>>>> over there came from "discretionary spending" and there was even at >> >>>>>>>> least one large shipment of cash from the Federal Reserve ($20 billion >> >>>>>>>> was reported "missing" back in 2004; how many such losses were NOT >> >>>>>>>> reported?) that we know of I challenge you to prove that we haven't >> >>>>>>>> spent $3 trillion over there. It's probably a little high, but I would >> >>>>>>>> say $2 trillion isn't out of the question. >> >>>>>>>>http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070206130101-80952.pdf >> >>>>>>> If you can't show $3 trillion has been spent, then just say so. >> >>>>>>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributor... >> >>>>>> Rebut the Stiglitz and Bilmes research please. >> >>>>> Ouch... you're gonna make him think. He's not here for that. He and >> >>>>> The Stalker are here for sniping. >> >>>> You're always in my sights, Milt, but taking shots at you is more like >> >>>> stomping on bugs... >> >>> Not if you have to change the subject to Usenet headers...
>> >> I'm not only in his sights; he gets a woody whenever he sees my name >> >> on a post.
>> > Good Lord, Milt, try to keep your sexual fantasies to yourself..
>> >> There is a whole host of things he knows nothing about and proves it >> >> constantly. The First Amendment, the stock markets, banking policy, >> >> the history of the Congressional Page program, my personal life...
>> > Speaking of the Congressional page program, Milt, don't you think >> > your claims of having been a Congressional Page ought to be part of >> > your professional biography?
>See how he pretends to know what's in my Resume/CV? The man has never >met me. Is that sad or what?
What's sad is that Milt makes dishonest claims about having been a Congressional page.... It's impressive, for Milt, anyway, that he knows enough not to put it any of biographies....
>> >> He used to be fun to play with, but he's not even that anymore...
>> > Mostly because I call Milt out on some of his many lies..
>> > for instance...
>> [frantic attempts to change the subject snipped]
>Oh, he'll never actually offer an argument or present a fact. You can >probably just killfile him now, and save yourself the trouble.
Well, yes, Milt wants everyone to killfile me so they won't see any more of his ridiculous lies....
...and yet Milt didn't even know what a negative equity is.
"Yeah. If you bought the stock at $50 a share and it's now worth $25, the shares have a negative equity of 50%. I mean, DUH! You buy a share of stock in the hope that each share will develop a positive equity, right? Well, a loss is negative equity." -- Milt.Shook http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/cdf601a5bed...
>nobody wrote: >> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:32:03 -0700 (PDT), Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> >> wrote:
>>> On Oct 31, 9:39 am, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:17:25 -0400, Wikking <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> >>>> wrote:
>>>>> Clearly we spent and will spend up to $3 trillion on a war based on >>>>> lies for Israel, Special Interests and a few fatcats. >>>> Guess Mr. Vikking has finally changed his tune since his claim that we >>>> *already* spent $3 trillion can't be supported. His new tune sounds >>>> just like "jobs created or saved" which means "we pulled this number >>>> out of our butts". >>> Hey genius... given that a lot of the DOD appropriations money spent >>> over there came from "discretionary spending" and there was even at >>> least one large shipment of cash from the Federal Reserve ($20 billion >>> was reported "missing" back in 2004; how many such losses were NOT >>> reported?) that we know of I challenge you to prove that we haven't >>> spent $3 trillion over there. It's probably a little high, but I would >>> say $2 trillion isn't out of the question.
If you can't show $3 trillion has been spent, then just say so. We've had this discussion before. The research said the war *may* cost that amount, not *has*.
>On Nov 1, 5:11 am, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:32:03 -0700 (PDT), Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> >> wrote:
>> >On Oct 31, 9:39 am, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> >> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:17:25 -0400, Wikking <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >Clearly we spent and will spend up to $3 trillion on a war based on >> >> >lies for Israel, Special Interests and a few fatcats.
>> >> Guess Mr. Vikking has finally changed his tune since his claim that we >> >> *already* spent $3 trillion can't be supported. His new tune sounds >> >> just like "jobs created or saved" which means "we pulled this number >> >> out of our butts".
>> >Hey genius... given that a lot of the DOD appropriations money spent >> >over there came from "discretionary spending" and there was even at >> >least one large shipment of cash from the Federal Reserve ($20 billion >> >was reported "missing" back in 2004; how many such losses were NOT >> >reported?) that we know of I challenge you to prove that we haven't >> >spent $3 trillion over there. It's probably a little high, but I would >> >say $2 trillion isn't out of the question.
>> If you can't show $3 trillion has been spent, then just say so.
>HAS BEEN SPENT? Changing the game plan a bit, are we?
Mr Viiking's original claim was exactly that some time ago. You do know how to use use google, don't you? I am uninterested in what anyone thinks something *will* cost since it hasn't happened yet.
>> >But hey; prove that number is wrong. I can't prove it's correct, but >> >you can't prove it's wrong. Therefore, your claim that such a thing is >> >pretty much impossible is at LEAST as smelly as the claim you claim he >> >pulled from his anus.
>> Oh look, Miltie's lying again (fancy that). Show me where I've said >> it's impossible that $3 trillion has been spent.
>nobody: "Guess Mr. Vikking has finally changed his tune since his >claim that we >*already* spent $3 trillion can't be supported. His new tune sounds >just like "jobs created or saved" which means "we pulled this number >out of our butts"."
>ahem. You just said he pulled the number out of his butt. That means, >like your opinion on "jobs created and saved," you are making a >counterclaim by, pulling a notion directly from your anus.
>nobody wrote: >> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 15:57:15 -0400, Wikking <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> >> wrote:
>>> nobody wrote: >>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:17:25 -0400, Wikking <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> >>>> wrote:
>>>>> Clearly we spent and will spend up to $3 trillion on a war based on >>>>> lies for Israel, Special Interests and a few fatcats. >>>> Guess Mr. Vikking has finally changed his tune since his claim that we >>>> *already* spent $3 trillion can't be supported. His new tune sounds >>>> just like "jobs created or saved" which means "we pulled this number >>>> out of our butts".
>>> Point is that you are trying to defend a $3 trillion war based on lies >>> that has damn near killed the US economy and the hope and future of >>> many of its people. You should be run into the sea.
>> And Vikking merely repeats his unsupported claim.
>It is supported by a major university study. However since the GOP and > Conservatives no longer have any Phds, they probably would be barely >capable of reading it.
A projection is meaningless since it hasn't happened yet. Please do try to confine your claims to things that have *already* happened.
>On Nov 1, 5:06 am, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 15:57:15 -0400, Wikking <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> >> wrote:
>> >nobody wrote: >> >> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:17:25 -0400, Wikking <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> >> >> wrote:
>> >>> Clearly we spent and will spend up to $3 trillion on a war based on >> >>> lies for Israel, Special Interests and a few fatcats.
>> >> Guess Mr. Vikking has finally changed his tune since his claim that we >> >> *already* spent $3 trillion can't be supported. His new tune sounds >> >> just like "jobs created or saved" which means "we pulled this number >> >> out of our butts".
>> >Point is that you are trying to defend a $3 trillion war based on lies >> >that has damn near killed the US economy and the hope and future of >> >many of its people. You should be run into the sea.
>> And Vikking merely repeats his unsupported claim.
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:49:08 -0500, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote: >On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 06:27:49 -0800 (PST), Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> >wrote:
>>On Nov 1, 5:06 am, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote: >>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 15:57:15 -0400, Wikking <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> >>> wrote:
>>> >nobody wrote: >>> >> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:17:25 -0400, Wikking <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> >>> >> wrote:
>>> >>> Clearly we spent and will spend up to $3 trillion on a war based on >>> >>> lies for Israel, Special Interests and a few fatcats.
>>> >> Guess Mr. Vikking has finally changed his tune since his claim that we >>> >> *already* spent $3 trillion can't be supported. His new tune sounds >>> >> just like "jobs created or saved" which means "we pulled this number >>> >> out of our butts".
>>> >Point is that you are trying to defend a $3 trillion war based on lies >>> >that has damn near killed the US economy and the hope and future of >>> >many of its people. You should be run into the sea.
>>> And Vikking merely repeats his unsupported claim.
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 05:59:24 -0800, Phlip wrote: > On Nov 2, 6:51 am, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n- > dog.com> wrote: >> >>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:17:25 -0400, Wikking >> >>>>> <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>>>>> Clearly we spent and will spend up to $3 trillion on a war based >> >>>>>> on lies for Israel, Special Interests and a few fatcats.
>> 3trillion over 7 years, and now Obama wasted 1.5 trillion in 9 >> months.... which one sounds like it is worse?
> Obama's budget wasted 1.5 trillion?
> Or maybe you would have preferred he left it under the rug where the > Bushies swept it?
Obama doesn't even HAVE a budget yet. This is still Bush turf we're working on.
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 05:59:24 -0800, Phlip wrote:
>> On Nov 2, 6:51 am, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n- >> dog.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:17:25 -0400, Wikking >>>>>>>> <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Clearly we spent and will spend up to $3 trillion on a war based >>>>>>>>> on lies for Israel, Special Interests and a few fatcats. >>> 3trillion over 7 years, and now Obama wasted 1.5 trillion in 9 >>> months.... which one sounds like it is worse? >> Obama's budget wasted 1.5 trillion?
>> Or maybe you would have preferred he left it under the rug where the >> Bushies swept it?
> Obama doesn't even HAVE a budget yet. This is still Bush turf we're > working on.
The signature is Obama's.... you know that if you sign you bought it.
Obama never read it and allowed 9000 earmarks from a Democrat Congress, so there wasn't even any Republicans in charge that needed to sign anything.
This was a Democrats and Obama budget. --
*BE VERY CONCERNED*
If the rich are working the poor, and keeping the wealth they are slave masters, if the poor tax the wealthy and take the money for their work then the poor become the slave masters.
> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 06:27:49 -0800 (PST), Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> >On Nov 1, 5:06 am, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 15:57:15 -0400, Wikking <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> > >> wrote:
> >> >nobody wrote: > >> >> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:17:25 -0400, Wikking <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> > >> >> wrote:
> >> >>> Clearly we spent and will spend up to $3 trillion on a war based on > >> >>> lies for Israel, Special Interests and a few fatcats.
> >> >> Guess Mr. Vikking has finally changed his tune since his claim that we > >> >> *already* spent $3 trillion can't be supported. His new tune sounds > >> >> just like "jobs created or saved" which means "we pulled this number > >> >> out of our butts".
> >> >Point is that you are trying to defend a $3 trillion war based on lies > >> >that has damn near killed the US economy and the hope and future of > >> >many of its people. You should be run into the sea.
> >> And Vikking merely repeats his unsupported claim.
>On Nov 2, 8:49 am, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 06:27:49 -0800 (PST), Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> >> wrote:
>> >On Nov 1, 5:06 am, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> >> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 15:57:15 -0400, Wikking <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >nobody wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:17:25 -0400, Wikking <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>> Clearly we spent and will spend up to $3 trillion on a war based on >> >> >>> lies for Israel, Special Interests and a few fatcats.
>> >> >> Guess Mr. Vikking has finally changed his tune since his claim that we >> >> >> *already* spent $3 trillion can't be supported. His new tune sounds >> >> >> just like "jobs created or saved" which means "we pulled this number >> >> >> out of our butts".
>> >> >Point is that you are trying to defend a $3 trillion war based on lies >> >> >that has damn near killed the US economy and the hope and future of >> >> >many of its people. You should be run into the sea.
>> >> And Vikking merely repeats his unsupported claim.
> >> >> >>> Clearly we spent and will spend up to $3 trillion on a war based on > >> >> >>> lies for Israel, Special Interests and a few fatcats.
> >> >> >> Guess Mr. Vikking has finally changed his tune since his claim that we > >> >> >> *already* spent $3 trillion can't be supported. His new tune sounds > >> >> >> just like "jobs created or saved" which means "we pulled this number > >> >> >> out of our butts".
> >> >> >Point is that you are trying to defend a $3 trillion war based on lies > >> >> >that has damn near killed the US economy and the hope and future of > >> >> >many of its people. You should be run into the sea.
> >> >> And Vikking merely repeats his unsupported claim.
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 05:59:24 -0800, Phlip wrote: > > On Nov 2, 6:51 am, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n- > > dog.com> wrote: > >> >>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:17:25 -0400, Wikking > >> >>>>> <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >>>>>> Clearly we spent and will spend up to $3 trillion on a war based > >> >>>>>> on lies for Israel, Special Interests and a few fatcats.
> >> 3trillion over 7 years, and now Obama wasted 1.5 trillion in 9 > >> months.... which one sounds like it is worse?
> > Obama's budget wasted 1.5 trillion?
> > Or maybe you would have preferred he left it under the rug where the > > Bushies swept it?
> Obama doesn't even HAVE a budget yet. This is still Bush turf we're > working on.
Yeah, he does. He put it out there in April and both House and Senate passed it then. But FY 2010 just started, so all deficit spending up until October 1 is all on Bush.
dog.com> wrote: > 5265 Dead, 398 since 1/20/09 wrote:
> > On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 05:59:24 -0800, Phlip wrote:
> >> On Nov 2, 6:51 am, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n- > >> dog.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:17:25 -0400, Wikking > >>>>>>>> <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Clearly we spent and will spend up to $3 trillion on a war based > >>>>>>>>> on lies for Israel, Special Interests and a few fatcats. > >>> 3trillion over 7 years, and now Obama wasted 1.5 trillion in 9 > >>> months.... which one sounds like it is worse? > >> Obama's budget wasted 1.5 trillion?
> >> Or maybe you would have preferred he left it under the rug where the > >> Bushies swept it?
> > Obama doesn't even HAVE a budget yet. This is still Bush turf we're > > working on.
> The signature is Obama's.... you know that if you sign you bought it.
> Obama never read it and allowed 9000 earmarks from a Democrat Congress, > so there wasn't even any Republicans in charge that needed to sign anything.
> On Nov 3, 9:03 am, "5265 Dead, 398 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com> > wrote:
> > On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 05:59:24 -0800, Phlip wrote: > > > On Nov 2, 6:51 am, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n- > > > dog.com> wrote: > > >> >>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:17:25 -0400, Wikking > > >> >>>>> <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>> Clearly we spent and will spend up to $3 trillion on a war based > > >> >>>>>> on lies for Israel, Special Interests and a few fatcats.
> > >> 3trillion over 7 years, and now Obama wasted 1.5 trillion in 9 > > >> months.... which one sounds like it is worse?
> > > Obama's budget wasted 1.5 trillion?
> > > Or maybe you would have preferred he left it under the rug where the > > > Bushies swept it?
> > Obama doesn't even HAVE a budget yet. This is still Bush turf we're > > working on.
> Yeah, he does. He put it out there in April and both House and Senate > passed it then. But FY 2010 just started, so all deficit spending up > until October 1 is all on Bush.
|
