PhillyKev 0 #101 February 10, 2004 Good point. Article in the WSJ about exactly that issue. Except slightly different. They won't be increasing the number of soldiers. Bush has stated that he does not want to take money away from weapons procurement to pay for more troops. Their plan instead is to outsource more of the tasks currently done by soldiers to civilian counterparts. Hmmm...wonder how that bidding process will work for those jobs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #102 February 10, 2004 QuotePerot wanted Bush to lose and ran to split the vote. He pulled votes away from Clinton. If he had not ran, possibly his 19% would have caused Bush to win. Huh??? If he pulled votes from Clinton, wouldn't it follow that those votes would go to Clinton? How would that cause Bush to win? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #103 February 10, 2004 Well, you need some reading glasses then, I have never stated such claims...... If you think I'm pure....whatever float your boat pal..."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #104 February 10, 2004 QuoteHmmm...wonder how that bidding process will work for those jobs. I don't know but I think this chart is looking pretty good as an indicator http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.asp?Symbol=HAL&ShowChtBt=Refresh+Chart&DateRangeForm=1&CP=0&PT=5&C5=1&C6=2004&C7=1&C8=2004&C9=1&ComparisonsForm=1&CE=0&CompSyms=&DisplayForm=1&D5=0&D7=&D6=&D3=0 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #105 February 10, 2004 NOICE so thos 3000 shares I bought in 01 will be worth something! Sweet!I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #106 February 10, 2004 >I'm not sure what you mean by "started the whole process years >earlier". GWB was only in office a year. Can you clear up? Well, he had been pushing for war years earlier, and I suspect he would have started pushing for a war with Iraq around 2001, possibly even before 9/11. (Iraq, not Afghanistan.) >the evidence to go to war is the same for whoever is in government . . True literally, but each person interprets the information they get differently. Powell at one point said "I'm not reading this shit!"; Bush did, so clearly those two had differences on what they considered valid information. >I don't believe Congress' access to most classified data is 'filtered' > by the executive branch either as Kallend implies so Congress likely > would have supported in the same manner. Oh, it's not just filtered - it's created! In the 50's there were some very famous studies on the number of ICBM's the USSR would have by 1960. The CIA claimed around 500, the Air Force (who wanted more money) claimed over 1000. Actual number - 4. The Air Force saw what it wanted to see. In the words of Paul Wolfowitz, there is "a phenomenon in intelligence work that people who are pursuing a certain hypothesis will see certain facts that others won't, and not see other facts that others will." Similarly, Rumsfeld created a small four-man "intelligence team" to sift through data coming out of Iraq. It suggested links between Al Qaeda and Hussein and strong evidence of WMD's, links that the CIA did not generally agree with. Yet the findings of this team were reported by the general media as being as valid as the CIA's, and the people who pressure congressmen to vote a certain way read the media. It's become pretty clear that the white house, at the very least, believed intelligence that supported war in Iraq and ignored intelligence that did not. In some cases they created new intelligence that fit the goals. Many administrations have done this, it's certainly nothing new. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #107 February 10, 2004 >That be great, that way I can look up Purity of Blood . . . You are thinking of Steel. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #108 February 10, 2004 Yes Bill, and I'm thinking of LensCrafters....or maybe ESL. for this fella."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #109 February 10, 2004 QuoteYou are thinking of Steel Oops my bad. To Juansky: I already wear contacts, guess I'll have to get them checked As to the ESL, funny enough English is my second language. My wife holds a TEFL diploma, maybe I can take some lessons from her But what am I doing posting here, I am not American. Since I am not allowed to vote in the US, I am not allowed to have an opinion on your beloved president Bush, specially not a negative one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #110 February 10, 2004 QuoteOops my bad. Nope his bad but I know where you were coming from http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=658298#658298 I am sure he wants to get over there before restrictive firerams restrictions are put on or bag limits. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #111 February 10, 2004 QuoteQuotePerot wanted Bush to lose and ran to split the vote. He pulled votes away from Clinton. If he had not ran, possibly his 19% would have caused Bush to win. Huh??? If he pulled votes from Clinton, wouldn't it follow that those votes would go to Clinton? How would that cause Bush to win? How you ask? Because I am a 'tard who can't compose sentences, that is why. I didn't write what I was thinking. I always thought that Perot was kind of a libertarian with conservative philosophies. He was trying to take enough Bush votes away from Bush to split the vote and cause him to lose. I am unsure how the votes would have possibly gone, but many people voted for Perot as a protest vote. Kind of a "none of the above" vote. The exit polls may be the only measure, but they showed varying results. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #112 February 10, 2004 No problem. You can critize as much, just a little fact that you don't get to vote him out or in. I never stated you can not talk or bash him, only your opinion does not cout when it comes the time to elect him in power.... And Amazon....you made me laugh for the nice moments, ClickyAt least they let you go in deep with personal attacks before calling time out"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
streaker 0 #113 February 10, 2004 I'd love to have just one of those projected new jobs! Beautiful Landings, StreakerHave a yippee ki ya day! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #114 February 10, 2004 Quotecout What was that again about ESL and Lenscrafters? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #115 February 10, 2004 LOL, no, just rushing the post....at least there were no kittens killed...."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #116 February 10, 2004 QuoteAnd Amazon....you made me laugh for the nice moments, Clicky Yup I learned my lesson.. Cut it out Jeanie. No personal attacks even if cleverly disguised. But Sangiro said it cant be an OVERT personal attack.. I have to word it like our esteemed Right Handie boys and make it OBTUSE just like they do... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JYorkster 0 #117 February 11, 2004 So YOU know where OBL is!?..Why don't you tell the rest of us who have actually been out searching for him. Rock Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
