Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Social > Politics and News

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2014
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-12-2003, 09:42 AM   #1
BOBDN
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 2,579
Default White House tight-lipped on postwar costs

And well they should be with some estimates running as high as $600 BILLION for the totao price tag. And all for a war which was never necessary and sold on a pack of lies.

Exactly what I meant in the thread on free speech about this administration operating in secret like some dictatorship.

White House tight-lipped on postwar costs
BOBDN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2003, 10:10 AM   #2
xochi
Senior Member
 
xochi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 878
Default RE:White House tight-lipped on postwar costs


you didnt get the memo?

Questioning the Admistration is Anti-American!


:Q
xochi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2003, 10:54 AM   #3
BOBDN
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 2,579
Default RE:White House tight-lipped on postwar costs

Quote:
Originally posted by: xochi
you didnt get the memo?

Questioning the Admistration is Anti-American!


:Q
Oh, sorry. I must have missed it, xochi.

I'll have to edit out all questions of or opposition to the supreme chosen leader.



White House XXXXX-XXXXXX on XXXXXXX XXXXX

Most expect XXXXX of the peace to XXXXXX XXXX for XXXXXXXX


Tuesday, August 12, 2003


BY ALAN FRAM
Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. XXXX for XXXXXXXXX XXXX and XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX there is XXXXXX XXXXXXXX to XXX XXXXXX the XXX'X XXXXX tag, and some private XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX it could XXXXX as XXXX XX XXX XXXXXXX.

The Bush administration is XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXX so far, and that is XXXXXXXXX Republican as well as Democratic XXXXXXXXX.

The closest the administration has come XX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX'X XXXX XXX XXXXXX L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator of XXXXXXXX Iraq, said last month that "getting the country up and running again" XXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXX and XXXX XXXXX XXXXX.

He XXXXXXXX that XXXXXXXXX Iraq's XXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXX will XXXX XXX XXXXXXX and that XXXXXXX XXX XXXXX XXXXXX in XXXXX XXXX XXXXXXX an XXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXX.

In a recent interview on CNBC's "Capital Report," Bremer said of XXXXXXXXXX XXXXX: "It's probably well XXXXX XXX XXXXXXX, XXX XXXXXXX, maybe XXXX XXXXXXX. It's a XXX of XXXXX."

President Bush and other administration officials have XXXXXXX to XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX, saying XXX XXXX is XXXXXXXXXXXXX. That XXX XXXXXXX lawmakers of XXXXX XXXXXXX, who are XXXXXXX the XXXXXX for the XXXXXX election year XXXXX as XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXX.

"I think XXXX'XX XXXXXXX of XXXXXX Congress XXX, 'XX, XX God, this XXXXX is going to be XXXX XXXXXX,'" said Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.), XXXXXXXX of the XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX that XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXX.

XXXX than XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX Bush declared XX XXX to XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX in XXXX, even the XXXX of the XXXXXXX X.X. XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX in XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX.

Defense Department officials have said X.X. XXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXX X XXXXX. But XXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX like XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXX expended XX XXXXXX.

Dov Zakheim, the Pentagon's top XXXXXX official, has XXXX that XXXX XXX the XXXXX are XXXXXXXX, he XXXXXXX X.X. XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XX XXXX to XXXXX XXX XXXXXXX for the XXXX XXXXXX from XXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX. That XXXXXXXX XXXX of the XXXXXXX, the XXX XXXXX of XXXXXXXX XXXXXX that XXXXX XXXXX XX, and the XXXXXXXXX.

ThatXXX, however, is XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX this XXXX for XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXX are XXXXXXX about XX XXXXXXX a XXXXX, according XX XXXXXXXXX.

In a XXXXXX XXXX XXXXX, the XXXXXXXXXXX Congressional XXXXXX Office XXXXXXXXX that XXXXXXXX XXXXX in XXXXXXXXXXX and XXXX XXXX other X.X. XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX terrorism XXXXXX XXX XXXXX could reach XXX XXXXXXX next year.

"What is necessary XX to achieve aX XXXXXXX strategy and XXXXXXXX XX XXXXX XX XXXXXXX the XXXXXXXX, XXXX administration is committed XX," Bush XXXX reporters Friday, XXXXXXX that XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXX would XXXX "next year at the XXXXXXXXXXX time."

XXXXXXXXX, meanwhile, are XXXXXXX for a White HouseXXXXXXX for XXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXX to XXX XXXXXXX XXX 2004.

While XXXXXXXXXXXXX the XXXXXXXXXX of XXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXX, XXXX White House allies XXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXX the XXXXXXXXXXXXXX'X XXXXXXXXXX to XXXXXXX XXXXXXX.

"They've XXX XXX XXX on the XXXXXXX and XXXX'XX XXXXXX to XXXX XXXX the conservatives XXXX XXXX XXXX," said James Dyer, Republican chief of staff for the House XXXXXXXXXXXXXX Committee. "Having said that, XX XXXX XX XXX XXXXX XXXXX, whether there's a XXXXXXX or XXX."

Kolbe, who is XXXXXXXXXX with other XXXXXXX of XXXXXXXX to XXXX and XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX this month, said the XXXXXXXXXXXXXX'X XXXXXXXXX is "XXXXXXXXXXX the XXXXXXXXXXX that XXXXX XXXXX" for the X.X. XXXXXXXXXXXXXX of XXXX. "We've XXX to XXX on XXXX it XXXX and XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX what XXXX of XXXXX XXXXX are XXXXX to XX."

XXXXXXX XXXXXX have XXXXXXXX XXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXX on XXXXXXX XXXXX in XXXX.

XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX and XXXXXXX X'XXXXXX XXXX in a XXXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXX this XXXXX that XXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXX be XXXX XXXX XXXXXXX to XXXX XXXXXXX.

XXXXXXXXX for XXXXXX XXXXX said XXXXXXX XXXXX XXXX the XXXX XXXXXX XXXXX XXXXX from XXXX XXXXXXX to XXXX XXXXXXX. The American XXXXXXX of XXXX and XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XX-XXXX XXXXXXXX from XXXXX XXXXXXX to XXXX XXXXXXX.

XXXXXXXX the XXXXX, administration officials XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXX on XXX XXXXof XXXX will be XXXXXXXXXX by X.X. XXXXXXXXX. They XXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX: the future XXXXXXX and XXXXXXXX of X.X. XXXXXX, contributions XX XXXXXX, and XXXXXXX from the XXXXXXX XXXXX oil industry and XXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXX.

BOBDN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2003, 11:20 AM   #4
xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,498
Default RE:White House tight-lipped on postwar costs

Quote:
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Quote:
Originally posted by: xochi
you didnt get the memo?

Questioning the Admistration is Anti-American!


:Q
Oh, sorry. I must have missed it, xochi.

I'll have to edit out all questions of or opposition to the supreme chosen leader.



White House XXXXX-XXXXXX on XXXXXXX XXXXX

Most expect XXXXX of the peace to XXXXXX XXXX for XXXXXXXX


Tuesday, August 12, 2003


BY ALAN FRAM
Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. XXXX for XXXXXXXXX XXXX and XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX there is XXXXXX XXXXXXXX to XXX XXXXXX the XXX'X XXXXX tag, and some private XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX it could XXXXX as XXXX XX XXX XXXXXXX.

The Bush administration is XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXX so far, and that is XXXXXXXXX Republican as well as Democratic XXXXXXXXX.

The closest the administration has come XX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX'X XXXX XXX XXXXXX L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator of XXXXXXXX Iraq, said last month that "getting the country up and running again" XXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXX and XXXX XXXXX XXXXX.

He XXXXXXXX that XXXXXXXXX Iraq's XXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXX will XXXX XXX XXXXXXX and that XXXXXXX XXX XXXXX XXXXXX in XXXXX XXXX XXXXXXX an XXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXX.

In a recent interview on CNBC's "Capital Report," Bremer said of XXXXXXXXXX XXXXX: "It's probably well XXXXX XXX XXXXXXX, XXX XXXXXXX, maybe XXXX XXXXXXX. It's a XXX of XXXXX."

President Bush and other administration officials have XXXXXXX to XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX, saying XXX XXXX is XXXXXXXXXXXXX. That XXX XXXXXXX lawmakers of XXXXX XXXXXXX, who are XXXXXXX the XXXXXX for the XXXXXX election year XXXXX as XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXX.

"I think XXXX'XX XXXXXXX of XXXXXX Congress XXX, 'XX, XX God, this XXXXX is going to be XXXX XXXXXX,'" said Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.), XXXXXXXX of the XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX that XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXX.

XXXX than XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX Bush declared XX XXX to XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX in XXXX, even the XXXX of the XXXXXXX X.X. XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX in XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX.

Defense Department officials have said X.X. XXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXX X XXXXX. But XXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX like XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXX expended XX XXXXXX.

Dov Zakheim, the Pentagon's top XXXXXX official, has XXXX that XXXX XXX the XXXXX are XXXXXXXX, he XXXXXXX X.X. XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XX XXXX to XXXXX XXX XXXXXXX for the XXXX XXXXXX from XXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX. That XXXXXXXX XXXX of the XXXXXXX, the XXX XXXXX of XXXXXXXX XXXXXX that XXXXX XXXXX XX, and the XXXXXXXXX.

ThatXXX, however, is XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX this XXXX for XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXX are XXXXXXX about XX XXXXXXX a XXXXX, according XX XXXXXXXXX.

In a XXXXXX XXXX XXXXX, the XXXXXXXXXXX Congressional XXXXXX Office XXXXXXXXX that XXXXXXXX XXXXX in XXXXXXXXXXX and XXXX XXXX other X.X. XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX terrorism XXXXXX XXX XXXXX could reach XXX XXXXXXX next year.

"What is necessary XX to achieve aX XXXXXXX strategy and XXXXXXXX XX XXXXX XX XXXXXXX the XXXXXXXX, XXXX administration is committed XX," Bush XXXX reporters Friday, XXXXXXX that XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXX would XXXX "next year at the XXXXXXXXXXX time."

XXXXXXXXX, meanwhile, are XXXXXXX for a White HouseXXXXXXX for XXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXX to XXX XXXXXXX XXX 2004.

While XXXXXXXXXXXXX the XXXXXXXXXX of XXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXX, XXXX White House allies XXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXX the XXXXXXXXXXXXXX'X XXXXXXXXXX to XXXXXXX XXXXXXX.

"They've XXX XXX XXX on the XXXXXXX and XXXX'XX XXXXXX to XXXX XXXX the conservatives XXXX XXXX XXXX," said James Dyer, Republican chief of staff for the House XXXXXXXXXXXXXX Committee. "Having said that, XX XXXX XX XXX XXXXX XXXXX, whether there's a XXXXXXX or XXX."

Kolbe, who is XXXXXXXXXX with other XXXXXXX of XXXXXXXX to XXXX and XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX this month, said the XXXXXXXXXXXXXX'X XXXXXXXXX is "XXXXXXXXXXX the XXXXXXXXXXX that XXXXX XXXXX" for the X.X. XXXXXXXXXXXXXX of XXXX. "We've XXX to XXX on XXXX it XXXX and XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX what XXXX of XXXXX XXXXX are XXXXX to XX."

XXXXXXX XXXXXX have XXXXXXXX XXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXX on XXXXXXX XXXXX in XXXX.

XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX and XXXXXXX X'XXXXXX XXXX in a XXXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXX this XXXXX that XXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXX be XXXX XXXX XXXXXXX to XXXX XXXXXXX.

XXXXXXXXX for XXXXXX XXXXX said XXXXXXX XXXXX XXXX the XXXX XXXXXX XXXXX XXXXX from XXXX XXXXXXX to XXXX XXXXXXX. The American XXXXXXX of XXXX and XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XX-XXXX XXXXXXXX from XXXXX XXXXXXX to XXXX XXXXXXX.

XXXXXXXX the XXXXX, administration officials XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXX on XXX XXXXof XXXX will be XXXXXXXXXX by X.X. XXXXXXXXX. They XXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX: the future XXXXXXX and XXXXXXXX of X.X. XXXXXX, contributions XX XXXXXX, and XXXXXXX from the XXXXXXX XXXXX oil industry and XXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXX.

Do my tax dollars buy you bread and diapers? I sure hope not. You clearly have too much time on your hands...perhaps you would be better served getting a job and stop whining about how you think the country should be run.

xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2003, 11:57 AM   #5
outriding
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,049
Default RE:White House tight-lipped on postwar costs

Quote:
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Quote:
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Quote:
Originally posted by: xochi
you didnt get the memo?

Questioning the Admistration is Anti-American!


:Q
Oh, sorry. I must have missed it, xochi.

I'll have to edit out all questions of or opposition to the supreme chosen leader.



White House XXXXX-XXXXXX on XXXXXXX XXXXX

Most expect XXXXX of the peace to XXXXXX XXXX for XXXXXXXX


Tuesday, August 12, 2003


BY ALAN FRAM
Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. XXXX for XXXXXXXXX XXXX and XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX there is XXXXXX XXXXXXXX to XXX XXXXXX the XXX'X XXXXX tag, and some private XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX it could XXXXX as XXXX XX XXX XXXXXXX.

The Bush administration is XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXX so far, and that is XXXXXXXXX Republican as well as Democratic XXXXXXXXX.

The closest the administration has come XX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX'X XXXX XXX XXXXXX L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator of XXXXXXXX Iraq, said last month that "getting the country up and running again" XXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXX and XXXX XXXXX XXXXX.

He XXXXXXXX that XXXXXXXXX Iraq's XXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXX will XXXX XXX XXXXXXX and that XXXXXXX XXX XXXXX XXXXXX in XXXXX XXXX XXXXXXX an XXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXX.

In a recent interview on CNBC's "Capital Report," Bremer said of XXXXXXXXXX XXXXX: "It's probably well XXXXX XXX XXXXXXX, XXX XXXXXXX, maybe XXXX XXXXXXX. It's a XXX of XXXXX."

President Bush and other administration officials have XXXXXXX to XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX, saying XXX XXXX is XXXXXXXXXXXXX. That XXX XXXXXXX lawmakers of XXXXX XXXXXXX, who are XXXXXXX the XXXXXX for the XXXXXX election year XXXXX as XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXX.

"I think XXXX'XX XXXXXXX of XXXXXX Congress XXX, 'XX, XX God, this XXXXX is going to be XXXX XXXXXX,'" said Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.), XXXXXXXX of the XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX that XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXX.

XXXX than XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX Bush declared XX XXX to XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX in XXXX, even the XXXX of the XXXXXXX X.X. XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX in XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX.

Defense Department officials have said X.X. XXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXX X XXXXX. But XXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX like XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXX expended XX XXXXXX.

Dov Zakheim, the Pentagon's top XXXXXX official, has XXXX that XXXX XXX the XXXXX are XXXXXXXX, he XXXXXXX X.X. XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XX XXXX to XXXXX XXX XXXXXXX for the XXXX XXXXXX from XXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX. That XXXXXXXX XXXX of the XXXXXXX, the XXX XXXXX of XXXXXXXX XXXXXX that XXXXX XXXXX XX, and the XXXXXXXXX.

ThatXXX, however, is XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX this XXXX for XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXX are XXXXXXX about XX XXXXXXX a XXXXX, according XX XXXXXXXXX.

In a XXXXXX XXXX XXXXX, the XXXXXXXXXXX Congressional XXXXXX Office XXXXXXXXX that XXXXXXXX XXXXX in XXXXXXXXXXX and XXXX XXXX other X.X. XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX terrorism XXXXXX XXX XXXXX could reach XXX XXXXXXX next year.

"What is necessary XX to achieve aX XXXXXXX strategy and XXXXXXXX XX XXXXX XX XXXXXXX the XXXXXXXX, XXXX administration is committed XX," Bush XXXX reporters Friday, XXXXXXX that XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXX would XXXX "next year at the XXXXXXXXXXX time."

XXXXXXXXX, meanwhile, are XXXXXXX for a White HouseXXXXXXX for XXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXX to XXX XXXXXXX XXX 2004.

While XXXXXXXXXXXXX the XXXXXXXXXX of XXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXX, XXXX White House allies XXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXX the XXXXXXXXXXXXXX'X XXXXXXXXXX to XXXXXXX XXXXXXX.

"They've XXX XXX XXX on the XXXXXXX and XXXX'XX XXXXXX to XXXX XXXX the conservatives XXXX XXXX XXXX," said James Dyer, Republican chief of staff for the House XXXXXXXXXXXXXX Committee. "Having said that, XX XXXX XX XXX XXXXX XXXXX, whether there's a XXXXXXX or XXX."

Kolbe, who is XXXXXXXXXX with other XXXXXXX of XXXXXXXX to XXXX and XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX this month, said the XXXXXXXXXXXXXX'X XXXXXXXXX is "XXXXXXXXXXX the XXXXXXXXXXX that XXXXX XXXXX" for the X.X. XXXXXXXXXXXXXX of XXXX. "We've XXX to XXX on XXXX it XXXX and XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX what XXXX of XXXXX XXXXX are XXXXX to XX."

XXXXXXX XXXXXX have XXXXXXXX XXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXX on XXXXXXX XXXXX in XXXX.

XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX and XXXXXXX X'XXXXXX XXXX in a XXXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXX this XXXXX that XXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXX be XXXX XXXX XXXXXXX to XXXX XXXXXXX.

XXXXXXXXX for XXXXXX XXXXX said XXXXXXX XXXXX XXXX the XXXX XXXXXX XXXXX XXXXX from XXXX XXXXXXX to XXXX XXXXXXX. The American XXXXXXX of XXXX and XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XX-XXXX XXXXXXXX from XXXXX XXXXXXX to XXXX XXXXXXX.

XXXXXXXX the XXXXX, administration officials XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXX on XXX XXXXof XXXX will be XXXXXXXXXX by X.X. XXXXXXXXX. They XXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX: the future XXXXXXX and XXXXXXXX of X.X. XXXXXX, contributions XX XXXXXX, and XXXXXXX from the XXXXXXX XXXXX oil industry and XXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXX.

Do my tax dollars buy you bread and diapers? I sure hope not. You clearly have too much time on your hands...perhaps you would be better served getting a job and stop whining about how you think the country should be run.
ahh yes the person who is complaining about how someone has too much time on their hands makes a worthless post [img]i/expressions/rolleye.gif[/img]

outriding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2003, 12:45 PM   #6
flavio
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 6,822
Default RE:White House tight-lipped on postwar costs

Quote:
Originally posted by: BOBDN
And well they should be with some estimates running as high as $600 BILLION...[/L]
You can't really buy anything with 600 billion anyway.

__________________
My Dixie wrecked
Game Revolution
flavio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2003, 05:55 PM   #7
Bowfinger
Lifer
 
Bowfinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 13,811
Default RE:White House tight-lipped on postwar costs

Quote:
Originally posted by: flavio
Quote:
Originally posted by: BOBDN
And well they should be with some estimates running as high as $600 BILLION...[/L]
You can't really buy anything with 600 billion anyway.
True enough. $600B doesn't buy what it used to.

What was the projected cost of universal health care again? Thank God we've got all these "conservatives" to prevent such wasteful spending.
__________________
If you never encounter anything in your community that offends you, you're not living in a free society.

"An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it." - Jef Mallett.
Bowfinger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2003, 06:02 PM   #8
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
 
CADsortaGUY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Not Iowa
Posts: 25,020
Default RE:White House tight-lipped on postwar costs

Quote:
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Quote:
Originally posted by: flavio
Quote:
Originally posted by: BOBDN
And well they should be with some estimates running as high as $600 BILLION...[/L]
You can't really buy anything with 600 billion anyway.
True enough. $600B doesn't buy what it used to.

What was the projected cost of universal health care again? Thank God we've got all these "conservatives" to prevent such wasteful spending.
Yep - I thank God we exist everyday. Thanks for noticing

CkG
__________________
“We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much.” - Ronald Reagan

The US Constitution - have you read it?

Shaw Controls & Design
CADsortaGUY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2003, 06:19 PM   #9
Bowfinger
Lifer
 
Bowfinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 13,811
Default RE:White House tight-lipped on postwar costs

Quote:
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Quote:
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Quote:
Originally posted by: flavio
Quote:
Originally posted by: BOBDN
And well they should be with some estimates running as high as $600 BILLION...[/L]
You can't really buy anything with 600 billion anyway.
True enough. $600B doesn't buy what it used to.

What was the projected cost of universal health care again? Thank God we've got all these "conservatives" to prevent such wasteful spending.
Yep - I thank God we exist everyday. Thanks for noticing

CkG
And your children will spit on your grave for screwing them, letting Bush pander to the greedy and the ignoramuses who can't see the inevitable result of his reckless fiscal policy: stratospheric taxes and gutted services for future Americans.

__________________
If you never encounter anything in your community that offends you, you're not living in a free society.

"An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it." - Jef Mallett.
Bowfinger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2003, 06:20 PM   #10
charrison
Lifer
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 16,977
Default RE:White House tight-lipped on postwar costs

I thought were doing it on the cheap
__________________
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.


charrison is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2003, 06:25 PM   #11
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
 
CADsortaGUY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Not Iowa
Posts: 25,020
Default RE:White House tight-lipped on postwar costs

Quote:
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Quote:
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Quote:
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Quote:
Originally posted by: flavio
Quote:
Originally posted by: BOBDN
And well they should be with some estimates running as high as $600 BILLION...[/L]
You can't really buy anything with 600 billion anyway.
True enough. $600B doesn't buy what it used to.

What was the projected cost of universal health care again? Thank God we've got all these "conservatives" to prevent such wasteful spending.
Yep - I thank God we exist everyday. Thanks for noticing

CkG
And your children will spit on your grave for screwing them, letting Bush pander to the greedy and the ignoramuses who can't see the inevitable result of his reckless fiscal policy: stratospheric taxes and gutted services for future Americans.
Yep - keep up the shrill rhetoric - it really does help your cause

BUSH IS A DISASTER!!!!

CkG

__________________
“We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much.” - Ronald Reagan

The US Constitution - have you read it?

Shaw Controls & Design
CADsortaGUY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2003, 06:30 PM   #12
Bowfinger
Lifer
 
Bowfinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 13,811
Default RE:White House tight-lipped on postwar costs

Quote:
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Quote:
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Quote:
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Quote:
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Quote:
Originally posted by: flavio
Quote:
Originally posted by: BOBDN
And well they should be with some estimates running as high as $600 BILLION...[/L]
You can't really buy anything with 600 billion anyway.
True enough. $600B doesn't buy what it used to.

What was the projected cost of universal health care again? Thank God we've got all these "conservatives" to prevent such wasteful spending.
Yep - I thank God we exist everyday. Thanks for noticing

CkG
And your children will spit on your grave for screwing them, letting Bush pander to the greedy and the ignoramuses who can't see the inevitable result of his reckless fiscal policy: stratospheric taxes and gutted services for future Americans.
Yep - keep up the shrill rhetoric - it really does help your cause

BUSH IS A DISASTER!!!!

CkG
Noting that as ususal, you dodge the issue because you can't refute it.
__________________
If you never encounter anything in your community that offends you, you're not living in a free society.

"An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it." - Jef Mallett.
Bowfinger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2003, 06:32 PM   #13
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
 
CADsortaGUY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Not Iowa
Posts: 25,020
Default RE:White House tight-lipped on postwar costs

Quote:
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Quote:
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Quote:
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Quote:
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Quote:
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Quote:
Originally posted by: flavio
Quote:
Originally posted by: BOBDN
And well they should be with some estimates running as high as $600 BILLION...[/L]
You can't really buy anything with 600 billion anyway.
True enough. $600B doesn't buy what it used to.

What was the projected cost of universal health care again? Thank God we've got all these "conservatives" to prevent such wasteful spending.
Yep - I thank God we exist everyday. Thanks for noticing

CkG
And your children will spit on your grave for screwing them, letting Bush pander to the greedy and the ignoramuses who can't see the inevitable result of his reckless fiscal policy: stratospheric taxes and gutted services for future Americans.
Yep - keep up the shrill rhetoric - it really does help your cause

BUSH IS A DISASTER!!!!

CkG
Noting that as ususal, you dodge the issue because you can't refute it.
shrill rhetoric isn't substantive enough to bother with refutation. Nice try though.

CkG
__________________
“We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much.” - Ronald Reagan

The US Constitution - have you read it?

Shaw Controls & Design
CADsortaGUY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2003, 06:33 PM   #14
UltraQuiet
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 5,755
Default RE:White House tight-lipped on postwar costs

Coming out or not coming out with a "cost estimate" is really a no win situation. If you don't, the oligrophrenics claim you are "hiding something". If you do, and it's too low, people scream you're low balling it or if you run over it you look bad. If it's too high, then people scream about that. They should just do what they're doing, say they don't know how much it's going to cost, try to get a good estimate, ask Congress for the money and ignore the shrill whining of the idiots.
UltraQuiet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2003, 06:37 PM   #15
Gaard
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 8,911
Default RE: White House tight-lipped on postwar costs

Well if they'd just do without those damn x-ray glasses, they'd have an estimate that's acceptable to all. Those mutha's ain't cheap!
__________________
?But make no mistake ? as I said earlier ? we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.?
~ Ari Fleisher, Press Briefing, 2003-04-10

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.
Paul Wolfowitz May 28, 2003


Gaard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2003, 06:50 PM   #16
BaliBabyDoc
Lifer
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 10,738
Default RE:White House tight-lipped on postwar costs

Curiously, the administration has no idea during the budget process but knows for certain than an Emergency appropriation will be necessary in the near future. Legitimate leadership would say . . . 1) this how much it's cost so far, 2) this is the best case scenario, 3) this the worst case scenario, 4) here's our best guess.
BaliBabyDoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2003, 07:01 PM   #17
UltraQuiet
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 5,755
Default RE:White House tight-lipped on postwar costs

Quote:
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Curiously, the administration has no idea during the budget process but knows for certain than an Emergency appropriation will be necessary in the near future. Legitimate leadership would say . . . 1) this how much it's cost so far, 2) this is the best case scenario, 3) this the worst case scenario, 4) here's our best guess.

Exactly what I was trying to say. I had to work "oligrophrenic" into the post though.



[img]i/expressions/rolleye.gif[/img]
UltraQuiet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2003, 07:07 PM   #18
Bowfinger
Lifer
 
Bowfinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 13,811
Default RE:White House tight-lipped on postwar costs

Quote:
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Quote:
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Quote:
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Quote:
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Quote:
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Quote:
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Quote:
Originally posted by: flavio
Quote:
Originally posted by: BOBDN
And well they should be with some estimates running as high as $600 BILLION...[/L]
You can't really buy anything with 600 billion anyway.
True enough. $600B doesn't buy what it used to.

What was the projected cost of universal health care again? Thank God we've got all these "conservatives" to prevent such wasteful spending.
Yep - I thank God we exist everyday. Thanks for noticing

CkG
And your children will spit on your grave for screwing them, letting Bush pander to the greedy and the ignoramuses who can't see the inevitable result of his reckless fiscal policy: stratospheric taxes and gutted services for future Americans.
Yep - keep up the shrill rhetoric - it really does help your cause

BUSH IS A DISASTER!!!!

CkG
Noting that as ususal, you dodge the issue because you can't refute it.
shrill rhetoric isn't substantive enough to bother with refutation. Nice try though.

CkG
Really? If a multi-trillion dollar deficit increase isn't "substantive enough to bother with", what is? The fact is, you can't respond because you haven't a clue how we will pay off this debt without resorting to massive service cuts and massive tax increases -- just like I said. Bush doesn't care because he'll be out of office and he's stinking rich. Lord knows why you don't care.

(Re. "shrill", looks like Bill O'Reilly taught you Bush-worshippers a new word. Glad to see it, your mindless attack rhetoric was getting repetitive. But if you keep your heads in the sand, chanting your little mantra of denial, the next word you may learn is "defeat".)
__________________
If you never encounter anything in your community that offends you, you're not living in a free society.

"An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it." - Jef Mallett.
Bowfinger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2003, 07:10 PM   #19
DealMonkey
Lifer
 
DealMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 13,137
Default RE:White House tight-lipped on postwar costs

Yeah, with the Bushies spending like a teenage girl @ the mall with her dad's credit card, and the dems pounding their fists on the desks about fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget, you wonder who the real conservatives are. Or, at least I do.
DealMonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2003, 07:12 PM   #20
Bowfinger
Lifer
 
Bowfinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 13,811
Default RE:White House tight-lipped on postwar costs

Quote:
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Yeah, with the Bushies spending like a teenage girl @ the mall with her dad's credit card, and the dems pounding their fists on the desks about fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget, you wonder who the real conservatives are. Or, at least I do.
I don't wonder at all. Haven't since Reaganomics.
__________________
If you never encounter anything in your community that offends you, you're not living in a free society.

"An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it." - Jef Mallett.
Bowfinger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2003, 07:53 PM   #21
sandorski
No Lifer
 
sandorski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: coquitlam, bc
Posts: 57,383
Default RE:White House tight-lipped on postwar costs

Quote:
Originally posted by: xochi
you didnt get the memo?

Questioning the Admistration is Anti-American!


:Q
No, repeated questioning is "anti-American".
__________________

FX 8320@4ghz||Zalman LQ310||AsusM5A99X EVO R2
||XFX 5870 1gb||16gb Corsair Vengeance DDR3||Seasonic M12 II 500watts||Zalman Z9 Plus||Asus MS238H

Science inspires us towards a better tomorrow, Fundamentalism wants us to die.
sandorski is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2003, 07:58 PM   #22
Gaard
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 8,911
Default RE: White House tight-lipped on postwar costs

How many questions is one allowed before he's deported?
__________________
?But make no mistake ? as I said earlier ? we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.?
~ Ari Fleisher, Press Briefing, 2003-04-10

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.
Paul Wolfowitz May 28, 2003


Gaard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2003, 08:18 PM   #23
sandorski
No Lifer
 
sandorski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: coquitlam, bc
Posts: 57,383
Default RE:White House tight-lipped on postwar costs

Quote:
Originally posted by: Gaard
How many questions is one allowed before he's deported?
I dunno, perhaps the three strikes law applies.
__________________

FX 8320@4ghz||Zalman LQ310||AsusM5A99X EVO R2
||XFX 5870 1gb||16gb Corsair Vengeance DDR3||Seasonic M12 II 500watts||Zalman Z9 Plus||Asus MS238H

Science inspires us towards a better tomorrow, Fundamentalism wants us to die.
sandorski is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2003, 09:19 PM   #24
DealMonkey
Lifer
 
DealMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 13,137
Default RE:White House tight-lipped on postwar costs

Where are the WMDs?! Where are the WMDs?!? WHERE ARE THE WMDS!!!!!!

:Q - oh oh...
DealMonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2003, 09:23 PM   #25
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
 
CADsortaGUY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Not Iowa
Posts: 25,020
Default RE:White House tight-lipped on postwar costs

Quote:
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Quote:
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Quote:
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Quote:
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Quote:
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Quote:
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Quote:
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Quote:
Originally posted by: flavio
Quote:
Originally posted by: BOBDN
And well they should be with some estimates running as high as $600 BILLION...[/L]
You can't really buy anything with 600 billion anyway.
True enough. $600B doesn't buy what it used to.

What was the projected cost of universal health care again? Thank God we've got all these "conservatives" to prevent such wasteful spending.
Yep - I thank God we exist everyday. Thanks for noticing

CkG
And your children will spit on your grave for screwing them, letting Bush pander to the greedy and the ignoramuses who can't see the inevitable result of his reckless fiscal policy: stratospheric taxes and gutted services for future Americans.
Yep - keep up the shrill rhetoric - it really does help your cause

BUSH IS A DISASTER!!!!

CkG
Noting that as ususal, you dodge the issue because you can't refute it.
shrill rhetoric isn't substantive enough to bother with refutation. Nice try though.

CkG
Really? If a multi-trillion dollar deficit increase isn't "substantive enough to bother with", what is? The fact is, you can't respond because you haven't a clue how we will pay off this debt without resorting to massive service cuts and massive tax increases -- just like I said. Bush doesn't care because he'll be out of office and he's stinking rich. Lord knows why you don't care.

(Re. "shrill", looks like Bill O'Reilly taught you Bush-worshippers a new word. Glad to see it, your mindless attack rhetoric was getting repetitive. But if you keep your heads in the sand, chanting your little mantra of denial, the next word you may learn is "defeat".)
I don't watch O'Reilly, infact I watch very little TV. Your rhetoric is shrill, your mini-rants that are all over the board are quite amusing though - keep it up - it help our side

Multi-trillion deficit? Wow - look folks- we have a comedian in the crowd! The FACT is that you and the 9 dwarves don't have and use ideas to contradict Bush - you just attack attack attack. Do you really think you are going to convert anyone with your screeching?

CkG
__________________
“We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much.” - Ronald Reagan

The US Constitution - have you read it?

Shaw Controls & Design
CADsortaGUY is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.