<sf> wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 19:53:25 GMT, "Dave Bugg" >
> wrote:
>
>>The engines
>>on the Airbus will be GE, produced here in America, as will other key
>>components. The Airbus will have final assembly in America. And while the
>>Northrup-Gruman contract will not employ as MANY Americans as continued
>>production of the 767, it is going to be creating a bunch of new jobs.
>
> Thanks, but this *is* and election year and the economy is in
> shambles. They need to do better than that.
>

What do you suggest? Surely, because it is an election year we should not
buy less than the best product for our military.

The aircraft industry is very international in scope and components and sub
assemblies are made all over the world by both Boeing and Airbus and engine
suppliers Pratt and GE who both have partnerships with Rolls Royce.

On Mar 9, 1:00*pm, sf wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 19:53:25 GMT, "Dave Bugg" >
> wrote:
>
> >The engines
> >on the Airbus will be GE, produced here in America, as will other key
> >components. The Airbus will have final assembly in America. And while the
> >Northrup-Gruman contract will not employ as MANY Americans as continued
> >production of the 767, it is going to be creating a bunch of new jobs.
>
> Thanks, but this *is* and election year and the economy is in
> shambles. *They need to do better than that.
>
> --
> See return address to reply by email
> remove the smile first

Exactly.

On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 20:10:58 GMT, "Dave Bugg" >
wrote:

>What would make a far bigger impact would be to dump the farm subsidies. The
>subsidies have little or nothing to do with food production, just fuel
>production (ethanol).

We're in agreement there. Farm subsidies only seem to support
agribusiness farmers.

--
See return address to reply by email
remove the smile first

On 2008-03-09, sf <sf> wrote:

> We're in agreement there. Farm subsidies only seem to support
> agribusiness farmers.

Only agribusiness can afford lobbyists.

nb

sf wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 20:10:58 GMT, "Dave Bugg" >
> wrote:
>
>> What would make a far bigger impact would be to dump the farm
>> subsidies. The subsidies have little or nothing to do with food
>> production, just fuel production (ethanol).
>
> We're in agreement there. Farm subsidies only seem to support
> agribusiness farmers.

And they're not 'farmers' in any meaning of the word. They're more akin to
miners and oil drillers. Unless they're raising food for consumption, they
should be cut-off entirely.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

notbob wrote:
> On 2008-03-09, sf <sf> wrote:
>
>> We're in agreement there. Farm subsidies only seem to support
>> agribusiness farmers.
>
> Only agribusiness can afford lobbyists.

Well, they're one group. But you also have the granges (which are a very
powerful lobby), growers co-ops, and other single, small farm groups which
band together -- like the blueberry, apple, and orange growers, to hire
lobbiests.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"enigma" > wrote in message
. ..
> hahabogus > wrote in
> :
>
>> So...how do they eat without beaks?
>
> they actually cut just the ends of the beak off, not the whole
> beak. it is, however, painful & unnecessary if the birds are
> not kept under overcrowded, highly stressful conditions.
> production eggs birds live less than 3 years.
>

As opposed to what? Their wild brethren, guinea fowl, can't live even that
long in the wild. It isn't like they exactly retire you know, wild or
domestic. I'm not into debeaking and I always buy certified free range eggs
(real free range, not the technical free range.) But en emotional straw man
argument using presumed early mortality is just plain silly.

Paul

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:17:23 GMT, "Paul M. Cook" >
wrote:

>
>"enigma" > wrote in message
...
>> hahabogus > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> So...how do they eat without beaks?
>>
>> they actually cut just the ends of the beak off, not the whole
>> beak. it is, however, painful & unnecessary if the birds are
>> not kept under overcrowded, highly stressful conditions.
>> production eggs birds live less than 3 years.
>>
>
>As opposed to what? Their wild brethren, guinea fowl, can't live even that
>long in the wild. It isn't like they exactly retire you know, wild or
>domestic. I'm not into debeaking and I always buy certified free range eggs
>(real free range, not the technical free range.) But en emotional straw man
>argument using presumed early mortality is just plain silly.
>
>Paul
>

Three years in the world of chicken farming is a ripe old age.
Broilers could only dream about that. From Hatch to Dispatch for
broilers is just 42 days.

Ross

"Paul M. Cook" > wrote in
news:TU7Bj.9025$wM2.878@trnddc07:

>
> "enigma" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> hahabogus > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> So...how do they eat without beaks?
>>
>> they actually cut just the ends of the beak off, not the
>> whole beak. it is, however, painful & unnecessary if the
>> birds are not kept under overcrowded, highly stressful
>> conditions. production eggs birds live less than 3 years.
>>
>
> As opposed to what? Their wild brethren, guinea fowl,
> can't live even that long in the wild. It isn't like they
> exactly retire you know, wild or domestic. I'm not into
> debeaking and I always buy certified free range eggs (real
> free range, not the technical free range.) But en
> emotional straw man argument using presumed early mortality
> is just plain silly.

no, they're bred to burn out. i have a flock of chickens & my
oldest hen is almost 6 years old. she still produces eggs, but
not one every 26 hours like a production bird, more like one
every three days. in a production setting she would be culled
because they aren't getting their money's worth out of her. in
my flock she's just as useful because she eats as many bugs as
the younger, more productive girls (none of whom are
production breeds as i dislike finding a chicken dead in the
coop at less than 2 years old)
and it's one thing to die from old age & another to die from
peritonitis from being bred to overproduce
lee
--
Last night while sitting in my chair
I pinged a host that wasn't there
It wasn't there again today
The host resolved to NSA.

wrote in
:

> Three years in the world of chicken farming is a ripe old
> age. Broilers could only dream about that. From Hatch to
> Dispatch for broilers is just 42 days.

which is why modern chickens are flavorless & watery. there's
nothing *to* them at that age.
lee
--
Last night while sitting in my chair
I pinged a host that wasn't there
It wasn't there again today
The host resolved to NSA.

I feel for farm creatures which are abused. There is no excusing suffering
simply to preserve a bottom line. I do what I can by not supporting the
offenders. I pay mroe for real organic dairy and eggs and I know if
everyone did the producers would clean up their acts.

> and it's one thing to die from old age & another to die from
> peritonitis from being bred to overproduce

Having nearly died from peritonitis myself I have to agree.

Paul

Tom Williams wrote:

> You must be aware that if the product is not produced and packaged in
> the United States it is likley to be toxic or, at minimum,
> contaminated in some way. Food from europe is only marginally safe;
> food from the other countries of the third world is to be avoided at
> all cost.
>
How does your paranoia affect your dinner plate?
Also that large sweeping generalization is both sad and inaccurate.
We can contaminate foods just as easily here in the US as anywhere else.

"Goomba38" > ha scritto nel messaggio
. ..
> Tom Williams wrote:
>
>> You must be aware that if the product is not produced and packaged in
>> the United States it is likley to be toxic or, at minimum,
>> contaminated in some way. Food from europe is only marginally safe;
>> food from the other countries of the third world is to be avoided at
>> all cost.
>>
> How does your paranoia affect your dinner plate?
> Also that large sweeping generalization is both sad and inaccurate.
> We can contaminate foods just as easily here in the US as anywhere else.

That's just what the Italians say about the US!

"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote in message
t...
>
> <sf> wrote in message ...
>> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 19:53:25 GMT, "Dave Bugg" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>The engines
>>>on the Airbus will be GE, produced here in America, as will other key
>>>components. The Airbus will have final assembly in America. And while the
>>>Northrup-Gruman contract will not employ as MANY Americans as continued
>>>production of the 767, it is going to be creating a bunch of new jobs.
>>
>> Thanks, but this *is* and election year and the economy is in
>> shambles. They need to do better than that.
>>
>
> What do you suggest? Surely, because it is an election year we should not
> buy less than the best product for our military.
>
> The aircraft industry is very international in scope and components and
> sub assemblies are made all over the world by both Boeing and Airbus and
> engine suppliers Pratt and GE who both have partnerships with Rolls Royce.
>

There is nothing new about all this. Are you aware the Army tank, the M1A
is now being made in China? China also makes the secret electronics for it
and I know Boeing has them make the electronics for the F18. And China has
the worst record when it comes to stealing technology. But they are so much
cheaper!! China also makes major sub assemblies for the F16 and on the
domestic front almost all sub assemblies for the new 787 will be made in
China and Japan as well. So just where do you see Boeing so concerned about
American jobs?

Boeing lost the deal for 2 reasons 1) the Airbus frame is just better 2)
Boeing got caught wheeling and dealing to lease planes back to the Air Force
for more than it would cost for the AF to buy them. Now what made that a
crime, other than the fact it was one, is they got caught and they
embarrassed John McCain in the process so he helped scuttle the Boeing deal
out of retaliation.

Politics makes for strange bedfellows.

Paul

"merryb" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 9, 1:00 pm, sf wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 19:53:25 GMT, "Dave Bugg" >
> wrote:
>
> >The engines
> >on the Airbus will be GE, produced here in America, as will other key
> >components. The Airbus will have final assembly in America. And while the
> >Northrup-Gruman contract will not employ as MANY Americans as continued
> >production of the 767, it is going to be creating a bunch of new jobs.
>
> Thanks, but this *is* and election year and the economy is in
> shambles. They need to do better than that.
>
> --
> See return address to reply by email
> remove the smile first

Exactly.

If they could do better I suppose the economy wouldn't be in such a
shambles.

Paul

On Mar 11, 6:50*am, "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
> "merryb" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Mar 9, 1:00 pm, sf wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 19:53:25 GMT, "Dave Bugg" >
> > wrote:
>
> > >The engines
> > >on the Airbus will be GE, produced here in America, as will other key
> > >components. The Airbus will have final assembly in America. And while the
> > >Northrup-Gruman contract will not employ as MANY Americans as continued
> > >production of the 767, it is going to be creating a bunch of new jobs.
>
> > Thanks, but this *is* and election year and the economy is in
> > shambles. They need to do better than that.
>
> > --
> > See return address to reply by email
> > remove the smile first
>
> Exactly.
>
> If they could do better I suppose the economy wouldn't be in such a
> shambles.
>
> Paul

Sorry, but I blame George W for all this, altho I know he's not
entirely responsible.

merryb wrote:
> On Mar 11, 6:50 am, "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:

>> If they could do better I suppose the economy wouldn't be in such a
>> shambles.
>>
>> Paul
>
> Sorry, but I blame George W for all this, altho I know he's not
> entirely responsible.

Yeah, God forbid objective logic be used when subjective emotions is so
much more fun! LOL

On Mar 11, 9:55*am, Goomba38 > wrote:
> merryb wrote:
> > On Mar 11, 6:50 am, "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
> >> If they could do better I suppose the economy wouldn't be in such a
> >> shambles.
>
> >> Paul
>
> > Sorry, but I blame George W for all this, altho I know he's not
> > entirely responsible.
>
> Yeah, God forbid objective logic be used when subjective emotions is so
> much more fun! *LOL

Plus, he's such a dumbass!

Paul M. Cook wrote:

> ...... Now
> what made that a crime, other than the fact it was one, is they got
> caught and they embarrassed John McCain in the process so he helped
> scuttle the Boeing deal out of retaliation.

There isn't any information I have out there which supports the contention
that John McCain scuttled the deal. Boeing never embarrassed McCain, McCain
was one of those who had fought the lease deal, and who brought the issue to
light and thumped Boeing for their part in the corruption scandal.

Some other facts which favored Northrup-Gruman we

1). They produced an actual prototype of a new generation refueling boom
which the Air Force had requested. Boeing promised a new boom, but didn't
build a prototype.

2). One analyst who followed the contest said that Chicago-based Boeing
seemed arrogant and offered a plan that Air Force officials thought would
deliver only 19 tankers by 2013 compared with 49 by the Airbus team.

3). "I can sum it up in one word: more," said Gen. Arthur J. Lichte in
explaining why the Air Force chose the Northrop-Airbus entry. "More
passengers, more cargo, more fuel to offload, more [battle casualties] it
can carry, more availability, more flexibility and more dependability."

2). While N-G worked diligently with the Air Force throughout every stage of
development with the project, it was stated by Loren Thompson, a defense
analyst at the Lexington Institute, "The Boeing team was not responsive and
often was not even polite. Somehow that all eluded senior management. They
were not even aware there was a problem." Apparently, this was based on
conversations he said he had with defense officials.



--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

merryb wrote:
> On Mar 11, 6:50 am, "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
>> "merryb" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>> On Mar 9, 1:00 pm, sf wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 19:53:25 GMT, "Dave Bugg" >
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> The engines
>>>> on the Airbus will be GE, produced here in America, as will other
>>>> key components. The Airbus will have final assembly in America.
>>>> And while the Northrup-Gruman contract will not employ as MANY
>>>> Americans as continued production of the 767, it is going to be
>>>> creating a bunch of new jobs.
>>
>>> Thanks, but this *is* and election year and the economy is in
>>> shambles. They need to do better than that.
>>
>>> --
>>> See return address to reply by email
>>> remove the smile first
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>> If they could do better I suppose the economy wouldn't be in such a
>> shambles.
>>
>> Paul
>
> Sorry, but I blame George W for all this, altho I know he's not
> entirely responsible.

Please explain how he is responsible at all.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

On Mar 11, 3:28*pm, "Dave Bugg" > wrote:
> merryb wrote:
> > On Mar 11, 6:50 am, "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
> >> "merryb" > wrote in message
>
> ....
> >> On Mar 9, 1:00 pm, sf wrote:
>
> >>> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 19:53:25 GMT, "Dave Bugg" >
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> The engines
> >>>> on the Airbus will be GE, produced here in America, as will other
> >>>> key components. The Airbus will have final assembly in America.
> >>>> And while the Northrup-Gruman contract will not employ as MANY
> >>>> Americans as continued production of the 767, it is going to be
> >>>> creating a bunch of new jobs.
>
> >>> Thanks, but this *is* and election year and the economy is in
> >>> shambles. They need to do better than that.
>
> >>> --
> >>> See return address to reply by email
> >>> remove the smile first
>
> >> Exactly.
>
> >> If they could do better I suppose the economy wouldn't be in such a
> >> shambles.
>
> >> Paul
>
> > Sorry, but I blame George W for all this, altho I know he's not
> > entirely responsible.
>
> Please explain how he is responsible at all.
>
> --
> Davewww.davebbq.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Sorry, I really wasn't trying to start a political discussion. He's
responsible for many things, this not really being one of them that I
know of.

merryb wrote:
> On Mar 11, 3:28 pm, "Dave Bugg" > wrote:
>> merryb wrote:
>>> On Mar 11, 6:50 am, "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
>>>> "merryb" > wrote in message
>>
>>>> ...
>>>> On Mar 9, 1:00 pm, sf wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 19:53:25 GMT, "Dave Bugg"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>
>>>>>> The engines
>>>>>> on the Airbus will be GE, produced here in America, as will other
>>>>>> key components. The Airbus will have final assembly in America.
>>>>>> And while the Northrup-Gruman contract will not employ as MANY
>>>>>> Americans as continued production of the 767, it is going to be
>>>>>> creating a bunch of new jobs.
>>
>>>>> Thanks, but this *is* and election year and the economy is in
>>>>> shambles. They need to do better than that.
>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> See return address to reply by email
>>>>> remove the smile first
>>
>>>> Exactly.
>>
>>>> If they could do better I suppose the economy wouldn't be in such a
>>>> shambles.
>>
>>>> Paul
>>
>>> Sorry, but I blame George W for all this, altho I know he's not
>>> entirely responsible.
>>
>> Please explain how he is responsible at all.
>>
>> --
>> Davewww.davebbq.com- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Sorry, I really wasn't trying to start a political discussion. He's
> responsible for many things, this not really being one of them that I
> know of.

The issue that bothers me about Bush is his willingness to stand by and not
veto spending bills -- brought by congress -- which contain massive
earmarked amendments.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
news:sHDBj.6240$e52.5194@trndny01...
> Paul M. Cook wrote:
>
>> ...... Now
>> what made that a crime, other than the fact it was one, is they got
>> caught and they embarrassed John McCain in the process so he helped
>> scuttle the Boeing deal out of retaliation.
>
> There isn't any information I have out there which supports the contention
> that John McCain scuttled the deal. Boeing never embarrassed McCain,
> McCain was one of those who had fought the lease deal, and who brought the
> issue to light and thumped Boeing for their part in the corruption
> scandal.
>
> Some other facts which favored Northrup-Gruman we
>
> 1). They produced an actual prototype of a new generation refueling boom
> which the Air Force had requested. Boeing promised a new boom, but didn't
> build a prototype.
>
> 2). One analyst who followed the contest said that Chicago-based Boeing
> seemed arrogant and offered a plan that Air Force officials thought would
> deliver only 19 tankers by 2013 compared with 49 by the Airbus team.
>
> 3). "I can sum it up in one word: more," said Gen. Arthur J. Lichte in
> explaining why the Air Force chose the Northrop-Airbus entry. "More
> passengers, more cargo, more fuel to offload, more [battle casualties] it
> can carry, more availability, more flexibility and more dependability."
>
> 2). While N-G worked diligently with the Air Force throughout every stage
> of development with the project, it was stated by Loren Thompson, a
> defense analyst at the Lexington Institute, "The Boeing team was not
> responsive and often was not even polite. Somehow that all eluded senior
> management. They were not even aware there was a problem." Apparently,
> this was based on conversations he said he had with defense officials.
>
>
>
> --
> Dave
> www.davebbq.com
>

Oops

What I understand is that Boeing tried to retaliate against McCain by
threatening to shut down their Apache helicopter division which is based in
Arizona which is McCain's state. Politics is everything when it comes to
contracts. Years ago the Long Beach Naval Shipyard was shut down leaving
no west coast facility and despite turning a profit every year. All because
the new head of the armed services defense appropriations committee was from
Virginia and he wanted the facility in his state.

A guy I knew once worked for Boeing. His acronym for the compamy was "bend
over everyone, it's not greased."

Paul

"merryb" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 11, 6:50 am, "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
> "merryb" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Mar 9, 1:00 pm, sf wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 19:53:25 GMT, "Dave Bugg" >
> > wrote:
>
> > >The engines
> > >on the Airbus will be GE, produced here in America, as will other key
> > >components. The Airbus will have final assembly in America. And while
> > >the
> > >Northrup-Gruman contract will not employ as MANY Americans as continued
> > >production of the 767, it is going to be creating a bunch of new jobs.
>
> > Thanks, but this *is* and election year and the economy is in
> > shambles. They need to do better than that.
>
> > --
> > See return address to reply by email
> > remove the smile first
>
> Exactly.
>
> If they could do better I suppose the economy wouldn't be in such a
> shambles.
>
> Paul

"Sorry, but I blame George W for all this, altho I know he's not
entirely responsible."


Don't apologize. He is to blame for all this because the president is the
steward of the economy and you can draw pretty straight lines between his
disastrous policies and the immediate economic fallout.

Paul

"merryb" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 11, 3:28 pm, "Dave Bugg" > wrote:
> merryb wrote:
> > On Mar 11, 6:50 am, "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
> >> "merryb" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> >> On Mar 9, 1:00 pm, sf wrote:
>
> >>> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 19:53:25 GMT, "Dave Bugg" >
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> The engines
> >>>> on the Airbus will be GE, produced here in America, as will other
> >>>> key components. The Airbus will have final assembly in America.
> >>>> And while the Northrup-Gruman contract will not employ as MANY
> >>>> Americans as continued production of the 767, it is going to be
> >>>> creating a bunch of new jobs.
>
> >>> Thanks, but this *is* and election year and the economy is in
> >>> shambles. They need to do better than that.
>
> >>> --
> >>> See return address to reply by email
> >>> remove the smile first
>
> >> Exactly.
>
> >> If they could do better I suppose the economy wouldn't be in such a
> >> shambles.
>
> >> Paul
>
> > Sorry, but I blame George W for all this, altho I know he's not
> > entirely responsible.
>
> Please explain how he is responsible at all.
>
> --
> Davewww.davebbq.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

"Sorry, I really wasn't trying to start a political discussion. He's
responsible for many things, this not really being one of them that I
know of."

It was the cleaning lady. Isn't it always?

Paul

"Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
newsvEBj.6242$e52.3588@trndny01...
> merryb wrote:
>> On Mar 11, 3:28 pm, "Dave Bugg" > wrote:
>>> merryb wrote:
>>>> On Mar 11, 6:50 am, "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
>>>>> "merryb" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>> On Mar 9, 1:00 pm, sf wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 19:53:25 GMT, "Dave Bugg"
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> The engines
>>>>>>> on the Airbus will be GE, produced here in America, as will other
>>>>>>> key components. The Airbus will have final assembly in America.
>>>>>>> And while the Northrup-Gruman contract will not employ as MANY
>>>>>>> Americans as continued production of the 767, it is going to be
>>>>>>> creating a bunch of new jobs.
>>>
>>>>>> Thanks, but this *is* and election year and the economy is in
>>>>>> shambles. They need to do better than that.
>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> See return address to reply by email
>>>>>> remove the smile first
>>>
>>>>> Exactly.
>>>
>>>>> If they could do better I suppose the economy wouldn't be in such a
>>>>> shambles.
>>>
>>>>> Paul
>>>
>>>> Sorry, but I blame George W for all this, altho I know he's not
>>>> entirely responsible.
>>>
>>> Please explain how he is responsible at all.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Davewww.davebbq.com- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Sorry, I really wasn't trying to start a political discussion. He's
>> responsible for many things, this not really being one of them that I
>> know of.
>
> The issue that bothers me about Bush is his willingness to stand by and
> not veto spending bills -- brought by congress -- which contain massive
> earmarked amendments.


Not like a 3 trillion dollar war, immediate costs plus long-term
committments because the war is using borrowed money from the Chinese, has
anything to do with it. Nor does deregulating banks which permitted the
current meltdown, nor does a planned policy to lower the valueof the dollar,
see Alan Greenspan report to Congress 2002, to boost oil company revenues,
nor does standing by and giving tax credits to corporations moving
manufacturing overseas resulting in a 70 billion dollar a month trade
deficit where before there was less than that per year.

All Bush policies.

Anyway, rebut away but I won't get into a political war here. Food yes,
politics no.

Paul

Paul M. Cook wrote:
> "Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
> newsvEBj.6242$e52.3588@trndny01...
>> merryb wrote:
>>> On Mar 11, 3:28 pm, "Dave Bugg" > wrote:
>>>> merryb wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 11, 6:50 am, "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
>>>>>> "merryb" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On Mar 9, 1:00 pm, sf wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 19:53:25 GMT, "Dave Bugg"
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> The engines
>>>>>>>> on the Airbus will be GE, produced here in America, as will
>>>>>>>> other key components. The Airbus will have final assembly in
>>>>>>>> America. And while the Northrup-Gruman contract will not
>>>>>>>> employ as MANY Americans as continued production of the 767,
>>>>>>>> it is going to be creating a bunch of new jobs.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks, but this *is* and election year and the economy is in
>>>>>>> shambles. They need to do better than that.
>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> See return address to reply by email
>>>>>>> remove the smile first
>>>>
>>>>>> Exactly.
>>>>
>>>>>> If they could do better I suppose the economy wouldn't be in
>>>>>> such a shambles.
>>>>
>>>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, but I blame George W for all this, altho I know he's not
>>>>> entirely responsible.
>>>>
>>>> Please explain how he is responsible at all.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Davewww.davebbq.com- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>> Sorry, I really wasn't trying to start a political discussion. He's
>>> responsible for many things, this not really being one of them that
>>> I know of.
>>
>> The issue that bothers me about Bush is his willingness to stand by
>> and not veto spending bills -- brought by congress -- which contain
>> massive earmarked amendments.
>
>
> Not like a 3 trillion dollar war, immediate costs plus long-term
> committments because the war is using borrowed money from the
> Chinese, has anything to do with it. Nor does deregulating banks
> which permitted the current meltdown, nor does a planned policy to
> lower the valueof the dollar, see Alan Greenspan report to Congress
> 2002, to boost oil company revenues, nor does standing by and giving
> tax credits to corporations moving manufacturing overseas resulting
> in a 70 billion dollar a month trade deficit where before there was
> less than that per year.
> All Bush policies.
>
> Anyway, rebut away but I won't get into a political war here. Food
> yes, politics no.

Throw a lot of unsupported mud then pretend to be above it all. Nice.

*plonk*

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
news:WcHBj.3410$dK3.1676@trndny03...
> Paul M. Cook wrote:
>> "Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
>> newsvEBj.6242$e52.3588@trndny01...
>>> merryb wrote:
>>>> On Mar 11, 3:28 pm, "Dave Bugg" > wrote:
>>>>> merryb wrote:
>>>>>> On Mar 11, 6:50 am, "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
>>>>>>> "merryb" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> On Mar 9, 1:00 pm, sf wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 19:53:25 GMT, "Dave Bugg"
>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The engines
>>>>>>>>> on the Airbus will be GE, produced here in America, as will
>>>>>>>>> other key components. The Airbus will have final assembly in
>>>>>>>>> America. And while the Northrup-Gruman contract will not
>>>>>>>>> employ as MANY Americans as continued production of the 767,
>>>>>>>>> it is going to be creating a bunch of new jobs.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks, but this *is* and election year and the economy is in
>>>>>>>> shambles. They need to do better than that.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> See return address to reply by email
>>>>>>>> remove the smile first
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Exactly.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> If they could do better I suppose the economy wouldn't be in
>>>>>>> such a shambles.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, but I blame George W for all this, altho I know he's not
>>>>>> entirely responsible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please explain how he is responsible at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Davewww.davebbq.com- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, I really wasn't trying to start a political discussion. He's
>>>> responsible for many things, this not really being one of them that
>>>> I know of.
>>>
>>> The issue that bothers me about Bush is his willingness to stand by
>>> and not veto spending bills -- brought by congress -- which contain
>>> massive earmarked amendments.
>>
>>
>> Not like a 3 trillion dollar war, immediate costs plus long-term
>> committments because the war is using borrowed money from the
>> Chinese, has anything to do with it. Nor does deregulating banks
>> which permitted the current meltdown, nor does a planned policy to
>> lower the valueof the dollar, see Alan Greenspan report to Congress
>> 2002, to boost oil company revenues, nor does standing by and giving
>> tax credits to corporations moving manufacturing overseas resulting
>> in a 70 billion dollar a month trade deficit where before there was
>> less than that per year.
>> All Bush policies.
>>
>> Anyway, rebut away but I won't get into a political war here. Food
>> yes, politics no.
>
> Throw a lot of unsupported mud then pretend to be above it all. Nice.
>
> *plonk*

OK, don't rebut.

Paul

"Paul M. Cook" > wrote in message
news:OMGBj.20750$Ls6.17326@trnddc01...
>
> "merryb" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Mar 11, 6:50 am, "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
>> "merryb" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>> On Mar 9, 1:00 pm, sf wrote:
>>
>> > On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 19:53:25 GMT, "Dave Bugg" >
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > >The engines
>> > >on the Airbus will be GE, produced here in America, as will other key
>> > >components. The Airbus will have final assembly in America. And while
>> > >the
>> > >Northrup-Gruman contract will not employ as MANY Americans as
>> > >continued
>> > >production of the 767, it is going to be creating a bunch of new jobs.
>>
>> > Thanks, but this *is* and election year and the economy is in
>> > shambles. They need to do better than that.
>>
>> > --
>> > See return address to reply by email
>> > remove the smile first
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>> If they could do better I suppose the economy wouldn't be in such a
>> shambles.
>>
>> Paul
>
> "Sorry, but I blame George W for all this, altho I know he's not
> entirely responsible."
>
>
> Don't apologize. He is to blame for all this because the president is the
> steward of the economy and you can draw pretty straight lines between his
> disastrous policies and the immediate economic fallout.
>

There are times when I like what you have to say, Paul.

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 08:49:02 -0700 (PDT), merryb >
wrote:

>On Mar 11, 6:50*am, "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
>> "merryb" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>> On Mar 9, 1:00 pm, sf wrote:
>>
>> > On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 19:53:25 GMT, "Dave Bugg" >
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > >The engines
>> > >on the Airbus will be GE, produced here in America, as will other key
>> > >components. The Airbus will have final assembly in America. And while the
>> > >Northrup-Gruman contract will not employ as MANY Americans as continued
>> > >production of the 767, it is going to be creating a bunch of new jobs.
>>
>> > Thanks, but this *is* and election year and the economy is in
>> > shambles. They need to do better than that.
>>
>> > --
>> > See return address to reply by email
>> > remove the smile first
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>> If they could do better I suppose the economy wouldn't be in such a
>> shambles.
>>
>> Paul
>
>Sorry, but I blame George W for all this, altho I know he's not
>entirely responsible.

the way he flings around 'executive privelege,' we'll never know.

your pal,
blake

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:55:40 -0400, Goomba38 >
wrote:

>merryb wrote:
>> On Mar 11, 6:50 am, "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
>
>>> If they could do better I suppose the economy wouldn't be in such a
>>> shambles.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>
>> Sorry, but I blame George W for all this, altho I know he's not
>> entirely responsible.
>
>Yeah, God forbid objective logic be used when subjective emotions is so
>much more fun! LOL

besides, george has already ****ed up *so much*, i don't think we can
pin this on him. he's only one man, after all.

your pal,
blake