Million Mile Saab 900 SPG

Great. Well you're paying for a hell of a trip in a sandbox at the moment, and so am I.

Fine. Then keep using Dino products, and those of us who actually give a shit will do all the heavy lifting. As usual. Meanwhile the money we spend in certain countries goes to fund people who hate us.

You mean the no-bid contracts to Hallburton? The ones that Clinton put in place, those ones?

Apparently the bigger picture of getting us independant of foreign energy escapes you.

Yeah, well the population of the country was too foolish to see through the obvious lies... by the time they figured it out we were in deep. Nothing new there.

Being willing to sacrifice has nothing to do with spending gov't money on private enterprise.

I'll ignore your political troll. They've spent $300b on the war, most of it going to US companies, That's a heck of a lot bigger than Halliburton.

Apparently the fact that private enterprise should be funded by private money escapes you.

You mean the ones Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy, Clinton, Schumer, Gore, and a bunch of others were telling? Here's a few. See if you recognize any of the names:

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

Oh, I could go on and on, but let's save time and post a link and you can reject the whole thing at once. You are familiar with Snopes.com, I hope?

The take-away here, Bob, is that the Democrats had the _same_ bad intelligence that the Republicans had. And now that they don't like how things are going, they're looking skyward, whistling, and pretending they had nothing to do with it. That disgusts me.

You missed my point.

Why? It's true.

OK whatever. Thing is, that $300b doesn't just evaporate, it employs people in high tech businesses and industries. Who then go on to spend it on other goods and services. The money doesn't just evaporate just because you spend it, you see, it _circulates_.

When the good of the nation is served by giving a startup money, hell yes, fund them if it's a valid technology. We're a hell of a lot better served by that money going into something that builds _OUR_ infrastructure for long term independance. Regardless of who you decide not to buy stock in.

This has nothing to do with the Democrats or the Republicans. The one and only person responsible for the decision to go to war was George Bush (Bush II; Bush I had intelligence and integrity. Too bad the lush didn't inherit either quality).

You know what disgusts ms? When the President's right hand man leaks the name of a covert CIA agent as political revenge and the President takes no action. Leaking the name of a covert agent has been a treasonable offense punishable by death since the Revolutionary War. Bush II looks the other way. Now that's disgusting.

So we should all pay taxes to make sure some selected CEO's get rich and some other people get jobs? I can't believe you'd buy into the age old "start a war, make my buddies rich, boost the economy" strategy.

Sure, the war helped Bush II buy himself out of a recession but unfortunately he's setting up the next President to face the same problem his Father faced - huge, record setting deficits left by his predecessor that suck all the money out of the economy. Then, to cover the deficit payments, the next President has to raise taxes and sell even more of what we own to overseas interests. Way to go.

The "good of a nation" would be served by requiring partnerships with the taxpayers of this country whenever public money is handed out. You want money? OK, sign over half of the profits. Investors deserve a return proportional to the risk taken.

And the congress who authorized it. Did you READ the quotes, Bob?

I must have missed the part where that has been determined to be fact.

Tell me again how she's a covert agent when she has an office job at a building with a big freaking sign on the outside?

Those CEOs employ people like me, and maybe you. And then we spend money.

Don't presume to speak for me; you're barely qualified to speak for yourself.

You like reading? Go read what Lawrence Wilkenson had to say about what he saw and heard. You might recall him, he's a guy with integrity who worked for another guy with integrity, Colin Powell. Funny, people with integrity seem to run from this administration.

You expected them to find a memo authorizing it ? Scooter was convicted of lying about it. Funny he choose to lie about something that never happened, eh?

Apparently you're smarter than the Justice Department who evaluated this issue before engaging in a major investigation and the White House officials who testified rather that quash this non-infraction. You need to turn down the talk radio; it's melting your brain.

While they pad their fat pockets and give small gears like you a teensy tidbit. You're a tiny little cog in a very big machine - you're just stuck too far into the box to even see that. You're the equivalent of the factory worker past. Enjoy the piecework.

Ooh, onto the personal insults. You certainly know when someone has run out of valid arguments: they move to personal insults.

I pity you Dave. The neo-Cons have bought you lock, stock, and barrel with a few tidbits. Keep barking like a seal and enjoying the fish they throw you.

So you haven't read the quotes, or you don't like the uncomfortable truth they tell. I understand.

You have no idea of my profession, level, or pay scale. And no, I'm not interested in comparing resumes with you.

Yes, I noticed you had run out of useful things to say rather a while ago.

You know, it's funny. I've never seen anyone who uses the word "neo-cons" ever have anything useful to say. I wonder why that is.

Dave, you seem to be an intelligent guy, just brainwashed. So, here's some free advice . Maybe you can still be saved.

Your problem is that you are so far imbedded in the party system that you've lost the ability to look at each issue rationally and make an intelligent decision. Instead, you look at everything as an assault on "your party" and try to come with excuses for it. You end up trying to defend things that are indefensible and look really, really foolish doing it.

Instead lose the party affiliation and with it the "defend the party at all costs" attitude. Examine each issue on its own merits at make a decision as to what's logical and reasonable and actually in the best interests of the country. Forget about which candidate/party it gives an advantage to - just decided the issue based on the information available. Make choices that defend honesty, integrity, the Constitution, the lofty goals of the founding fathers, the very fabric of our country.

Sure, at the end of the year, you'll have to make a decision in the voting booth for one of the old party candidates. That, unfortunately, is our current system. But, in between you won't make yourself look foolish trying to come up with excuses for their bad decisions, bad policies, illegal actions, and generally sub-par behavior.

You disagree with me, that doesn't make you smarter than me. Your reluctance to comment on the specific points, in fact, sas rather the opposite.

No, I'm not imbedded in anything.

No, I don't. Again, don't presume to be my spokesman. Goodbye, bob, feel free to get in the last word; I won't read it, and I won't miss anything of value.

I guess I was wrong. There is no hope for you. You prefer to remain with your head firmly stuck up the butt of the neo-con conglomeration while they pull you and your kind along like lemmings. Too bad, you probably have the skills to be an independent thinker, but you lack the ability to execute it.

The retreat of the true loser, the condescending "you can have the last word". LOL.

That's bullshit Dave, 'cause I know you're still reading. But now you're stuck and you can't reply. Thanks for the laughs.

I don't think I ever plonked you, Paul, I think we agreed to disagree.

Actually, Paul, I pointed out to Bob dozens of quotes from the other party, yet he blames Bush anyway, and refused to comment on the data I provided (with cites of time and date, no less).

And when things don't to Bob's way, pretend it's the other guy's fault.

Absolutely. And subsidize the hell out of it get things going. It's a LOT cheaper than going off to play in a sandbox somewhere every decade or two.

He, he, he

I try to enlighten people. It's my mission in life. Few are willing to step back from their immersion.

Yes, things are changing here too - and not for the better.

It's a sad state here. More money, more corruption.

Yes, a complete corporate plan. Sad that the people were too stupid to see that at the time. They don't read much and few think for themselves. I'm all for kicking butt when it's deserved - but this was not a case of that.

Let's leave Dave out of this - he seems bent on justifying the war :-)

You're right though, we could use an alternative. But, I don't agree with using public money to make private individuals and companies rich though - and that's the scheme here.

I have issues with that. I don't much trust them. Perhaps that's a US bias... but we've had bad experiences with them.

Well, we already had inspectors in the plants in NK. Bush brain fouled that deal up big time - and they re-started the nuke program. I don't think Bush much liked the program.

in article snipped-for-privacy@mid.individual.net, Dave Hinz at snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote on 27/12/2006 03:40:

I'm with you on this one - I'm very much in favour of subsidising something as important as farming, especially when it produces fuel. In the UK, we've had some troubled times with farming - crops and animals - and our Government(s) did the right thing ... Kept them going with subsidies; even to the superficially absurd extreme of paying them _not_ to farm. It was not the usual short-sighted policy and really shows the importance of farming.

Well, it has paid off because we still have farmers who are able to farm and Britain is now starting to produce some quality produce again that is the envy of our neighbours and very much worthy of their Appellation d'Origine Contrôlée.

I really hope bio-fuel takes off in a big way in the US. We're starting to see it at the pumps over here. I think it will be a long time though, since so many major corporations are locked into oil in one way or another.

Paul

1989 900 Turbo S

in article snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com, - Bob - at snipped-for-privacy@ultranet.com wrote on 27/12/2006 05:59:

Well, I'm quite _for_ the idea. I think government investment into something that can fundamentally change things for the better is the right thing to do. I don't say forever, but I do say so to get the ball rolling. A venture that is set to take on the oil companies (who really are dug in to the roots of western culture) needs some government backing just to get them up to the same playing field.

What happens after that is "the market".

I'd buy bio-ethanol if I had a car that could run it. In fact, I'm going to make a concerted effort to convert mine once I think I can fuel on bio-ethanol alone, but it is going to have to be a little more widespread before I can do that. The county in which I live is plentiful with pumps that supply bio-ethanol, but I can't guarantee that elsewhere in the country and I think I'd need to ditch conventional ignition before I could run a closed-loop fuel injection system that could understand fuel from low grade petrol to high octane E85.

My C900 T8 is going to need some fettling with :)

Paul

1989 900 Turbo S

I have no desire to enter into this thread, but in the interest of fairness, I must point out that the snopes.com page includes a very important disclaimer (reproduced below). Also, don't forget to read all of the context information which forms the bulk of the web page's content.

John

Quoted from

: "However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them -- several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S. Moreover, several of the quotes offered antedate the four nights of airstrikes unleashed against Iraq by U.S. and British forces during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, after which Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and Gen. Henry H. Shelton (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced the action had been successful in 'degrad[ing] Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.' "

You have GOT to be kidding. I have owned 4 Celicas and 1 Corolla. My wife is now on her second Saab. I drove all those Toyota's to between

150 - 200k, only getting rid of them out because I found something I wanted more at the time. I never had ANY problems with any of them other then wear items. The 2 Saabs have driven me nuts. Nothing really major (other then the turbo going at 30k, under warrenty thank God), just a lot of nudgy stupid crap, electric windows failing, e-brakes going, etc. Not to mention the incredible stupidity of putting the ignition between the seats so any liquid that spills goes into it like a drain. Lots of time sitting in the garage in winter with a hair dryer. I would love to meet the engineer that dreamed up that one. The one that had the turbo go was her current one, a 9-3 convertible. We bought it used, but originally I think it went for close to 40k, right? And the turbo goes at 30k?? That is just wrong. I am a fanatic for maintenence, so it isn't like we mistreated it, and it only had 20k on it when we got it, so how bad could it have been mistreated before? Then there is the top. That gave up the ghost last summer... again. This time out of warrenty, so we haven't even bothered getting it fixed, so now it's a hard top.

I now own a Mini Cooper S with 125k on it. Bought it new loaded for

24k. Rides like it was new and has no problems, and that is a first year model!

Sorry to go on a rant, but I just couldn't pass on comparing Toyota reliability to Saab. They may be more boring then a Saab, but they are in a completely different league for reliability. One car going a million miles does not make an entire line "reliable".

announced the action had been successful in

John:

I don't really care which political ding-dong said what and with what political goal. I'm aligned with facts and the Constitution, not politicians and parties.

Bush lied, twisted, bent, distorted, facts whilst trying to ruin the careers and credibility of anyone who dared oppose their false presentations. Why did Bush want to attack so badly? If Bush waited and they found no WMD's, then he'd have no reason to attack. And he really wanted to attack. Want to know why?

Remember the "Energy Task Force" meetings that Dick Cheney held with Enron and other major oil company exec's? These meetings took place starting long before 9-11-2001. Cheney has refused to discuss what was talked about. Some non-partisan groups have been fighting since April

2001 to get the "task force" minutes released under the FOIA and extended lawsuits up through the Supreme Court. At this point, the only thing they have managed to pry loose are the graphics presentations from those meetings. But, that might just be enough.

This graphic shows Iraq sliced up like a side of beef to be served (funny thing to do with Iraq in 2000/2001 since we had no business going on there):

Rumors have consistently surfaced that US oil companies were very concerned that when IRAQ's sanctions were lifted (which was being pushed for by some countries) that they would be left out of the oil bonanza that would result (IRAQ has much of the world's oil). It was getting close to "lift the sanctions" time since Saddaam had conformed to most of the UN requirements. US oil companies were about to be left out of the biggest bonanza of the millennium.

Just a rumor though, right? Well, take a look at this presentation from the Task force, wherein they were looking at the "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi oil fields".

Funny they should be so concerned about who was getting the Iraqi oil, when it could not possibly be US companies, as we were forbidden from doing business with IRAQ under the sanctions. Ah, but no Saddaam, no sanctions.

Read some facts, learn a lot. Or in this case, just look at the pictures.

Oh, agreed. Classic example of politicians saying one thing while meaning another, so no matter how things play out, they can pretend they are on the side they determine they want to be on later. "I voted for that before I voted against it" and all that. This selective memory is what disgusts me.

Paul, if you're going to go off topic like this and start talking about old Saabs, I suggest you find a more appropriate forum :-) I might suggest Saabcentral, but they seem to be having problems at the moment??