On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 23:50:29 -0600, "Dave In Texas" wrote:


wrote in message
news
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 12:47:14 -0800, "DGDevin"
wrote:

The area Tea Party organized busses to go to Washington rallies but
everyone
paid their share of the costs. Unlike the other side, there were no
unions
paying for transportation.

Paid for, I suspect, with dues paid in by the very union members who
were utilizing said buses?

Your point is? It's still *paid* by someone else (as was their time to go).

wrote in message
...

On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 23:50:29 -0600, "Dave In Texas" wrote:
Paid for, I suspect, with dues paid in by the very union members who
were utilizing said buses?

Your point is? It's still *paid* by someone else (as was their time to
go).

The point is that the bylaws of the organization probably provide some
discretion as to how dues are spent. Maybe they took a vote. Maybe they
took vacation time to go.
What's YOUR point? Who do you think paid for the trip? Why is any
different than if I get up a group of friends and charter a bus to a casino.
The group paid their own way didn't they?
Now, be sure to tell me how clueless I am.

Dave in Houston

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 21:25:50 -0600, "Dave In Texas" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .

On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 23:50:29 -0600, "Dave In Texas" wrote:
Paid for, I suspect, with dues paid in by the very union members who
were utilizing said buses?

Your point is? It's still *paid* by someone else (as was their time to
go).

The point is that the bylaws of the organization probably provide some
discretion as to how dues are spent. Maybe they took a vote. Maybe they
took vacation time to go.

Their payments to the union are fixed. They received money from the union to
go, including time off to do so. They were *paid* protesters.

What's YOUR point? Who do you think paid for the trip? Why is any
different than if I get up a group of friends and charter a bus to a casino.

If you can't tell the difference you're dumber than a stump.

The group paid their own way didn't they?

Of course not! The *union* paid their way.

Now, be sure to tell me how clueless I am.

I don't have to. It's perfectly clear to anyone with even half a brain
(Democrats need not apply).

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 21:25:50 -0600, "Dave In Texas" wrote:


wrote in message
. ..

On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 23:50:29 -0600, "Dave In Texas"
wrote:
Paid for, I suspect, with dues paid in by the very union members who
were utilizing said buses?

Your point is? It's still *paid* by someone else (as was their time to
go).

The point is that the bylaws of the organization probably provide some
discretion as to how dues are spent. Maybe they took a vote. Maybe they
took vacation time to go.

Their payments to the union are fixed. They received money from the union
to
go, including time off to do so. They were *paid* protesters.

You make no sense.

What's YOUR point? Who do you think paid for the trip? Why is any
different than if I get up a group of friends and charter a bus to a
casino.

If you can't tell the difference you're dumber than a stump.

The group paid their own way didn't they?

Of course not! The *union* paid their way.

Members' dues support the union; in the end they paid themselves to go.

Now, be sure to tell me how clueless I am.

I don't have to. It's perfectly clear to anyone with even half a brain
(Democrats need not apply).

~ : o )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) )))

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 23:31:16 -0600, "Dave In Texas" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 21:25:50 -0600, "Dave In Texas" wrote:


wrote in message
...

On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 23:50:29 -0600, "Dave In Texas"
wrote:
Paid for, I suspect, with dues paid in by the very union members who
were utilizing said buses?

Your point is? It's still *paid* by someone else (as was their time to
go).

The point is that the bylaws of the organization probably provide some
discretion as to how dues are spent. Maybe they took a vote. Maybe they
took vacation time to go.

Their payments to the union are fixed. They received money from the union
to
go, including time off to do so. They were *paid* protesters.

You make no sense.

You clearly have no sense.

What's YOUR point? Who do you think paid for the trip? Why is any
different than if I get up a group of friends and charter a bus to a
casino.

If you can't tell the difference you're dumber than a stump.

The group paid their own way didn't they?

Of course not! The *union* paid their way.

Members' dues support the union; in the end they paid themselves to go.

Nonsense. They paid *dues*. These dues were used to pay them to attend. It's
no different than paying a professional protester.

Now, be sure to tell me how clueless I am.

I don't have to. It's perfectly clear to anyone with even half a brain
(Democrats need not apply).

~ : o )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) )))

wrote in message ...


The group paid their own way didn't they?

Of course not! The *union* paid their way.

Here's an exercise for you. Put some money in one of your pants pockets.
Now move it to another pocket. Question: is it still your money, or not?

Now here comes the tricky part. If union members pay dues to a union, and
the union uses those dues to pay for buses so union members can go to a
political rally, whose money paid for the buses? Hint: remember those pants
pockets.

Now, be sure to tell me how clueless I am.

I don't have to. It's perfectly clear to anyone with even half a brain
(Democrats need not apply).

At the core of your problem is the belief that anyone who disagrees with you
has got to be stupid. Until you get past that you'll always be the guy who
makes everyone else look smart.

DGDevin wrote:

Here's an exercise for you. Put some money in one of your pants
pockets. Now move it to another pocket. Question: is it still your
money, or not?
Now here comes the tricky part. If union members pay dues to a union,
and the union uses those dues to pay for buses so union members can
go to a political rally, whose money paid for the buses? Hint:
remember those pants pockets.


Good analogy. Here's another:

You've got some money in one of your pants pockets. A hand reaches in, takes
some of your money, and uses it for purposes of which you disapprove, is it
still your money?

Now here's the tricky part: If the union forcibly takes your money, uses it
for busses, free beer, and barbecue, do you have a right to complain without
being beaten?

"DGDevin" wrote in
news:s7udnShpPpakt97QnZ2dnUVZ_uOdnZ2d@earthlink.

At the core of your problem is the belief that anyone who
disagrees with you has got to be stupid. Until you get
past that you'll always be the guy who makes everyone else
look smart.


At the core of your problem is ignorance. Maybe you should
actually attend one of the events. Everything I've been involved
in has been out of my pocket, just like everyone else that
attended. You have this idea that someone is paying for all of
this when it truly is a grassrotts movement.

Open your eyes....

Larry

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

Here's an exercise for you. Put some money in one of your pants
pockets. Now move it to another pocket. Question: is it still your
money, or not?
Now here comes the tricky part. If union members pay dues to a union,
and the union uses those dues to pay for buses so union members can
go to a political rally, whose money paid for the buses? Hint:
remember those pants pockets.


Good analogy. Here's another:

You've got some money in one of your pants pockets. A hand reaches in,
takes some of your money, and uses it for purposes of which you
disapprove, is it still your money?

Did you get your say during the election for officers of the organization
(which you joined of your own free will) that is spending the money? If so,
and if you'll get your say again at the next election, what are you crying
about? Because actually the only hand reaching into your pocket is yours,
you chose to pay dues to an organization that got you better pay, working
conditions and so on, and you get to vote on who runs that organization, so
it's not like somebody you don’t know is picking your pocket.

Now here's the tricky part: If the union forcibly takes your money,

They don't. If you don't like the pay offered by Company X, you don't have
to work there, right? And if Company Y is a union shop and you don't want
to pay union dues to get the higher pay negotiated by the union--same as
above--you don't have to work there. There is no "forcibly" unless you can
document contemporary union press gangs roaming the streets signing up
members and extracting dues at pistol point.

uses it for busses, free beer, and barbecue, do you have a right to
complain without being beaten?

The same right you have not to be beaten by company goons trying to keep you
from signing a union card (although lately they prefer lawyers to goons,
less bad publicity).

"Larry" wrote in message ...

At the core of your problem is ignorance. Maybe you should
actually attend one of the events.

I had lunch with a bunch of TP supporters after one rally, folks with "Don't
Tread On Me" shirts. Mostly seemed like nice folks, if ill-informed on a
range of issues, e.g. the TARP money is all gone and will never be paid
back. But a few of them I wouldn't want living next door, the kind who
*know* Obama was born in Kenya and disagreeing leads to a drop in the
temperature and some very hard looks. As I've said before, they're entitled
to be ****ed off, but it would be nice if they'd figure out who they should
really be unhappy with. They seemed unaware that the national debt doubled
while Bush was in office, for another example, but they're furious at how
those Democrats spend money....

Everything I've been involved
in has been out of my pocket, just like everyone else that
attended. You have this idea that someone is paying for all of
this when it truly is a grassrotts movement.

A) I made a point of saying I was sure there was some grassroots financial
support, so you can't say I'm claiming "all of this" is being paid for by
billionaires with a right-wing agenda. B) When even Tea Party organizations
say they've worked closely with groups like FreedomWorks which is without
question funded by a handful of very rich men with very far-right politics,
it is ludicrous to say there is no connection between the two.

Open your eyes....

Pot-kettle-black, Larry.

DGDevin wrote:

Good analogy. Here's another:

You've got some money in one of your pants pockets. A hand reaches
in, takes some of your money, and uses it for purposes of which you
disapprove, is it still your money?

Did you get your say during the election for officers of the
organization (which you joined of your own free will) that is
spending the money? If so, and if you'll get your say again at the
next election, what are you crying about? Because actually the only
hand reaching into your pocket is yours, you chose to pay dues to an
organization that got you better pay, working conditions and so on,
and you get to vote on who runs that organization, so it's not like
somebody you don’t know is picking your pocket.
Now here's the tricky part: If the union forcibly takes your money,

They don't. If you don't like the pay offered by Company X, you
don't have to work there, right? And if Company Y is a union shop
and you don't want to pay union dues to get the higher pay negotiated
by the union--same as above--you don't have to work there. There is
no "forcibly" unless you can document contemporary union press gangs
roaming the streets signing up members and extracting dues at pistol
point.
uses it for busses, free beer, and barbecue, do you have a right to
complain without being beaten?

The same right you have not to be beaten by company goons trying to
keep you from signing a union card (although lately they prefer
lawyers to goons, less bad publicity).

I doubt that - that lawyers are more respectable than goons.

But I'll take your word for it - I have no experience with unions. I live in
a right-to-scab state.

Texas has less than half the union membership as the nation as a whole (5.6
vs. 13.5%). Most of our union members are in government service, with a
smattering more in the oil and chemical industry and in communications.
There are almost no union members in manufacturing (fewer than 2%).

DGDevin wrote:
"Larry" wrote in message ...

At the core of your problem is ignorance. Maybe you should
actually attend one of the events.

I had lunch with a bunch of TP supporters after one rally, folks with
"Don't Tread On Me" shirts. Mostly seemed like nice folks, if
ill-informed on a range of issues, e.g. the TARP money is all gone
and will never be paid back. But a few of them I wouldn't want
living next door, the kind who *know* Obama was born in Kenya and
disagreeing leads to a drop in the temperature and some very hard
looks. As I've said before, they're entitled to be ****ed off, but
it would be nice if they'd figure out who they should really be
unhappy with. They seemed unaware that the national debt doubled
while Bush was in office, for another example, but they're furious at
how those Democrats spend money....

The total deficit for 8 years of the Bush administration was a staggering
$700 billion. The deficit the first YEAR of the Obama administration was
twice the eight-year bush total, eclipsing $1.45 trillion.

Here's a chart.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...ed=0CFMQ9QEwBw

True, Obama had a meltdown of the financial markets with which to contend.
But Bush had two wars, Katrina, and 9-11.

On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 12:42:27 -0800, "DGDevin" wrote:



wrote in message ...


The group paid their own way didn't they?

Of course not! The *union* paid their way.

Here's an exercise for you. Put some money in one of your pants pockets.
Now move it to another pocket. Question: is it still your money, or not?

Ah, so when the government reaches in your pocket and takes money, then gives
that money to someone else, it's still your money.

Now here comes the tricky part. If union members pay dues to a union, and
the union uses those dues to pay for buses so union members can go to a
political rally, whose money paid for the buses? Hint: remember those pants
pockets.

Yes, remember that pocket.

Now, be sure to tell me how clueless I am.

I don't have to. It's perfectly clear to anyone with even half a brain
(Democrats need not apply).

At the core of your problem is the belief that anyone who disagrees with you
has got to be stupid. Until you get past that you'll always be the guy who
makes everyone else look smart.

You *are* stupid. You demonstrate that fact daily.

On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 20:56:16 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:

DGDevin wrote:

Good analogy. Here's another:

You've got some money in one of your pants pockets. A hand reaches
in, takes some of your money, and uses it for purposes of which you
disapprove, is it still your money?

Did you get your say during the election for officers of the
organization (which you joined of your own free will) that is
spending the money? If so, and if you'll get your say again at the
next election, what are you crying about? Because actually the only
hand reaching into your pocket is yours, you chose to pay dues to an
organization that got you better pay, working conditions and so on,
and you get to vote on who runs that organization, so it's not like
somebody you don’t know is picking your pocket.
Now here's the tricky part: If the union forcibly takes your money,

They don't. If you don't like the pay offered by Company X, you
don't have to work there, right? And if Company Y is a union shop
and you don't want to pay union dues to get the higher pay negotiated
by the union--same as above--you don't have to work there. There is
no "forcibly" unless you can document contemporary union press gangs
roaming the streets signing up members and extracting dues at pistol
point.
uses it for busses, free beer, and barbecue, do you have a right to
complain without being beaten?

The same right you have not to be beaten by company goons trying to
keep you from signing a union card (although lately they prefer
lawyers to goons, less bad publicity).

I doubt that - that lawyers are more respectable than goons.

But I'll take your word for it - I have no experience with unions. I live in
a right-to-scab state.

Texas has less than half the union membership as the nation as a whole (5.6
vs. 13.5%). Most of our union members are in government service, with a
smattering more in the oil and chemical industry and in communications.
There are almost no union members in manufacturing (fewer than 2%).

Union membership is lower than that. According to the BLS, union membership
was 11.9% last year, including both government and private employees. Private
sector union membership is down to 6.9% (and falling like a rock). Government
workers, OTOH, have a 36.2% union membership. Any surprises?

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

I doubt that - that lawyers are more respectable than goons.

Not respectable, they just better on the evening news than guys swinging
clubs. Of course all lawyers are scum--until you need one. A young police
officer I know recently faced two lawsuits, one from a guy he shot, and I
can assure you he was very happy to have good legal representation.

But I'll take your word for it - I have no experience with unions. I live
in a right-to-scab state.

When I wore a much younger man's clothes I belonged to a union for quite a
few years. There were several benefits for the members: we got paid more
than the guys at non-union companies; we couldn't be arbitrarily fired or
disciplined without cause; safety, e.g. they couldn't tell you to put a
vehicle with bad brakes on the road, if they tried then a call to the
business agent shut that down in a flash. The downside was everybody got
the same pay--the good workers and the not so good, which IMO can discourage
people from trying to excel.

Unions are like every other human organization, they're subject to abuse.
But they exist for a reason, namely to counter-balance the power of
employers, large employers in particular. Believe it or not, but companies
commit a range of abuses too--no, really, you can look it up. The Founding
Fathers knew that checks and balances are necessary to keep government in
line, and the same applies to society at large. I don't think many folks
(libertarian ko0ks aside) would willingly go back to the day when large
companies did whatever they pleased and employees were little more than
disposable troops in the company army.

Texas has less than half the union membership as the nation as a whole
(5.6 vs. 13.5%). Most of our union members are in government service, with
a smattering more in the oil and chemical industry and in communications.
There are almost no union members in manufacturing (fewer than 2%).

The unions have been taking in on the chin in recent decades. At one time
one in three American workers carried a union card, while today it's
something like 8% and falling. That why I'm amused when people raise the
specter of big unions throwing their weight around--their weight has been
getting smaller and smaller at the same time as corporations have been
getting bigger and bigger--so it's kind of an absurd scenario to talk about
unions bulldozing society. Yet any right-wing politician looking for
something to scare the voters with will raise the threat of the big bad
unions. IMO the one area were unions do need to be taken down a peg or two
is education, the teachers' unions do not currently seem to be part of the
solution.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

The total deficit for 8 years of the Bush administration was a staggering
$700 billion. The deficit the first YEAR of the Obama administration was
twice the eight-year bush total, eclipsing $1.45 trillion.

I'm not disputing that the Obama administration has spent a staggering sum
of money, it doesn't make me happy either. My point was that the Tea
Partiers sat on their hands while the Bush administration was spending like
a drunken sailor, and only discovered what a bad idea huge deficits were
when Obama was elected--it's the double-standard I find striking.

True, Obama had a meltdown of the financial markets with which to contend.

IMO that justified some "pump priming" and according to the CBO much of that
spending was effective at saving or creating jobs.

But Bush had two wars, Katrina, and 9-11.

I thought one of those wars was justified, i.e. going after Al Qaeda in
Afghanistan. Iraq is another story, not only were the justifications
offered dubious at best, but the cost of that war when the interest is
finally paid will be well over two trillion dollars--Dick Cheney's assertion
that the war in Iraq would pay for itself had better be proven true pretty
soon 'cause so far it looks like it's going to cost us a giant pile of
money.

wrote in message ...

Here's an exercise for you. Put some money in one of your pants pockets.
Now move it to another pocket. Question: is it still your money, or not?

Ah, so when the government reaches in your pocket and takes money, then
gives
that money to someone else, it's still your money.

Only if he's wearing your pants--was this too complex for you?

At the core of your problem is the belief that anyone who disagrees with
you
has got to be stupid. Until you get past that you'll always be the guy
who
makes everyone else look smart.

You *are* stupid. You demonstrate that fact daily.

I should probably stop responding to your posts before someone accuses me of
teasing the developmentally challenged kid.

On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 13:11:58 -0800, "DGDevin" wrote:



wrote in message ...

Here's an exercise for you. Put some money in one of your pants pockets.
Now move it to another pocket. Question: is it still your money, or not?

Ah, so when the government reaches in your pocket and takes money, then
gives
that money to someone else, it's still your money.

Only if he's wearing your pants--was this too complex for you?

It obviously was for you.

At the core of your problem is the belief that anyone who disagrees with
you
has got to be stupid. Until you get past that you'll always be the guy
who
makes everyone else look smart.

You *are* stupid. You demonstrate that fact daily.

I should probably stop responding to your posts before someone accuses me of
teasing the developmentally challenged kid.

You're teasing yourself. See, that *IS* stupid.

On 1/29/2011 1:59 PM, DGDevin wrote:


"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

I doubt that - that lawyers are more respectable than goons.

Not respectable, they just better on the evening news than guys swinging
clubs. Of course all lawyers are scum--until you need one. A young
police officer I know recently faced two lawsuits, one from a guy he
shot, and I can assure you he was very happy to have good legal
representation.

But I'll take your word for it - I have no experience with unions. I
live in a right-to-scab state.

When I wore a much younger man's clothes I belonged to a union for quite
a few years. There were several benefits for the members: we got paid
more than the guys at non-union companies; we couldn't be arbitrarily
fired or disciplined without cause; safety, e.g. they couldn't tell you
to put a vehicle with bad brakes on the road, if they tried then a call
to the business agent shut that down in a flash. The downside was
everybody got the same pay--the good workers and the not so good, which
IMO can discourage people from trying to excel.

That's only because of the deal your union negotiated. Most unions
don't like merit-based pay scales.


Unions are like every other human organization, they're subject to
abuse. But they exist for a reason, namely to counter-balance the power
of employers, large employers in particular. Believe it or not, but
companies commit a range of abuses too--no, really, you can look it up.
The Founding Fathers knew that checks and balances are necessary to keep
government in line, and the same applies to society at large. I don't
think many folks (libertarian ko0ks aside) would willingly go back to
the day when large companies did whatever they pleased and employees
were little more than disposable troops in the company army.

We now have government regulation to protect workers - minimum wage
rates, OSHA, anti-discrimination laws, etc., that do a lot of the
protecting unions did.


The unions have been taking in on the chin in recent decades. At one
time one in three American workers carried a union card, while today
it's something like 8% and falling. That why I'm amused when people
raise the specter of big unions throwing their weight around--their
weight has been getting smaller and smaller at the same time as
corporations have been getting bigger and bigger--so it's kind of an
absurd scenario to talk about unions bulldozing society.

Part of the problem is that most of the unions that still exist are
themselves big-business behemoths. They don't care about much more than
their own bottom line.

Yet any right-wing politician looking for something to scare the voters with
will raise the threat of the big bad unions. IMO the one area were
unions do need to be taken down a peg or two is education, the teachers'
unions do not currently seem to be part of the solution.

wrote in message
You're teasing yourself. See, that *IS* stupid.

Such a wonderful vernacular you have with people. Obviously, you're
attempting to become the newsgroup troll. It's just as obvious that you lack
any type of informational woodworking knowledge, so all you can do is
respond with some childish type of name calling.

"Upscale" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
You're teasing yourself. See, that *IS* stupid.

Such a wonderful vernacular you have with people. Obviously, you're
attempting to become the newsgroup troll. It's just as obvious that you
lack any type of informational woodworking knowledge, so all you can do is
respond with some childish type of name calling.

Here, here.
"You're stupid."
"Your clueless."
"Anyone with half a brain . . ."
I particularly like that last one; it certainly qualifies him.

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

The total deficit for 8 years of the Bush administration was a
staggering $700 billion. The deficit the first YEAR of the Obama
administration was twice the eight-year bush total, eclipsing $1.45
trillion.

I'm not disputing that the Obama administration has spent a
staggering sum of money, it doesn't make me happy either. My point
was that the Tea Partiers sat on their hands while the Bush
administration was spending like a drunken sailor, and only
discovered what a bad idea huge deficits were when Obama was
elected--it's the double-standard I find striking.

Heh! And just the reverse for the Democrats. Deficits were evil under Bush
and necessary under Obama.

It evens out.


True, Obama had a meltdown of the financial markets with which to
contend.

IMO that justified some "pump priming" and according to the CBO much
of that spending was effective at saving or creating jobs.

But Bush had two wars, Katrina, and 9-11.

I thought one of those wars was justified, i.e. going after Al Qaeda
in Afghanistan. Iraq is another story, not only were the
justifications offered dubious at best, but the cost of that war when
the interest is finally paid will be well over two trillion
dollars--Dick Cheney's assertion that the war in Iraq would pay for
itself had better be proven true pretty soon 'cause so far it looks
like it's going to cost us a giant pile of money.

Whether the war was justified is irrelevant to this discussion. You disagree
with one of the Bush wars, I disagree with the "stimulus." Whether we
approve of each, they were what they were and deficits took place.

The point I was trying to make was that Bush had demands of a nature similar
to those claimed by Obama.

As for the "war paying for itself," it will. As more and more of Iraq's oil
comes to market, the price, world-wide, will reflect the increased supply.
An increased supply equals lower price. This price reduction, of course, is
almost impossible to measure in that it's a "what if" scenario. But
reasonable people should agree there'll be some reduction.

On Jan 31, 6:25*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" *wrote in message
om...

The total deficit for 8 years of the Bush administration was a
staggering $700 billion. The deficit the first YEAR of the Obama
administration was twice the eight-year bush total, eclipsing $1.45
trillion.

I'm not disputing that the Obama administration has spent a
staggering sum of money, it doesn't make me happy either. *My point
was that the Tea Partiers sat on their hands while the Bush
administration was spending like a drunken sailor, and only
discovered what a bad idea huge deficits were when Obama was
elected--it's the double-standard I find striking.

Heh! And just the reverse for the Democrats. Deficits were evil under Bush
and necessary under Obama.

It evens out.







True, Obama had a meltdown of the financial markets with which to
contend.

IMO that justified some "pump priming" and according to the CBO much
of that spending was effective at saving or creating jobs.

But Bush had two wars, Katrina, and 9-11.

I thought one of those wars was justified, i.e. going after Al Qaeda
in Afghanistan. *Iraq is another story, not only were the
justifications offered dubious at best, but the cost of that war when
the interest is finally paid will be well over two trillion
dollars--Dick Cheney's assertion that the war in Iraq would pay for
itself had better be proven true pretty soon 'cause so far it looks
like it's going to cost us a giant pile of money.

Whether the war was justified is irrelevant to this discussion. You disagree
with one of the Bush wars, I disagree with the "stimulus." Whether we
approve of each, they were what they were and deficits took place.

The point I was trying to make was that Bush had demands of a nature similar
to those claimed by Obama.

As for the "war paying for itself," it will. As more and more of Iraq's oil
comes to market, the price, world-wide, will reflect the increased supply..
An increased supply equals lower price. This price reduction, of course, is
almost impossible to measure in that it's a "what if" scenario. But
reasonable people should agree there'll be some reduction.

That is if Big Oil doesn't do a 1957 number to the economy (recession
'57-'58) for an Egyptian reason? Nothing like a little fear to keep
the oil prices up, eh?