Money well spent? - Jets Insider.com Forums

Trades · 11-30-2011, 09:46 AM

Money well spent? I think not.

I was going to add this to one of the other solar threads but I didn't want it to get burried. It is looking more and more like all of the green energy "investments" that have been made recently are just insider gifts for companies with garbage for products.

My favorite quote for the TLDR crowd is

[QUOTE][B]The company is $1.8 billion in debt, had total revenue of just $13.5 million in 2010 and ran an operating loss of $71 million.[/B]) The company openly admits that its technology may not perform as planned and that it faces technological challenges.[/QUOTE]

[URL]http://reason.com/blog/2011/11/30/rfk-jr-green-energy-boondoggles-socialis[/URL]
[QUOTE]
RFK Jr., Green Energy Boondoggles, & Socialism for the Rich

[URL="http://reason.com/people/nick-gillespie"]Nick Gillespie[/URL] | November 30, 2011
I'm reading Peter Schweizer's excellent new book [I][URL="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0547573146/reasonmagazineA/"]Throw Them All Out[/URL][/I], which details how politicians ranging from Nancy Pelosi to John Boehner to John Kerry to Dennis Hastert use their political positions to massive advantage in trading stocks. And how politically connected fat cats such as Warren Buffett and George Soros use their access to lawmakers to swing sweetheart deals, stimulus dollars, and government-loan guarantees their way. The book is an appallingly thoroughgoing and transpartisan expose of crony capitalism as it is practiced today.

Over at [URL="http://biggovernment.com/"]Big Goverment[/URL], Schweizer talks about how green energy tycoon Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has gotten his knickers in a twist over claims that his "politically-connected solar company called Brightsource (of which Mr. Kennedy’s firm is the largest investor) landed a sweetheart billion-dollar plus taxpayer-guaranteed loan." RFKjr calls Schweizer a "sock puppet" for "Big Oil."[INDENT]What has been so remarkable to me with the reaction to the book is the incredible disconnect between those on the inside getting these deals and those of us on the outside watching the rich getting rich with our money. I think the vast majority of people had no problem with the late Steve Jobs getting fabulously wealthy. He simply provided products and services people wanted. But those getting richer courtesy of our money and special loans? People are sick of it.

The bottom line is that Brightsource Energy got a sweetheart deal and it did so thanks to political connections. This is a company that admittedly has huge problems.

Kennedy never disputes that Brightsource got the money, nor that a former Principal at his firm, Sanjay Wagle, was a fundraiser for Obama and went to work in the Department of Energy’s alternative energy grant program after the 2008 election. Nor does he dispute that Brightsource [URL="http://www.secinfo.com/d14D5a.q37Ra.htm#3jrg"]admitted in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission[/URL] (SEC) that the Ivanpah project is highly risky, or that Brightsource is in financial trouble. ([B]The company is $1.8 billion in debt, had total revenue of just $13.5 million in 2010 and ran an operating loss of $71 million.[/B]) The company openly admits that its technology may not perform as planned and that it faces technological challenges. It’s also curious to note on the SEC filing (on page 42 linked above) that Brightsource is spending almost [B]six times[/B] as much on “marketing, general and administrative” costs than research and development. And more than [B]twice[/B] in those areas than it is spending on project development. Does this sound like a company that could survive without taxpayer money?...

Mr. Kennedy wants to do is divert us from the real scandal: the green energy program that he has advocated for is socialism for the super-rich. Wealthy investors likes Kennedy and his partners try to portray themselves are disinterested parties who are trying to help the environment and our country, but they have a stake in the game....
[/INDENT]Schweizer concludes by discussing the old "Baptist-Bootlegger" coalitions that formed around alcohol prohibition and noting that folks such as RFKjr have managed a neat trick: By being both sanctimonious greens and politically connected entrepreneurs, they are simultaneously Baptists and bootleggers.

[URL="http://biggovernment.com/pschweizer/2011/11/29/rfk-jr-fails-to-refute-key-details-of-his-sweetheart-deal-from-taxpayers/#more-382992"]Read the whole thing here.[/URL]

[/QUOTE]

bitonti · 11-30-2011, 10:15 AM

i dont know the details of this transaction but isn't a loan designed to get paid back?

sometimes with interest?

Trades · 11-30-2011, 10:36 AM

[QUOTE=bitonti;4257846]i dont know the details of this transaction but isn't a loan designed to get paid back?

sometimes with interest?[/QUOTE]

How do you pay back a loan if "[B]The company is $1.8 billion in debt, had total revenue of just $13.5 million in 2010 and ran an operating loss of $71 million."[/B]

Last I checked that is heading towards bankruptcy. Especially when the rest of the article goes on to say that they are basically squandering money and not doing research.

bitonti · 11-30-2011, 10:47 AM

what are their assets? cash on hand etc? if they declare then it's time to complain. in the meantime it's not an issue.

it wasn't too long ago we were here bemoaning the bank bailouts, but it turns out the fed actually made several billion on the deal. sometimes just gotta let these things play out.

as a greater side note I could start a thread about the 2.8 trillion dollars in Bush tax cut or the 3 trillion dollar war in Iraq with the same title. no President is perfect but at least Obama administration mistakes are relatively small. Yes a billion dollar loan is small compared to the "money well spent" of the last Gop president.

jetswin · 11-30-2011, 11:31 AM

[QUOTE=bitonti;4257877]what are their assets? cash on hand etc? if they declare then it's time to complain. in the meantime it's not an issue.

it wasn't too long ago we were here bemoaning the bank bailouts, but it turns out the fed actually made several billion on the deal. sometimes just gotta let these things play out.

as a greater side note I could start a thread about the 2.8 trillion dollars in Bush tax cut or the 3 trillion dollar war in Iraq with the same title. no President is perfect but at least Obama administration mistakes are relatively small. Yes a billion dollar loan is small compared to the "money well spent" of the last Gop president.[/QUOTE]
yes, because fighting terror around the world is certainly not worth the investment :rolleyes:

I actually commend you for admiting your passion against military spending at the same time you condone frivolous wastes of cash in green bs.

cr726 · 11-30-2011, 11:54 AM

[QUOTE=jetswin;4257949]yes, because fighting terror around the world is certainly not worth the investment :rolleyes:

I actually commend you for admiting your passion against military spending at the same time you condone frivolous wastes of cash in green bs.[/QUOTE]

Where does Iraq fit into your argument?

JetPotato · 11-30-2011, 12:02 PM

[QUOTE=cr726;4258002]Where does Iraq fit into your argument?[/QUOTE]

Reading is fundamental.

bitonti · 11-30-2011, 12:02 PM

[QUOTE=jetswin;4257949]
I actually commend you for admiting your passion against military spending at the same time you condone frivolous wastes of cash in green bs.[/QUOTE]

it's a difference of scope

most people (myself included) Don't fully grasp the difference between a million a billion and a trillion. But there's a huge difference. we talk about money well spent, a trillion is a thousand billion. the Iraq war spending (which did nothing for national security) is the same as 3,000 taxpayer loans similar to above.

JetPotato · 11-30-2011, 12:11 PM

Standard answer from our partisan clowns: there's always something unrelated from the past that's worse, so let's give this one a pass.

The moniker "[I]Progress[/I]ive" is losing all meaning.

PlumberKhan · 11-30-2011, 12:20 PM

[QUOTE=JetPotato;4258037]The moniker "[I]Progress[/I]ive" is losing all meaning.[/QUOTE]

At least it lost it at a slower rate than "conservative".

"Conserve: to spend as fast as you can"

:P

cr726 · 11-30-2011, 12:33 PM

[QUOTE=JetPotato;4258018]Reading is fundamental.[/QUOTE]

Jetswin made a statement about fighting global terrorism, Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism.

You are the bestest!

bitonti · 11-30-2011, 12:34 PM

[QUOTE=JetPotato;4258037]Standard answer from our partisan clowns: there's always something unrelated from the past that's worse, so let's give this one a pass.

The moniker "[I]Progress[/I]ive" is losing all meaning.[/QUOTE]

i just don't think the purpose of gov't is to make a profit or break even. it's basically all a loss and it's paid for with taxpayers dollars. this thread is called "money well spent" we can ask that of any program and the answer to some will always be no.

JetPotato · 11-30-2011, 12:40 PM

[QUOTE=bitonti;4258092][B]i just don't think the purpose of gov't is to make a profit or break even. it's basically all a loss and it's paid for with taxpayers dollars.[/B] this thread is called "money well spent" we can ask that of any program and the answer to some will always be no.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for summing up what we already know about you. You're fine with all government spending, regardless of how wasteful it is or is not, financially or otherwise (as long as it is a Democrat doing it).

Tell us: who are these people that believe that government exists to make a financial profit?

jetswin · 11-30-2011, 12:41 PM

[QUOTE=cr726;4258091]Jetswin made a statement about fighting global terrorism, Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism.

You are the bestest![/QUOTE]
right :rolleyes:

because we did not kill or catch any terrorists in Iraq...but again you derail a thread

bitonti · 11-30-2011, 12:43 PM

[QUOTE=JetPotato;4258107] You're fine with all government spending, regardless of how wasteful it is or is not, financially or otherwise (as long as it is a Democrat doing it).
[/QUOTE]

I support paying the bills. Not cutting taxes forever and borrowing. in the 1960s 1980's etc there were much higher tax rates and life was pretty good. We have all these threads about what spending is terrible and very few threads about paying for our obligations. the problem is not really the spending it's the revenue. You want to end entitlements that date back to FDR or LBJ, that's not a realistic outcome. what's more realistic is that taxes go up and the balance is paid.

bitonti · 11-30-2011, 12:44 PM

[QUOTE=jetswin;4258112]right :rolleyes:

because we did not kill or catch any terrorists in Iraq...[/QUOTE]

ya mean the terrorists that didn't exist until we invaded? Or the Iranian agents that crossed the border to wage a proxy war?

face it the whole conflict was a boondoggle. It was one of the worst military decisions any US President has made for the last 100 years.

JetPotato · 11-30-2011, 12:49 PM

[QUOTE=bitonti;4258115]I support paying the bills. Not cutting taxes forever and borrowing. in the 1960s 1980's etc there were much higher tax rates and life was pretty good. [/QUOTE]

Yeah, we've heard you spew this time after time. It doesn't mean anything.

[QUOTE=bitonti;4258115]
We have all these threads about what spending is terrible and very few threads about paying for our obligations. [/QUOTE]

You're free to start whatever threads you like. But I'm not seeing why this particular topic falls under the category of our "obligation"

[QUOTE=bitonti;4258115]
the problem is not really the spending it's the revenue. You want to end entitlements that date back to FDR or LBJ, that's not a realistic outcome. what's more realistic is that taxes go up and the balance is paid.[/QUOTE]

This topic is not an entitlement that dates back to FDR or LBJ. It just happened. But we get it. You see it as wasteful, but not as wasteful as something else, so let's just shrug our shoulders and raise taxes to pay for it. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.

And it's not a spending issue :rolleyes:

jetswin · 11-30-2011, 12:50 PM

[QUOTE=bitonti;4258120]ya mean the terrorists that didn't exist until we invaded? Or the Iranian agents that crossed the border to wage a proxy war?

face it the whole conflict was a boondoggle. It was one of the worst military decisions any US President has made for the last 100 years.[/QUOTE]

not sure of that...the bottom line is you could look at it like this quote, "if you build it, they will come," they took the bait. Granted, I know the war was not promoted that way to justify it.

cr726 · 11-30-2011, 12:52 PM

[QUOTE=jetswin;4258112]right :rolleyes:

because we did not kill or catch any terrorists in Iraq...but again you derail a thread[/QUOTE]

The money we have spent on Iraq is an absolute disgrace. Iraq had zero to do with 9-11.

China and Saudi Arabia are investing big money into solar. The gov't is investing in green technologies. I do not agree with what I have been reading about the current Administration to manipulate what happened with Solandra.

jetswin · 11-30-2011, 01:01 PM

[QUOTE=cr726;4258139]The money we have spent on Iraq is an absolute disgrace. Iraq had zero to do with 9-11.

China and Saudi Arabia are investing big money into solar. The gov't is investing in green technologies. I do not agree with what I have been reading about the current Administration to manipulate what happened with Solandra.[/QUOTE]
Are you presenting China, the world's leading indescriminate polluter and user of fossil fuels, as something to admire? not very lib like.

11-30-2011, 09:46 AM	#1
Trades Jets Insider VIP Join Date: May 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 5,558	Money well spent? Money well spent? I think not. I was going to add this to one of the other solar threads but I didn't want it to get burried. It is looking more and more like all of the green energy "investments" that have been made recently are just insider gifts for companies with garbage for products. My favorite quote for the TLDR crowd is [QUOTE][B]The company is $1.8 billion in debt, had total revenue of just $13.5 million in 2010 and ran an operating loss of $71 million.[/B]) The company openly admits that its technology may not perform as planned and that it faces technological challenges.[/QUOTE] [URL]http://reason.com/blog/2011/11/30/rfk-jr-green-energy-boondoggles-socialis[/URL] [QUOTE] RFK Jr., Green Energy Boondoggles, & Socialism for the Rich [URL="http://reason.com/people/nick-gillespie"]Nick Gillespie[/URL] \| November 30, 2011 I'm reading Peter Schweizer's excellent new book [I][URL="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0547573146/reasonmagazineA/"]Throw Them All Out[/URL][/I], which details how politicians ranging from Nancy Pelosi to John Boehner to John Kerry to Dennis Hastert use their political positions to massive advantage in trading stocks. And how politically connected fat cats such as Warren Buffett and George Soros use their access to lawmakers to swing sweetheart deals, stimulus dollars, and government-loan guarantees their way. The book is an appallingly thoroughgoing and transpartisan expose of crony capitalism as it is practiced today. Over at [URL="http://biggovernment.com/"]Big Goverment[/URL], Schweizer talks about how green energy tycoon Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has gotten his knickers in a twist over claims that his "politically-connected solar company called Brightsource (of which Mr. Kennedy’s firm is the largest investor) landed a sweetheart billion-dollar plus taxpayer-guaranteed loan." RFKjr calls Schweizer a "sock puppet" for "Big Oil."[INDENT]What has been so remarkable to me with the reaction to the book is the incredible disconnect between those on the inside getting these deals and those of us on the outside watching the rich getting rich with our money. I think the vast majority of people had no problem with the late Steve Jobs getting fabulously wealthy. He simply provided products and services people wanted. But those getting richer courtesy of our money and special loans? People are sick of it. The bottom line is that Brightsource Energy got a sweetheart deal and it did so thanks to political connections. This is a company that admittedly has huge problems. Kennedy never disputes that Brightsource got the money, nor that a former Principal at his firm, Sanjay Wagle, was a fundraiser for Obama and went to work in the Department of Energy’s alternative energy grant program after the 2008 election. Nor does he dispute that Brightsource [URL="http://www.secinfo.com/d14D5a.q37Ra.htm#3jrg"]admitted in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission[/URL] (SEC) that the Ivanpah project is highly risky, or that Brightsource is in financial trouble. ([B]The company is $1.8 billion in debt, had total revenue of just $13.5 million in 2010 and ran an operating loss of $71 million.[/B]) The company openly admits that its technology may not perform as planned and that it faces technological challenges. It’s also curious to note on the SEC filing (on page 42 linked above) that Brightsource is spending almost [B]six times[/B] as much on “marketing, general and administrative” costs than research and development. And more than [B]twice[/B] in those areas than it is spending on project development. Does this sound like a company that could survive without taxpayer money?... Mr. Kennedy wants to do is divert us from the real scandal: the green energy program that he has advocated for is socialism for the super-rich. Wealthy investors likes Kennedy and his partners try to portray themselves are disinterested parties who are trying to help the environment and our country, but they have a stake in the game.... [/INDENT]Schweizer concludes by discussing the old "Baptist-Bootlegger" coalitions that formed around alcohol prohibition and noting that folks such as RFKjr have managed a neat trick: By being both sanctimonious greens and politically connected entrepreneurs, they are simultaneously Baptists and bootleggers. [URL="http://biggovernment.com/pschweizer/2011/11/29/rfk-jr-fails-to-refute-key-details-of-his-sweetheart-deal-from-taxpayers/#more-382992"]Read the whole thing here.[/URL] [/QUOTE]

11-30-2011, 10:15 AM	#2
bitonti searching Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Philly Posts: 38,786	i dont know the details of this transaction but isn't a loan designed to get paid back? sometimes with interest?

11-30-2011, 10:36 AM	#3
Trades Jets Insider VIP Join Date: May 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 5,558	[QUOTE=bitonti;4257846]i dont know the details of this transaction but isn't a loan designed to get paid back? sometimes with interest?[/QUOTE] How do you pay back a loan if "[B]The company is $1.8 billion in debt, had total revenue of just $13.5 million in 2010 and ran an operating loss of $71 million."[/B] Last I checked that is heading towards bankruptcy. Especially when the rest of the article goes on to say that they are basically squandering money and not doing research.

11-30-2011, 10:47 AM	#4
bitonti searching Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Philly Posts: 38,786	what are their assets? cash on hand etc? if they declare then it's time to complain. in the meantime it's not an issue. it wasn't too long ago we were here bemoaning the bank bailouts, but it turns out the fed actually made several billion on the deal. sometimes just gotta let these things play out. as a greater side note I could start a thread about the 2.8 trillion dollars in Bush tax cut or the 3 trillion dollar war in Iraq with the same title. no President is perfect but at least Obama administration mistakes are relatively small. Yes a billion dollar loan is small compared to the "money well spent" of the last Gop president.

11-30-2011, 11:31 AM	#5
jetswin stumblin mumblin butt fumblin Board Moderator Jets Insider VIP JetsInsider.com Legend Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Location: Westchester Co. Posts: 35,469	[QUOTE=bitonti;4257877]what are their assets? cash on hand etc? if they declare then it's time to complain. in the meantime it's not an issue. it wasn't too long ago we were here bemoaning the bank bailouts, but it turns out the fed actually made several billion on the deal. sometimes just gotta let these things play out. as a greater side note I could start a thread about the 2.8 trillion dollars in Bush tax cut or the 3 trillion dollar war in Iraq with the same title. no President is perfect but at least Obama administration mistakes are relatively small. Yes a billion dollar loan is small compared to the "money well spent" of the last Gop president.[/QUOTE] yes, because fighting terror around the world is certainly not worth the investment :rolleyes: I actually commend you for admiting your passion against military spending at the same time you condone frivolous wastes of cash in green bs.

11-30-2011, 11:54 AM	#6
cr726 Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,329	[QUOTE=jetswin;4257949]yes, because fighting terror around the world is certainly not worth the investment :rolleyes: I actually commend you for admiting your passion against military spending at the same time you condone frivolous wastes of cash in green bs.[/QUOTE] Where does Iraq fit into your argument?

11-30-2011, 12:02 PM	#7
JetPotato fermenting Hall Of Fame Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: New York, NY Posts: 12,142	[QUOTE=cr726;4258002]Where does Iraq fit into your argument?[/QUOTE] Reading is fundamental.

11-30-2011, 12:11 PM	#9
JetPotato fermenting Hall Of Fame Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: New York, NY Posts: 12,142	Standard answer from our partisan clowns: there's always something unrelated from the past that's worse, so let's give this one a pass. The moniker "[I]Progress[/I]ive" is losing all meaning.

11-30-2011, 12:20 PM	#10
PlumberKhan BRACE YOURSELVES FOR 12... Hall Of Fame Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Van down by the river Posts: 21,029	[QUOTE=JetPotato;4258037]The moniker "[I]Progress[/I]ive" is losing all meaning.[/QUOTE] At least it lost it at a slower rate than "conservative". "Conserve: to spend as fast as you can" :P

11-30-2011, 12:33 PM	#11
cr726 Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,329	[QUOTE=JetPotato;4258018]Reading is fundamental.[/QUOTE] Jetswin made a statement about fighting global terrorism, Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. You are the bestest!

11-30-2011, 12:34 PM	#12
bitonti searching Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Philly Posts: 38,786	[QUOTE=JetPotato;4258037]Standard answer from our partisan clowns: there's always something unrelated from the past that's worse, so let's give this one a pass. The moniker "[I]Progress[/I]ive" is losing all meaning.[/QUOTE] i just don't think the purpose of gov't is to make a profit or break even. it's basically all a loss and it's paid for with taxpayers dollars. this thread is called "money well spent" we can ask that of any program and the answer to some will always be no.

11-30-2011, 12:40 PM	#13
JetPotato fermenting Hall Of Fame Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: New York, NY Posts: 12,142	[QUOTE=bitonti;4258092][B]i just don't think the purpose of gov't is to make a profit or break even. it's basically all a loss and it's paid for with taxpayers dollars.[/B] this thread is called "money well spent" we can ask that of any program and the answer to some will always be no.[/QUOTE] Thanks for summing up what we already know about you. You're fine with all government spending, regardless of how wasteful it is or is not, financially or otherwise (as long as it is a Democrat doing it). Tell us: who are these people that believe that government exists to make a financial profit?

11-30-2011, 12:41 PM	#14
jetswin stumblin mumblin butt fumblin Board Moderator Jets Insider VIP JetsInsider.com Legend Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Location: Westchester Co. Posts: 35,469	[QUOTE=cr726;4258091]Jetswin made a statement about fighting global terrorism, Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. You are the bestest![/QUOTE] right :rolleyes: because we did not kill or catch any terrorists in Iraq...but again you derail a thread

11-30-2011, 12:43 PM	#15
bitonti searching Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Philly Posts: 38,786	[QUOTE=JetPotato;4258107] You're fine with all government spending, regardless of how wasteful it is or is not, financially or otherwise (as long as it is a Democrat doing it). [/QUOTE] I support paying the bills. Not cutting taxes forever and borrowing. in the 1960s 1980's etc there were much higher tax rates and life was pretty good. We have all these threads about what spending is terrible and very few threads about paying for our obligations. the problem is not really the spending it's the revenue. You want to end entitlements that date back to FDR or LBJ, that's not a realistic outcome. what's more realistic is that taxes go up and the balance is paid.

11-30-2011, 12:44 PM	#16
bitonti searching Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Philly Posts: 38,786	[QUOTE=jetswin;4258112]right :rolleyes: because we did not kill or catch any terrorists in Iraq...[/QUOTE] ya mean the terrorists that didn't exist until we invaded? Or the Iranian agents that crossed the border to wage a proxy war? face it the whole conflict was a boondoggle. It was one of the worst military decisions any US President has made for the last 100 years.

11-30-2011, 12:49 PM	#17
JetPotato fermenting Hall Of Fame Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: New York, NY Posts: 12,142	[QUOTE=bitonti;4258115]I support paying the bills. Not cutting taxes forever and borrowing. in the 1960s 1980's etc there were much higher tax rates and life was pretty good. [/QUOTE] Yeah, we've heard you spew this time after time. It doesn't mean anything. [QUOTE=bitonti;4258115] We have all these threads about what spending is terrible and very few threads about paying for our obligations. [/QUOTE] You're free to start whatever threads you like. But I'm not seeing why this particular topic falls under the category of our "obligation" [QUOTE=bitonti;4258115] the problem is not really the spending it's the revenue. You want to end entitlements that date back to FDR or LBJ, that's not a realistic outcome. what's more realistic is that taxes go up and the balance is paid.[/QUOTE] This topic is not an entitlement that dates back to FDR or LBJ. It just happened. But we get it. You see it as wasteful, but not as wasteful as something else, so let's just shrug our shoulders and raise taxes to pay for it. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat. And it's not a spending issue :rolleyes:

11-30-2011, 12:50 PM	#18
jetswin stumblin mumblin butt fumblin Board Moderator Jets Insider VIP JetsInsider.com Legend Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Location: Westchester Co. Posts: 35,469	[QUOTE=bitonti;4258120]ya mean the terrorists that didn't exist until we invaded? Or the Iranian agents that crossed the border to wage a proxy war? face it the whole conflict was a boondoggle. It was one of the worst military decisions any US President has made for the last 100 years.[/QUOTE] not sure of that...the bottom line is you could look at it like this quote, "if you build it, they will come," they took the bait. Granted, I know the war was not promoted that way to justify it.

11-30-2011, 12:52 PM	#19
cr726 Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,329	[QUOTE=jetswin;4258112]right :rolleyes: because we did not kill or catch any terrorists in Iraq...but again you derail a thread[/QUOTE] The money we have spent on Iraq is an absolute disgrace. Iraq had zero to do with 9-11. China and Saudi Arabia are investing big money into solar. The gov't is investing in green technologies. I do not agree with what I have been reading about the current Administration to manipulate what happened with Solandra.

11-30-2011, 01:01 PM	#20
jetswin stumblin mumblin butt fumblin Board Moderator Jets Insider VIP JetsInsider.com Legend Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Location: Westchester Co. Posts: 35,469	[QUOTE=cr726;4258139]The money we have spent on Iraq is an absolute disgrace. Iraq had zero to do with 9-11. China and Saudi Arabia are investing big money into solar. The gov't is investing in green technologies. I do not agree with what I have been reading about the current Administration to manipulate what happened with Solandra.[/QUOTE] Are you presenting China, the world's leading indescriminate polluter and user of fossil fuels, as something to admire? not very lib like.