| |
Main
Date: 07 Oct 2006 17:15:53
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: George W. Bush
|
George Wishful-thinking Bush.
|
|
| |
Date: 08 Oct 2006 03:11:38
From: Frank Ketchum
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote in message
news:QyXVg.2785$v43.300@fed1read02...
> George Wishful-thinking Bush.
>
Ohhh, the caliber of thought on the left side of the aisle....
|
| | |
Date: 07 Oct 2006 21:23:15
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Frank Ketchum" <fketchum@earthlinknospaam.net > wrote in message
news:K%ZVg.6343$Y24.2259@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message
> news:QyXVg.2785$v43.300@fed1read02...
>> George Wishful-thinking Bush.
>>
>
> Ohhh, the caliber of thought on the left side of the aisle....
Thanks, However, I am neither a liberal nor a democrat. I would love to see
John McCain get elected. Or Guiliani. Or anyone Republican with allegiance
to American values instead of big business and the religious fringe. Or
maybe it would be nice to have a balanced budget with Hillary.
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Oct 2006 14:32:40
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On Sat, 7 2006 21:23:15 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt"
<goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote:
>Or anyone Republican with allegiance
>to American values instead of big business and the religious fringe.
A candidate can pretend to have allegiance for Big Business and for
the Religious Fringe, but those two Right wings are not at all
congruent.
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Oct 2006 06:30:34
From: R.J.
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
> Thanks, However, I am neither a liberal nor a democrat. I would love to
> see
> John McCain get elected. Or Guiliani. Or anyone Republican with allegiance
> to American values instead of big business and the religious fringe. Or
> maybe it would be nice to have a balanced budget with Hillary.
>
define "american values".
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 Oct 2006 08:08:26
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On Sun, 08 2006 06:30:34 GMT, "R.J." <roleksy11@telus.net > wrote:
>
>> Thanks, However, I am neither a liberal nor a democrat. I would love to
>> see
>> John McCain get elected. Or Guiliani. Or anyone Republican with allegiance
>> to American values instead of big business and the religious fringe. Or
>> maybe it would be nice to have a balanced budget with Hillary.
>>
>
>define "american values".
>
Obviously a neocon.
___,
\o
|
| | | | | |
Date: 08 Oct 2006 10:05:51
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Bobby Knight wrote:
> On Sun, 08 2006 06:30:34 GMT, "R.J." <roleksy11@telus.net> wrote:
>
>>> Thanks, However, I am neither a liberal nor a democrat. I would love to
>>> see
>>> John McCain get elected. Or Guiliani. Or anyone Republican with allegiance
>>> to American values instead of big business and the religious fringe. Or
>>> maybe it would be nice to have a balanced budget with Hillary.
>>>
>> define "american values".
>>
> Obviously a neocon.
What is your definition of a "neocon?"
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 08 Oct 2006 09:43:41
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On Sun, 08 2006 10:05:51 -0400, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com >
wrote:
>Bobby Knight wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 2006 06:30:34 GMT, "R.J." <roleksy11@telus.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Thanks, However, I am neither a liberal nor a democrat. I would love to
>>>> see
>>>> John McCain get elected. Or Guiliani. Or anyone Republican with allegiance
>>>> to American values instead of big business and the religious fringe. Or
>>>> maybe it would be nice to have a balanced budget with Hillary.
>>>>
>>> define "american values".
>>>
>> Obviously a neocon.
>
>What is your definition of a "neocon?"
In the above case, one who has to ask what American (note
capitalization) values are.
--
___,
\o
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 09 Oct 2006 12:48:46
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Bert Robbins" <screw@you.com > wrote in message
news:k7qdnXUzTNMimLTYnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Bobby Knight wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 2006 06:30:34 GMT, "R.J." <roleksy11@telus.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Thanks, However, I am neither a liberal nor a democrat. I would love to
>>>> see
>>>> John McCain get elected. Or Guiliani. Or anyone Republican with
>>>> allegiance to American values instead of big business and the religious
>>>> fringe. Or maybe it would be nice to have a balanced budget with
>>>> Hillary.
>>>>
>>> define "american values".
>>>
>> Obviously a neocon.
>
> What is your definition of a "neocon?"
Anyone but BK. :-)
|
| | | | | |
Date: 08 Oct 2006 18:11:05
From: R.J.
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:m1uhi2tqc456iba62kskbjug1854etvktd@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 08 2006 06:30:34 GMT, "R.J." <roleksy11@telus.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>> Thanks, However, I am neither a liberal nor a democrat. I would love to
>>> see
>>> John McCain get elected. Or Guiliani. Or anyone Republican with
>>> allegiance
>>> to American values instead of big business and the religious fringe. Or
>>> maybe it would be nice to have a balanced budget with Hillary.
>>>
>>
>>define "american values".
>>
> Obviously a neocon.
Your sense of perception is pathetic. I'm the farthest thing from it.
I was mostly just curious about what is valued these days, seeing as it all
seems to be going to hell in a hand-basket.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 08 Oct 2006 13:44:06
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On Sun, 08 2006 18:11:05 GMT, "R.J." <roleksy11@telus.net > wrote:
>
>"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>news:m1uhi2tqc456iba62kskbjug1854etvktd@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 08 2006 06:30:34 GMT, "R.J." <roleksy11@telus.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> Thanks, However, I am neither a liberal nor a democrat. I would love to
>>>> see
>>>> John McCain get elected. Or Guiliani. Or anyone Republican with
>>>> allegiance
>>>> to American values instead of big business and the religious fringe. Or
>>>> maybe it would be nice to have a balanced budget with Hillary.
>>>>
>>>
>>>define "american values".
>>>
>> Obviously a neocon.
>
>Your sense of perception is pathetic. I'm the farthest thing from it.
>
Right. Yours is so acute that you ask a definition from a forum that
probably has several hundred views of the term. I could have easily
said liberal, or conservative, or independent.
--
___,
\o
|
| | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 14:41:08
From: John B.
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Bobby Knight wrote:
> On 11 2006 11:45:37 -0700, "Fairway" <arminsson@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >John B. wrote:
> >> Aren't you the psychopath who said that members of Congress molesting
> >> teenage boys was a minor issue? Only a faggot would say that. J
> >Silly retorts will bring you nowhere. Foley didn=B4t molest anyone. From
> >what I=B4ve read he didn=B4t do anything illegal - immoral, yes, but not
> >illegal. F
>
How the hell do you know he didn't molest anyone? You don't know about
it, therefore it couldn't have happened. Is that your argument? We do
know that Foley spent a lot of time chasing these boys around and
trying to get them into bed. We've seen the e-mails and IMs in which he
made his intentions absolutely clear. To assume that he never once
succeeded is ridiculously naive. Maybe we'll never find out about it,
but you know he did it. By the way, my "silly retort" came only in
response to your calling me a "fucking commie" or something like that.
> If the page was underage it certainly could be illegal. Watch
> Dateline and see that perverts that just converse through email are
> arrested, and they haven't laid a hand on the "victim". We haven't
> seen the emails that Foley sent yet. They could well be illegal.
> ___,
> \o
>
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 Oct 2006 01:41:42
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"R.J." <roleksy11@telus.net > wrote in message
news:eW0Wg.2319$P7.579@edtnps89...
>
>> Thanks, However, I am neither a liberal nor a democrat. I would love to
>> see
>> John McCain get elected. Or Guiliani. Or anyone Republican with
>> allegiance to American values instead of big business and the religious
>> fringe. Or maybe it would be nice to have a balanced budget with Hillary.
>>
>
> define "american values".
That could take a long time. I'm not buying the idea that the "American
Dream" is a house with a mortgage and all of the family members buying
products they see on television. Madison Avenue.
American values, off the top of my head ... living in a country that cares
about other people in the world, a lot, but isn't so do-gooder that they
would sacrafice the future of their own children to do so. A country that
believes in some of the basic tenents of religion but doesn't necessarily
call it religion, like doing unto others. A country that would be called "a
peaceful nation" and not a "warlike people" like we read about in history as
kids. A country goverend by people who are elected and elected in a way that
should not be bought or cheated or won by hight priced advertising agencies
and polls based on what people thing they need to say instead of what they
believe. A country where even the most ignorant and violent deserve the
greatest amount of respect than can get while not endangering others, which
means they are really innocent unless proven guilty. That in America
business should serve the people and not the other way around. America means
we have a somewhat over emphasis on children and like it that way, and if we
could really know that out tax dollars were going where they should would
work our asses off to insure that our children and the children of others
have a good education and are safe in their own homes from outside threats
and threats from their own family. America means that we can say what we
want to say and put up, a lot, with others saying things that take advantage
of our freedom instead of using it. America also means that we know we
should be using our rights guaranteed but not granted by the First
Amendment, to a better use. We should be speaking up at town meetings and
joing political parties or single issue groups, for things we really
believe. America means that there are a lot of old black men and old black
women and old white men and old white women and Asians and American Indians
who have lived enough to know that color doesn't matter and that a lot of
people know that who your parents or what your name is doesn't matter ...
not in the sense that the word "All men are created equal" means ... not in
the true sense of those words. And America probably means that a lot of us
have an uneasy feeling in the pits of our stomach now and maybe a lot of us
have a great feeling ... and that none of want to envy the other but wish
that we all can attain our best.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 08 Oct 2006 14:38:40
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On Sun, 8 2006 01:41:42 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt"
<goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote:
>That could take a long time. I'm not buying the idea that the "American
>Dream" is a house with a mortgage and all of the family members buying
>products they see on television. Madison Avenue.
Those are some of the values that exist in America (and elsewhere). So
your definition of "American values" is "Those values which I like
being associated with America".
Funny thing - that's pretty much the same definition that the
Religious Right, the Religious Left, the Big Business Right, the
Welfare Left, the AARP, the School Lobby, the Environmentalists, the
KKK, the anti-Mexicans, the pro-Hollywood, and those routing for
Auburn have.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 08 Oct 2006 14:41:02
From: Frank Ketchum
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net > wrote in message
news:c43ii2tuhm9epah1udbb74k7qdl9j82osa@4ax.com...
>
> Funny thing - that's pretty much the same definition that the
> Religious Right, the Religious Left, the Big Business Right, the
> Welfare Left, the AARP, the School Lobby, the Environmentalists, the
> KKK, the anti-Mexicans, the pro-Hollywood, and those routing for
> Auburn have.
You left out Miss America contestants.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 08 Oct 2006 15:47:38
From: The World Wide Wade
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
In article <2Z2Wg.2885$v43.563@fed1read02 >,
"AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote:
> "R.J." <roleksy11@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:eW0Wg.2319$P7.579@edtnps89...
> >
> >> Thanks, However, I am neither a liberal nor a democrat. I would love to
> >> see
> >> John McCain get elected. Or Guiliani. Or anyone Republican with
> >> allegiance to American values instead of big business and the religious
> >> fringe. Or maybe it would be nice to have a balanced budget with Hillary.
> >>
> >
> > define "american values".
>
> That could take a long time. I'm not buying the idea that the "American
> Dream" is a house with a mortgage and all of the family members buying
> products they see on television. Madison Avenue.
>
> American values, off the top of my head ... living in a country that cares
> about other people in the world, a lot, but isn't so do-gooder that they
> would sacrafice the future of their own children to do so.
One American value is the massive and unmerciful use of military
violence against other nations, cloaked in the most outrageous
propaganda, to accomplish objectives that most Americans are
opposed to (else there would be no need for the propaganda). So
your choice of McCain, Guiliani, and/or Hillary makes a good deal
of sense.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 08 Oct 2006 15:48:30
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"The World Wide Wade" <waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net > wrote in message
news:waderameyxiii-027CCF.15473808102006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <2Z2Wg.2885$v43.563@fed1read02>,
> "AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
>
>> "R.J." <roleksy11@telus.net> wrote in message
>> news:eW0Wg.2319$P7.579@edtnps89...
>> >
>> >> Thanks, However, I am neither a liberal nor a democrat. I would love
>> >> to
>> >> see
>> >> John McCain get elected. Or Guiliani. Or anyone Republican with
>> >> allegiance to American values instead of big business and the
>> >> religious
>> >> fringe. Or maybe it would be nice to have a balanced budget with
>> >> Hillary.
>> >>
>> >
>> > define "american values".
>>
>> That could take a long time. I'm not buying the idea that the "American
>> Dream" is a house with a mortgage and all of the family members buying
>> products they see on television. Madison Avenue.
>>
>> American values, off the top of my head ... living in a country that
>> cares
>> about other people in the world, a lot, but isn't so do-gooder that they
>> would sacrafice the future of their own children to do so.
>
> One American value is the massive and unmerciful use of military
> violence against other nations, cloaked in the most outrageous
> propaganda, to accomplish objectives that most Americans are
> opposed to (else there would be no need for the propaganda). So
> your choice of McCain, Guiliani, and/or Hillary makes a good deal
> of sense.
None of the above 3 seem to be delusional. I've got to get off this subject.
It's scary, really. I don't feel safe talking about it.
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Oct 2006 17:00:47
From: multi
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On Sat, 7 2006 21:23:15 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt"
<goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote:
>I would love to see
>John McCain get elected. Or Guiliani. Or anyone Republican with allegiance
>to American values instead of big business and the religious fringe.
Jeez, make up your mind. McCain sucks up to both business and the
fundies, and even on the issues where he gives lip service to the sane
position, like torture, he lets himself get rolled every time.
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Oct 2006 12:47:11
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote in message
news:Ka%Vg.2797$v43.804@fed1read02...
>Or maybe it would be nice to have a balanced budget with Hillary.
>
Dream on.
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 20:02:45
From: Tex
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> In article <1160534537.270522.32770@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>
> > Bobby Knight wrote:
> > > On 10 2006 12:38:57 -0700, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >I had always thought the idea of the US SS retirement system was that
> > > >people paid money into a fund that was set aside to fund retirement,
> > > >period: the payout is a function of what is in there...but the
> > > >politicians couldn't keep their hands off the money, so the fund has
> > > >absolutely no money in it at all and is 100% dependent on the ability
> > > >of the US government ot raise mony (via T Bills and the like) to keep
> > > >it going. What I like is that the citizens of the past used the money
> > > >for "investments" like roads and bridges to help drive the
> > > >economy...and spent the money, and now want citizens of the present
> > > >future to still pay out retirement benefits from it! Talk about wanting
> > > >to have your cake and eat it too!!
> > >
> > > Whoa! Those "citizens of the past" damned sure weren't the pubic who
> > > funded SS. They didn't get a vote on congress spending those monies,
> > > and all they want is what was promised from SS. It would've worked as
> > > promised if the pols hadn't siphoned it off.
> >
> > While I amke a lot of boring typos, you make a few interesting ones!
> >
> > Those people paid into SS, to generate the SS trust fund, regardless
> > what the odd parson might think, and they voted in the scoundrels who
> > spent the money on pork barrrel projects designed to buy votes, and now
> > they want us to pay for their SS because the trust fund has no money.
> > ..and SS savings plans are no good because they can't make up for past
> > money wasted,,,by people in the past electing politicians in the past
> > who bought their votes, partially with their retirement money...so
> > working people today pay for it... and medicare that people in the past
> > wouldn't pay, but now working people are supposed to pony up for it.
> You need to get out more. SS was always to use current receipts to pay
> current benefits. No fund was ever created nor was it part of the law.
Yes, just ask Al Gore and his "lock box" theory.
Tex
|
| | | | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 21:16:22
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1160535764.961612.217980@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> In article <1160534537.270522.32770@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>> "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Bobby Knight wrote:
>> > > On 10 2006 12:38:57 -0700, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > >I had always thought the idea of the US SS retirement system was
>> > > >that
>> > > >people paid money into a fund that was set aside to fund retirement,
>> > > >period: the payout is a function of what is in there...but the
>> > > >politicians couldn't keep their hands off the money, so the fund has
>> > > >absolutely no money in it at all and is 100% dependent on the
>> > > >ability
>> > > >of the US government ot raise mony (via T Bills and the like) to
>> > > >keep
>> > > >it going. What I like is that the citizens of the past used the
>> > > >money
>> > > >for "investments" like roads and bridges to help drive the
>> > > >economy...and spent the money, and now want citizens of the present
>> > > >future to still pay out retirement benefits from it! Talk about
>> > > >wanting
>> > > >to have your cake and eat it too!!
>> > >
>> > > Whoa! Those "citizens of the past" damned sure weren't the pubic who
>> > > funded SS. They didn't get a vote on congress spending those
>> > > monies,
>> > > and all they want is what was promised from SS. It would've worked
>> > > as
>> > > promised if the pols hadn't siphoned it off.
>> >
>> > While I amke a lot of boring typos, you make a few interesting ones!
>> >
>> > Those people paid into SS, to generate the SS trust fund, regardless
>> > what the odd parson might think, and they voted in the scoundrels who
>> > spent the money on pork barrrel projects designed to buy votes, and now
>> > they want us to pay for their SS because the trust fund has no money.
>> > ..and SS savings plans are no good because they can't make up for past
>> > money wasted,,,by people in the past electing politicians in the past
>> > who bought their votes, partially with their retirement money...so
>> > working people today pay for it... and medicare that people in the past
>> > wouldn't pay, but now working people are supposed to pony up for it.
>
>> You need to get out more. SS was always to use current receipts to pay
>> current benefits. No fund was ever created nor was it part of the law.
>
> Yes, just ask Al Gore and his "lock box" theory.
>
> Tex
The lock box was part of the contract with America, too.
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 16:53:55
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote in message
news:Ka%Vg.2797$v43.804@fed1read02...
>
> Thanks, However, I am neither a liberal nor a democrat. I would love to
see
> John McCain get elected. Or Guiliani. Or anyone Republican with allegiance
> to American values instead of big business and the religious fringe. Or
> maybe it would be nice to have a balanced budget with Hillary.
>
Or Gingrich, the actual man responsible for balancing the budget.
|
| | | | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 20:50:36
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote in message
news:IYadnbP_vezpi7HYnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@centurytel.net...
>
> "AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message
> news:Ka%Vg.2797$v43.804@fed1read02...
>>
>> Thanks, However, I am neither a liberal nor a democrat. I would love to
> see
>> John McCain get elected. Or Guiliani. Or anyone Republican with
>> allegiance
>> to American values instead of big business and the religious fringe. Or
>> maybe it would be nice to have a balanced budget with Hillary.
>>
>
> Or Gingrich, the actual man responsible for balancing the budget.
Ross Perot was responsible. If he hadn't brought it up in the debates and
pounded on it, there would never have been the public outrage to force
fiscal reform. I lived in Arizona. Matt Salmon, our congressman, a
Republican, helped get rid of Gingrich with the help of one of the best
congressmen, apparently, Dick Armey. Gingrich is greasy, imo.
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 03:09:48
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
the Moderator <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote:
:
: "AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote in message
: news:Ka%Vg.2797$v43.804@fed1read02...
: >
: > Thanks, However, I am neither a liberal nor a democrat. I would love to
: see
: > John McCain get elected. Or Guiliani. Or anyone Republican with allegiance
: > to American values instead of big business and the religious fringe. Or
: > maybe it would be nice to have a balanced budget with Hillary.
: >
:
: Or Gingrich, the actual man responsible for balancing the budget.
Gingrich was essentially powerless in 1993 when the legislative
program to pay down the deficit was enacted. Nice try, though.
You might want to google up how the deficit fell in 1994 and
1995 before you try spouting that particular partisan revisionism
again.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | |
Date: 08 Oct 2006 13:11:37
From: tiggerspalewife
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
In article <K%ZVg.6343$Y24.2259@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net >
"Frank Ketchum" <fketchum@earthlinknospaam.net > wrote:
George Worst-President-Ever Bush
You're right. It is "caliber of thought" or in bush's case, lack of, that
has gotten him where he is. He has become the benchmark for lowbar
performance. Best thing for Clinton was to be followed by a bush.
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Oct 2006 10:07:24
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
tiggerspalewife wrote:
> In article <K%ZVg.6343$Y24.2259@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>
> "Frank Ketchum" <fketchum@earthlinknospaam.net> wrote:
>
> George Worst-President-Ever Bush
> You're right. It is "caliber of thought" or in bush's case, lack of, that
> has gotten him where he is. He has become the benchmark for lowbar
> performance. Best thing for Clinton was to be followed by a bush.
Clinton lowered the bar so much that I doubt anyone will be able to move
under it ever.
|
| | | | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 00:44:16
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Winter golf: Sucks for Pflum
|
Kevin D. Timm <kevindtimm@comcast.net > wrote:
: Chris Bellomy wrote:
: >
: > I'll be playing golf this December, January and February.
: >
: > Nyah. :-p
:
: Will you be playing @ Craig Ranch?
I don't even know where that is. Whitesboro? Durant? ;)
: I'm seriously considering applying for a marshall's job there just so I
: can play. I don't have any data that says this is a good idea, but it
: sure caught my fancy when I saw the 'can you break XX' show on TGC.
Oh, is that the new TPC course out Frisco way?
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 16:05:11
From: Kevin D. Timm
Subject: Re: Winter golf: Sucks for Pflum
|
Chris Bellomy wrote:
>
> Kevin D. Timm <kevindtimm@comcast.net> wrote:
> : Chris Bellomy wrote:
> :>
> :> I'll be playing golf this December, January and February.
> :>
> :> Nyah. :-p
> :
> : Will you be playing @ Craig Ranch?
>
> I don't even know where that is. Whitesboro? Durant? ;)
>
> : I'm seriously considering applying for a marshall's job there just so I
> : can play. I don't have any data that says this is a good idea, but it
> : sure caught my fancy when I saw the 'can you break XX' show on TGC.
>
> Oh, is that the new TPC course out Frisco way?
>
Yes, just off 121 and 75 (between 75 and Custer). Very nice, plenty
long, looks fun!
|
| | |
Date: 08 Oct 2006 04:58:13
From: zumafan
Subject: Re: Tiger at the Ryder Cup - With an Australian caddy
|
Mark A wrote:
> "3putt" <golf24/7@golfing.com> wrote in message
> news:tDUVg.2022$gL.1385@southeast.rr.com...
> > Swiss = Switzerland Swedish = Sweden. Which on is it?
>
> Tiger's wife is Sweedish. She was Jaspar Parnevik's nanny.
Jaspar's weird, but isn't too old to need a nanny?
|
| |
Date: 08 Oct 2006 07:48:08
From: Fairway
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Bert Robbins wrote:
> What is your definition of a "neocon?"
A "neocon" seems to be a man who is good, progressive, socially
responsible, active, intelligent ..... Incidentally, only 2 days ago I
looked the word up and this is what I found (Wikipedia):
"Neoconservatism is a political current and ideology, mainly in the
United States, which is generally held to have emerged in the 1960s,
coalesced in the 1970s, and has had a significant presence in the
administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
The prefix neo- refers to two ways in which neoconservatism was new.
First, many of the movement's founders, originally liberals, Democrats
or from socialist backgrounds, were new to conservatism. Also,
neoconservatism was a comparatively recent strain of conservative
socio-political thought. It derived from a variety of intellectual
roots in the decades following World War II, including literary
criticism and the social sciences.
Irving Kristol,[1] Norman Podhoretz[2] and others described themselves
as neoconservatives during the Cold War. Today, however, the movement's
critics use the term more often than supporters. In fact, some people
described as "neocons" today say that neoconservatism no longer exists
as an identifiable movement.
Many associate neoconservatism with periodicals such as Commentary and
The Weekly Standard, along with the foreign policy initiatives of think
tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Project
for the New American Century (PNAC). Neoconservative journalists,
pundits, policy analysts, and politicians, often dubbed "neocons" by
supporters and critics alike, have been credited with (or blamed for)
their influence on U.S. foreign policy, especially under the
administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush."
F
|
| | |
Date: 08 Oct 2006 22:55:45
From: Colin Wilson
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Fairway wrote:
> The prefix neo- refers to two ways in which neoconservatism was new.
> First, many of the movement's founders, originally liberals, Democrats
> or from socialist backgrounds, were new to conservatism. Also,
> neoconservatism was a comparatively recent strain of conservative
> socio-political thought.
So Bush isn't a neocon, just a con?
--
Cheers
Colin Wilson
------------------------------------------------------------------
Trentham Golf Club: http://www.trenthamgolf.com
Barnbougle Dunes: http://publishing.kyneton.net.au/barnbougle
------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| |
Date: 08 Oct 2006 09:32:35
From: Miss Anne Thrope
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Gee, I thought the W stood for WHORE.
|
| | |
Date: 08 Oct 2006 15:46:04
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Miss Anne Thrope" <High_Colonic@webtv.net > wrote in message
news:11459-4528FDF3-11@storefull-3154.bay.webtv.net...
> Gee, I thought the W stood for WHORE.
Wishful thinking is a serious problem. It means, in George W. Bush's case
that he wishes for God to speak to him personally and give directions in
managing the "War on Terror". It means that he wished that there would be no
American casualties in the invasion of Iraq, as he told Pat Robertson ...
according to Robertson Bush said God told Bush that there would be no
casualties. George Bush wishes that the people he trusts are trustworthy
when it turns out they are not. He wishes that he could have redeemed his
father's mistake of not going all the way to Bagdad. He wishes that he was
friends with Putin and that just by praising Putin, Putin would feel good
feelings towards Bush that would improve relations between the two
countries.
Just the idea that Bush says that he 'saw into Putni's inner self' and 'saw
an honorable man' or whatever it was Bush said, should be evidence enough
that Bush is not playing with a full deck. Good God, the man could start a
nuclear war with either Iraq or North Korea. Doesn't anyone remember what
suitcase bombs are? How many are missing from the Soviet Union?
Nobody is going to give a f after the shit hits the fan, whose fault it was.
There isn't going to be any accountability. We're going to be too busy doing
grief counseling and trying to stop epidemics. I'm just saying wake up to
what kind of a personality is running the country. He's conflicted
internally, so much that he can't speak a complete paragraph unless it's
scripted. And he's in power because the democrats insist on supporting
partial birth abortion and gay marriage and can't come up with a better
candidate than John Kerry, who is still fighting the Vietnam War.
|
| |
Date: 08 Oct 2006 04:54:54
From: zumafan
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
> American values, off the top of my head ... living in a country that cares
> about other people in the world, a lot, but isn't so do-gooder that they
> would sacrafice the future of their own children to do so. A country that
> believes in some of the basic tenents of religion but doesn't necessarily
> call it religion, like doing unto others. A country that would be called "a
> peaceful nation" and not a "warlike people" like we read about in history as
> kids. A country goverend by people who are elected and elected in a way that
> should not be bought or cheated or won by hight priced advertising agencies
> and polls based on what people thing they need to say instead of what they
> believe. A country where even the most ignorant and violent deserve the
> greatest amount of respect than can get while not endangering others, which
> means they are really innocent unless proven guilty. That in America
> business should serve the people and not the other way around. America means
> we have a somewhat over emphasis on children and like it that way, and if we
> could really know that out tax dollars were going where they should would
> work our asses off to insure that our children and the children of others
> have a good education and are safe in their own homes from outside threats
> and threats from their own family. America means that we can say what we
> want to say and put up, a lot, with others saying things that take advantage
> of our freedom instead of using it. America also means that we know we
> should be using our rights guaranteed but not granted by the First
> Amendment, to a better use. We should be speaking up at town meetings and
> joing political parties or single issue groups, for things we really
> believe. America means that there are a lot of old black men and old black
> women and old white men and old white women and Asians and American Indians
> who have lived enough to know that color doesn't matter and that a lot of
> people know that who your parents or what your name is doesn't matter ...
> not in the sense that the word "All men are created equal" means ... not in
> the true sense of those words. And America probably means that a lot of us
> have an uneasy feeling in the pits of our stomach now and maybe a lot of us
> have a great feeling ... and that none of want to envy the other but wish
> that we all can attain our best.
I want an America with paragraphs.
|
| |
Date: 08 Oct 2006 16:40:28
From: John B.
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Fairway wrote:
> Bert Robbins wrote:
> > What is your definition of a "neocon?"
>
> A "neocon" seems to be a man who is good, progressive, socially
> responsible, active, intelligent ..... Incidentally, only 2 days ago I
> looked the word up and this is what I found (Wikipedia):
>
> "Neoconservatism is a political current and ideology, mainly in the
> United States, which is generally held to have emerged in the 1960s,
> coalesced in the 1970s, and has had a significant presence in the
> administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
>
> The prefix neo- refers to two ways in which neoconservatism was new.
> First, many of the movement's founders, originally liberals, Democrats
> or from socialist backgrounds, were new to conservatism. Also,
> neoconservatism was a comparatively recent strain of conservative
> socio-political thought. It derived from a variety of intellectual
> roots in the decades following World War II, including literary
> criticism and the social sciences.
>
> Irving Kristol,[1] Norman Podhoretz[2] and others described themselves
> as neoconservatives during the Cold War. Today, however, the movement's
> critics use the term more often than supporters. In fact, some people
> described as "neocons" today say that neoconservatism no longer exists
> as an identifiable movement.
>
> Many associate neoconservatism with periodicals such as Commentary and
> The Weekly Standard, along with the foreign policy initiatives of think
> tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Project
> for the New American Century (PNAC). Neoconservative journalists,
> pundits, policy analysts, and politicians, often dubbed "neocons" by
> supporters and critics alike, have been credited with (or blamed for)
> their influence on U.S. foreign policy, especially under the
> administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush."
>
> F
PNAC is a true neo-con organization. Their philosophy is that the US,
having "won" the Cold War (we didn't really win the Cold War, it just
ended), we have a moral duty to essentially Americanize the rest of the
world, by force if necessary. PNAC's charter members were Rrumsfeld,
Cheney, Wolfowitz, Doug Feith and others of that ilk. If you think
these guys are "good, progressive, responsible," then you're pretty
loony.
|
| | |
Date: 08 Oct 2006 21:09:04
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
John B. wrote:
>
> PNAC is a true neo-con organization. Their philosophy is that the US,
> having "won" the Cold War (we didn't really win the Cold War, it just
> ended), we have a moral duty to essentially Americanize the rest of the
> world, by force if necessary. PNAC's charter members were Rrumsfeld,
> Cheney, Wolfowitz, Doug Feith and others of that ilk. If you think
> these guys are "good, progressive, responsible," then you're pretty
> loony.
"[W]e didn't really wing the Cold War, it just ended"
The US of A is still around running under the same government that it
had prior to the end of the Cold War. The Soviet Union, the former super
power, is gone and hundreds of millions of people are not living under
the boot of communist oppression.
|
| | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 16:51:20
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1160350827.980044.64220@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> PNAC is a true neo-con organization. Their philosophy is that the US,
> having "won" the Cold War (we didn't really win the Cold War, it just
> ended), we have a moral duty to essentially Americanize the rest of the
> world, by force if necessary. PNAC's charter members were Rrumsfeld,
> Cheney, Wolfowitz, Doug Feith and others of that ilk. If you think
> these guys are "good, progressive, responsible," then you're pretty
> loony.
>
Wow, we didn't win the cold war. Only a liberal would make such a
ridiculous statement. A lot of men fought and died to win the cold war.
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 17:02:03
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote in message
news:x8ydnbYtcN9EiLHYnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@centurytel.net...
>
> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1160350827.980044.64220@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>> PNAC is a true neo-con organization. Their philosophy is that the US,
>> having "won" the Cold War (we didn't really win the Cold War, it just
>> ended), we have a moral duty to essentially Americanize the rest of the
>> world, by force if necessary. PNAC's charter members were Rrumsfeld,
>> Cheney, Wolfowitz, Doug Feith and others of that ilk. If you think
>> these guys are "good, progressive, responsible," then you're pretty
>> loony.
>>
>
> Wow, we didn't win the cold war. Only a liberal would make such a
> ridiculous statement. A lot of men fought and died to win the cold war.
The cold war wasn't a war and Leke Walesa and Pople John Paul II, had a lot
to do with winning whatever it was. Reagan, and I like Reagan and think he
was good for the country and had a great attitude ... the people that say he
won the war give as a reason that we outspent the Soviet Union which makes
no sense, period. Does the Soviet Union spend so much money that their
empire collapses as a way to insure their security and position as a world
power? Come on.
Sorry about the spelling.
|
| | | | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 20:54:24
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On Tue, 10 2006 17:02:03 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt"
<goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote:
>The cold war wasn't a war and Leke Walesa and Pople John Paul II, had a lot
>to do with winning whatever it was. Reagan, and I like Reagan and think he
>was good for the country and had a great attitude ... the people that say he
>won the war give as a reason that we outspent the Soviet Union which makes
>no sense, period.
Reagan was lucky that he was President at the time the Soviet Union
collapsed. However, his policies certainly speeded up the process.
The Pope had a lot to do with it and Margaret Thatcher was also a big
help. Reagan was also lucky that Gorbechev ended up as Soviet
President and that they seemed to like each other.
The Soviet Union would have fallen apart eventually anyhow. Here is
the world moving into the information age and there's a country where
it's against the law to own a copy machine or fax.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 08:27:34
From: Tex
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Bobby Knight wrote:
> On 12 2006 07:32:37 -0700, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Bert Robbins wrote:
> >> AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
> >> > Now, Hasstert is another story. Does anyone really think he didn't cover
> >> > this up?
> >>
> >> What about Sen. Reid's recently detailed real estate windfall. It
> >> appears that ethical and legal problems are on his plate. Let's talk
> >> about his problems for a little while.
> >
> >Don't make their heads spin! It's all about Bush being Evil, Stupid,
> >Smart, Clever, Dumb, etc....nothing else matters...anyone who will bash
> >Bush is "good" and the rest are "dumb".
> >
> >Not a great platform for change, but they think they will get their
> >power back that way.
> >
> >Tex
>
> I really don't give a crap about who has power anymore. They're all
> fucked up. The thing that I don't understand is why you, Tex, don't
> agree that Bush is a bumbling idiot. Hell, as someone who is more
> left of center than right, I can agree that Carter was a terrible
> president.
I really don't understand why you waste energy complaining about
something you can't fix.
Regardless of what you think of him, Bush is the President. Your
complaints about his mistakes, bumblings, or policy isn't going to
change that one bit.
Posting all the blogs in the world to back up your arguments doesn't do
anything either.
It's all a waste of time. When you cast your vote, you can affect
change.
Anything in between is just pissing into the wind.
Tex
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 10:43:37
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On 12 2006 08:27:34 -0700, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:
>
>Bobby Knight wrote:
>> I really don't give a crap about who has power anymore. They're all
>> fucked up. The thing that I don't understand is why you, Tex, don't
>> agree that Bush is a bumbling idiot. Hell, as someone who is more
>> left of center than right, I can agree that Carter was a terrible
>> president.
>
>I really don't understand why you waste energy complaining about
>something you can't fix.
>Regardless of what you think of him, Bush is the President. Your
>complaints about his mistakes, bumblings, or policy isn't going to
>change that one bit.
>
>Posting all the blogs in the world to back up your arguments doesn't do
>anything either.
>It's all a waste of time. When you cast your vote, you can affect
>change.
>
>Anything in between is just pissing into the wind.
>
>Tex
Of course nothing said here will change anything, but you're right in
there pissing into the wind with the rest of us.!!
I consider you a smart guy, and although we may disagree on some
issues, respect your political views. What I don't understand is why
you can't admit that GWB is an inept, bumbling, nincompoop, and an
embarrassment as the President of the United States of America. Hell,
you can remain a staunch conservative and agree with that.
Please don't answer with a reference to other Presidents....that's a
dodge. There were many other embarrassments...but this one is
comical.
___,
\o
|
| | | | |
Date: 15 Oct 2006 07:22:39
From: John B.
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Sat, 14 2006 17:53:12 GMT, Chris Bellomy
> <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>
> >It's the subpoena power they don't want to give up more
> >than anything. Halliburton hearings are going to go on for
> >a long damn time.
>
> Actually, Chris, if the Dems did that, it would totally alienate the
> independent voters thus assuring a Republican victory in 2008.
I completely agree. I hope the Dems take control of both houses of
Congress, but I think it would be a huge mistake for them to launch
into a vendetta against the administration with subpeonas and
investigations and hearings and articles of impeachment, which some of
them seem to be planning. That would give the whole shooting match back
to the GOP in 2008.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 15 Oct 2006 09:26:11
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
In article <1160922159.625020.110460@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
> Jack Hollis wrote:
> > On Sat, 14 2006 17:53:12 GMT, Chris Bellomy
> > <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > >It's the subpoena power they don't want to give up more
> > >than anything. Halliburton hearings are going to go on for
> > >a long damn time.
> >
> > Actually, Chris, if the Dems did that, it would totally alienate the
> > independent voters thus assuring a Republican victory in 2008.
>
> I completely agree. I hope the Dems take control of both houses of
> Congress, but I think it would be a huge mistake for them to launch
> into a vendetta against the administration with subpeonas and
> investigations and hearings and articles of impeachment, which some of
> them seem to be planning. That would give the whole shooting match back
> to the GOP in 2008.
while I don't want to see that done either, I'm not sure that it would
ensure anything to the GOP.
This country does not need another impeachment scenario going. And in
the case of Bush, assuming you could force him out, what's left?
Cheney! I can't imagine a worst person to step into the President's job.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 15 Oct 2006 14:39:30
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On Sun, 15 2006 09:26:11 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> In article <1160922159.625020.110460@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Jack Hollis wrote:
>> > On Sat, 14 2006 17:53:12 GMT, Chris Bellomy
>> > <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> > >It's the subpoena power they don't want to give up more than
>> > >anything. Halliburton hearings are going to go on for a long damn
>> > >time.
>> >
>> > Actually, Chris, if the Dems did that, it would totally alienate the
>> > independent voters thus assuring a Republican victory in 2008.
>>
>> I completely agree. I hope the Dems take control of both houses of
>> Congress, but I think it would be a huge mistake for them to launch
>> into a vendetta against the administration with subpeonas and
>> investigations and hearings and articles of impeachment, which some of
>> them seem to be planning. That would give the whole shooting match back
>> to the GOP in 2008.
>
> while I don't want to see that done either, I'm not sure that it would
> ensure anything to the GOP.
>
> This country does not need another impeachment scenario going. And in
> the case of Bush, assuming you could force him out, what's left? Cheney!
> I can't imagine a worst person to step into the President's job.
On the other hand, how much would change? Most of this crap is Cheney's
doing anyway.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 15 Oct 2006 21:28:12
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
John B. <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
:
: Jack Hollis wrote:
: > On Sat, 14 2006 17:53:12 GMT, Chris Bellomy
: > <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
: >
: > >It's the subpoena power they don't want to give up more
: > >than anything. Halliburton hearings are going to go on for
: > >a long damn time.
: >
: > Actually, Chris, if the Dems did that, it would totally alienate the
: > independent voters thus assuring a Republican victory in 2008.
:
: I completely agree. I hope the Dems take control of both houses of
: Congress, but I think it would be a huge mistake for them to launch
: into a vendetta
Vendetta?
If they are breaking the law, how is enforcing it a vendetta?
Does it not bother you, being ripped off by millionaires?
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 11:39:18
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:2T3i0u21Iq8aN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> John B. <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
> :
> : Jack Hollis wrote:
> :> On Sat, 14 2006 17:53:12 GMT, Chris Bellomy
> :> <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
> :>
> :> >It's the subpoena power they don't want to give up more
> :> >than anything. Halliburton hearings are going to go on for
> :> >a long damn time.
> :>
> :> Actually, Chris, if the Dems did that, it would totally alienate the
> :> independent voters thus assuring a Republican victory in 2008.
> :
> : I completely agree. I hope the Dems take control of both houses of
> : Congress, but I think it would be a huge mistake for them to launch
> : into a vendetta
>
> Vendetta?
>
> If they are breaking the law, how is enforcing it a vendetta?
>
> Does it not bother you, being ripped off by millionaires?
>
Like Harry Reid?
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 16:48:37
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
MnMikew <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote:
:
: "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
: news:2T3i0u21Iq8aN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
: > John B. <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
: > :
: > : Jack Hollis wrote:
: > :> On Sat, 14 2006 17:53:12 GMT, Chris Bellomy
: > :> <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
: > :>
: > :> >It's the subpoena power they don't want to give up more
: > :> >than anything. Halliburton hearings are going to go on for
: > :> >a long damn time.
: > :>
: > :> Actually, Chris, if the Dems did that, it would totally alienate the
: > :> independent voters thus assuring a Republican victory in 2008.
: > :
: > : I completely agree. I hope the Dems take control of both houses of
: > : Congress, but I think it would be a huge mistake for them to launch
: > : into a vendetta
: >
: > Vendetta?
: >
: > If they are breaking the law, how is enforcing it a vendetta?
: >
: > Does it not bother you, being ripped off by millionaires?
: >
: Like Harry Reid?
I know you desperately want for there to be a story there,
but there's no story there.
If there were, the Republican-controlled Senate Ethics
Committee would be all over it, as you well know.
This is just an election-season smear job with no substance,
a biennial ritual, nothing more.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 13:48:09
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:0T3i3208Ih4aN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> MnMikew <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote:
> :
> : "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
> : news:2T3i0u21Iq8aN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> :> John B. <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
> :> :
> :> : Jack Hollis wrote:
> :> :> On Sat, 14 2006 17:53:12 GMT, Chris Bellomy
> :> :> <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
> :> :>
> :> :> >It's the subpoena power they don't want to give up more
> :> :> >than anything. Halliburton hearings are going to go on for
> :> :> >a long damn time.
> :> :>
> :> :> Actually, Chris, if the Dems did that, it would totally alienate the
> :> :> independent voters thus assuring a Republican victory in 2008.
> :> :
> :> : I completely agree. I hope the Dems take control of both houses of
> :> : Congress, but I think it would be a huge mistake for them to launch
> :> : into a vendetta
> :>
> :> Vendetta?
> :>
> :> If they are breaking the law, how is enforcing it a vendetta?
> :>
> :> Does it not bother you, being ripped off by millionaires?
> :>
> : Like Harry Reid?
>
> I know you desperately want for there to be a story there,
> but there's no story there.
Probably not.
>
> If there were, the Republican-controlled Senate Ethics
> Committee would be all over it, as you well know.
They will be eventually if there is something to it.
>
> This is just an election-season smear job with no substance,
> a biennial ritual, nothing more.
The point was there are millionaires on both sides of the isle ripping you
off.
>
> --
> Chris Bellomy
> C-List Charter Member
> http://clist.org/
|
| | | | |
Date: 15 Oct 2006 15:12:07
From: Tex
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Chris Bellomy wrote:
> John B. <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
> :
> : Jack Hollis wrote:
> :> On Sat, 14 2006 17:53:12 GMT, Chris Bellomy
> :> <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
> :>
> :> >It's the subpoena power they don't want to give up more
> :> >than anything. Halliburton hearings are going to go on for
> :> >a long damn time.
> :>
> :> Actually, Chris, if the Dems did that, it would totally alienate the
> :> independent voters thus assuring a Republican victory in 2008.
> :
> : I completely agree. I hope the Dems take control of both houses of
> : Congress, but I think it would be a huge mistake for them to launch
> : into a vendetta
>
> Vendetta?
>
> If they are breaking the law, how is enforcing it a vendetta?
>
> Does it not bother you, being ripped off by millionaires?
Both sides of the aisle are millionaires....and since Congress writes
the Tax Code, they are all "ripping me off". Does it bother me? Yup!
I don't even ask for raises anymore, they haven't earned the extra
money they'll steal from me!
Tex
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 18:32:02
From: John B.
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Bobby Knight wrote:
> On Thu, 12 2006 16:55:17 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com>
> wrote:
>
> =
> >Doesn't it make you laugh? An almost total failure in life
> >criticizing a guy who worked the oil fields with his hands, got a Yale
> >and Harvard MBA education, became a jet pilot, then a multimillionaire
> >baseball team owner, then governor of Texas, then reelected with the
> >highest plurality in Texas history (he did a great job and they liked
> >him!!). and then became president of the US, then reelected. As
> >president, instead of coasting like the moron he replaced, he took on
> >the most difficult problems of any president since Lincoln, like
> >Lincoln was hated as a result-- but history will recognize his courage
> >and persistence. GW Bush will have made a difference.
> >
> >You are criticizing someone you would need to stand on a stool to kiss
> >his ass.....you are a midget talking about a giant.
> >
> >Larry
>
> I thought you never read my posts, LLLLLarry.
>
> You have no idea whether or not I'm a success, or failure, a genius or
> a dolt. What you do have is a zero thought for yourself. You're a
> follower, and have picked a real doozie. He never worked for
> anything, coming from a patrician Massachusetts family, and given
> everything. You fall for that image building bullshit that all
> politicians, and movie stars pay big bucks for.
>
> I live in Texas, and have actually met Dubya. He was as dumb looking
> and blanked faced then as he is now. There is nothing outstanding
> about him at all. His tenure here as governor is not even remembered,
> because he did the same thing here as in Washington...as little as
> possible. Those that surround him now do all of the thinking...and
> with Rumsfeld and Cheney, he (and the nation) is in deep crap. He's
> making a difference all right, and it's ugly.
>
> If that's what you want to set as an example, be my guest.
>
> Mentioning his name in the ranks of Lincoln show how imbecilic you
> are..but we all knew that anyway.
>
> I on't want to steal your dream...so you can borrow the stool for a
> mini-midget to midget ass kissing.
>
> BK
What is the point of arguing anymore about whether Bush is a good or
bad president, or whether he's smart of dumb? In a month he's going to
be a lame duck anyway, even if the Republicans stay in power in
Congress. Anybody who would compare Bush to Lincoln is not worth the
trouble of arguing with. We all know that Americans hated Lincoln.
That's why they re-elected him in 1864.
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 20:37:50
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1160703122.308862.72490@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Bobby Knight wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 2006 16:55:17 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> =
>> >Doesn't it make you laugh? An almost total failure in life
>> >criticizing a guy who worked the oil fields with his hands, got a Yale
>> >and Harvard MBA education, became a jet pilot, then a multimillionaire
>> >baseball team owner, then governor of Texas, then reelected with the
>> >highest plurality in Texas history (he did a great job and they liked
>> >him!!). and then became president of the US, then reelected. As
>> >president, instead of coasting like the moron he replaced, he took on
>> >the most difficult problems of any president since Lincoln, like
>> >Lincoln was hated as a result-- but history will recognize his courage
>> >and persistence. GW Bush will have made a difference.
>> >
>> >You are criticizing someone you would need to stand on a stool to kiss
>> >his ass.....you are a midget talking about a giant.
>> >
>> >Larry
>>
>> I thought you never read my posts, LLLLLarry.
>>
>> You have no idea whether or not I'm a success, or failure, a genius or
>> a dolt. What you do have is a zero thought for yourself. You're a
>> follower, and have picked a real doozie. He never worked for
>> anything, coming from a patrician Massachusetts family, and given
>> everything. You fall for that image building bullshit that all
>> politicians, and movie stars pay big bucks for.
>>
>> I live in Texas, and have actually met Dubya. He was as dumb looking
>> and blanked faced then as he is now. There is nothing outstanding
>> about him at all. His tenure here as governor is not even remembered,
>> because he did the same thing here as in Washington...as little as
>> possible. Those that surround him now do all of the thinking...and
>> with Rumsfeld and Cheney, he (and the nation) is in deep crap. He's
>> making a difference all right, and it's ugly.
>>
>> If that's what you want to set as an example, be my guest.
>>
>> Mentioning his name in the ranks of Lincoln show how imbecilic you
>> are..but we all knew that anyway.
>>
>> I on't want to steal your dream...so you can borrow the stool for a
>> mini-midget to midget ass kissing.
>>
>> BK
>
> What is the point of arguing anymore about whether Bush is a good or
> bad president, or whether he's smart of dumb? In a month he's going to
> be a lame duck anyway, even if the Republicans stay in power in
> Congress. Anybody who would compare Bush to Lincoln is not worth the
> trouble of arguing with. We all know that Americans hated Lincoln.
> That's why they re-elected him in 1864.
Maybe the majority will go to the democrats and it will stop the juggernaut
towards Armageddon.
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 13:31:52
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1160666853.153450.172100@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Bobby Knight wrote:
>> On 12 2006 07:32:37 -0700, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Bert Robbins wrote:
>> >> AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
>> >> > Now, Hasstert is another story. Does anyone really think he didn't
>> >> > cover
>> >> > this up?
>> >>
>> >> What about Sen. Reid's recently detailed real estate windfall. It
>> >> appears that ethical and legal problems are on his plate. Let's talk
>> >> about his problems for a little while.
>> >
>> >Don't make their heads spin! It's all about Bush being Evil, Stupid,
>> >Smart, Clever, Dumb, etc....nothing else matters...anyone who will bash
>> >Bush is "good" and the rest are "dumb".
>> >
>> >Not a great platform for change, but they think they will get their
>> >power back that way.
>> >
>> >Tex
>>
>> I really don't give a crap about who has power anymore. They're all
>> fucked up. The thing that I don't understand is why you, Tex, don't
>> agree that Bush is a bumbling idiot. Hell, as someone who is more
>> left of center than right, I can agree that Carter was a terrible
>> president.
>
> I really don't understand why you waste energy complaining about
> something you can't fix.
> Regardless of what you think of him, Bush is the President. Your
> complaints about his mistakes, bumblings, or policy isn't going to
> change that one bit.
>
> Posting all the blogs in the world to back up your arguments doesn't do
> anything either.
> It's all a waste of time. When you cast your vote, you can affect
> change.
>
> Anything in between is just pissing into the wind.
>
> Tex
So we vote for democrats so that the R can't control both houses and the
president. But only if you think saving American kids lives in Iraq is more
important than stopping gay marriage. BTW, I would like to see gays get
married and anything else to keep them from pretending to be straight and
getting married to women. No offense.
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 15:08:37
From: Fairway
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
John B. wrote:
> What about Hitler? You like him, too?
You are a strange boy, Johnny. I dislike Stalin enormously. I felt sick
when I read his biography two years ago, almost depressive. But he was
fascinating nonetheless, an incredible man - the abomination
incarnated. Hitler was also a fascinating personality, but probably not
as intelligent. And by the way - Hitler was a brilliant speaker - a
sign of great intelligence in your opinion. F
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 15:01:34
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Fairway" <arminsson@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1160777317.569192.299350@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> John B. wrote:
>> What about Hitler? You like him, too?
> You are a strange boy, Johnny. I dislike Stalin enormously. I felt sick
> when I read his biography two years ago, almost depressive. But he was
> fascinating nonetheless, an incredible man - the abomination
> incarnated. Hitler was also a fascinating personality, but probably not
> as intelligent. And by the way - Hitler was a brilliant speaker - a
> sign of great intelligence in your opinion. F
A good speaker does not indicate moral goodness. Why would you post that?
Evil genius is a problem.
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 10:27:37
From: John B.
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Fairway wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > What about Hitler? You like him, too?
> You are a strange boy, Johnny. I dislike Stalin enormously. I felt sick
> when I read his biography two years ago, almost depressive. But he was
> fascinating nonetheless, an incredible man - the abomination
> incarnated. Hitler was also a fascinating personality, but probably not
> as intelligent. And by the way - Hitler was a brilliant speaker - a
> sign of great intelligence in your opinion. F
I never expressed any opinion of the sort. I've known some pretty dumb
people who were very good public speakers. I've known some very smart
people who were bad at it. I have never made any connection between
intelligence and public speaking ability. Before you veered off onto
this ridiculous tangent, I said an ability to speak well in public does
not prevent one from expressing an intelligent thought or an
interesting idea. If GWB has ever done that, I sure didn't hear about
it.
|
| | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 14:04:36
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
In article <1160846857.159676.47730@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com >,
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
> Fairway wrote:
> > John B. wrote:
> > > What about Hitler? You like him, too?
> > You are a strange boy, Johnny. I dislike Stalin enormously. I felt sick
> > when I read his biography two years ago, almost depressive. But he was
> > fascinating nonetheless, an incredible man - the abomination
> > incarnated. Hitler was also a fascinating personality, but probably not
> > as intelligent. And by the way - Hitler was a brilliant speaker - a
> > sign of great intelligence in your opinion. F
>
> I never expressed any opinion of the sort. I've known some pretty dumb
> people who were very good public speakers. I've known some very smart
> people who were bad at it. I have never made any connection between
> intelligence and public speaking ability. Before you veered off onto
> this ridiculous tangent, I said an ability to speak well in public does
> not prevent one from expressing an intelligent thought or an
> interesting idea. If GWB has ever done that, I sure didn't hear about
> it.
Indeed, we would put Ronald Reagan in the former group - a great public
communicator, but beneath it not particularly bright. However, the point
is that important figures can at least either speak well or
write/articulate well, and in some cases (Tony Blair, perhaps) do both.
Dubya can do neither.
William Clark
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 03:00:44
From: jeffc
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1160846857.159676.47730@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>> John B. wrote:
>> > What about Hitler? You like him, too?
>> You are a strange boy, Johnny. I dislike Stalin enormously. I felt sick
>> when I read his biography two years ago, almost depressive. But he was
>> fascinating nonetheless, an incredible man - the abomination
>> incarnated. Hitler was also a fascinating personality, but probably not
>> as intelligent. And by the way - Hitler was a brilliant speaker - a
>> sign of great intelligence in your opinion. F
You sir are a complete moron and the reason other morons get elected into
office. No one thinks being a good speaker makes you intelligent. W is a
poor speaker, that is true. That hardly implies that he is otherwise
intelligent. He's a bad speaker AND he's stupid. Hitler was not very
intelligent and he was not really that great a speaker unless he was
speaking to those who wanted to hear specifically what he wanted to say
anyway, or were not very intelligent themselves. Come to think of it, in
that sense W is not that bad a speaker after all.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 14:22:52
From: John B.
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
> "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1160666853.153450.172100@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Bobby Knight wrote:
> >> On 12 2006 07:32:37 -0700, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Bert Robbins wrote:
> >> >> AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
> >> >> > Now, Hasstert is another story. Does anyone really think he didn't
> >> >> > cover
> >> >> > this up?
> >> >>
> >> >> What about Sen. Reid's recently detailed real estate windfall. It
> >> >> appears that ethical and legal problems are on his plate. Let's talk
> >> >> about his problems for a little while.
> >> >
> >> >Don't make their heads spin! It's all about Bush being Evil, Stupid,
> >> >Smart, Clever, Dumb, etc....nothing else matters...anyone who will bash
> >> >Bush is "good" and the rest are "dumb".
> >> >
> >> >Not a great platform for change, but they think they will get their
> >> >power back that way.
> >> >
> >> >Tex
> >>
> >> I really don't give a crap about who has power anymore. They're all
> >> fucked up. The thing that I don't understand is why you, Tex, don't
> >> agree that Bush is a bumbling idiot. Hell, as someone who is more
> >> left of center than right, I can agree that Carter was a terrible
> >> president.
> >
> > I really don't understand why you waste energy complaining about
> > something you can't fix.
> > Regardless of what you think of him, Bush is the President. Your
> > complaints about his mistakes, bumblings, or policy isn't going to
> > change that one bit.
> >
> > Posting all the blogs in the world to back up your arguments doesn't do
> > anything either.
> > It's all a waste of time. When you cast your vote, you can affect
> > change.
> >
> > Anything in between is just pissing into the wind.
> >
> > Tex
>
> So we vote for democrats so that the R can't control both houses and the
> president. But only if you think saving American kids lives in Iraq is more
> important than stopping gay marriage. BTW, I would like to see gays get
> married and anything else to keep them from pretending to be straight and
> getting married to women. No offense.
Kinky Friedman is running for governor of Texas. Somebody asked him
what he thought about gay marriage. He said, "I think gay people should
be allowed to get married so they can be just as miserable as the rest
of us."
|
| |
Date: 09 Oct 2006 18:46:10
From: Tex
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Bobby Knight wrote:
> On 9 2006 16:21:34 -0700, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >John B. wrote:
>
> >> You cannot "immediately" means test any of these entitlement programs.
> >> Congress would have to change the laws that govern them. If that's
> >> politically possible, and I suspect it's not, it would take years.
> >
> >Anytime I hear "can't", what you really mean is you don't know how to
> >do it, or you don't want it done. "can't be done" is a challenge to a
> >software engineer :)
> >Tex
>
> Eagerly awaiting the software that you write that will move Congress
> forward one millisecond.
That's easy Bobby....fix the electronic ballots to vote out all the
imcumbents!
Next prob :)
Tex
|
| |
Date: 09 Oct 2006 16:21:34
From: Tex
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
John B. wrote:
> Tex wrote:
> > AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
> > > "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1160416580.397001.58890@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > > MnMikew wrote:
> > > >> "AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message
> > > >> news:Ka%Vg.2797$v43.804@fed1read02...
> > > >> >Or maybe it would be nice to have a balanced budget with Hillary.
> > > >> >
> > > >> Dream on.
> > > >
> > > > More like "nightmare on"....oh she'll attempt to balance the budget...
> > > > Like this:
> > > > 1) remove "the Bush tax cuts" on the "rich" (read: anyone over $50K in
> > > > taxable income)
> > > > 2) slash military spending by $100B/year (or more)
> > > > 3) remove the cap on SStax (limited today to $92K ?)
> > > >
> > > > Tex
> > > > who will not earn "taxable income" under a H. Clinton Presidency
> > >
> > > Tex,
> > > What is the difference between tax and spend and borrow and spend? Besides
> > > the interest and the lack of money available which is taken up be governemnt
> > > borrowing? Clinton had a balanced budget. Does anyone disagree with that?
> > > Bush has vetoed, what ... one bill in his entire administration? Doesn't
> > > that bother anybody? Maybe God told him that He would provide for the
> > > national debt.
> >
> > Fixing the debt is wrong if it rips $200B/year out of the economy.
> >
> > Use your personal experience to figure that out....run up $100,000 in
> > debt, then go ask your employer for more $$. :)
> >
> > You *have* to cut spending to fix deficits. I'm not defending anyone's
> > policy, but raising taxes cuts growth, which in turn cuts revenue,
> > which in turn raises the debt.
> >
> > I would immediately stop the Prescription Drug Benefit. We can't
> > afford it. Besides, it's a boon to the drug companies.
> >
> > I would immediately put a means test on Medicare/Medicaid...and
> > anything "Medi*"
> >
> > I would also immediately put a means test on SS payments.
>
> You cannot "immediately" means test any of these entitlement programs.
> Congress would have to change the laws that govern them. If that's
> politically possible, and I suspect it's not, it would take years.
Anytime I hear "can't", what you really mean is you don't know how to
do it, or you don't want it done. "can't be done" is a challenge to a
software engineer :)
> >
> > Growing entitlements are going to sink us all. Fix it now before it's
> > too late.
> >
> > Do all of that and you will almost balance the budget today ($250B this
> > past year?)
> >
> > Next step, immediately pull troops out of all countries but the US.
> > It's time we protect ourselves for awhile. That saves at least
> > $100B/year.
> >
> > We've got lots of desert along the CA/AZ/NM/Texas broder the troops can
> > play in...and while doing that, they will curb the flow of illegals...
> >
> > Wow, did all that without raising taxes. :)
> >
> > Tex
|
| | |
Date: 09 Oct 2006 20:20:40
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On 9 2006 16:21:34 -0700, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:
>
>John B. wrote:
>> You cannot "immediately" means test any of these entitlement programs.
>> Congress would have to change the laws that govern them. If that's
>> politically possible, and I suspect it's not, it would take years.
>
>Anytime I hear "can't", what you really mean is you don't know how to
>do it, or you don't want it done. "can't be done" is a challenge to a
>software engineer :)
>Tex
Eagerly awaiting the software that you write that will move Congress
forward one millisecond.
--
___,
\o
|
| |
Date: 09 Oct 2006 15:46:41
From: John B.
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Tex wrote:
> AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
> > "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1160416580.397001.58890@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > MnMikew wrote:
> > >> "AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:Ka%Vg.2797$v43.804@fed1read02...
> > >> >Or maybe it would be nice to have a balanced budget with Hillary.
> > >> >
> > >> Dream on.
> > >
> > > More like "nightmare on"....oh she'll attempt to balance the budget...
> > > Like this:
> > > 1) remove "the Bush tax cuts" on the "rich" (read: anyone over $50K in
> > > taxable income)
> > > 2) slash military spending by $100B/year (or more)
> > > 3) remove the cap on SStax (limited today to $92K ?)
> > >
> > > Tex
> > > who will not earn "taxable income" under a H. Clinton Presidency
> >
> > Tex,
> > What is the difference between tax and spend and borrow and spend? Besides
> > the interest and the lack of money available which is taken up be governemnt
> > borrowing? Clinton had a balanced budget. Does anyone disagree with that?
> > Bush has vetoed, what ... one bill in his entire administration? Doesn't
> > that bother anybody? Maybe God told him that He would provide for the
> > national debt.
>
> Fixing the debt is wrong if it rips $200B/year out of the economy.
>
> Use your personal experience to figure that out....run up $100,000 in
> debt, then go ask your employer for more $$. :)
>
> You *have* to cut spending to fix deficits. I'm not defending anyone's
> policy, but raising taxes cuts growth, which in turn cuts revenue,
> which in turn raises the debt.
>
> I would immediately stop the Prescription Drug Benefit. We can't
> afford it. Besides, it's a boon to the drug companies.
>
> I would immediately put a means test on Medicare/Medicaid...and
> anything "Medi*"
>
> I would also immediately put a means test on SS payments.
You cannot "immediately" means test any of these entitlement programs.
Congress would have to change the laws that govern them. If that's
politically possible, and I suspect it's not, it would take years.
>
> Growing entitlements are going to sink us all. Fix it now before it's
> too late.
>
> Do all of that and you will almost balance the budget today ($250B this
> past year?)
>
> Next step, immediately pull troops out of all countries but the US.
> It's time we protect ourselves for awhile. That saves at least
> $100B/year.
>
> We've got lots of desert along the CA/AZ/NM/Texas broder the troops can
> play in...and while doing that, they will curb the flow of illegals...
>
> Wow, did all that without raising taxes. :)
>
> Tex
|
| | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 10:39:46
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On 9 2006 15:46:41 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>> I would also immediately put a means test on SS payments.
SS is basically an annuity fund. A rip off annuity fund, but an
annuity fund nonetheless. Rich or poor, you pay into it and you
deserve to get your money back.
The whole system should have been privatized in the 1950s and then it
might have amounted to something.
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 18:36:03
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
: SS is basically an annuity fund. A rip off annuity fund, but an
: annuity fund nonetheless. Rich or poor, you pay into it and you
: deserve to get your money back.
No, it's insurance, it was always insurance, it always will
be insurance. It will never be privatized because privatization
entails risk, and the entire point of insurance is to mitigate
risk, not invite it.
Everybody who wants to change SS fails to understand what it
really is and why.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 20:25:24
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:0T3hje1oIb3hN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>
> : SS is basically an annuity fund. A rip off annuity fund, but an
> : annuity fund nonetheless. Rich or poor, you pay into it and you
> : deserve to get your money back.
>
> No, it's insurance, it was always insurance, it always will
> be insurance. It will never be privatized because privatization
> entails risk, and the entire point of insurance is to mitigate
> risk, not invite it.
>
> Everybody who wants to change SS fails to understand what it
> really is and why.
>
> --
> Chris Bellomy
> C-List Charter Member
> http://clist.org/
I don't care what it was. It should have been an insurance fund and it
should be now.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 04:31:59
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
AKA Gray Asphalt <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote:
:
: "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
: news:0T3hje1oIb3hN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
: > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
: >
: > : SS is basically an annuity fund. A rip off annuity fund, but an
: > : annuity fund nonetheless. Rich or poor, you pay into it and you
: > : deserve to get your money back.
: >
: > No, it's insurance, it was always insurance, it always will
: > be insurance. It will never be privatized because privatization
: > entails risk, and the entire point of insurance is to mitigate
: > risk, not invite it.
: >
: > Everybody who wants to change SS fails to understand what it
: > really is and why.
:
: I don't care what it was. It should have been an insurance fund and it
: should be now.
Well, that's exactly what it is. If you get old, you get paid.
If you don't, you don't. That's insurance.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 00:44:32
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:1T3hkh16IlddN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> AKA Gray Asphalt <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
> :
> : "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
> : news:0T3hje1oIb3hN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> :> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
> :>
> :> : SS is basically an annuity fund. A rip off annuity fund, but an
> :> : annuity fund nonetheless. Rich or poor, you pay into it and you
> :> : deserve to get your money back.
> :>
> :> No, it's insurance, it was always insurance, it always will
> :> be insurance. It will never be privatized because privatization
> :> entails risk, and the entire point of insurance is to mitigate
> :> risk, not invite it.
> :>
> :> Everybody who wants to change SS fails to understand what it
> :> really is and why.
> :
> : I don't care what it was. It should have been an insurance fund and it
> : should be now.
>
> Well, that's exactly what it is. If you get old, you get paid.
> If you don't, you don't. That's insurance.
>
> --
> Chris Bellomy
> C-List Charter Member
> http://clist.org/
If you need the money, you get paid, if you're a millionaire, you shouldn't.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 17:20:15
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On Wed, 11 2006 00:44:32 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt"
<goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote:
>If you need the money, you get paid, if you're a millionaire, you shouldn't.
Everyone pays into the system and everyone should get their money out
of the system. Why should the rich have to pay into an annuity
program that they get nothing out of?
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 13:42:10
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message
news:ipnqi2dgfkeh22tv98p56l53pipejg8o40@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 11 2006 00:44:32 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt"
> <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
>
>>If you need the money, you get paid, if you're a millionaire, you
>>shouldn't.
>
> Everyone pays into the system and everyone should get their money out
> of the system. Why should the rich have to pay into an annuity
> program that they get nothing out of?
Why should people who buy health insurance not get back their money if they
aren't sick? I don't know if SS was set up as an insurance program but that
seems to be the best way for society. We don't like to turn people away from
emergency rooms even if they have no insurance and we don't like to see
homeless people. Here in Vegas we aren't allowed to feed them in public
parks. I'm very proud.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 10:37:29
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On Thu, 12 2006 13:42:10 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt"
<goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote:
>> Everyone pays into the system and everyone should get their money out
>> of the system. Why should the rich have to pay into an annuity
>> program that they get nothing out of?
>
>Why should people who buy health insurance not get back their money if they
>aren't sick? I don't know if SS was set up as an insurance program but that
>seems to be the best way for society.
The SS retirement plan is set up as an annuity. You pay into the
system and once you reach retirement age you collect your money. If
you pay more money into the system, you get more money every month.
If you want to set it up where everyone has to pay into the system but
only the poor get retirement benefits, then it's a social welfare
system.
|
| | | | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 16:55:22
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On Tue, 10 2006 18:36:03 GMT, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
>It will never be privatized because privatization
>entails risk,
LOL, what's more risky than having the people who hold your annuity
contributions being able to spend the money.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 20:36:52
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message
news:o12oi21k0culo3kini0mfba93tnrpcfe6n@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 2006 18:36:03 GMT, Chris Bellomy
> <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>
>>It will never be privatized because privatization
>>entails risk,
>
> LOL, what's more risky than having the people who hold your annuity
> contributions being able to spend the money.
So you're saying we should trust the same crooks to invest our money? And
with an excuse for loosing it. At least there is a liability now, but if the
money was invested in Enron ... How about giving the retirees 100 year
leases on government land that they can sublet ... in a hundred years we'll
be better off or dead, well we'll all be dead but maybe mankind will have
survived.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 03:07:53
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
: On Tue, 10 2006 18:36:03 GMT, Chris Bellomy
: <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
:
: >It will never be privatized because privatization
: >entails risk,
:
: LOL, what's more risky than having the people who hold your annuity
: contributions being able to spend the money.
All annuities run the risk of failure. What sort of strawman are
you trying to build here?
At any rate, SS isn't an annuity. You can keep trying to turn
apples into oranges, but it ain't gonna work.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 16:41:08
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On Wed, 11 2006 03:07:53 GMT, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
>: LOL, what's more risky than having the people who hold your annuity
>: contributions being able to spend the money.
>
>All annuities run the risk of failure. What sort of strawman are
>you trying to build here?
>
>At any rate, SS isn't an annuity. You can keep trying to turn
>apples into oranges, but it ain't gonna work.
I consulted my authority on the issue, who is the VP and Assistant
General Counsel for a major insurance company and also happens to be
(God help me) my wife. She says that SS retirement benefits are best
described as annuities. You will also note that the SS Administration
FAQ site also refers to the payments as annuities.
"Q3: Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities?
Q4: Which political party increased the taxes on Social Security
annuities? "
http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html
I am tempted to stop here and smugly claim that I'm am right and you
are not. However, in all honesty, my wife also said that annuities
can be describes as a hybrid of insurance. So, while SS retirement
benefits are best described as annuities, they are also a type of
insurance. And there are also other parts of SS, like disability and
unemployment benefits that are insurance.
So, now that we have gone into the subtleties of insurance and
annuities, perhaps we can focus on the real issue of how the
government is screwing us out of our money.
BTW, my wife also told me that back in the 1950s, Met Life offered to
take over the SS system. Their actuaries said that they could
increase benefits and reduce payments, but the government turned them
down. That's no wonder because the government has been ripping off
the SS trust fund since day one.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 20:57:24
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
: BTW, my wife also told me that back in the 1950s, Met Life offered to
: take over the SS system. Their actuaries said that they could
: increase benefits and reduce payments, but the government turned them
: down. That's no wonder because the government has been ripping off
: the SS trust fund since day one.
No trust fund existed until 1983, so I don't know how you
can say that. Further, it's misleading; you make it sound
like elected officials have been pocketing the money. Unless
you know something I don't, that's pretty misleading IMO.
Maybe I can summarize it this way: in capitalism, a direct
relationship exists between risk and rate of return. Sure,
the rate of return can be increased in the SS fund through
private investment, but that introduces risk into a system
that was designed specifically to guard against that sort
of risk. Had SS started in 1900 as the sort of fund today's
privateers imagine, the retirees of 1930 would have gotten
basically nothing -- just another byproduct of a system
overly wired into the whims of the free market. That's
*exactly* why the system is designed the way it is, and
why it succeeds as well as it does.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 16:52:14
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On Tue, 10 2006 18:36:03 GMT, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
>: SS is basically an annuity fund. A rip off annuity fund, but an
>: annuity fund nonetheless. Rich or poor, you pay into it and you
>: deserve to get your money back.
>
>No, it's insurance, it was always insurance, it always will
>be insurance. It will never be privatized because privatization
>entails risk, and the entire point of insurance is to mitigate
>risk, not invite it.
>
>Everybody who wants to change SS fails to understand what it
>really is and why.
The major aim of SS is to provide a pension to retired Americans and
that is what is know as an annuity. A pension is not insurance.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 03:06:36
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
: On Tue, 10 2006 18:36:03 GMT, Chris Bellomy
: <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
:
: >: SS is basically an annuity fund. A rip off annuity fund, but an
: >: annuity fund nonetheless. Rich or poor, you pay into it and you
: >: deserve to get your money back.
: >
: >No, it's insurance, it was always insurance, it always will
: >be insurance. It will never be privatized because privatization
: >entails risk, and the entire point of insurance is to mitigate
: >risk, not invite it.
: >
: >Everybody who wants to change SS fails to understand what it
: >really is and why.
:
: The major aim of SS is to provide a pension to retired Americans and
: that is what is know as an annuity.
No, you keep getting this wrong. SS is old age insurance. You
buy it with your payroll taxes, and if you get old, you collect.
If you don't, you don't. (So, in a way, I was wrong to say that
it mitigates risk. In fact, it inverts it.)
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| |
Date: 09 Oct 2006 15:45:40
From: Tex
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> In article <1160433101.835438.171150@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The only flat tax I will support is one that taxes ALL forms of income,
> > > regardless of source. Currently, all the of idiot flat tax plans want
> > > only to tax earned income and exclude all others (ie; investment income)
> >
> > No matter, the percentage would be in the neighborhood of 18-20%
> > anyway, which is just a tad higher than the current capital gains rate.
> >
> > Tex
>
> Wow! Shouldn't be anywhere near that level, imo. The highest I've seen
> blathered on about was around 15% on earned income and zero on unearned
> income.
Has to be higher to cover SS/Medicare taxes as well.
The other "trick" is to watch what they say is the "deduction"....first
$20K, first $40K, etc....
And still, even at 15%, that's the current capital gains rate...so
where's your beef??
Tex
|
| |
Date: 09 Oct 2006 15:31:41
From: Tex
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> In article <1160425148.313509.43170@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dene wrote:
> > > Tex wrote:
> > >
> > > > Fixing the debt is wrong if it rips $200B/year out of the economy.
> > > >
> > > > Use your personal experience to figure that out....run up $100,000 in
> > > > debt, then go ask your employer for more $$. :)
> > > >
> > > > You *have* to cut spending to fix deficits. I'm not defending anyone's
> > > > policy, but raising taxes cuts growth, which in turn cuts revenue,
> > > > which in turn raises the debt.
> > >
> > > AMEN!
> > >
> > > > I would immediately stop the Prescription Drug Benefit. We can't
> > > > afford it. Besides, it's a boon to the drug companies.
> > >
> > > Boon to Rx companies? Seniors were buying essential medications, with
> > > or without coverage. Prior, some were getting discounts. Now,
> > > insurance companies are negotiating the discounts. But....another
> > > entitlement has been born.
> >
> > There is nothing in the bill that forces the government to negotiate
> > discounts...which, as a policy is wrong. However, we don't need
> > another entitlement program AND we certainly don't need another every
> > growing arm of Government.
> >
> > > > I would immediately put a means test on Medicare/Medicaid...and
> > > > anything "Medi*"
> > > >
> > > > I would also immediately put a means test on SS payments.
> > > >
> > > > Growing entitlements are going to sink us all. Fix it now before it's
> > > > too late.
> > > >
> > > > Do all of that and you will almost balance the budget today ($250B this
> > > > past year?)
> > > >
> > > > Next step, immediately pull troops out of all countries but the US.
> > > > It's time we protect ourselves for awhile. That saves at least
> > > > $100B/year.
> > >
> > > I would do that in Iraq within 6 months. I think we should stay longer
> > > in Afghanistan. There, the population has the will to support the
> > > government, but not the means. In Iraq, the will of the populace is
> > > questionable.
> >
> > I could agree with that. But don't announce "when"...just do it.
> >
> > > > We've got lots of desert along the CA/AZ/NM/Texas broder the troops can
> > > > play in...and while doing that, they will curb the flow of illegals...
> > >
> > > AMEN!
> > >
> > > > Wow, did all that without raising taxes. :)
> > >
> > > How about a flat tax?
> >
> > I'm all for a flat tax...trouble is, it strips away the housing
> > entitlement program :)
> > Which, as a policy is crazy. The government should never use the tax
> > code to encourage/discourage behavior. And a true flat tax solves
> > that.
> >
> > Tex
>
> The only flat tax I will support is one that taxes ALL forms of income,
> regardless of source. Currently, all the of idiot flat tax plans want
> only to tax earned income and exclude all others (ie; investment income)
No matter, the percentage would be in the neighborhood of 18-20%
anyway, which is just a tad higher than the current capital gains rate.
Tex
|
| | |
Date: 09 Oct 2006 17:39:09
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
In article <1160433101.835438.171150@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >,
"Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:
> > The only flat tax I will support is one that taxes ALL forms of income,
> > regardless of source. Currently, all the of idiot flat tax plans want
> > only to tax earned income and exclude all others (ie; investment income)
>
> No matter, the percentage would be in the neighborhood of 18-20%
> anyway, which is just a tad higher than the current capital gains rate.
>
> Tex
Wow! Shouldn't be anywhere near that level, imo. The highest I've seen
blathered on about was around 15% on earned income and zero on unearned
income.
|
| |
Date: 09 Oct 2006 15:29:59
From: Tex
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Chris Bellomy wrote:
> Dene <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
>
> : I'm with Mike. TEX FOR PREZ. Grant drank more than you and he was a
> : fine President.
>
> <mode = "total tangent">
>
> Grant was a fine President? Huh?
>
> I've seriously never seen Grant graded any higher than 'D'
> as Prez. Great general, terrible president, until very recently
> on nearly everybody's bottom four list with Buchanan, Harding and
> Nixon.
>
> </mode>
>
> Mark would never be President. The hours are long and filled
> with people like me pissing him off all the time. Plus he
> couldn't head off to Bandon or Scotland to play golf without
> there being being a huge Secret Service and media contingent
> tracking his every move. No, he'd be the policy advisor behind
> the throne. (As would I, for the other side.)
Too true :) But I've got a better idea...I'll be President long enough
to make the changes...then I'll step aside...but all the policies will
have a 4 yr life and can't be changed without a popular vote :)))
And then you'd find me at Bandon and Scotland <g >
Tex
|
| |
Date: 09 Oct 2006 15:28:19
From: Tex
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> In article <1160423441.992836.5750@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
> > > "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1160416580.397001.58890@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > > MnMikew wrote:
> > > >> "AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message
> > > >> news:Ka%Vg.2797$v43.804@fed1read02...
> > > >> >Or maybe it would be nice to have a balanced budget with Hillary.
> > > >> >
> > > >> Dream on.
> > > >
> > > > More like "nightmare on"....oh she'll attempt to balance the budget...
> > > > Like this:
> > > > 1) remove "the Bush tax cuts" on the "rich" (read: anyone over $50K in
> > > > taxable income)
> > > > 2) slash military spending by $100B/year (or more)
> > > > 3) remove the cap on SStax (limited today to $92K ?)
> > > >
> > > > Tex
> > > > who will not earn "taxable income" under a H. Clinton Presidency
> > >
> > > Tex,
> > > What is the difference between tax and spend and borrow and spend? Besides
> > > the interest and the lack of money available which is taken up be governemnt
> > > borrowing? Clinton had a balanced budget. Does anyone disagree with that?
> > > Bush has vetoed, what ... one bill in his entire administration? Doesn't
> > > that bother anybody? Maybe God told him that He would provide for the
> > > national debt.
> >
> > Fixing the debt is wrong if it rips $200B/year out of the economy.
> >
> > Use your personal experience to figure that out....run up $100,000 in
> > debt, then go ask your employer for more $$. :)
> >
> > You *have* to cut spending to fix deficits. I'm not defending anyone's
> > policy, but raising taxes cuts growth, which in turn cuts revenue,
> > which in turn raises the debt.
> >
> Which the repugs promised with their Contract with America and then
> completely forgot all that when they got in power. Not even counting
> the fiasco 'war on terror in Iraq' boondogle, they've spent more than
> even the most liberal of liberals have.
They are *ALL* equally fucked up when it comes to spending...haven't
seen a government program yet that gets stopped when it's no longer
needed.
> Now is the time to tax the "I've got mine, fuck you" crowd.
What part of taking 35% isn't enough for you?
> > I would immediately stop the Prescription Drug Benefit. We can't
> > afford it. Besides, it's a boon to the drug companies.
> >
> As it is structured now, I agree. At the minimum they should be
> negotiating drug pricing as all other gov't agency programs do.
We still can't afford it...another entitlement program gone wacky.
> > I would immediately put a means test on Medicare/Medicaid...and
> > anything "Medi*"
> >
> > I would also immediately put a means test on SS payments.
> >
> Nope! This is not welfare, it is a bought and paid for retirement.
Nope. The current benefits were never "bought and paid for"....they
were "promised" to be delivered. But we can't pay for it because they
never invested the funds, they spent them.
The plan was never having people collecting SS for 15-20 yrs....
> > Growing entitlements are going to sink us all. Fix it now before it's
> > too late.
> >
> > Do all of that and you will almost balance the budget today ($250B this
> > past year?)
> >
> > Next step, immediately pull troops out of all countries but the US.
> > It's time we protect ourselves for awhile. That saves at least
> > $100B/year.
> >
> I wish, but I don't think it will happen in my lifetime, nor yours.
It would if I was President :)
Tex
|
| | |
Date: 09 Oct 2006 17:58:35
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
In article <1160432899.216707.299110@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:
> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> > In article <1160423441.992836.5750@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
> > > > "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:1160416580.397001.58890@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > MnMikew wrote:
> > > > >> "AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message
> > > > >> news:Ka%Vg.2797$v43.804@fed1read02...
> > > > >> >Or maybe it would be nice to have a balanced budget with Hillary.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> Dream on.
> > > > >
> > > > > More like "nightmare on"....oh she'll attempt to balance the
> > > > > budget...
> > > > > Like this:
> > > > > 1) remove "the Bush tax cuts" on the "rich" (read: anyone over $50K
> > > > > in
> > > > > taxable income)
> > > > > 2) slash military spending by $100B/year (or more)
> > > > > 3) remove the cap on SStax (limited today to $92K ?)
> > > > >
> > > > > Tex
> > > > > who will not earn "taxable income" under a H. Clinton Presidency
> > > >
> > > > Tex,
> > > > What is the difference between tax and spend and borrow and spend?
> > > > Besides
> > > > the interest and the lack of money available which is taken up be
> > > > governemnt
> > > > borrowing? Clinton had a balanced budget. Does anyone disagree with
> > > > that?
> > > > Bush has vetoed, what ... one bill in his entire administration?
> > > > Doesn't
> > > > that bother anybody? Maybe God told him that He would provide for the
> > > > national debt.
> > >
> > > Fixing the debt is wrong if it rips $200B/year out of the economy.
> > >
> > > Use your personal experience to figure that out....run up $100,000 in
> > > debt, then go ask your employer for more $$. :)
> > >
> > > You *have* to cut spending to fix deficits. I'm not defending anyone's
> > > policy, but raising taxes cuts growth, which in turn cuts revenue,
> > > which in turn raises the debt.
> > >
> > Which the repugs promised with their Contract with America and then
> > completely forgot all that when they got in power. Not even counting
> > the fiasco 'war on terror in Iraq' boondogle, they've spent more than
> > even the most liberal of liberals have.
>
> They are *ALL* equally fucked up when it comes to spending...haven't
> seen a government program yet that gets stopped when it's no longer
> needed.
>
Won't disagree with you on this. But then again, I wasn't the one that
ran on a ticket with the Contract with America either.
> > Now is the time to tax the "I've got mine, fuck you" crowd.
>
> What part of taking 35% isn't enough for you?
>
Since they don't usually pay 35% of total income, lots. Make more
money, have more deductions and have slick tax lawyers to figure it all
out.
> > > I would immediately stop the Prescription Drug Benefit. We can't
> > > afford it. Besides, it's a boon to the drug companies.
> > >
> > As it is structured now, I agree. At the minimum they should be
> > negotiating drug pricing as all other gov't agency programs do.
>
> We still can't afford it...another entitlement program gone wacky.
>
> > > I would immediately put a means test on Medicare/Medicaid...and
> > > anything "Medi*"
> > >
> > > I would also immediately put a means test on SS payments.
> > >
> > Nope! This is not welfare, it is a bought and paid for retirement.
>
> Nope. The current benefits were never "bought and paid for"....they
> were "promised" to be delivered. But we can't pay for it because they
> never invested the funds, they spent them.
> The plan was never having people collecting SS for 15-20 yrs....
>
You can't have it both ways. Most of the right of center want to do
away with it because it gives a poor return on investment. That is true
when only looked at as an investment.
> > > Growing entitlements are going to sink us all. Fix it now before it's
> > > too late.
> > >
> > > Do all of that and you will almost balance the budget today ($250B this
> > > past year?)
> > >
> > > Next step, immediately pull troops out of all countries but the US.
> > > It's time we protect ourselves for awhile. That saves at least
> > > $100B/year.
> > >
> > I wish, but I don't think it will happen in my lifetime, nor yours.
>
> It would if I was President :)
>
> Tex
Well, since I figure that we could just drag in any bozo off the street
that meets the age, birth and citizenship requirements and put them in
office and not even be able to tell the difference, you've got my vote.
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 00:19:21
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On Mon, 09 2006 17:58:35 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:
>> What part of taking 35% isn't enough for you?
>>
>Since they don't usually pay 35% of total income, lots. Make more
>money, have more deductions and have slick tax lawyers to figure it all
>out.
We think we don't. But when corporations charge us more to pay their
taxes and to pay for their unfunded mandates - we pay.
|
| | | | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 20:23:21
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net > wrote in message
news:gmpli2ha50gae48sj2ksfv5srklhqqu5t0@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 09 2006 17:58:35 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>
>>> What part of taking 35% isn't enough for you?
>>>
>>Since they don't usually pay 35% of total income, lots. Make more
>>money, have more deductions and have slick tax lawyers to figure it all
>>out.
>
> We think we don't. But when corporations charge us more to pay their
> taxes and to pay for their unfunded mandates - we pay.
I just wonder how much taxes the people in Hinkley, CA had to pay in taxes
... money that went to subsidize PG&G, who killed a bunch of them. Was there
ever any criminal charges filed?
|
| |
Date: 09 Oct 2006 15:23:17
From: Tex
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Chris Bellomy wrote:
> Tex <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> : Fixing the debt is wrong if it rips $200B/year out of the economy.
>
> <snip>
>
> : You *have* to cut spending to fix deficits.
>
> SEGMENTATION FAULT, CORE DUMPED
It's software, it can be fixed :)
Tex
|
| |
Date: 09 Oct 2006 14:19:54
From: Tex
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Dene wrote:
> Tex wrote:
> > Dene wrote:
> > > Tex wrote:
> > >
> > > > Fixing the debt is wrong if it rips $200B/year out of the economy.
> > > >
> > > > Use your personal experience to figure that out....run up $100,000 in
> > > > debt, then go ask your employer for more $$. :)
> > > >
> > > > You *have* to cut spending to fix deficits. I'm not defending anyone's
> > > > policy, but raising taxes cuts growth, which in turn cuts revenue,
> > > > which in turn raises the debt.
> > >
> > > AMEN!
> > >
> > > > I would immediately stop the Prescription Drug Benefit. We can't
> > > > afford it. Besides, it's a boon to the drug companies.
> > >
> > > Boon to Rx companies? Seniors were buying essential medications, with
> > > or without coverage. Prior, some were getting discounts. Now,
> > > insurance companies are negotiating the discounts. But....another
> > > entitlement has been born.
> >
> > There is nothing in the bill that forces the government to negotiate
> > discounts...which, as a policy is wrong. However, we don't need
> > another entitlement program AND we certainly don't need another every
> > growing arm of Government.
> >
> > > > I would immediately put a means test on Medicare/Medicaid...and
> > > > anything "Medi*"
> > > >
> > > > I would also immediately put a means test on SS payments.
> > > >
> > > > Growing entitlements are going to sink us all. Fix it now before it's
> > > > too late.
> > > >
> > > > Do all of that and you will almost balance the budget today ($250B this
> > > > past year?)
> > > >
> > > > Next step, immediately pull troops out of all countries but the US.
> > > > It's time we protect ourselves for awhile. That saves at least
> > > > $100B/year.
> > >
> > > I would do that in Iraq within 6 months. I think we should stay longer
> > > in Afghanistan. There, the population has the will to support the
> > > government, but not the means. In Iraq, the will of the populace is
> > > questionable.
> >
> > I could agree with that. But don't announce "when"...just do it.
> >
> > > > We've got lots of desert along the CA/AZ/NM/Texas broder the troops can
> > > > play in...and while doing that, they will curb the flow of illegals...
> > >
> > > AMEN!
> > >
> > > > Wow, did all that without raising taxes. :)
> > >
> > > How about a flat tax?
> >
> > I'm all for a flat tax...trouble is, it strips away the housing
> > entitlement program :)
> > Which, as a policy is crazy. The government should never use the tax
> > code to encourage/discourage behavior. And a true flat tax solves
> > that.
> >
> > Tex
>
> I'm with Mike. TEX FOR PREZ. Grant drank more than you and he was a
> fine President.
I'm sure he drinks more than me now since I'm almost drinking
"nothing".
> What Republican do you read/listen to who inspires your thinking?
> O'Reilly?
I listen to alot of different views and decide for myself.
Mostly, politicians suck eggs. They say whatever it takes to get
votes.
Which is another good reason for term limits...12 yrs max for Congress.
Tex
|
| | |
Date: 09 Oct 2006 16:29:18
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1160428794.587173.258000@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dene wrote:
>> Tex wrote:
>> > Dene wrote:
>> > > Tex wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Fixing the debt is wrong if it rips $200B/year out of the economy.
>> > > >
>> > > > Use your personal experience to figure that out....run up $100,000
>> > > > in
>> > > > debt, then go ask your employer for more $$. :)
>> > > >
>> > > > You *have* to cut spending to fix deficits. I'm not defending
>> > > > anyone's
>> > > > policy, but raising taxes cuts growth, which in turn cuts revenue,
>> > > > which in turn raises the debt.
>> > >
>> > > AMEN!
>> > >
>> > > > I would immediately stop the Prescription Drug Benefit. We can't
>> > > > afford it. Besides, it's a boon to the drug companies.
>> > >
>> > > Boon to Rx companies? Seniors were buying essential medications,
>> > > with
>> > > or without coverage. Prior, some were getting discounts. Now,
>> > > insurance companies are negotiating the discounts. But....another
>> > > entitlement has been born.
>> >
>> > There is nothing in the bill that forces the government to negotiate
>> > discounts...which, as a policy is wrong. However, we don't need
>> > another entitlement program AND we certainly don't need another every
>> > growing arm of Government.
>> >
>> > > > I would immediately put a means test on Medicare/Medicaid...and
>> > > > anything "Medi*"
>> > > >
>> > > > I would also immediately put a means test on SS payments.
>> > > >
>> > > > Growing entitlements are going to sink us all. Fix it now before
>> > > > it's
>> > > > too late.
>> > > >
>> > > > Do all of that and you will almost balance the budget today ($250B
>> > > > this
>> > > > past year?)
>> > > >
>> > > > Next step, immediately pull troops out of all countries but the US.
>> > > > It's time we protect ourselves for awhile. That saves at least
>> > > > $100B/year.
>> > >
>> > > I would do that in Iraq within 6 months. I think we should stay
>> > > longer
>> > > in Afghanistan. There, the population has the will to support the
>> > > government, but not the means. In Iraq, the will of the populace is
>> > > questionable.
>> >
>> > I could agree with that. But don't announce "when"...just do it.
>> >
>> > > > We've got lots of desert along the CA/AZ/NM/Texas broder the troops
>> > > > can
>> > > > play in...and while doing that, they will curb the flow of
>> > > > illegals...
>> > >
>> > > AMEN!
>> > >
>> > > > Wow, did all that without raising taxes. :)
>> > >
>> > > How about a flat tax?
>> >
>> > I'm all for a flat tax...trouble is, it strips away the housing
>> > entitlement program :)
>> > Which, as a policy is crazy. The government should never use the tax
>> > code to encourage/discourage behavior. And a true flat tax solves
>> > that.
>> >
>> > Tex
>>
>> I'm with Mike. TEX FOR PREZ. Grant drank more than you and he was a
>> fine President.
>
> I'm sure he drinks more than me now since I'm almost drinking
> "nothing".
>
>> What Republican do you read/listen to who inspires your thinking?
>> O'Reilly?
>
> I listen to alot of different views and decide for myself.
> Mostly, politicians suck eggs. They say whatever it takes to get
> votes.
> Which is another good reason for term limits...12 yrs max for Congress.
>
> Tex
>
Well, Grants dead so you still have him beat. Term limits. Line item
veto.Don't worry Tex, I carried you drinking this weekend in Wisc. :-)
|
| | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 17:06:07
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1160428794.587173.258000@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dene wrote:
>> Tex wrote:
>> > Dene wrote:
>> > > Tex wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Fixing the debt is wrong if it rips $200B/year out of the economy.
>> > > >
>> > > > Use your personal experience to figure that out....run up $100,000
>> > > > in
>> > > > debt, then go ask your employer for more $$. :)
>> > > >
>> > > > You *have* to cut spending to fix deficits. I'm not defending
>> > > > anyone's
>> > > > policy, but raising taxes cuts growth, which in turn cuts revenue,
>> > > > which in turn raises the debt.
>> > >
>> > > AMEN!
>> > >
>> > > > I would immediately stop the Prescription Drug Benefit. We can't
>> > > > afford it. Besides, it's a boon to the drug companies.
>> > >
>> > > Boon to Rx companies? Seniors were buying essential medications,
>> > > with
>> > > or without coverage. Prior, some were getting discounts. Now,
>> > > insurance companies are negotiating the discounts. But....another
>> > > entitlement has been born.
>> >
>> > There is nothing in the bill that forces the government to negotiate
>> > discounts...which, as a policy is wrong. However, we don't need
>> > another entitlement program AND we certainly don't need another every
>> > growing arm of Government.
>> >
>> > > > I would immediately put a means test on Medicare/Medicaid...and
>> > > > anything "Medi*"
>> > > >
>> > > > I would also immediately put a means test on SS payments.
>> > > >
>> > > > Growing entitlements are going to sink us all. Fix it now before
>> > > > it's
>> > > > too late.
>> > > >
>> > > > Do all of that and you will almost balance the budget today ($250B
>> > > > this
>> > > > past year?)
>> > > >
>> > > > Next step, immediately pull troops out of all countries but the US.
>> > > > It's time we protect ourselves for awhile. That saves at least
>> > > > $100B/year.
>> > >
>> > > I would do that in Iraq within 6 months. I think we should stay
>> > > longer
>> > > in Afghanistan. There, the population has the will to support the
>> > > government, but not the means. In Iraq, the will of the populace is
>> > > questionable.
>> >
>> > I could agree with that. But don't announce "when"...just do it.
>> >
>> > > > We've got lots of desert along the CA/AZ/NM/Texas broder the troops
>> > > > can
>> > > > play in...and while doing that, they will curb the flow of
>> > > > illegals...
>> > >
>> > > AMEN!
>> > >
>> > > > Wow, did all that without raising taxes. :)
>> > >
>> > > How about a flat tax?
>> >
>> > I'm all for a flat tax...trouble is, it strips away the housing
>> > entitlement program :)
>> > Which, as a policy is crazy. The government should never use the tax
>> > code to encourage/discourage behavior. And a true flat tax solves
>> > that.
>> >
>> > Tex
>>
>> I'm with Mike. TEX FOR PREZ. Grant drank more than you and he was a
>> fine President.
>
> I'm sure he drinks more than me now since I'm almost drinking
> "nothing".
>
>> What Republican do you read/listen to who inspires your thinking?
>> O'Reilly?
>
> I listen to alot of different views and decide for myself.
> Mostly, politicians suck eggs. They say whatever it takes to get
> votes.
> Which is another good reason for term limits...12 yrs max for Congress.
>
> Tex
I"m not sure about term limits but the line item veto would be nice. It's my
understanding that before Nixon's problems, the executive branch had a lot
more say in what got funded and what didn't, so there wasn't as much of a
need of a line item veto, they just didn't fund the bs, but the executive
branch lost a lot of that power because congress grabbed it during Nixon's
problems.
But George Bush only vetoed one bill in his entire presidency, so far...
doesn't that say something, to someone? If you don't respond to this Tex,
I'll assume you are avoiding it.
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 20:58:54
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On Tue, 10 2006 17:06:07 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt"
<goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote:
>I"m not sure about term limits but the line item veto would be nice.
I think the line item veto is dead and may not be constitutional
anyhow. However, what they should do is outlaw riders to bills. A
lot of spending gets stuck into other legislation.
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 13:07:29
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On Tue, 10 2006 17:06:07 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt"
<goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote:
>But George Bush only vetoed one bill in his entire presidency, so far...
>doesn't that say something, to someone? If you don't respond to this Tex,
>I'll assume you are avoiding it.
I prefer a president and a Congress with different loyalties. When
they are both on the same page, too many laws get passed - and not
enough vetoes.
|
| |
Date: 09 Oct 2006 14:00:16
From: Dene
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Tex wrote:
> Dene wrote:
> > Tex wrote:
> >
> > > Fixing the debt is wrong if it rips $200B/year out of the economy.
> > >
> > > Use your personal experience to figure that out....run up $100,000 in
> > > debt, then go ask your employer for more $$. :)
> > >
> > > You *have* to cut spending to fix deficits. I'm not defending anyone's
> > > policy, but raising taxes cuts growth, which in turn cuts revenue,
> > > which in turn raises the debt.
> >
> > AMEN!
> >
> > > I would immediately stop the Prescription Drug Benefit. We can't
> > > afford it. Besides, it's a boon to the drug companies.
> >
> > Boon to Rx companies? Seniors were buying essential medications, with
> > or without coverage. Prior, some were getting discounts. Now,
> > insurance companies are negotiating the discounts. But....another
> > entitlement has been born.
>
> There is nothing in the bill that forces the government to negotiate
> discounts...which, as a policy is wrong. However, we don't need
> another entitlement program AND we certainly don't need another every
> growing arm of Government.
>
> > > I would immediately put a means test on Medicare/Medicaid...and
> > > anything "Medi*"
> > >
> > > I would also immediately put a means test on SS payments.
> > >
> > > Growing entitlements are going to sink us all. Fix it now before it's
> > > too late.
> > >
> > > Do all of that and you will almost balance the budget today ($250B this
> > > past year?)
> > >
> > > Next step, immediately pull troops out of all countries but the US.
> > > It's time we protect ourselves for awhile. That saves at least
> > > $100B/year.
> >
> > I would do that in Iraq within 6 months. I think we should stay longer
> > in Afghanistan. There, the population has the will to support the
> > government, but not the means. In Iraq, the will of the populace is
> > questionable.
>
> I could agree with that. But don't announce "when"...just do it.
>
> > > We've got lots of desert along the CA/AZ/NM/Texas broder the troops can
> > > play in...and while doing that, they will curb the flow of illegals...
> >
> > AMEN!
> >
> > > Wow, did all that without raising taxes. :)
> >
> > How about a flat tax?
>
> I'm all for a flat tax...trouble is, it strips away the housing
> entitlement program :)
> Which, as a policy is crazy. The government should never use the tax
> code to encourage/discourage behavior. And a true flat tax solves
> that.
>
> Tex
I'm with Mike. TEX FOR PREZ. Grant drank more than you and he was a
fine President.
What Republican do you read/listen to who inspires your thinking?
O'Reilly?
-Greg
|
| | |
Date: 09 Oct 2006 21:43:13
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote:
: I'm with Mike. TEX FOR PREZ. Grant drank more than you and he was a
: fine President.
<mode = "total tangent" >
Grant was a fine President? Huh?
I've seriously never seen Grant graded any higher than 'D'
as Prez. Great general, terrible president, until very recently
on nearly everybody's bottom four list with Buchanan, Harding and
Nixon.
</mode >
Mark would never be President. The hours are long and filled
with people like me pissing him off all the time. Plus he
couldn't head off to Bandon or Scotland to play golf without
there being being a huge Secret Service and media contingent
tracking his every move. No, he'd be the policy advisor behind
the throne. (As would I, for the other side.)
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| |
Date: 09 Oct 2006 13:23:48
From: Tex
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
MnMikew wrote:
> "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1160423441.992836.5750@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
> >> "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1160416580.397001.58890@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >> > MnMikew wrote:
> >> >> "AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:Ka%Vg.2797$v43.804@fed1read02...
> >> >> >Or maybe it would be nice to have a balanced budget with Hillary.
> >> >> >
> >> >> Dream on.
> >> >
> >> > More like "nightmare on"....oh she'll attempt to balance the budget...
> >> > Like this:
> >> > 1) remove "the Bush tax cuts" on the "rich" (read: anyone over $50K in
> >> > taxable income)
> >> > 2) slash military spending by $100B/year (or more)
> >> > 3) remove the cap on SStax (limited today to $92K ?)
> >> >
> >> > Tex
> >> > who will not earn "taxable income" under a H. Clinton Presidency
> >>
> >> Tex,
> >> What is the difference between tax and spend and borrow and spend?
> >> Besides
> >> the interest and the lack of money available which is taken up be
> >> governemnt
> >> borrowing? Clinton had a balanced budget. Does anyone disagree with that?
> >> Bush has vetoed, what ... one bill in his entire administration? Doesn't
> >> that bother anybody? Maybe God told him that He would provide for the
> >> national debt.
> >
> > Fixing the debt is wrong if it rips $200B/year out of the economy.
> >
> > Use your personal experience to figure that out....run up $100,000 in
> > debt, then go ask your employer for more $$. :)
> >
> > You *have* to cut spending to fix deficits. I'm not defending anyone's
> > policy, but raising taxes cuts growth, which in turn cuts revenue,
> > which in turn raises the debt.
> >
> > I would immediately stop the Prescription Drug Benefit. We can't
> > afford it. Besides, it's a boon to the drug companies.
> >
> > I would immediately put a means test on Medicare/Medicaid...and
> > anything "Medi*"
> >
> > I would also immediately put a means test on SS payments.
> >
> > Growing entitlements are going to sink us all. Fix it now before it's
> > too late.
> >
> > Do all of that and you will almost balance the budget today ($250B this
> > past year?)
> >
> > Next step, immediately pull troops out of all countries but the US.
> > It's time we protect ourselves for awhile. That saves at least
> > $100B/year.
> >
> > We've got lots of desert along the CA/AZ/NM/Texas broder the troops can
> > play in...and while doing that, they will curb the flow of illegals...
> >
> > Wow, did all that without raising taxes. :)
> >
> > Tex
> >
> I'm writing you in on my ballot.
I'll never run.
Mostly because if I won...I'd have to bitch slap about half of the
Congress :)
My platform is "No New Laws".
1) Congress goes on a 4 year "recess"...spend that time away from
Washington and in your districts, find out what's broken by meeting the
people, not the Lobbyists.
2) Meet once a year, on Sep 30 to sign the new budget, which can't
increase spending by more than the average inflation for the past 10
years. Any program on autopilot is immediately adjusted downward.
3) Lastly, no National TV time for Congress. They represent States and
Districts, not the country. If Nancy Pelosi wants to bark on TV, she
does it in her district only. If McCain wants to be an arm chair
General, he does it iin Arizona only.
Tex
|
| | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 17:15:26
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1160425428.785744.142110@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> MnMikew wrote:
>> "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1160423441.992836.5750@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
>> >> "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1160416580.397001.58890@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > MnMikew wrote:
>> >> >> "AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:Ka%Vg.2797$v43.804@fed1read02...
>> >> >> >Or maybe it would be nice to have a balanced budget with Hillary.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> Dream on.
>> >> >
>> >> > More like "nightmare on"....oh she'll attempt to balance the
>> >> > budget...
>> >> > Like this:
>> >> > 1) remove "the Bush tax cuts" on the "rich" (read: anyone over $50K
>> >> > in
>> >> > taxable income)
>> >> > 2) slash military spending by $100B/year (or more)
>> >> > 3) remove the cap on SStax (limited today to $92K ?)
>> >> >
>> >> > Tex
>> >> > who will not earn "taxable income" under a H. Clinton Presidency
>> >>
>> >> Tex,
>> >> What is the difference between tax and spend and borrow and spend?
>> >> Besides
>> >> the interest and the lack of money available which is taken up be
>> >> governemnt
>> >> borrowing? Clinton had a balanced budget. Does anyone disagree with
>> >> that?
>> >> Bush has vetoed, what ... one bill in his entire administration?
>> >> Doesn't
>> >> that bother anybody? Maybe God told him that He would provide for the
>> >> national debt.
>> >
>> > Fixing the debt is wrong if it rips $200B/year out of the economy.
>> >
>> > Use your personal experience to figure that out....run up $100,000 in
>> > debt, then go ask your employer for more $$. :)
>> >
>> > You *have* to cut spending to fix deficits. I'm not defending anyone's
>> > policy, but raising taxes cuts growth, which in turn cuts revenue,
>> > which in turn raises the debt.
>> >
>> > I would immediately stop the Prescription Drug Benefit. We can't
>> > afford it. Besides, it's a boon to the drug companies.
>> >
>> > I would immediately put a means test on Medicare/Medicaid...and
>> > anything "Medi*"
>> >
>> > I would also immediately put a means test on SS payments.
>> >
>> > Growing entitlements are going to sink us all. Fix it now before it's
>> > too late.
>> >
>> > Do all of that and you will almost balance the budget today ($250B this
>> > past year?)
>> >
>> > Next step, immediately pull troops out of all countries but the US.
>> > It's time we protect ourselves for awhile. That saves at least
>> > $100B/year.
>> >
>> > We've got lots of desert along the CA/AZ/NM/Texas broder the troops can
>> > play in...and while doing that, they will curb the flow of illegals...
>> >
>> > Wow, did all that without raising taxes. :)
>> >
>> > Tex
>> >
>> I'm writing you in on my ballot.
>
> I'll never run.
> Mostly because if I won...I'd have to bitch slap about half of the
> Congress :)
>
> My platform is "No New Laws".
> 1) Congress goes on a 4 year "recess"...spend that time away from
> Washington and in your districts, find out what's broken by meeting the
> people, not the Lobbyists.
>
> 2) Meet once a year, on Sep 30 to sign the new budget, which can't
> increase spending by more than the average inflation for the past 10
> years. Any program on autopilot is immediately adjusted downward.
>
> 3) Lastly, no National TV time for Congress. They represent States and
> Districts, not the country. If Nancy Pelosi wants to bark on TV, she
> does it in her district only. If McCain wants to be an arm chair
> General, he does it iin Arizona only.
>
> Tex
Now you're back on track. You were sounding like your Texas compadre, Ross
Perot. Now you're back to being like Howard Stern, the great Libertarian
candidate from NY.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 23:10:44
From: Matt 'Ocho' Aamold
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1160425428.785744.142110@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> My platform is "No New Laws".
> 1) Congress goes on a 4 year "recess"...spend that time away from
> Washington and in your districts, find out what's broken by meeting the
> people, not the Lobbyists.
Point!
> 2) Meet once a year, on Sep 30 to sign the new budget, which can't
> increase spending by more than the average inflation for the past 10
> years. Any program on autopilot is immediately adjusted downward.
Point!
> 3) Lastly, no National TV time for Congress. They represent States and
> Districts, not the country. If Nancy Pelosi wants to bark on TV, she
> does it in her district only. If McCain wants to be an arm chair
> General, he does it iin Arizona only.
Extremely good point, one that I never thought much about.
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 07:08:48
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Matt 'Ocho' Aamold <maamold@gmail.com > wrote:
:
: "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote in message
: news:1160425428.785744.142110@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
: > My platform is "No New Laws".
: > 1) Congress goes on a 4 year "recess"...spend that time away from
: > Washington and in your districts, find out what's broken by meeting the
: > people, not the Lobbyists.
:
: Point!
Alright, I can trump both you amateurs. Here's my platform:
1. Fire Congress. Abolish Congressional elections.
2. Every year, 535 citizens are called at random from around
the country to perform Congress Duty. These folks will receive
decent housing and allowance in the DC area, but that's it.
They have the same authority as Congress today, but when their
year is up, they go home. Compare to jury duty.
3. Anybody caught accepting any sort of "extra" compensation
for work done while on Congress duty gets deported... to Iraq.
As does the bribe giver.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| |
Date: 09 Oct 2006 13:19:08
From: Tex
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Dene wrote:
> Tex wrote:
>
> > Fixing the debt is wrong if it rips $200B/year out of the economy.
> >
> > Use your personal experience to figure that out....run up $100,000 in
> > debt, then go ask your employer for more $$. :)
> >
> > You *have* to cut spending to fix deficits. I'm not defending anyone's
> > policy, but raising taxes cuts growth, which in turn cuts revenue,
> > which in turn raises the debt.
>
> AMEN!
>
> > I would immediately stop the Prescription Drug Benefit. We can't
> > afford it. Besides, it's a boon to the drug companies.
>
> Boon to Rx companies? Seniors were buying essential medications, with
> or without coverage. Prior, some were getting discounts. Now,
> insurance companies are negotiating the discounts. But....another
> entitlement has been born.
There is nothing in the bill that forces the government to negotiate
discounts...which, as a policy is wrong. However, we don't need
another entitlement program AND we certainly don't need another every
growing arm of Government.
> > I would immediately put a means test on Medicare/Medicaid...and
> > anything "Medi*"
> >
> > I would also immediately put a means test on SS payments.
> >
> > Growing entitlements are going to sink us all. Fix it now before it's
> > too late.
> >
> > Do all of that and you will almost balance the budget today ($250B this
> > past year?)
> >
> > Next step, immediately pull troops out of all countries but the US.
> > It's time we protect ourselves for awhile. That saves at least
> > $100B/year.
>
> I would do that in Iraq within 6 months. I think we should stay longer
> in Afghanistan. There, the population has the will to support the
> government, but not the means. In Iraq, the will of the populace is
> questionable.
I could agree with that. But don't announce "when"...just do it.
> > We've got lots of desert along the CA/AZ/NM/Texas broder the troops can
> > play in...and while doing that, they will curb the flow of illegals...
>
> AMEN!
>
> > Wow, did all that without raising taxes. :)
>
> How about a flat tax?
I'm all for a flat tax...trouble is, it strips away the housing
entitlement program :)
Which, as a policy is crazy. The government should never use the tax
code to encourage/discourage behavior. And a true flat tax solves
that.
Tex
|
| | |
Date: 09 Oct 2006 16:49:56
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
In article <1160425148.313509.43170@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >,
"Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:
> Dene wrote:
> > Tex wrote:
> >
> > > Fixing the debt is wrong if it rips $200B/year out of the economy.
> > >
> > > Use your personal experience to figure that out....run up $100,000 in
> > > debt, then go ask your employer for more $$. :)
> > >
> > > You *have* to cut spending to fix deficits. I'm not defending anyone's
> > > policy, but raising taxes cuts growth, which in turn cuts revenue,
> > > which in turn raises the debt.
> >
> > AMEN!
> >
> > > I would immediately stop the Prescription Drug Benefit. We can't
> > > afford it. Besides, it's a boon to the drug companies.
> >
> > Boon to Rx companies? Seniors were buying essential medications, with
> > or without coverage. Prior, some were getting discounts. Now,
> > insurance companies are negotiating the discounts. But....another
> > entitlement has been born.
>
> There is nothing in the bill that forces the government to negotiate
> discounts...which, as a policy is wrong. However, we don't need
> another entitlement program AND we certainly don't need another every
> growing arm of Government.
>
> > > I would immediately put a means test on Medicare/Medicaid...and
> > > anything "Medi*"
> > >
> > > I would also immediately put a means test on SS payments.
> > >
> > > Growing entitlements are going to sink us all. Fix it now before it's
> > > too late.
> > >
> > > Do all of that and you will almost balance the budget today ($250B this
> > > past year?)
> > >
> > > Next step, immediately pull troops out of all countries but the US.
> > > It's time we protect ourselves for awhile. That saves at least
> > > $100B/year.
> >
> > I would do that in Iraq within 6 months. I think we should stay longer
> > in Afghanistan. There, the population has the will to support the
> > government, but not the means. In Iraq, the will of the populace is
> > questionable.
>
> I could agree with that. But don't announce "when"...just do it.
>
> > > We've got lots of desert along the CA/AZ/NM/Texas broder the troops can
> > > play in...and while doing that, they will curb the flow of illegals...
> >
> > AMEN!
> >
> > > Wow, did all that without raising taxes. :)
> >
> > How about a flat tax?
>
> I'm all for a flat tax...trouble is, it strips away the housing
> entitlement program :)
> Which, as a policy is crazy. The government should never use the tax
> code to encourage/discourage behavior. And a true flat tax solves
> that.
>
> Tex
The only flat tax I will support is one that taxes ALL forms of income,
regardless of source. Currently, all the of idiot flat tax plans want
only to tax earned income and exclude all others (ie; investment income)
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 17:09:57
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
I'd like to know who came up with the idea that individuals can get
together, form a 'corporation' and avoid personal liability for the
corporation's actions and create corporate laws that say it is the duty of
the board members to ignore their consciencences and make corporate profits,
'profitability', if you one of the fake intellectual money grubbers, and
then complain because they have to pay taxes twice.
"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote in message
news:lloydparsons-B811E1.16495609102006@individual.net...
> In article <1160425148.313509.43170@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dene wrote:
>> > Tex wrote:
>> >
>> > > Fixing the debt is wrong if it rips $200B/year out of the economy.
>> > >
>> > > Use your personal experience to figure that out....run up $100,000 in
>> > > debt, then go ask your employer for more $$. :)
>> > >
>> > > You *have* to cut spending to fix deficits. I'm not defending
>> > > anyone's
>> > > policy, but raising taxes cuts growth, which in turn cuts revenue,
>> > > which in turn raises the debt.
>> >
>> > AMEN!
>> >
>> > > I would immediately stop the Prescription Drug Benefit. We can't
>> > > afford it. Besides, it's a boon to the drug companies.
>> >
>> > Boon to Rx companies? Seniors were buying essential medications, with
>> > or without coverage. Prior, some were getting discounts. Now,
>> > insurance companies are negotiating the discounts. But....another
>> > entitlement has been born.
>>
>> There is nothing in the bill that forces the government to negotiate
>> discounts...which, as a policy is wrong. However, we don't need
>> another entitlement program AND we certainly don't need another every
>> growing arm of Government.
>>
>> > > I would immediately put a means test on Medicare/Medicaid...and
>> > > anything "Medi*"
>> > >
>> > > I would also immediately put a means test on SS payments.
>> > >
>> > > Growing entitlements are going to sink us all. Fix it now before
>> > > it's
>> > > too late.
>> > >
>> > > Do all of that and you will almost balance the budget today ($250B
>> > > this
>> > > past year?)
>> > >
>> > > Next step, immediately pull troops out of all countries but the US.
>> > > It's time we protect ourselves for awhile. That saves at least
>> > > $100B/year.
>> >
>> > I would do that in Iraq within 6 months. I think we should stay longer
>> > in Afghanistan. There, the population has the will to support the
>> > government, but not the means. In Iraq, the will of the populace is
>> > questionable.
>>
>> I could agree with that. But don't announce "when"...just do it.
>>
>> > > We've got lots of desert along the CA/AZ/NM/Texas broder the troops
>> > > can
>> > > play in...and while doing that, they will curb the flow of
>> > > illegals...
>> >
>> > AMEN!
>> >
>> > > Wow, did all that without raising taxes. :)
>> >
>> > How about a flat tax?
>>
>> I'm all for a flat tax...trouble is, it strips away the housing
>> entitlement program :)
>> Which, as a policy is crazy. The government should never use the tax
>> code to encourage/discourage behavior. And a true flat tax solves
>> that.
>>
>> Tex
>
> The only flat tax I will support is one that taxes ALL forms of income,
> regardless of source. Currently, all the of idiot flat tax plans want
> only to tax earned income and exclude all others (ie; investment income)
|
| | | | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 21:49:53
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On Tue, 10 2006 17:09:57 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt"
<goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote:
>I'd like to know who came up with the idea that individuals can get
>together, form a 'corporation' and avoid personal liability for the
>corporation's actions and create corporate laws that say it is the duty of
>the board members to ignore their consciencences and make corporate profits,
>'profitability', if you one of the fake intellectual money grubbers, and
>then complain because they have to pay taxes twice.
This is not exactly true. If the actions of the corporation are
illegal, then the officers are criminally liable. Lots of corporate
officers go to jail. You only hear about the big ones, like Martha
Stewart, but it goes on all the time.
The idea of limited (financial) liability goes back a long way and is
considered one of keys to the historical success of this type of
business.
Here's some comments on LL from an article on the topic:
"Harvards president, Chares W. Eliot, called limited liability the
corporations most precious characteristic, and by far the most
effective legal invention made in the nineteenth century. Nicholas
Murray Butler, the onetime president of Columbia University, was even
more effusive, describing limited liability as a more significant
invention than the steam engine."
http://www.corporatepolicy.org/topics/LL.htm
As far as I know, there's no law that says a corporate officer has to
ignore their conscience. Naturally, there are many corporate officers
who have no conscience to ignore, but this has nothing to do with
corporate law.
For many large corporations, there is a strong tendency to maximize
profits. Some corporations do this ethically and others do not. It
all depends on if the person, or persons, running the company are
ethical people or thieves.
I will also add that when you move into the major corporate sphere
where billions and billions of dollars are at stake, people tend to do
things that they normally wouldn't. Money makes some people crazy.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 21:13:27
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message
news:0hgoi21bbfp9i7jn7evh0m2tfsh64j5lop@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 2006 17:09:57 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt"
> <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
>
>>I'd like to know who came up with the idea that individuals can get
>>together, form a 'corporation' and avoid personal liability for the
>>corporation's actions and create corporate laws that say it is the duty of
>>the board members to ignore their consciencences and make corporate
>>profits,
>>'profitability', if you one of the fake intellectual money grubbers, and
>>then complain because they have to pay taxes twice.
>
>
> This is not exactly true. If the actions of the corporation are
> illegal, then the officers are criminally liable. Lots of corporate
> officers go to jail. You only hear about the big ones, like Martha
> Stewart, but it goes on all the time.
I was talking about the investors, though, and Martha Stewart was convicted
of lying to a federal agent. What happened to the right to not testify
against yourself?
> The idea of limited (financial) liability goes back a long way and is
> considered one of keys to the historical success of this type of
> business.
Success at what price? I'm never going to forget about PG&E, even if
everyone else seems to have taken it in stride that they killed people and
got away with it. And yes, for a corporation to pay for the medical care of
the disabled people and damages for the dead ones, with no criminal charges
is just like OJ.
> Here's some comments on LL from an article on the topic:
>
> "Harvard's president, Chares W. Eliot, called limited liability the
> corporation's most precious characteristic, and by far the most
> effective legal invention made in the nineteenth century. Nicholas
> Murray Butler, the onetime president of Columbia University, was even
> more effusive, describing limited liability as a more significant
> invention than the steam engine."
I guess there is some sort of credibility in quoting people who are business
oriented? If I quoted Ralph Nader would that even out? Since Ford produced
cars that blew up when struck from the rear and refused to put seat belts in
cars ... they probably thought escape from any liability was a good idea.
> http://www.corporatepolicy.org/topics/LL.htm
>
>
> As far as I know, there's no law that says a corporate officer has to
> ignore their conscience. Naturally, there are many corporate officers
> who have no conscience to ignore, but this has nothing to do with
> corporate law.
That is part of corporate law. But I've got a feeling that you would have an
answer similar to the ones above, if shown the law.
> For many large corporations, there is a strong tendency to maximize
> profits. Some corporations do this ethically and others do not. It
> all depends on if the person, or persons, running the company are
> ethical people or thieves.
>
> I will also add that when you move into the major corporate sphere
> where billions and billions of dollars are at stake, people tend to do
> things that they normally wouldn't. Money makes some people crazy.
So you agree.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 21:33:37
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On Tue, 10 2006 21:13:27 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt"
<goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote:
>> I will also add that when you move into the major corporate sphere
>> where billions and billions of dollars are at stake, people tend to do
>> things that they normally wouldn't. Money makes some people crazy.
>
>So you agree.
I agree that the problem lies with human nature, not the corporate
system. Corporations are no better or worse than the people who run
them. If we didn't have incorporated businesses with limited liability
we would have some other form of business structure and the same
things would happen.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 20:56:41
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message
news:u86ri25ug48eu515curvahpm0nmnriu7u5@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 2006 21:13:27 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt"
> <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
>
>>> I will also add that when you move into the major corporate sphere
>>> where billions and billions of dollars are at stake, people tend to do
>>> things that they normally wouldn't. Money makes some people crazy.
>>
>>So you agree.
>
>
> I agree that the problem lies with human nature, not the corporate
> system. Corporations are no better or worse than the people who run
> them. If we didn't have incorporated businesses with limited liability
> we would have some other form of business structure and the same
> things would happen.
Does Ralph Nader have a different human nature than Ken Ley? Does Mother
Theresa have a different human nature than the guy at PG&E who ordered
poisonous materials used in their plants and then had seminars to tell the
people that they were using another chemical? They are all human. I guess if
mother Theresa had been offered a job at Union Carbide she would have
participated in the murder instead of trying to save lives.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 12:14:43
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On Wed, 11 2006 20:56:41 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt"
<goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote:
>Does Ralph Nader have a different human nature than Ken Ley? Does Mother
>Theresa have a different human nature than the guy at PG&E who ordered
>poisonous materials used in their plants and then had seminars to tell the
>people that they were using another chemical? They are all human. I guess if
>mother Theresa had been offered a job at Union Carbide she would have
>participated in the murder instead of trying to save lives.
Human beings are capable of doing good or bad. Some people do both.
If someone is in a job where they're asked, or expected, to do things
they feel are not right, they can leave. I've done that twice in my
life. Again, any business is no better than the people who run it.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 01:44:11
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
: On Tue, 10 2006 21:13:27 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt"
: <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote:
:
: >> I will also add that when you move into the major corporate sphere
: >> where billions and billions of dollars are at stake, people tend to do
: >> things that they normally wouldn't. Money makes some people crazy.
: >
: >So you agree.
:
: I agree that the problem lies with human nature, not the corporate
: system. Corporations are no better or worse than the people who run
: them.
I think the problem is that increasingly, corporations are
effectively run by stockholders with no criminal liability
should the corporations break the law. I haven't really
thought through how to fix that, but when the investors'
directive is to maximize profit at the expense of all else,
bad things tend to happen.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 00:16:27
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On Thu, 12 2006 01:44:11 GMT, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
>I think the problem is that increasingly, corporations are
>effectively run by stockholders with no criminal liability
>should the corporations break the law.
Large corporations are run by the Board of Directors and the top
corporate executives. They make all the day to day decision that
determine the success, or failure, of the company. There's nothing in
corporate law that absolves any of these people from criminal
liability. Corporate big wigs go to jail all the time.
I own stock in lots of companies but not one of them has asked me for
input on how to run their business. On occasion there's a vote coming
up at the annual meeting that I'm asked to take sides on. I also own
mutual funds and God knows what some of the companies in that
portfolio are doing. I've never even read the list of all the
companies in the fund. Even if I did, I probably would know who half
of the companies are or what they do.
The shareholders wield their power during annual meetings when they
can vote out the Board of Directors if they wish. The new Board can
then fire all the top executives.
In any case, making all of the shareholders of a corporation
criminally liable would be unworkable. Some corporations have
millions of shareholders. The criminal liability should lie with the
people actually making the decisions.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 04:27:19
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
: On Thu, 12 2006 01:44:11 GMT, Chris Bellomy
: <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
:
: >I think the problem is that increasingly, corporations are
: >effectively run by stockholders with no criminal liability
: >should the corporations break the law.
:
: Large corporations are run by the Board of Directors and the top
: corporate executives.
No, that doesn't account for stockholder revolts that quickly
replace CEOs and board members of companies that perform poorly
in the short term. The pressure to post good numbers each quarter
at public companies is enormous -- I've seen it up close, first
hand. Decisions are being forced on executives by the stockholders
to put short-term profits above all else, and it is causing some
extremely irresponsible corporate behavior.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 12:26:16
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On Thu, 12 2006 04:27:19 GMT, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
>: Large corporations are run by the Board of Directors and the top
>: corporate executives.
>
>No, that doesn't account for stockholder revolts that quickly
>replace CEOs and board members of companies that perform poorly
>in the short term.
If you read further down in my post, you would have seen that I said
this very thing. However, even when that does happen, it's the new
Board and the new executives that run the business.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 18:48:22
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
: On Thu, 12 2006 04:27:19 GMT, Chris Bellomy
: <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
:
: >: Large corporations are run by the Board of Directors and the top
: >: corporate executives.
: >
: >No, that doesn't account for stockholder revolts that quickly
: >replace CEOs and board members of companies that perform poorly
: >in the short term.
:
: If you read further down in my post, you would have seen that I said
: this very thing. However, even when that does happen, it's the new
: Board and the new executives that run the business.
Yes, but they know what drives job security and what
doesn't, don't they?
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 22:29:10
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On Thu, 12 2006 18:48:22 GMT, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
>: If you read further down in my post, you would have seen that I said
>: this very thing. However, even when that does happen, it's the new
>: Board and the new executives that run the business.
>
>Yes, but they know what drives job security and what
>doesn't, don't they?
Profit.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 02:44:15
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
: On Thu, 12 2006 18:48:22 GMT, Chris Bellomy
: <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
:
: >: If you read further down in my post, you would have seen that I said
: >: this very thing. However, even when that does happen, it's the new
: >: Board and the new executives that run the business.
: >
: >Yes, but they know what drives job security and what
: >doesn't, don't they?
:
: Profit.
EXACTLY MY POINT, THANK YOU DRIVE THROUGH PLEASE.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 13:18:44
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On Fri, 13 2006 02:44:15 GMT, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
>:>: If you read further down in my post, you would have seen that I said
>:>: this very thing. However, even when that does happen, it's the new
>:>: Board and the new executives that run the business.
>:>
>:>Yes, but they know what drives job security and what
>:>doesn't, don't they?
>:
>: Profit.
>
>EXACTLY MY POINT, THANK YOU DRIVE THROUGH PLEASE.
What's wrong with profit? I've been running my own business for
almost 25 years and I'm always happy to make more money rather than
less.
The corporate world can be cruel, but as long as a business stays
within the law, I don't see any reason that it shouldn't aim to make
as much money as it can for it employees and shareholders. If the
corporate executives do anything that's illegal, then lock them up.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 12:41:59
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
In article <2k62j2992jtpf2ivlsrkvkmo0gr327vvve@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
> On Fri, 13 2006 02:44:15 GMT, Chris Bellomy
> <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>
> >:>: If you read further down in my post, you would have seen that I said
> >:>: this very thing. However, even when that does happen, it's the new
> >:>: Board and the new executives that run the business.
> >:>
> >:>Yes, but they know what drives job security and what
> >:>doesn't, don't they?
> >:
> >: Profit.
> >
> >EXACTLY MY POINT, THANK YOU DRIVE THROUGH PLEASE.
>
>
> What's wrong with profit? I've been running my own business for
> almost 25 years and I'm always happy to make more money rather than
> less.
>
> The corporate world can be cruel, but as long as a business stays
> within the law, I don't see any reason that it shouldn't aim to make
> as much money as it can for it employees and shareholders. If the
> corporate executives do anything that's illegal, then lock them up.
Personally I have no problem with the concept of profits as long as the
employees and the owners share in them, which is the case with most good
small businesses.
Unfortunately, the larger corporations seem only interested in sharing
the profits with the shareholders and upper management, workers be
damned. Wall Street even rewards them when they figure out how to
reduce number of workers or their compensation.
A local example was right here. When Whirlpool acquired Maytag, one of
the first things they did was shut down the local Maytag plant. Put
about 10% of our population out of work, with little other employment
around to pick up the slack.
Did they do it because the plant or workforce were not good? No! This
plant was considered one of the most productive of the Maytag plants and
the workforce was efficient and stable. They did it to reduce the
number of overall employees in the company and consolidate the work in
other areas. I suspect that the bottom line will be when they move all
the mfg overseas.
Question: When enough US employees either lose their jobs or have their
wages depressed to the point of no longer being able to buy what you
produce, then what will you do?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 22:19:52
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On Sat, 14 2006 12:41:59 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:
> When enough US employees either lose their jobs or have their
>wages depressed to the point of no longer being able to buy what you
>produce, then what will you do?
Prepare for a recession. It has happened lots of times in the past
and will happen again in the future.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 22:17:48
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On Sat, 14 2006 12:41:59 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:
>Personally I have no problem with the concept of profits as long as the
>employees and the owners share in them, which is the case with most good
>small businesses.
It's true that having motivated employees is a great advantage.
However, in a competitive environment you have to get your product to
market at a competitive price. If you are in a labor intensive
business and labor costs are a significant part of the production
costs, then you have to do as much as you can to keep labor costs low.
If labor costs are a small part of production costs, then you have
more flexibility. A lot of businesses use profit sharing to try to
motivate their employees.
>
>Unfortunately, the larger corporations seem only interested in sharing
>the profits with the shareholders and upper management, workers be
>damned. Wall Street even rewards them when they figure out how to
>reduce number of workers or their compensation.
>
Every company is in a competitive labor market. So there is some
limit because people will start to leave for other higher paying jobs
in the area. In my experience, most manufacturing jobs pay fairly
well, with some exceptions like the textile industry. The service
jobs are a different story.
>A local example was right here. When Whirlpool acquired Maytag, one of
>the first things they did was shut down the local Maytag plant. Put
>about 10% of our population out of work, with little other employment
>around to pick up the slack.
>
>Did they do it because the plant or workforce were not good? No! This
>plant was considered one of the most productive of the Maytag plants and
>the workforce was efficient and stable. They did it to reduce the
>number of overall employees in the company and consolidate the work in
>other areas. I suspect that the bottom line will be when they move all
>the mfg overseas.
I'm sure that the people at Whirlpool had it all worked out before
they bought Maytag. They look at the financial's and decide what stays
and what goes. The fact that they can consolidate and reduce
production costs is what makes the deal worthwhile. For better or
worse, corporations are not social welfare organizations. They don't
guarantee anyone lifetime employment. And in some cases, cutting
10,000 jobs can make 100,000 jobs more secure.
This is all what is known as free enterprise. As long as businesses
don't break the law, they can do what they want.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Oct 2006 02:40:07
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On Sat, 14 2006 13:18:44 -0400, Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Fri, 13 2006 02:44:15 GMT, Chris Bellomy
> <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>>EXACTLY MY POINT, THANK YOU DRIVE THROUGH PLEASE.
>
> What's wrong with profit? I've been running my own business for almost
> 25 years and I'm always happy to make more money rather than less.
>
> The corporate world can be cruel, but as long as a business stays within
> the law, I don't see any reason that it shouldn't aim to make as much
> money as it can for it employees and shareholders. If the corporate
> executives do anything that's illegal, then lock them up.
And it's so much easier to stay within the law when corporations have
enough political influence to write their own legislation. What could
possibly go wrong?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 18:01:59
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
: On Fri, 13 2006 02:44:15 GMT, Chris Bellomy
: <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
:
: >:>: If you read further down in my post, you would have seen that I said
: >:>: this very thing. However, even when that does happen, it's the new
: >:>: Board and the new executives that run the business.
: >:>
: >:>Yes, but they know what drives job security and what
: >:>doesn't, don't they?
: >:
: >: Profit.
: >
: >EXACTLY MY POINT, THANK YOU DRIVE THROUGH PLEASE.
:
: What's wrong with profit?
Nothing. It's the single-minded focus on profit at the exclusion
of all other considerations which is toxic, which was my original
point.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 14:01:47
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:4T3httjkIij4N34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
> : On Fri, 13 2006 02:44:15 GMT, Chris Bellomy
> : <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
> :
> :>:>: If you read further down in my post, you would have seen that I said
> :>:>: this very thing. However, even when that does happen, it's the new
> :>:>: Board and the new executives that run the business.
> :>:>
> :>:>Yes, but they know what drives job security and what
> :>:>doesn't, don't they?
> :>:
> :>: Profit.
> :>
> :>EXACTLY MY POINT, THANK YOU DRIVE THROUGH PLEASE.
> :
> : What's wrong with profit?
>
> Nothing. It's the single-minded focus on profit at the exclusion
> of all other considerations which is toxic, which was my original
> point.
>
> --
> Chris Bellomy
> C-List Charter Member
> http://clist.org/
Is the 'bottom line" the profint for individuals or is the 'bottom line' the
quality of life for all of us in the United States ... maybe the world. And
I don't mean welfare.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 07:39:37
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Chris Bellomy wrote:
> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
> : On Thu, 12 2006 01:44:11 GMT, Chris Bellomy
> : <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
> :
> :>I think the problem is that increasingly, corporations are
> :>effectively run by stockholders with no criminal liability
> :>should the corporations break the law.
> :
> : Large corporations are run by the Board of Directors and the top
> : corporate executives.
>
> No, that doesn't account for stockholder revolts that quickly
> replace CEOs and board members of companies that perform poorly
> in the short term. The pressure to post good numbers each quarter
> at public companies is enormous -- I've seen it up close, first
> hand. Decisions are being forced on executives by the stockholders
> to put short-term profits above all else, and it is causing some
> extremely irresponsible corporate behavior.
>
Are you criminally liable for a robbery committed by one of your
employees while on his lunch hour but that he used your van as the
get-away vehicle?
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 20:58:48
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:0T3hmrfeIr6hN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
> : On Tue, 10 2006 21:13:27 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt"
> : <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
> :
> :>> I will also add that when you move into the major corporate sphere
> :>> where billions and billions of dollars are at stake, people tend to do
> :>> things that they normally wouldn't. Money makes some people crazy.
> :>
> :>So you agree.
> :
> : I agree that the problem lies with human nature, not the corporate
> : system. Corporations are no better or worse than the people who run
> : them.
>
> I think the problem is that increasingly, corporations are
> effectively run by stockholders with no criminal liability
> should the corporations break the law. I haven't really
> thought through how to fix that, but when the investors'
> directive is to maximize profit at the expense of all else,
> bad things tend to happen.
>
> --
> Chris Bellomy
> C-List Charter Member
> http://clist.org/
The investors don't set the corporate goals, though. The laws governing
corporations and their goals should be looked at and the investors should
know what exactly the companies that their retirement funds are doing. Nike
argued that they had a constitutional right to lie about sweat shops, in
information to their investors, or maybe it was to potential investors....
I'd like to know.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 20:45:24
From: The Grand Beckoning
Subject: Re: Oops!
|
On Thu, 12 2006 23:27:47 GMT, "NY Dark Blue" <Dundeefc@spam.com >
wrote:
>
>"Dave Hazelwood" <the_big_kahuna@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>news:toiti2hnaj7vbh9kp0t0skst2is3jrj3dh@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 12 2006 17:41:34 -0500, woodruffs@cableone.net wrote:
>>
>>>>On Thu, 12 2006 22:26:23 GMT, Dave Hazelwood
>>>><the_big_kahuna@mailcity.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Thu, 12 2006 16:23:31 -0400, The Grand Beckoning
>>>
>>>>>Before 9/11, I do not think Bush was any tougher on security than
>>>>>Clinton. He really didn't have much time, either. But since then, he
>>>>>has been so tough it's got the leftwings' collective heads exploding.
>>>
>>>>It's the only way Bush can govern ....... by FEAR.
>>>
>>>Here folks, we have a prime example of the stupidity of politics in
>>>America.
>>>
>>>"The Grand Beckoning" is a moronic Republican who makes idiotically
>>>extremist statements.
>>>
>>>Dave Hazelwood is a moronic Democrat who makes idiotically extremist
>>>statements.
>>>
>>>And they are a very accurate microcosm of politics in America today.
>>>
>>>What a sad, embarrassing situation.
>>>
>>
>>
>> i am *not* a democrat. i was a republican until Bush made me
>> embarrassed to be one.
>
>Now you are just a clown fighting about politics on 5 x-posted groups none
>of which
>has anything to do with politics .
>
I *must* enlighten people. MUST!
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 19:14:00
From: The Grand Beckoning
Subject: Forces spread too thin?
|
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pace1313,0,1420225.story?coll=la-home-headlines
or
http://tinyurl.com/y95cmf
BAH! We can take down the Taliban, Saddam, and Bunson Honeydew all at
the same time.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 20:53:03
From: glfnaz
Subject: Re: Forces spread too thin?
|
"The Grand Beckoning" <the@gr4ndb3ck0n1ng.com > wrote in message
news:5a70j2h29pdn2b1duq2fuiddingq9satom@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pace1313,0,1420225.story?coll=la-home-headlines
>
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/y95cmf
>
> BAH! We can take down the Taliban, Saddam, and Bunson Honeydew all at
> the same time.
>
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 21:23:02
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On Tue, 10 2006 21:13:27 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt"
<goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote:
>I guess there is some sort of credibility in quoting people who are business
>oriented? If I quoted Ralph Nader would that even out? Since Ford produced
>cars that blew up when struck from the rear and refused to put seat belts in
>cars ... they probably thought escape from any liability was a good idea.
I think Ford was able to cover all of the lawsuits connected with the
exploding gas tanks. They escaped no liability in this case. However,
if the lawsuits were to bankrupt the company then the investors would
not be responsible for the debt or damages incurred by the company.
Limited liability is one of the foundations of our economic system.
It's been around since the Romans and it does a lot more good than
harm. There's no doubt that it can lead to corporate
irresponsibility, but it also encourages investment which is the
cornerstone of prosperity.
If we didn't have limited liability, corporations would need to
purchase insurance to cover risk. This would add cost to the price of
doing business which would be paid for by the consumer. The added
cost would also be tied to the amount of perceived risk. Look back to
the 1920s and think about how hard it would be to start a commercial
airline business. This would put a damper on the entrepreneurial
spirit to say the least.
Like anything else, limited liability is not all good. In some cases
it creates terrible results as creditors and the public are left
holding the bag. However, when you consider everything, it's worth
it.
BTW, the courts can, if they see fit, "pierce the corporate veil" when
they see that egregious fraud has been committed. In those case, the
corporate owners personal assets can be confiscated to pay off
corporate debt.
Imagine a business community without limited liability. Many start-up
businesses are heavily leveraged when they go public. Would you
invest in one of these companies if you knew that by buying $10,000 in
stock that you would immediately become responsible for $30,000 in
debt? In effect, this would tie up another $20,000 of your capital
which you couldn't invest anywhere else.
You also have to remember that limited liability also applies to the
workers in a corporation. In the Ford case, if they were facing
bankruptcy would it be fair that the employees person assets be
confiscated to pay the corporate debts?
Also, limited liability had no effect on the PG&E case. The company
paid all the fines agreed to in the settlement and had to clean up
after themselves. Limited liability would only come into play if the
lawsuit had bankrupted the company. In that case, some, or all of the
settlement would not have been paid and the environment wouldn't have
been cleaned up.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 20:54:00
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Your post about the advantages of corporate shield is an example of what
colleges are selling now days. They can't teach people how to make stuff.
They can't teach people how to be honest. They can't teach people how to
live in harmony. They can't teach people how to raise their children ... so
what do thay teach? They teach how to repeat theories that don't work and
that are contradicted by the next book out from one of their cronies. They
teach how to manipulate money and create corporate behemoths with no concern
for the public or for the creation of good product. That isn't the bottom
line. They teach accounting principles on how to avoid taxes. They teach how
to become players in the world market ... how to owe allegiance to a
"company" instead of a "country". The use words like "service economy" which
means what? As far as I can see, it doesn't mean high tech scientific jobs
or manufacturing jobs. It means cleaning rooms and serving food and working
for banks. That's the service economy, as far as I can see. It's not even
tech support for computer companies, whose jobs have been moved to India.
And it's not programming jobs either because those have been outsourced to
Pakistan and other places. Please correct me.
"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message
news:j12ri2tkjiflarkbvbc7hdnj1i356b34rr@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 2006 21:13:27 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt"
> <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
>
>>I guess there is some sort of credibility in quoting people who are
>>business
>>oriented? If I quoted Ralph Nader would that even out? Since Ford produced
>>cars that blew up when struck from the rear and refused to put seat belts
>>in
>>cars ... they probably thought escape from any liability was a good idea.
>
>
> I think Ford was able to cover all of the lawsuits connected with the
> exploding gas tanks. They escaped no liability in this case. However,
> if the lawsuits were to bankrupt the company then the investors would
> not be responsible for the debt or damages incurred by the company.
>
> Limited liability is one of the foundations of our economic system.
> It's been around since the Romans and it does a lot more good than
> harm. There's no doubt that it can lead to corporate
> irresponsibility, but it also encourages investment which is the
> cornerstone of prosperity.
>
> If we didn't have limited liability, corporations would need to
> purchase insurance to cover risk. This would add cost to the price of
> doing business which would be paid for by the consumer. The added
> cost would also be tied to the amount of perceived risk. Look back to
> the 1920s and think about how hard it would be to start a commercial
> airline business. This would put a damper on the entrepreneurial
> spirit to say the least.
>
> Like anything else, limited liability is not all good. In some cases
> it creates terrible results as creditors and the public are left
> holding the bag. However, when you consider everything, it's worth
> it.
>
> BTW, the courts can, if they see fit, "pierce the corporate veil" when
> they see that egregious fraud has been committed. In those case, the
> corporate owners personal assets can be confiscated to pay off
> corporate debt.
>
> Imagine a business community without limited liability. Many start-up
> businesses are heavily leveraged when they go public. Would you
> invest in one of these companies if you knew that by buying $10,000 in
> stock that you would immediately become responsible for $30,000 in
> debt? In effect, this would tie up another $20,000 of your capital
> which you couldn't invest anywhere else.
>
> You also have to remember that limited liability also applies to the
> workers in a corporation. In the Ford case, if they were facing
> bankruptcy would it be fair that the employees person assets be
> confiscated to pay the corporate debts?
>
> Also, limited liability had no effect on the PG&E case. The company
> paid all the fines agreed to in the settlement and had to clean up
> after themselves. Limited liability would only come into play if the
> lawsuit had bankrupted the company. In that case, some, or all of the
> settlement would not have been paid and the environment wouldn't have
> been cleaned up.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 12:06:15
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On Wed, 11 2006 20:54:00 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt"
<goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote:
>Your post about the advantages of corporate shield is an example of what
>colleges are selling now days. They can't teach people how to make stuff.
>They can't teach people how to be honest. They can't teach people how to
>live in harmony. They can't teach people how to raise their children ... so
>what do thay teach? They teach how to repeat theories that don't work and
>that are contradicted by the next book out from one of their cronies. They
>teach how to manipulate money and create corporate behemoths with no concern
>for the public or for the creation of good product. That isn't the bottom
>line. They teach accounting principles on how to avoid taxes. They teach how
>to become players in the world market ... how to owe allegiance to a
>"company" instead of a "country".
When dishonest people run big corporations they run them dishonestly.
If these same people were politicians, they would be corrupt. There
are bad people in every walk of life. You name it, there's bad people
in it. Obviously, when bad people get into positions of power, they
do more harm than people who have no power.
I've never been to business school, but I assume that what they teach
is highly theoretical and of only limited value in the real world.
Business schools can't make dishonest people into honest people. All
the problems you mentioned are human problems.
>They use words like "service economy" which
>means what? As far as I can see, it doesn't mean high tech scientific jobs
>or manufacturing jobs. It means cleaning rooms and serving food and working
>for banks. That's the service economy, as far as I can see. It's not even
>tech support for computer companies, whose jobs have been moved to India.
>And it's not programming jobs either because those have been outsourced to
>Pakistan and other places. Please correct me.
Economic conditions change and they always will. Modern
telecommunications, including the Internet, has made it possible to do
things that were impossible a decade ago. If you happen to be the guy
at the Dell call center who lost his job to someone in Manila, you're
a loser, but the millions of people who buy a Dell computer at a lower
cost are the winners. Of course, the guy in Manila is also happy to
have a job.
These forces have been at work for as long as people having been doing
business. I've been running my own business for almost 25 years. Back
when the company was running on all cylinders, I had a marketing
budget of around $150,000 a year which was almost all spent on direct
mail. I started out with a company in Manhattan, because that's where
the business is located. A few years down the road, I ran across and
woman who worked for the same type of direct mail company in Atlanta
and she was able to do the same thing I was doing in NYC for 15% less.
Obviously, a business running in Atlanta has lower overhead than one
in NYC, so they could afford to undercut their competition. Needless
to say, you know what I did. A few years later, this woman left the
company in Atlanta and started her own business in Florida. She was
able to undercut the Atlanta firm by another 15%, so I went with her.
Now these forces work on a global scale. You adjust to market
conditions or you perish. The consumer wants the best product they
can get at the best price they can get it for. I would never pay more
for an inferior product just because it was made in the USA. From my
point of view, that would be un-American. When I buy my Toyota, I'm
telling Ford and GM that they're not able to compete. If they get the
message, and are able to produce a better product at a better price,
I'll buy their cars.
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 13:14:52
From: John B.
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Tex wrote:
> Chris Bellomy wrote:
> > Tex <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > : Much like the Dems had the Foley emails back in July...but sat on it
> > : for maximum "hit" value right before the elections.
> >
> > One dem had those emails for a year and kept trying to get
> > somebody to run a story about them, but nobody would.
>
> Why not take them to the floor of the House?
> Why the need for the Press?
I hate to tell you this, Tex, but the press actually covers House floor
proceedings, so the result would have been the same. Anyway, House rule
prohibit members from doing what you suggest.
>
> > Is that the dems' doing or the media's?
> >
> > : It's called Politics...and it's dirty...and is getting dirtier.
> >
> > You say that last part only because you don't know how dirty
> > it was to begin with. Adams vs. Jefferson was seriously nasty
> > even by modern standards. I think most people would be shocked.
>
> Problem is, we should fix that. Allowing to happen each election just
> distracts from the real problems...which, is what the power hungry
> fools want. A distracted electorate.
>
> Tex
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 13:12:02
From: John B.
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Chris Bellomy wrote:
> Tex <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> : Much like the Dems had the Foley emails back in July...but sat on it
> : for maximum "hit" value right before the elections.
>
> One dem had those emails for a year and kept trying to get
> somebody to run a story about them, but nobody would.
If the Dem had sexually explicit e-mails sent to underage recipients, I
can tell you as surely as the sun will rise tomorrow, no reporter in
Washington would have taken a pass on that story. Who was the Dem?
>
> Is that the dems' doing or the media's?
>
> : It's called Politics...and it's dirty...and is getting dirtier.
>
> You say that last part only because you don't know how dirty
> it was to begin with. Adams vs. Jefferson was seriously nasty
> even by modern standards. I think most people would be shocked.
>
> --
> Chris Bellomy
> C-List Charter Member
> http://clist.org/
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 15:08:00
From: multi
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On 13 2006 13:12:02 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>If the Dem had sexually explicit e-mails sent to underage recipients, I
>can tell you as surely as the sun will rise tomorrow, no reporter in
>Washington would have taken a pass on that story. Who was the Dem?
Maybe he's the same one who Bush says wants to wait until we're
attacked again before we do anything about terrorism. Or the one who
doesn't think we should listen when al Qaeda calls someone in this
country.
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 21:22:31
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
John B. <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
:
: Chris Bellomy wrote:
: > Tex <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
: >
: > : Much like the Dems had the Foley emails back in July...but sat on it
: > : for maximum "hit" value right before the elections.
: >
: > One dem had those emails for a year and kept trying to get
: > somebody to run a story about them, but nobody would.
:
: If the Dem had sexually explicit e-mails sent to underage recipients, I
: can tell you as surely as the sun will rise tomorrow, no reporter in
: Washington would have taken a pass on that story. Who was the Dem?
A staffer, IIRC, I'll see if I can find the name.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 12:53:57
From: Tex
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Chris Bellomy wrote:
> Tex <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> : Much like the Dems had the Foley emails back in July...but sat on it
> : for maximum "hit" value right before the elections.
>
> One dem had those emails for a year and kept trying to get
> somebody to run a story about them, but nobody would.
Why not take them to the floor of the House?
Why the need for the Press?
> Is that the dems' doing or the media's?
>
> : It's called Politics...and it's dirty...and is getting dirtier.
>
> You say that last part only because you don't know how dirty
> it was to begin with. Adams vs. Jefferson was seriously nasty
> even by modern standards. I think most people would be shocked.
Problem is, we should fix that. Allowing to happen each election just
distracts from the real problems...which, is what the power hungry
fools want. A distracted electorate.
Tex
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 21:19:13
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Tex <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:
:
: Chris Bellomy wrote:
: > Tex <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
: >
: > : Much like the Dems had the Foley emails back in July...but sat on it
: > : for maximum "hit" value right before the elections.
: >
: > One dem had those emails for a year and kept trying to get
: > somebody to run a story about them, but nobody would.
:
: Why not take them to the floor of the House?
: Why the need for the Press?
There are House rules against using the floor for making
accusations against other members.
: > : It's called Politics...and it's dirty...and is getting dirtier.
: >
: > You say that last part only because you don't know how dirty
: > it was to begin with. Adams vs. Jefferson was seriously nasty
: > even by modern standards. I think most people would be shocked.
:
: Problem is, we should fix that. Allowing to happen each election just
: distracts from the real problems...which, is what the power hungry
: fools want. A distracted electorate.
I don't really mind a certain amount of dirt, as long as
it's relevant. But everybody's idea of "relevant" is different,
I guess.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 14:11:26
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1160769237.711214.251360@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Chris Bellomy wrote:
>> Tex <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> : Much like the Dems had the Foley emails back in July...but sat on it
>> : for maximum "hit" value right before the elections.
>>
>> One dem had those emails for a year and kept trying to get
>> somebody to run a story about them, but nobody would.
>
> Why not take them to the floor of the House?
> Why the need for the Press?
>
>> Is that the dems' doing or the media's?
>>
>> : It's called Politics...and it's dirty...and is getting dirtier.
>>
>> You say that last part only because you don't know how dirty
>> it was to begin with. Adams vs. Jefferson was seriously nasty
>> even by modern standards. I think most people would be shocked.
>
> Problem is, we should fix that. Allowing to happen each election just
> distracts from the real problems...which, is what the power hungry
> fools want. A distracted electorate.
>
> Tex
The gay Florida congressman's pedophile problems taking media attention away
from gay marriage and partial birth abortion ... now that's a real shame.
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 11:30:08
From: Tex
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <f1fvi2hvr8o3jel783835hgafjifueqia0@4ax.com>,
> larry <larry@delmardata.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 13 2006 14:56:26 GMT, Chris Bellomy
> > <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > >Carbon <nobrac@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
> > >: On Fri, 13 2006 02:44:50 +0000, Chris Bellomy wrote:
> > >:> Carbon <nobrac@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
> > >:> : On Thu, 12 2006 01:44:11 +0000, Chris Bellomy wrote:
> > >:> :
> > >:> :> I think the problem is that increasingly, corporations are effectively
> > >:> :> run by stockholders with no criminal liability should the corporations
> > >:> :> break the law. I haven't really thought through how to fix that, but
> > >:> :> when the investors' directive is to maximize profit at the expense of
> > >:> :> all else, bad things tend to happen.
> > >:> :
> > >:> : So the corporation becomes a kind of psychopath, fixed on profits to the
> > >:> : exclusion of all else. They buy lawmakers and they write legislation and
> > >:> : they increasingly tilt the balance of power in their favor. This will be
> > >:> : the thing that destroys America.
> > >:>
> > >:> I'm not sure I agree with your choice of tense.
> > >:
> > >: It's going to get a lot worse.
> > >
> > >Yeah, but is the die already cast? I think maybe it is.
> >
> > "Doom and gloom" is never helpful. This country would never have
> > been formed or thrived 230 years with people who saw the dark side of
> > everything.
> >
> > Perk up! Harry Reid is now leading the Democrats down to defeat in
> > the November elections-- He made and hid over a million in a sleezy
> > land deal--that he never intended to disclose as required. He is as
> > bad as Duke Cunningham. The Minority Leader of the Senate is
> > demonstrating that the sleeze is and was always worse on that side of
> > the isle-- I suspect we will be getting the names of several democrat
> > congressmen who have been fraternizing with the pages, etc.
> >
> > Now THAT perks me up!
> >
> > Larry
>
> Larry, you suspect nothing but BS. Do you not think for one second that
> there are GoP hit squads, of the kind that operated so maliciously in
> 2000, 2004, and mid-term elections, combing through the dossier of every
> single Democratic congressman or woman just to try to find some dirt to
> stem this tide of GoP sleaze? Of course they are, and if they had it, it
> would be all over the TV and press by now.
Much like the Dems had the Foley emails back in July...but sat on it
for maximum "hit" value right before the elections.
It's called Politics...and it's dirty...and is getting dirtier.
Tex
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 13:24:14
From: Fairway
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > Not necessarily. Many intelligent people have been clumsy with words.
> > Niels Bohr, one of the most brilliant scientists of the 20th century
> > was a notoriously bad speaker. On the other hand, his brother Harald,
> > also a fine physicist, was a very good speaker. At the University, all
> > the students flocked to listen to Niels, not Harald, because of his
> > fame and glory. And, John, another brilliant man - but clumsy with
> > words - is the present president of the United States. F
>
> And who the hell "flocks to listen" to Dubya? Only those neocons still
> in the "Emperor's new clothes" mode. Besides, Neils Bohr was made famous
> by what he had written. The comparison ends right there.
>
You are an educated man but naive and narrow minded. Joseph Stalin is
another great statesman, super intelligent and well-read, who was a
notoriously bad speaker - his voice was flat and monotonous. His
speeches were never interesting. In the end you and your commie friends
over there must accept the fact, that even if Bush is a lousy speaker
he is a great politician. No contradiction there. F
|
| | | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 13:50:42
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
In article <1160771054.210161.261960@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com >,
"Fairway" <arminsson@yahoo.com > wrote:
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > > Not necessarily. Many intelligent people have been clumsy with words.
> > > Niels Bohr, one of the most brilliant scientists of the 20th century
> > > was a notoriously bad speaker. On the other hand, his brother Harald,
> > > also a fine physicist, was a very good speaker. At the University, all
> > > the students flocked to listen to Niels, not Harald, because of his
> > > fame and glory. And, John, another brilliant man - but clumsy with
> > > words - is the present president of the United States. F
> >
> > And who the hell "flocks to listen" to Dubya? Only those neocons still
> > in the "Emperor's new clothes" mode. Besides, Neils Bohr was made famous
> > by what he had written. The comparison ends right there.
> >
> You are an educated man but naive and narrow minded. Joseph Stalin is
> another great statesman, super intelligent and well-read, who was a
> notoriously bad speaker - his voice was flat and monotonous. His
> speeches were never interesting. In the end you and your commie friends
> over there must accept the fact, that even if Bush is a lousy speaker
> he is a great politician. No contradiction there. F
Nonsense. It is not Dubya's delivery that is the issue - it is the
content. The man is absolutely incapable of articulating a single
intelligent thought, and that is far more worrying than any lack of
excitement in his speeches. Dubya'a speeches are an exercise in
meaningless pabulum. Thus he is neither a great leader nor a great
politician.
I have sat ten feet away from your hero while he delivered a speech. It
was one of the most uninspiring ten fifteen minutes I have spent, devoid
of ideas, inspiration, and delivered like a Wendy's promo. I also went
to see one of his 2004 campaign speeches, you know, the ones with
carefully screened and handpicked locations, and goons to make sure no
one who could possibly heckle or raise objections was in the arena. Now
that was brave campaigning for you. Even so, the guy sitting on the
platform right behind him still fell asleep during his "talk".
So spare us the childish "commie" talk - that went out thirty years ago.
This is based on real experience, which I am sure you do not have in
this context.
WIlliam Clark
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 19:19:42
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Tex <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:
: Much like the Dems had the Foley emails back in July...but sat on it
: for maximum "hit" value right before the elections.
One dem had those emails for a year and kept trying to get
somebody to run a story about them, but nobody would.
Is that the dems' doing or the media's?
: It's called Politics...and it's dirty...and is getting dirtier.
You say that last part only because you don't know how dirty
it was to begin with. Adams vs. Jefferson was seriously nasty
even by modern standards. I think most people would be shocked.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 14:10:05
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:0T3hrdflIns8N34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> Tex <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> : Much like the Dems had the Foley emails back in July...but sat on it
> : for maximum "hit" value right before the elections.
>
> One dem had those emails for a year and kept trying to get
> somebody to run a story about them, but nobody would.
>
> Is that the dems' doing or the media's?
>
> : It's called Politics...and it's dirty...and is getting dirtier.
>
> You say that last part only because you don't know how dirty
> it was to begin with. Adams vs. Jefferson was seriously nasty
> even by modern standards. I think most people would be shocked.
>
> --
> Chris Bellomy
> C-List Charter Member
> http://clist.org/
And why did the Republicans sit on the story? Rep. Jim Kolbe R-Arizona, who
says he is gay and is retiring, has no apparent reason to lie about telling
Hastert's office a long time ago.
|
| | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 14:07:42
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
In article <1160764208.286044.62950@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <f1fvi2hvr8o3jel783835hgafjifueqia0@4ax.com>,
> > larry <larry@delmardata.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 13 2006 14:56:26 GMT, Chris Bellomy
> > > <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Carbon <nobrac@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
> > > >: On Fri, 13 2006 02:44:50 +0000, Chris Bellomy wrote:
> > > >:> Carbon <nobrac@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
> > > >:> : On Thu, 12 2006 01:44:11 +0000, Chris Bellomy wrote:
> > > >:> :
> > > >:> :> I think the problem is that increasingly, corporations are
> > > >:> :> effectively
> > > >:> :> run by stockholders with no criminal liability should the
> > > >:> :> corporations
> > > >:> :> break the law. I haven't really thought through how to fix that,
> > > >:> :> but
> > > >:> :> when the investors' directive is to maximize profit at the expense
> > > >:> :> of
> > > >:> :> all else, bad things tend to happen.
> > > >:> :
> > > >:> : So the corporation becomes a kind of psychopath, fixed on profits
> > > >:> : to the
> > > >:> : exclusion of all else. They buy lawmakers and they write
> > > >:> : legislation and
> > > >:> : they increasingly tilt the balance of power in their favor. This
> > > >:> : will be
> > > >:> : the thing that destroys America.
> > > >:>
> > > >:> I'm not sure I agree with your choice of tense.
> > > >:
> > > >: It's going to get a lot worse.
> > > >
> > > >Yeah, but is the die already cast? I think maybe it is.
> > >
> > > "Doom and gloom" is never helpful. This country would never have
> > > been formed or thrived 230 years with people who saw the dark side of
> > > everything.
> > >
> > > Perk up! Harry Reid is now leading the Democrats down to defeat in
> > > the November elections-- He made and hid over a million in a sleezy
> > > land deal--that he never intended to disclose as required. He is as
> > > bad as Duke Cunningham. The Minority Leader of the Senate is
> > > demonstrating that the sleeze is and was always worse on that side of
> > > the isle-- I suspect we will be getting the names of several democrat
> > > congressmen who have been fraternizing with the pages, etc.
> > >
> > > Now THAT perks me up!
> > >
> > > Larry
> >
> > Larry, you suspect nothing but BS. Do you not think for one second that
> > there are GoP hit squads, of the kind that operated so maliciously in
> > 2000, 2004, and mid-term elections, combing through the dossier of every
> > single Democratic congressman or woman just to try to find some dirt to
> > stem this tide of GoP sleaze? Of course they are, and if they had it, it
> > would be all over the TV and press by now.
>
> Much like the Dems had the Foley emails back in July...but sat on it
> for maximum "hit" value right before the elections.
>
> It's called Politics...and it's dirty...and is getting dirtier.
>
> Tex
The Dems, if indeed they did what you say (and that is highly unliekly)
would have had no leverage out of this if the GoP hadn't tried to
suppress it for at least a year. But nice attempt to try to make the
Democrats out to be the evildoers in this latest GoP scandal.
Hoist by their own petard, as the great author out it.
William Clark
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 19:19:18
From: dsc
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
larry wrote:
> On Fri, 13 2006 14:56:26 GMT, Chris Bellomy
> <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Carbon <nobrac@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
> >: On Fri, 13 2006 02:44:50 +0000, Chris Bellomy wrote:
> >:> Carbon <nobrac@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
> >:> : On Thu, 12 2006 01:44:11 +0000, Chris Bellomy wrote:
> >:> :
> >:> :> I think the problem is that increasingly, corporations are effectively
> >:> :> run by stockholders with no criminal liability should the corporations
> >:> :> break the law. I haven't really thought through how to fix that, but
> >:> :> when the investors' directive is to maximize profit at the expense of
> >:> :> all else, bad things tend to happen.
> >:> :
> >:> : So the corporation becomes a kind of psychopath, fixed on profits to the
> >:> : exclusion of all else. They buy lawmakers and they write legislation and
> >:> : they increasingly tilt the balance of power in their favor. This will be
> >:> : the thing that destroys America.
> >:>
> >:> I'm not sure I agree with your choice of tense.
> >:
> >: It's going to get a lot worse.
> >
> >Yeah, but is the die already cast? I think maybe it is.
>
> "Doom and gloom" is never helpful. This country would never have
> been formed or thrived 230 years with people who saw the dark side of
> everything.
>
Don't you think it was the dark side of the red coats that was exactly
what cause the formation of this country?
> Perk up! Harry Reid is now leading the Democrats down to defeat in
> the November elections-- He made and hid over a million in a sleezy
> land deal--that he never intended to disclose as required. He is as
> bad as Duke Cunningham. The Minority Leader of the Senate is
> demonstrating that the sleeze is and was always worse on that side of
> the isle-- I suspect we will be getting the names of several democrat
> congressmen who have been fraternizing with the pages, etc.
>
> Now THAT perks me up!
That statement can be inrepreted in many ways... :)
|
| |
Date: 09 Oct 2006 13:02:18
From: Dene
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Tex wrote:
> Fixing the debt is wrong if it rips $200B/year out of the economy.
>
> Use your personal experience to figure that out....run up $100,000 in
> debt, then go ask your employer for more $$. :)
>
> You *have* to cut spending to fix deficits. I'm not defending anyone's
> policy, but raising taxes cuts growth, which in turn cuts revenue,
> which in turn raises the debt.
AMEN!
> I would immediately stop the Prescription Drug Benefit. We can't
> afford it. Besides, it's a boon to the drug companies.
Boon to Rx companies? Seniors were buying essential medications, with
or without coverage. Prior, some were getting discounts. Now,
insurance companies are negotiating the discounts. But....another
entitlement has been born.
> I would immediately put a means test on Medicare/Medicaid...and
> anything "Medi*"
>
> I would also immediately put a means test on SS payments.
>
> Growing entitlements are going to sink us all. Fix it now before it's
> too late.
>
> Do all of that and you will almost balance the budget today ($250B this
> past year?)
>
> Next step, immediately pull troops out of all countries but the US.
> It's time we protect ourselves for awhile. That saves at least
> $100B/year.
I would do that in Iraq within 6 months. I think we should stay longer
in Afghanistan. There, the population has the will to support the
government, but not the means. In Iraq, the will of the populace is
questionable.
> We've got lots of desert along the CA/AZ/NM/Texas broder the troops can
> play in...and while doing that, they will curb the flow of illegals...
AMEN!
> Wow, did all that without raising taxes. :)
How about a flat tax?
-Greg
|
| | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 17:21:57
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote ...
>
> Tex wrote:
>
>> Fixing the debt is wrong if it rips $200B/year out of the economy.
>>
>> Use your personal experience to figure that out....run up $100,000 in
>> debt, then go ask your employer for more $$. :)
>>
>> You *have* to cut spending to fix deficits. I'm not defending anyone's
>> policy, but raising taxes cuts growth, which in turn cuts revenue,
>> which in turn raises the debt.
>
> AMEN!
>
>> I would immediately stop the Prescription Drug Benefit. We can't
>> afford it. Besides, it's a boon to the drug companies.
>
> Boon to Rx companies? Seniors were buying essential medications, with
> or without coverage. Prior, some were getting discounts. Now,
> insurance companies are negotiating the discounts. But....another
> entitlement has been born.
>
>> I would immediately put a means test on Medicare/Medicaid...and
>> anything "Medi*"
>>
>> I would also immediately put a means test on SS payments.
>>
>> Growing entitlements are going to sink us all. Fix it now before it's
>> too late.
>>
>> Do all of that and you will almost balance the budget today ($250B this
>> past year?)
>>
>> Next step, immediately pull troops out of all countries but the US.
>> It's time we protect ourselves for awhile. That saves at least
>> $100B/year.
>
> I would do that in Iraq within 6 months. I think we should stay longer
> in Afghanistan. There, the population has the will to support the
> government, but not the means. In Iraq, the will of the populace is
> questionable.
>
>> We've got lots of desert along the CA/AZ/NM/Texas broder the troops can
>> play in...and while doing that, they will curb the flow of illegals...
>
> AMEN!
>
>> Wow, did all that without raising taxes. :)
>
> How about a flat tax?
>
> -Greg
Jeez....I can't believe I'm agreeing with you guyz on most of this.
But one thing is certain. You won't get any of it from the administration
presently occupying the WH.
Randy
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 17:12:28
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote in message
news:4Z6dnRy6echvk7HYnZ2dnUVZ_r6dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote ...
>>
>> Tex wrote:
>>
>>> Fixing the debt is wrong if it rips $200B/year out of the economy.
>>>
>>> Use your personal experience to figure that out....run up $100,000 in
>>> debt, then go ask your employer for more $$. :)
>>>
>>> You *have* to cut spending to fix deficits. I'm not defending anyone's
>>> policy, but raising taxes cuts growth, which in turn cuts revenue,
>>> which in turn raises the debt.
>>
>> AMEN!
>>
>>> I would immediately stop the Prescription Drug Benefit. We can't
>>> afford it. Besides, it's a boon to the drug companies.
>>
>> Boon to Rx companies? Seniors were buying essential medications, with
>> or without coverage. Prior, some were getting discounts. Now,
>> insurance companies are negotiating the discounts. But....another
>> entitlement has been born.
>>
>>> I would immediately put a means test on Medicare/Medicaid...and
>>> anything "Medi*"
>>>
>>> I would also immediately put a means test on SS payments.
>>>
>>> Growing entitlements are going to sink us all. Fix it now before it's
>>> too late.
>>>
>>> Do all of that and you will almost balance the budget today ($250B this
>>> past year?)
>>>
>>> Next step, immediately pull troops out of all countries but the US.
>>> It's time we protect ourselves for awhile. That saves at least
>>> $100B/year.
>>
>> I would do that in Iraq within 6 months. I think we should stay longer
>> in Afghanistan. There, the population has the will to support the
>> government, but not the means. In Iraq, the will of the populace is
>> questionable.
>>
>>> We've got lots of desert along the CA/AZ/NM/Texas broder the troops can
>>> play in...and while doing that, they will curb the flow of illegals...
>>
>> AMEN!
>>
>>> Wow, did all that without raising taxes. :)
>>
>> How about a flat tax?
>>
>> -Greg
>
>
> Jeez....I can't believe I'm agreeing with you guyz on most of this.
>
> But one thing is certain. You won't get any of it from the administration
> presently occupying the WH.
>
> Randy
I find myself at a loss when seeing sane ideas come out of previously insane
sources. What do you say when a nut, no offense really, says something
intelligent. It kind of makes you want to take something to wake up.
|
| |
Date: 09 Oct 2006 12:50:42
From: Tex
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
> "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1160416580.397001.58890@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > MnMikew wrote:
> >> "AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message
> >> news:Ka%Vg.2797$v43.804@fed1read02...
> >> >Or maybe it would be nice to have a balanced budget with Hillary.
> >> >
> >> Dream on.
> >
> > More like "nightmare on"....oh she'll attempt to balance the budget...
> > Like this:
> > 1) remove "the Bush tax cuts" on the "rich" (read: anyone over $50K in
> > taxable income)
> > 2) slash military spending by $100B/year (or more)
> > 3) remove the cap on SStax (limited today to $92K ?)
> >
> > Tex
> > who will not earn "taxable income" under a H. Clinton Presidency
>
> Tex,
> What is the difference between tax and spend and borrow and spend? Besides
> the interest and the lack of money available which is taken up be governemnt
> borrowing? Clinton had a balanced budget. Does anyone disagree with that?
> Bush has vetoed, what ... one bill in his entire administration? Doesn't
> that bother anybody? Maybe God told him that He would provide for the
> national debt.
Fixing the debt is wrong if it rips $200B/year out of the economy.
Use your personal experience to figure that out....run up $100,000 in
debt, then go ask your employer for more $$. :)
You *have* to cut spending to fix deficits. I'm not defending anyone's
policy, but raising taxes cuts growth, which in turn cuts revenue,
which in turn raises the debt.
I would immediately stop the Prescription Drug Benefit. We can't
afford it. Besides, it's a boon to the drug companies.
I would immediately put a means test on Medicare/Medicaid...and
anything "Medi*"
I would also immediately put a means test on SS payments.
Growing entitlements are going to sink us all. Fix it now before it's
too late.
Do all of that and you will almost balance the budget today ($250B this
past year?)
Next step, immediately pull troops out of all countries but the US.
It's time we protect ourselves for awhile. That saves at least
$100B/year.
We've got lots of desert along the CA/AZ/NM/Texas broder the troops can
play in...and while doing that, they will curb the flow of illegals...
Wow, did all that without raising taxes. :)
Tex
|
| | |
Date: 09 Oct 2006 16:48:21
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
In article <1160423441.992836.5750@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:
> AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
> > "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1160416580.397001.58890@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > MnMikew wrote:
> > >> "AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:Ka%Vg.2797$v43.804@fed1read02...
> > >> >Or maybe it would be nice to have a balanced budget with Hillary.
> > >> >
> > >> Dream on.
> > >
> > > More like "nightmare on"....oh she'll attempt to balance the budget...
> > > Like this:
> > > 1) remove "the Bush tax cuts" on the "rich" (read: anyone over $50K in
> > > taxable income)
> > > 2) slash military spending by $100B/year (or more)
> > > 3) remove the cap on SStax (limited today to $92K ?)
> > >
> > > Tex
> > > who will not earn "taxable income" under a H. Clinton Presidency
> >
> > Tex,
> > What is the difference between tax and spend and borrow and spend? Besides
> > the interest and the lack of money available which is taken up be governemnt
> > borrowing? Clinton had a balanced budget. Does anyone disagree with that?
> > Bush has vetoed, what ... one bill in his entire administration? Doesn't
> > that bother anybody? Maybe God told him that He would provide for the
> > national debt.
>
> Fixing the debt is wrong if it rips $200B/year out of the economy.
>
> Use your personal experience to figure that out....run up $100,000 in
> debt, then go ask your employer for more $$. :)
>
> You *have* to cut spending to fix deficits. I'm not defending anyone's
> policy, but raising taxes cuts growth, which in turn cuts revenue,
> which in turn raises the debt.
>
Which the repugs promised with their Contract with America and then
completely forgot all that when they got in power. Not even counting
the fiasco 'war on terror in Iraq' boondogle, they've spent more than
even the most liberal of liberals have.
Now is the time to tax the "I've got mine, fuck you" crowd.
> I would immediately stop the Prescription Drug Benefit. We can't
> afford it. Besides, it's a boon to the drug companies.
>
As it is structured now, I agree. At the minimum they should be
negotiating drug pricing as all other gov't agency programs do.
> I would immediately put a means test on Medicare/Medicaid...and
> anything "Medi*"
>
> I would also immediately put a means test on SS payments.
>
Nope! This is not welfare, it is a bought and paid for retirement.
> Growing entitlements are going to sink us all. Fix it now before it's
> too late.
>
> Do all of that and you will almost balance the budget today ($250B this
> past year?)
>
> Next step, immediately pull troops out of all countries but the US.
> It's time we protect ourselves for awhile. That saves at least
> $100B/year.
>
I wish, but I don't think it will happen in my lifetime, nor yours.
> We've got lots of desert along the CA/AZ/NM/Texas broder the troops can
> play in...and while doing that, they will curb the flow of illegals...
>
> Wow, did all that without raising taxes. :)
>
> Tex
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 20:20:38
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote in message
news:lloydparsons-07CFC8.16482109102006@individual.net...
> In article <1160423441.992836.5750@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
>> > "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:1160416580.397001.58890@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> > > MnMikew wrote:
>> > >> "AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message
>> > >> news:Ka%Vg.2797$v43.804@fed1read02...
>> > >> >Or maybe it would be nice to have a balanced budget with Hillary.
>> > >> >
>> > >> Dream on.
>> > >
>> > > More like "nightmare on"....oh she'll attempt to balance the
>> > > budget...
>> > > Like this:
>> > > 1) remove "the Bush tax cuts" on the "rich" (read: anyone over $50K
>> > > in
>> > > taxable income)
>> > > 2) slash military spending by $100B/year (or more)
>> > > 3) remove the cap on SStax (limited today to $92K ?)
>> > >
>> > > Tex
>> > > who will not earn "taxable income" under a H. Clinton Presidency
>> >
>> > Tex,
>> > What is the difference between tax and spend and borrow and spend?
>> > Besides
>> > the interest and the lack of money available which is taken up be
>> > governemnt
>> > borrowing? Clinton had a balanced budget. Does anyone disagree with
>> > that?
>> > Bush has vetoed, what ... one bill in his entire administration?
>> > Doesn't
>> > that bother anybody? Maybe God told him that He would provide for the
>> > national debt.
>>
>> Fixing the debt is wrong if it rips $200B/year out of the economy.
>>
>> Use your personal experience to figure that out....run up $100,000 in
>> debt, then go ask your employer for more $$. :)
>>
>> You *have* to cut spending to fix deficits. I'm not defending anyone's
>> policy, but raising taxes cuts growth, which in turn cuts revenue,
>> which in turn raises the debt.
>>
> Which the repugs promised with their Contract with America and then
> completely forgot all that when they got in power. Not even counting
> the fiasco 'war on terror in Iraq' boondogle, they've spent more than
> even the most liberal of liberals have.
>
> Now is the time to tax the "I've got mine, fuck you" crowd.
>
>> I would immediately stop the Prescription Drug Benefit. We can't
>> afford it. Besides, it's a boon to the drug companies.
>>
> As it is structured now, I agree. At the minimum they should be
> negotiating drug pricing as all other gov't agency programs do.
>
>> I would immediately put a means test on Medicare/Medicaid...and
>> anything "Medi*"
>>
>> I would also immediately put a means test on SS payments.
>>
> Nope! This is not welfare, it is a bought and paid for retirement.
>
>> Growing entitlements are going to sink us all. Fix it now before it's
>> too late.
>>
>> Do all of that and you will almost balance the budget today ($250B this
>> past year?)
>>
>> Next step, immediately pull troops out of all countries but the US.
>> It's time we protect ourselves for awhile. That saves at least
>> $100B/year.
>>
> I wish, but I don't think it will happen in my lifetime, nor yours.
>
>> We've got lots of desert along the CA/AZ/NM/Texas broder the troops can
>> play in...and while doing that, they will curb the flow of illegals...
>>
>> Wow, did all that without raising taxes. :)
>>
>> Tex
Maybe the elite think that America is on a downward spiral that eventually
cause them to take what they can and head for the middle east to be in a
gated community with the Bin Laden family. Just a thought.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Oct 2006 21:33:41
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Tex <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:
: Fixing the debt is wrong if it rips $200B/year out of the economy.
<snip >
: You *have* to cut spending to fix deficits.
SEGMENTATION FAULT, CORE DUMPED
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 17:16:50
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:0T3hh44bIjdgN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> Tex <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> : Fixing the debt is wrong if it rips $200B/year out of the economy.
>
> <snip>
>
> : You *have* to cut spending to fix deficits.
>
> SEGMENTATION FAULT, CORE DUMPED
>
> --
> Chris Bellomy
> C-List Charter Member
> http://clist.org/
You can cut the increase in spending or cut increases all together. But I
know that's what you mean too, as a lite version.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Oct 2006 15:02:38
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1160423441.992836.5750@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
>> "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1160416580.397001.58890@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> > MnMikew wrote:
>> >> "AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:Ka%Vg.2797$v43.804@fed1read02...
>> >> >Or maybe it would be nice to have a balanced budget with Hillary.
>> >> >
>> >> Dream on.
>> >
>> > More like "nightmare on"....oh she'll attempt to balance the budget...
>> > Like this:
>> > 1) remove "the Bush tax cuts" on the "rich" (read: anyone over $50K in
>> > taxable income)
>> > 2) slash military spending by $100B/year (or more)
>> > 3) remove the cap on SStax (limited today to $92K ?)
>> >
>> > Tex
>> > who will not earn "taxable income" under a H. Clinton Presidency
>>
>> Tex,
>> What is the difference between tax and spend and borrow and spend?
>> Besides
>> the interest and the lack of money available which is taken up be
>> governemnt
>> borrowing? Clinton had a balanced budget. Does anyone disagree with that?
>> Bush has vetoed, what ... one bill in his entire administration? Doesn't
>> that bother anybody? Maybe God told him that He would provide for the
>> national debt.
>
> Fixing the debt is wrong if it rips $200B/year out of the economy.
>
> Use your personal experience to figure that out....run up $100,000 in
> debt, then go ask your employer for more $$. :)
>
> You *have* to cut spending to fix deficits. I'm not defending anyone's
> policy, but raising taxes cuts growth, which in turn cuts revenue,
> which in turn raises the debt.
>
> I would immediately stop the Prescription Drug Benefit. We can't
> afford it. Besides, it's a boon to the drug companies.
>
> I would immediately put a means test on Medicare/Medicaid...and
> anything "Medi*"
>
> I would also immediately put a means test on SS payments.
>
> Growing entitlements are going to sink us all. Fix it now before it's
> too late.
>
> Do all of that and you will almost balance the budget today ($250B this
> past year?)
>
> Next step, immediately pull troops out of all countries but the US.
> It's time we protect ourselves for awhile. That saves at least
> $100B/year.
>
> We've got lots of desert along the CA/AZ/NM/Texas broder the troops can
> play in...and while doing that, they will curb the flow of illegals...
>
> Wow, did all that without raising taxes. :)
>
> Tex
>
I'm writing you in on my ballot.
|
| | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 15:23:43
From: multi
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On 9 2006 12:50:42 -0700, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:
>Fixing the debt is wrong if it rips $200B/year out of the economy.
I've got bad news for you. Thanks to Bush, the national debt has
soared to nearly $10 TRILLION. At 5%, we are ripping nearly
$500B/year out of the economy just to pay the damn interest to China,
Saudi Arabia, and the other countries that hold our bonds. That's a
tax on everybody, and it will keep going up until we fix the debt.
>Use your personal experience to figure that out....run up $100,000 in
>debt, then go ask your employer for more $$. :)
Bush has managed to run up almost as much debt during his five years,
as all the presidents before him combined. He has maxed out the US's
credit, and then says it proves his policies are working. There is
truly no limit to the stupidity of the American people.
>You *have* to cut spending to fix deficits. I'm not defending anyone's
>policy, but raising taxes cuts growth, which in turn cuts revenue,
>which in turn raises the debt.
Except that somehow, when he wasn't secretly causing the Foley page
scandal and giving N. Korea H-bombs, Clinton managed to quintuple the
Dow, raise revenue, lower interest rates, lower unemployment, and
balance the budget, all after raising taxes. Other things that are
all Clinton's fault: We had peace and prosperity for eight years, but
he got a blowjob!!! Bush didn't know or care where Bin Laden was
AFTER 9/11, but it's Clinton's fault because he only tried to kill Bin
Laden a few times BEFORE 9/11, event though nobody outside the CIA
ever heard of him before 1996 at the earliest. America hasn't been
attacked on its own soil since 9/11, and that proves Bush is great,
even though we weren't attacked for eight years (the first WTC attack
was just a couple months into his first term) on Clinton's watch.
Total deaths on Bush's watch (2nd WTC plus military hostile action
deaths overseas): over 6,000 SO FAR. Total deaths on Clinton's watch
(first WTC plus military hostile action deaths overseas): under 100.
>I would immediately stop the Prescription Drug Benefit. We can't
>afford it. Besides, it's a boon to the drug companies.
We could afford it if the corrupt administration and Congress hadn't
prohibited the government from negotiating lower prices, and made
seniors go through insurance companies instead of just folding it into
Medicare. Oh yeah, and if they weren't spending $5B/month to get more
Americans killed and make the entire eastern world hate us, just so we
can set up another Shiite ally of Iran where their secular enemy used
to be.
>I would immediately put a means test on Medicare/Medicaid...and
>anything "Medi*"
That is entirely sensible.
>I would also immediately put a means test on SS payments.
So is that.
>Growing entitlements are going to sink us all. Fix it now before it's
>too late.
It is not only affordable, it is the right thing to do, to make sure
that no American goes without decent food, housing, and medical care.
If you want to cut waste, start with the corporate welfare -- giving
tax credits to oil companies while they pump oil for free out of our
federal lands, and then charge us $70/bbl for it, and giving tax
incentives to other companies to outsource their jobs overseas. Oh
yeah, and don't start stupid wars that only make the terrorism problem
worse.
>Do all of that and you will almost balance the budget today ($250B this
>past year?)
I can't believe how easy the media makes it for Bush. All he has to
do is predict a $400B deficit, and everybody acts like he's a hero
when it actually comes in under $300B. Never mind that that's still
higher than any other deficit before he took office. It is absolutely
frightening to think what the Repubs could get away with if they
elected someone who wasn't a total boob.
>Next step, immediately pull troops out of all countries but the US.
>It's time we protect ourselves for awhile. That saves at least
>$100B/year.
No, you have to do that on a case by case basis. But Iraq,
absolutely. That's most of your $100B.
>We've got lots of desert along the CA/AZ/NM/Texas broder the troops can
>play in...and while doing that, they will curb the flow of illegals...
They can also play in Israel's Negev desert. Tell Israel that they
either go back to the original UN borders (i.e. all settlers out of
the West Bank), or we cut off all support. Tell the rest of the world
that we are pulling all the troops we have in the Middle East out of
every country but Israel, where we will build a big new base in the
Negev. Anybody who attacks Israel gets an instant, devastating
response from those troops. Poof, you just eliminated the number one
reason for al Qaeda's existence, and Mid-East tension in general. All
the Arab countries signed on years ago to allowing Israel to keep the
land inside the original UN lines, if they would abandon their illegal
settlements in Palestine.
>Wow, did all that without raising taxes. :)
There are all kinds of taxes. You can raise revenues and encourage
growth by cutting taxes for people who actually WORK, i.e. the middle
class, and raising taxes for people who just rake it in from
dividends, interest, inheritance, pumping free oil from federal lands,
outsourcing US jobs, etc.
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 20:40:44
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote in message
news:2k4oi2dh6i8ueskpvoqpcdjkafm2sl8b55@4ax.com...
> On 9 2006 12:50:42 -0700, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Fixing the debt is wrong if it rips $200B/year out of the economy.
>
> I've got bad news for you. Thanks to Bush, the national debt has
> soared to nearly $10 TRILLION. At 5%, we are ripping nearly
> $500B/year out of the economy just to pay the damn interest to China,
> Saudi Arabia, and the other countries that hold our bonds. That's a
> tax on everybody, and it will keep going up until we fix the debt.
>
>>Use your personal experience to figure that out....run up $100,000 in
>>debt, then go ask your employer for more $$. :)
>
> Bush has managed to run up almost as much debt during his five years,
> as all the presidents before him combined. He has maxed out the US's
> credit, and then says it proves his policies are working. There is
> truly no limit to the stupidity of the American people.
>
>>You *have* to cut spending to fix deficits. I'm not defending anyone's
>>policy, but raising taxes cuts growth, which in turn cuts revenue,
>>which in turn raises the debt.
>
> Except that somehow, when he wasn't secretly causing the Foley page
> scandal and giving N. Korea H-bombs, Clinton managed to quintuple the
> Dow, raise revenue, lower interest rates, lower unemployment, and
> balance the budget, all after raising taxes. Other things that are
> all Clinton's fault: We had peace and prosperity for eight years, but
> he got a blowjob!!! Bush didn't know or care where Bin Laden was
> AFTER 9/11, but it's Clinton's fault because he only tried to kill Bin
> Laden a few times BEFORE 9/11, event though nobody outside the CIA
> ever heard of him before 1996 at the earliest. America hasn't been
> attacked on its own soil since 9/11, and that proves Bush is great,
> even though we weren't attacked for eight years (the first WTC attack
> was just a couple months into his first term) on Clinton's watch.
> Total deaths on Bush's watch (2nd WTC plus military hostile action
> deaths overseas): over 6,000 SO FAR. Total deaths on Clinton's watch
> (first WTC plus military hostile action deaths overseas): under 100.
>
>>I would immediately stop the Prescription Drug Benefit. We can't
>>afford it. Besides, it's a boon to the drug companies.
>
> We could afford it if the corrupt administration and Congress hadn't
> prohibited the government from negotiating lower prices, and made
> seniors go through insurance companies instead of just folding it into
> Medicare. Oh yeah, and if they weren't spending $5B/month to get more
> Americans killed and make the entire eastern world hate us, just so we
> can set up another Shiite ally of Iran where their secular enemy used
> to be.
>
>>I would immediately put a means test on Medicare/Medicaid...and
>>anything "Medi*"
>
> That is entirely sensible.
>
>>I would also immediately put a means test on SS payments.
>
> So is that.
>
>>Growing entitlements are going to sink us all. Fix it now before it's
>>too late.
>
> It is not only affordable, it is the right thing to do, to make sure
> that no American goes without decent food, housing, and medical care.
> If you want to cut waste, start with the corporate welfare -- giving
> tax credits to oil companies while they pump oil for free out of our
> federal lands, and then charge us $70/bbl for it, and giving tax
> incentives to other companies to outsource their jobs overseas. Oh
> yeah, and don't start stupid wars that only make the terrorism problem
> worse.
>
>>Do all of that and you will almost balance the budget today ($250B this
>>past year?)
>
> I can't believe how easy the media makes it for Bush. All he has to
> do is predict a $400B deficit, and everybody acts like he's a hero
> when it actually comes in under $300B. Never mind that that's still
> higher than any other deficit before he took office. It is absolutely
> frightening to think what the Repubs could get away with if they
> elected someone who wasn't a total boob.
>
>>Next step, immediately pull troops out of all countries but the US.
>>It's time we protect ourselves for awhile. That saves at least
>>$100B/year.
>
> No, you have to do that on a case by case basis. But Iraq,
> absolutely. That's most of your $100B.
>
>>We've got lots of desert along the CA/AZ/NM/Texas broder the troops can
>>play in...and while doing that, they will curb the flow of illegals...
>
> They can also play in Israel's Negev desert. Tell Israel that they
> either go back to the original UN borders (i.e. all settlers out of
> the West Bank), or we cut off all support. Tell the rest of the world
> that we are pulling all the troops we have in the Middle East out of
> every country but Israel, where we will build a big new base in the
> Negev. Anybody who attacks Israel gets an instant, devastating
> response from those troops. Poof, you just eliminated the number one
> reason for al Qaeda's existence, and Mid-East tension in general. All
> the Arab countries signed on years ago to allowing Israel to keep the
> land inside the original UN lines, if they would abandon their illegal
> settlements in Palestine.
>
>>Wow, did all that without raising taxes. :)
>
> There are all kinds of taxes. You can raise revenues and encourage
> growth by cutting taxes for people who actually WORK, i.e. the middle
> class, and raising taxes for people who just rake it in from
> dividends, interest, inheritance, pumping free oil from federal lands,
> outsourcing US jobs, etc.
The truth is only part of the problem, though. We have to also consider all
of the made up bs creted by the current administration and treat it like it
were the other side of the coin. Someday maybe it will be conservative vs.
liberal or progressive vs. status quo instead of truth vs. talking points
pulled out of Karl Rove's butt.
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 22:52:51
From: Frank Ketchum
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote in message
news:2k4oi2dh6i8ueskpvoqpcdjkafm2sl8b55@4ax.com...
> Clinton managed to quintuple the
> Dow, raise revenue, lower interest rates, lower unemployment, and
> balance the budget, all after raising taxes.
What exactly did Clinton do that leads you to give him credit for all of
this? I am not disputing the good economy, interest rates, unemployment and
budget. I would just, for once, like someone who gives Clinton the credit
for all of it to explain what he did to make it happen.
|
| | | | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 20:42:47
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Frank Ketchum" <fketchum@earthlinknospaam.net > wrote in message
news:7vVWg.12338$UG4.5657@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "multi" <multi@asm.org> wrote in message
> news:2k4oi2dh6i8ueskpvoqpcdjkafm2sl8b55@4ax.com...
>
>> Clinton managed to quintuple the
>> Dow, raise revenue, lower interest rates, lower unemployment, and
>> balance the budget, all after raising taxes.
>
> What exactly did Clinton do that leads you to give him credit for all of
> this? I am not disputing the good economy, interest rates, unemployment
> and budget. I would just, for once, like someone who gives Clinton the
> credit for all of it to explain what he did to make it happen.
What was the big sign in Clinton's office during the campaign for his first
term? "It's the economy stupid." I don't like what he did on NAFTA or the
WTO or that he was a member of the CFR and the other creepy group, but he
did create a government that, at the very least, did not bury us in debt.
|
| | | | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 16:37:51
From: multi
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On Tue, 10 2006 22:52:51 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
<fketchum@earthlinknospaam.net > wrote:
>
>"multi" <multi@asm.org> wrote in message
>news:2k4oi2dh6i8ueskpvoqpcdjkafm2sl8b55@4ax.com...
>
>> Clinton managed to quintuple the
>> Dow, raise revenue, lower interest rates, lower unemployment, and
>> balance the budget, all after raising taxes.
>
>What exactly did Clinton do that leads you to give him credit for all of
>this? I am not disputing the good economy, interest rates, unemployment and
>budget. I would just, for once, like someone who gives Clinton the credit
>for all of it to explain what he did to make it happen.
Anyone who has access to the internet, and claims to have never seen
even a lunatic fringe position, let alone a fairly mainstream
position, in spite of looking for it, is obviously lying. I don't
know whether you are lying about never having seen the explanation, or
about wanting to see it, but it's at least one of the two, otherwise
you would have Googled it long ago. Whether you accept the
explanation is another question, but we all know the answer to that.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 10:15:15
From: Frank Ketchum
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote in message
news:9eboi212mfasetnn9kn3acbhuh2t35be43@4ax.com...
>
> Anyone who has access to the internet, and claims to have never seen
> even a lunatic fringe position, let alone a fairly mainstream
> position, in spite of looking for it, is obviously lying. I don't
> know whether you are lying about never having seen the explanation, or
> about wanting to see it, but it's at least one of the two, otherwise
> you would have Googled it long ago. Whether you accept the
> explanation is another question, but we all know the answer to that.
How typical. When asked for specifics, nothing.
|
| |
Date: 09 Oct 2006 12:08:12
From:
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Tex wrote:
> MnMikew wrote:
> > "AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message
> > news:Ka%Vg.2797$v43.804@fed1read02...
> > >Or maybe it would be nice to have a balanced budget with Hillary.
> > >
> > Dream on.
>
> More like "nightmare on"....oh she'll attempt to balance the budget...
> Like this:
> 1) remove "the Bush tax cuts" on the "rich" (read: anyone over $50K in
> taxable income)
> 2) slash military spending by $100B/year (or more)
> 3) remove the cap on SStax (limited today to $92K ?)
>
> Tex
> who will not earn "taxable income" under a H. Clinton Presidency
And thanks to Bush, she'll be able to wiretap without a court order and
have the powers granted by the Patriot Act. It should be a real hoot!
|
| |
Date: 09 Oct 2006 10:56:20
From: Tex
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
MnMikew wrote:
> "AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message
> news:Ka%Vg.2797$v43.804@fed1read02...
> >Or maybe it would be nice to have a balanced budget with Hillary.
> >
> Dream on.
More like "nightmare on"....oh she'll attempt to balance the budget...
Like this:
1) remove "the Bush tax cuts" on the "rich" (read: anyone over $50K in
taxable income)
2) slash military spending by $100B/year (or more)
3) remove the cap on SStax (limited today to $92K ?)
Tex
who will not earn "taxable income" under a H. Clinton Presidency
|
| | |
Date: 09 Oct 2006 12:30:41
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1160416580.397001.58890@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> MnMikew wrote:
>> "AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message
>> news:Ka%Vg.2797$v43.804@fed1read02...
>> >Or maybe it would be nice to have a balanced budget with Hillary.
>> >
>> Dream on.
>
> More like "nightmare on"....oh she'll attempt to balance the budget...
> Like this:
> 1) remove "the Bush tax cuts" on the "rich" (read: anyone over $50K in
> taxable income)
> 2) slash military spending by $100B/year (or more)
> 3) remove the cap on SStax (limited today to $92K ?)
>
> Tex
> who will not earn "taxable income" under a H. Clinton Presidency
Tex,
What is the difference between tax and spend and borrow and spend? Besides
the interest and the lack of money available which is taken up be governemnt
borrowing? Clinton had a balanced budget. Does anyone disagree with that?
Bush has vetoed, what ... one bill in his entire administration? Doesn't
that bother anybody? Maybe God told him that He would provide for the
national debt.
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 00:16:11
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On Mon, 9 2006 12:30:41 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt"
<goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote:
>What is the difference between tax and spend and borrow and spend?
Borrowing is a tax that lasts longer.
|
| |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 18:35:13
From: Dene
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Tex wrote:
>
> I'd have to return your contribution anyway. I'm not taking $$ from
> the lunatic fringe.
>
> Tex
Hmmm....so alcohol isn't the cause.
-Greg
|
| |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 17:51:49
From: Tex
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Dene wrote:
> Tex wrote:
> > Dene wrote:
> > > Tex wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > That's why you vote for Tex for Prez :)
> > > >
> > > > Tex
> > >
> > > Who's the V.P.?? Phlum???
> >
> > No, he's more conservative than me :)
> > I'd pick CB...just to keep me honest :))
> >
> > Tex
>
> Augh....my contribution to your campaign just got halved. BTW, where
> do I send the dollar?
I'd have to return your contribution anyway. I'm not taking $$ from
the lunatic fringe.
Tex
|
| |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 17:49:49
From: Tex
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
> "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1160428794.587173.258000@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Dene wrote:
> >> Tex wrote:
> >> > Dene wrote:
> >> > > Tex wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Fixing the debt is wrong if it rips $200B/year out of the economy.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Use your personal experience to figure that out....run up $100,000
> >> > > > in
> >> > > > debt, then go ask your employer for more $$. :)
> >> > > >
> >> > > > You *have* to cut spending to fix deficits. I'm not defending
> >> > > > anyone's
> >> > > > policy, but raising taxes cuts growth, which in turn cuts revenue,
> >> > > > which in turn raises the debt.
> >> > >
> >> > > AMEN!
> >> > >
> >> > > > I would immediately stop the Prescription Drug Benefit. We can't
> >> > > > afford it. Besides, it's a boon to the drug companies.
> >> > >
> >> > > Boon to Rx companies? Seniors were buying essential medications,
> >> > > with
> >> > > or without coverage. Prior, some were getting discounts. Now,
> >> > > insurance companies are negotiating the discounts. But....another
> >> > > entitlement has been born.
> >> >
> >> > There is nothing in the bill that forces the government to negotiate
> >> > discounts...which, as a policy is wrong. However, we don't need
> >> > another entitlement program AND we certainly don't need another every
> >> > growing arm of Government.
> >> >
> >> > > > I would immediately put a means test on Medicare/Medicaid...and
> >> > > > anything "Medi*"
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I would also immediately put a means test on SS payments.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Growing entitlements are going to sink us all. Fix it now before
> >> > > > it's
> >> > > > too late.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Do all of that and you will almost balance the budget today ($250B
> >> > > > this
> >> > > > past year?)
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Next step, immediately pull troops out of all countries but the US.
> >> > > > It's time we protect ourselves for awhile. That saves at least
> >> > > > $100B/year.
> >> > >
> >> > > I would do that in Iraq within 6 months. I think we should stay
> >> > > longer
> >> > > in Afghanistan. There, the population has the will to support the
> >> > > government, but not the means. In Iraq, the will of the populace is
> >> > > questionable.
> >> >
> >> > I could agree with that. But don't announce "when"...just do it.
> >> >
> >> > > > We've got lots of desert along the CA/AZ/NM/Texas broder the troops
> >> > > > can
> >> > > > play in...and while doing that, they will curb the flow of
> >> > > > illegals...
> >> > >
> >> > > AMEN!
> >> > >
> >> > > > Wow, did all that without raising taxes. :)
> >> > >
> >> > > How about a flat tax?
> >> >
> >> > I'm all for a flat tax...trouble is, it strips away the housing
> >> > entitlement program :)
> >> > Which, as a policy is crazy. The government should never use the tax
> >> > code to encourage/discourage behavior. And a true flat tax solves
> >> > that.
> >> >
> >> > Tex
> >>
> >> I'm with Mike. TEX FOR PREZ. Grant drank more than you and he was a
> >> fine President.
> >
> > I'm sure he drinks more than me now since I'm almost drinking
> > "nothing".
> >
> >> What Republican do you read/listen to who inspires your thinking?
> >> O'Reilly?
> >
> > I listen to alot of different views and decide for myself.
> > Mostly, politicians suck eggs. They say whatever it takes to get
> > votes.
> > Which is another good reason for term limits...12 yrs max for Congress.
> >
> > Tex
>
> I"m not sure about term limits but the line item veto would be nice. It's my
> understanding that before Nixon's problems, the executive branch had a lot
> more say in what got funded and what didn't, so there wasn't as much of a
> need of a line item veto, they just didn't fund the bs, but the executive
> branch lost a lot of that power because congress grabbed it during Nixon's
> problems.
> But George Bush only vetoed one bill in his entire presidency, so far...
> doesn't that say something, to someone? If you don't respond to this Tex,
> I'll assume you are avoiding it.
When did you stop beating your wife?
Loaded question gain you nothing but a good laugh.
Yes, true, Bush hasn't veteod alot of bills...so what?
As I've said, time and time again, throw *ALL* of the bums out. None
of them are worth a shit. They just want to get elected, they just
want to control TRILLIONS of dollars...and you average citizen doesn't
have a clue...so they just keep voting the same back in.
Tex
|
| |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 17:46:03
From: Tex
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
multi wrote:
> On 10 2006 16:22:00 -0700, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Didn't you know, without Clinton, the US would have exploded.
>
> Funny you should say that. I'm old enough, and I suspect many others
> in this group are as well, to remember the premier of the Soviet Union
> acting like a maniac, beating his shoe on the table at the UN, and
> shouting, "We will bury you!" At the time he said this, he had
> hundreds of H-bombs, and the ICBMs to deliver them to any point in the
> US, not to mention nuclear subs, and troops in half of Europe. He
> could have completely obliterated the US, and the rest of the world as
> well, with a phone call.
> And yet somehow, the presidents of that time
> did not feel the need to suspend all of our constitutional freedoms.
You are so old, you've gone ridiculously stupid too?
*all* of your Constituional Freedoms? Wow, I must have overselpt and
woke up somewhere else other than the US.
When you come back down from your 70's recurring acid trip, then we can
discuss topics rationally.
> >Ok, without Clinton, young girls would have never known that sucking
> >dick wasn't sex!!
>
> LOL, the girls knew that already --- high schools were full of
> "virgins" who could suck the chrome off a trailer hitch. It's just
> the old, dried-up Republicans who thought that was news. The ones who
> weren't buggering pages, I mean.
Yeah, they could suck alright, and your sister was really good. But
she also said "no sex until you buy me dinner". You see, even she was
smart enough to know that blowing the basketball team was providing
sexual services. Only dip shits like her brother (YOU) decided it
wasn't because you still believed "sex was dirty"...so you just
pretended it wasn't sex. And yet today, you still believe it.
Tex
|
| | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 18:53:16
From: dsc
Subject: Re: On Improving Lag
|
> > The key, of course, is knowing how to keep it all together, how to
> > swing hard, what parts of your body to push, and how to push them
> > properly.
>
> You can believe whatever you want, and as such I wish you the best.
> However, every single top level player that I have seen comment on the
> issue says that you cannot swing "hard". You have to make a nice, easy
> downswing if you want to play well. People of differeing athletic
> abilities will have different swingspeeds; Tiger being an extreme.
Exactly... an extreme example of someone that can and does swing hard
and plays well...
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 02:54:09
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: On Improving Lag
|
In article <1160531593.337009.214870@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >,
"dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote:
> > > The key, of course, is knowing how to keep it all together, how to
> > > swing hard, what parts of your body to push, and how to push them
> > > properly.
> >
> > You can believe whatever you want, and as such I wish you the best.
> > However, every single top level player that I have seen comment on the
> > issue says that you cannot swing "hard". You have to make a nice, easy
> > downswing if you want to play well. People of differeing athletic
> > abilities will have different swingspeeds; Tiger being an extreme.
>
> Exactly... an extreme example of someone that can and does swing hard
> and plays well...
No. He's a perfect example of someone who does not swing hard.
--
'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.'
"It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix'
(Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
|
| |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 17:31:24
From: Dene
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Tex wrote:
> Dene wrote:
> > Tex wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > That's why you vote for Tex for Prez :)
> > >
> > > Tex
> >
> > Who's the V.P.?? Phlum???
>
> No, he's more conservative than me :)
> I'd pick CB...just to keep me honest :))
>
> Tex
Augh....my contribution to your campaign just got halved. BTW, where
do I send the dollar?
-Greg
|
| |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 16:22:00
From: Tex
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Frank Ketchum wrote:
> "multi" <multi@asm.org> wrote in message
> news:2k4oi2dh6i8ueskpvoqpcdjkafm2sl8b55@4ax.com...
>
> > Clinton managed to quintuple the
> > Dow, raise revenue, lower interest rates, lower unemployment, and
> > balance the budget, all after raising taxes.
>
> What exactly did Clinton do that leads you to give him credit for all of
> this? I am not disputing the good economy, interest rates, unemployment and
> budget. I would just, for once, like someone who gives Clinton the credit
> for all of it to explain what he did to make it happen.
Didn't you know, without Clinton, the US would have exploded. Without
Clinton (and Gore) we would have never had the Internet Boom (oops..and
bust!). Without Clinton, we would have never had record employment
(wait, we have that now)....
Ok, without Clinton, young girls would have never known that sucking
dick wasn't sex!!
Gosh, what a guy.
Tex
|
| | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 20:46:37
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1160522520.459565.321950@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Frank Ketchum wrote:
>> "multi" <multi@asm.org> wrote in message
>> news:2k4oi2dh6i8ueskpvoqpcdjkafm2sl8b55@4ax.com...
>>
>> > Clinton managed to quintuple the
>> > Dow, raise revenue, lower interest rates, lower unemployment, and
>> > balance the budget, all after raising taxes.
>>
>> What exactly did Clinton do that leads you to give him credit for all of
>> this? I am not disputing the good economy, interest rates, unemployment
>> and
>> budget. I would just, for once, like someone who gives Clinton the
>> credit
>> for all of it to explain what he did to make it happen.
>
> Didn't you know, without Clinton, the US would have exploded. Without
> Clinton (and Gore) we would have never had the Internet Boom (oops..and
> bust!). Without Clinton, we would have never had record employment
> (wait, we have that now)....
>
> Ok, without Clinton, young girls would have never known that sucking
> dick wasn't sex!!
>
> Gosh, what a guy.
>
> Tex
It seems like to me that oral sex is becomming the norm in this country.
Boys are wearing their pants around their asses and girls are talking about
it like it is like what kissing used to be. I don't understand it. I don't
like it. It makes me feel like we are corruopting the next generation of
America, but it does seem like a reality. Who is doing this and why? But, I
doubt it was Bill Clinton's invention and I doubt he was the only one in
Washington getting blown and the liklihood is, it seems that the Republicans
were probably being blown by confused boys and apparently younger than
Monica Lewinski. I'm kinda glad I'm not gonna live long enough to have to
hear about this moral garbage for that much longer.
|
| | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 16:55:57
From: multi
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On 10 2006 16:22:00 -0700, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:
>Didn't you know, without Clinton, the US would have exploded.
Funny you should say that. I'm old enough, and I suspect many others
in this group are as well, to remember the premier of the Soviet Union
acting like a maniac, beating his shoe on the table at the UN, and
shouting, "We will bury you!" At the time he said this, he had
hundreds of H-bombs, and the ICBMs to deliver them to any point in the
US, not to mention nuclear subs, and troops in half of Europe. He
could have completely obliterated the US, and the rest of the world as
well, with a phone call. And yet somehow, the presidents of that time
did not feel the need to suspend all of our constitutional freedoms.
Now we have a moron in the White House who says that because it is
theoretically possible for terrorists to blow up a building or two, we
have to throw away our rights, our freedoms, and our worldwide
credibility and reputation. What a contrast. And to top it off, he
adopts policies that make our worst enemies go on crash development
programs for nukes, and "disarms" the one country that didn't have
them. And ignores all the loose nukes and dirty bomb material lying
around Russia.
> Without
>Clinton (and Gore) we would have never had the Internet Boom (oops..and
>bust!). Without Clinton, we would have never had record employment
>(wait, we have that now)....
Once again, Bush triumphs by using the stupidity of the American
people, and the complicity of the media. The US population is
constantly growing, therefore, even if a wombat is the president, the
number of people employed, the number of housing starts, the GNP, and
the DJIA should all trend upward, year after year. Major economic
stats doubled, tripled, quadrupled under Clinton. Under Bush, they
have only now*, after six years, begun to exceed the levels they had
before he took office. Very impressive.
*Except, of course, the debt and deficit stats, and corporate profits,
which soared to new heights almost immediately after he took office.
I know he has changed his reason for the tax cuts almost as many times
as he has changed his reason for invading Iraq, but if you remember
the 2000 campaign, his original reason was that he didn't want to
completely pay off the national debt too fast! Well, Mission
Accomplished!
>Ok, without Clinton, young girls would have never known that sucking
>dick wasn't sex!!
LOL, the girls knew that already --- high schools were full of
"virgins" who could suck the chrome off a trailer hitch. It's just
the old, dried-up Republicans who thought that was news. The ones who
weren't buggering pages, I mean.
|
| |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 16:18:43
From: Tex
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Dene wrote:
> Tex wrote:
>
> >
> > That's why you vote for Tex for Prez :)
> >
> > Tex
>
> Who's the V.P.?? Phlum???
No, he's more conservative than me :)
I'd pick CB...just to keep me honest :))
Tex
|
| | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 02:51:31
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Tex <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:
:
: Dene wrote:
: > Tex wrote:
: >
: > >
: > > That's why you vote for Tex for Prez :)
: > >
: > > Tex
: >
: > Who's the V.P.?? Phlum???
:
: No, he's more conservative than me :)
: I'd pick CB...just to keep me honest :))
No fkn way. If anything ever happened to you, I'd have Oliver
Stone on my ass so fast I wouldn't have time to fart.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 22:35:52
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1160522322.929178.197830@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dene wrote:
>> Tex wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > That's why you vote for Tex for Prez :)
>> >
>> > Tex
>>
>> Who's the V.P.?? Phlum???
>
> No, he's more conservative than me :)
> I'd pick CB...just to keep me honest :))
To balance the ticket, eh?
Yeah, Pflum is more conservative than just about anybody.
Randy
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 02:56:51
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:
: Yeah, Pflum is more conservative than just about anybody.
A word about our skinny friend.
I'm liberal. Damn near radical. Pflum is quite the conservative.
But while he is conservative, he also is what a conservative
*should* be: civil, respectful, restrained. I don't much agree
with him but I damn sure respect him. I don't mind saying so
in public.
Once. :)
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 15:07:18
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote
>
> I'm liberal. Damn near radical. Pflum is quite the conservative.
>
> But while he is conservative, he also is what a conservative
> *should* be: civil, respectful, restrained.
Until his beliefs are vigorously challenged.
The problem with most conservatives today -- and while I respect his right
to hold his opinions, John is no different -- is that they're not
conservative at all, at least not in the way the conservative movement was
first brought forth by people like Barry Goldwater, who believed in
Libertarian principles like limited government, limited spending and
protecting individual liberties.
Today's modern conservatives in Washington are not about limited government,
and most certainly are not about limited spending. They want government
poking its head into various areas of our lives where it has no business.
They want to limit individual freedoms, not protect them.
In today's neocon world, individual "liberty" and "freedom" has become
nothing but a faith-based initiative.
Randy
|
| | | | | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 19:41:36
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:
: "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote
: >
: > I'm liberal. Damn near radical. Pflum is quite the conservative.
: >
: > But while he is conservative, he also is what a conservative
: > *should* be: civil, respectful, restrained.
:
: Until his beliefs are vigorously challenged.
:
: The problem with most conservatives today -- and while I respect his right
: to hold his opinions, John is no different -- is that they're not
: conservative at all, at least not in the way the conservative movement was
: first brought forth by people like Barry Goldwater, who believed in
: Libertarian principles like limited government, limited spending and
: protecting individual liberties.
My impression is that John believes in those things and isn't
necessarily comfortable with what the current leadership of
his party has wrought. But he's not making a big vocal deal
of it.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 15:41:01
From: Aress Gee
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level
|
Wayne <way96ah@hotmail.com > writes:
> Birdie Bill wrote:
>
> >> 1. This is HARDLY an exceptional individual case. People sign wrong
> >> score cards all the time. People write down wong scores on holes all
> >> the time. They are DQed. "An exptional individual case" might be a
> >> guy who finishes his round and on his way to the scoring tent is
> >> attacked by a polar bear that rips his right arm off. Due to the
> >> trauma of the injury, and the fact that he doesn't write very well
> >> with his left hand, he puts down a 4 instead of the 5 he actually
> >> scored. I can see the committee giving some leeway in that case.
> >>
> >> 2. The hole scores reported were NOT correct. Let's say he makes 4
> >> on the first hole and that's what he records. Well, he really got a 6
> >> because of the penalty. He makes birdie on the next hole and records
> >> a 2. Well, he really got a 4 because of the penalty. From there on
> >> out the scores reported were correct but not for the first two holes.
> >> (Rule 4-4a if you want to look it up.)
> >>
> >> 3. The final result WAS the correct score but he had already turned
> >> in, and presumably signed, his score card with the incorrect (and
> >> lower) scores.
> >>
> >> So by recording a lower, incorrect score on holes 1 and 2 he should
> >> have been DQed. End of story.
> >>
> >> --
> >
> > I gotta go with Slim on this. I greatly admire this guy's integrity,
> > but the correct penalty is DQ. This kind of thing happens every
> > once in a while on the pro tours, and results in DQ every time.
> > If you sign for a score lower than what you really made, it is
> > DQ, and penalty strokes DO count in that determination.
> >
> > I guess the only grey area would be if the scorecards were
> > not "signed" after the first round. Not sure what happens
> > if scorecards are not signed (and too lazy to look it up),
> > but that may be grounds for DQ all by itself.
>
> Christ, you guys are awfully tough! While I agree that DQ is the textbook
> penalty and certainly what would happen in a tour event, I don't have a
> problem with them just adding the 4 strokes to his score in a competition
> like this. I can't imagine any of the competitors having a problem with
> it, either.
>
> I think the DQ penalty is often far too penal, though.
This is why every competitor should ask the Committee, prior to
the start of play, which Rules are not going to be applied due
to the inconvenience of doing so.
Personally, I find it very inconvenient to add those
water hazard relief penalties...
--
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mr. People who use golf as some sort of status
Aress symbol are destined to go unfulfilled.
Gee -- Golf's Most Beloved Figure
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 21:43:54
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level
|
ROG 33-7 allows the Committee to waive a DQ. It does NOT allow them to waive
any other penalty or ROG.
"Aress Gee" <invalid@not_real_address.com > wrote in message
news:barejtetwki.fsf@server007.serverquality.com...
>
> This is why every competitor should ask the Committee, prior to
> the start of play, which Rules are not going to be applied due
> to the inconvenience of doing so.
>
> Personally, I find it very inconvenient to add those
> water hazard relief penalties...
>
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 05:37:31
From: Aress Gee
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level
|
"sfb" <sfb@spam.net > writes:
> ROG 33-7 allows the Committee to waive a DQ. It does NOT allow them to waive
> any other penalty or ROG.
So, what exceptional circumstances existed in this case?
I forgot to count my clubs is not an exceptional circumstance.
--
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mr. People who use golf as some sort of status
Aress symbol are destined to go unfulfilled.
Gee -- Golf's Most Beloved Figure
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 07:24:43
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level
|
I suggest you ask the Committee as the decision is totally within their
powers.
You cut the part where somebody posted that the Committee waived the ROG
which they clearly did not do.
"Aress Gee" <invalid@not_real_address.com > wrote in message
news:barodsh95w4.fsf@server007.serverquality.com...
> "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> writes:
>
>> ROG 33-7 allows the Committee to waive a DQ. It does NOT allow them to
>> waive
>> any other penalty or ROG.
>
> So, what exceptional circumstances existed in this case?
> I forgot to count my clubs is not an exceptional circumstance.
>
> --
> +++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Mr. People who use golf as some sort of status
> Aress symbol are destined to go unfulfilled.
> Gee -- Golf's Most Beloved Figure
> +++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 06:40:20
From: Aress Gee
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level
|
"sfb" <sfb@spam.net > writes:
> I suggest you ask the Committee as the decision is totally within their
> powers.
Totally within their powers when exceptional circumstances exist.
> You cut the part where somebody posted that the Committee waived the ROG
> which they clearly did not do.
So? I'm asking you to tell me why the Committtee, in this case,
would have been justified in waiving the DQ. I say 'would have been'
because we have no indication that they did waive the DQ; we only
know that the player was not disqualified which may have been due
to ignorance on the Committee's part.
--
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mr. People who use golf as some sort of status
Aress symbol are destined to go unfulfilled.
Gee -- Golf's Most Beloved Figure
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 12:58:24
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level
|
"Aress Gee" <invalid@not_real_address.com > wrote in message
news:bark63592zf.fsf@server007.serverquality.com...
> "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> writes:
>
> > I suggest you ask the Committee as the decision is totally within their
> > powers.
>
> Totally within their powers when exceptional circumstances exist.
>
> > You cut the part where somebody posted that the Committee waived the ROG
> > which they clearly did not do.
>
> So? I'm asking you to tell me why the Committtee, in this case,
> would have been justified in waiving the DQ. I say 'would have been'
> because we have no indication that they did waive the DQ; we only
> know that the player was not disqualified which may have been due
> to ignorance on the Committee's part.
>
> --
FWIW, the committee was well-aware of 6-6d and 33-7. Who knows - maybe the
exceptional circumstances were that they were having a hard time reaching an
agreement, it was cocktail hour, and the only available avenue to not
missing cocktail hour was to not DQ. But IMHO they didn't want to do that
under these circumstances for a couple of club-specific reasons and 33-7 was
the best they could come up with.
But what the heck - these guys even allow the competitors to add their own
scores (audit only by the committee) and make their own handicap adjustments
for net scores (strokes indicated on the card by the committee). And this is
in clear violation of 6-6d. I guess this isn't even golf - and all this time
that is the game that I thought I was playing :-)
dave
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 09:14:24
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level
|
Adding your own hole scores and applying the handicap is not a violation of
6-6/d which says the responsibility lies with the Committee not the player.
6-6/d says nothing about who does the addition and handicap adjustment vs.
who audits the addition and adjustment.
"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote in message
news:QZqXg.12859$UG4.1969@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Aress Gee" <invalid@not_real_address.com> wrote in message
> news:bark63592zf.fsf@server007.serverquality.com...
>> "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> writes:
>>
>> > I suggest you ask the Committee as the decision is totally within their
>> > powers.
>>
>> Totally within their powers when exceptional circumstances exist.
>>
>> > You cut the part where somebody posted that the Committee waived the
>> > ROG
>> > which they clearly did not do.
>>
>> So? I'm asking you to tell me why the Committtee, in this case,
>> would have been justified in waiving the DQ. I say 'would have been'
>> because we have no indication that they did waive the DQ; we only
>> know that the player was not disqualified which may have been due
>> to ignorance on the Committee's part.
>>
>> --
> FWIW, the committee was well-aware of 6-6d and 33-7. Who knows - maybe the
> exceptional circumstances were that they were having a hard time reaching
> an
> agreement, it was cocktail hour, and the only available avenue to not
> missing cocktail hour was to not DQ. But IMHO they didn't want to do that
> under these circumstances for a couple of club-specific reasons and 33-7
> was
> the best they could come up with.
>
> But what the heck - these guys even allow the competitors to add their own
> scores (audit only by the committee) and make their own handicap
> adjustments
> for net scores (strokes indicated on the card by the committee). And this
> is
> in clear violation of 6-6d. I guess this isn't even golf - and all this
> time
> that is the game that I thought I was playing :-)
>
> dave
>
>
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 14:12:38
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level
|
"sfb" <sfb@spam.net > wrote in message
news:mvGdnWpfsfktorPYnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Adding your own hole scores and applying the handicap is not a violation
of
> 6-6/d which says the responsibility lies with the Committee not the
player.
> 6-6/d says nothing about who does the addition and handicap adjustment vs.
> who audits the addition and adjustment.
>
snip
When I responded to a similar post from Aress I expressed relief at his
observation of the same thing. However, the Committee required that the
players make their own handicap adjustments and total their own scores. In
our weekly events an error here would get you DQ'ed - I assume (but don't
know for sure) that the same thing would be true in the Association Tourney.
Would seem to me that this is the same type of 'overstepping' that is being
discussed relative to not DQ'ing for a 6-6d violation.
Darn - I was so close to back to being a golfer :-)
dave
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 09:16:19
From: Aress Gee
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level
|
"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > writes:
> "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote in message
> news:mvGdnWpfsfktorPYnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> > Adding your own hole scores and applying the handicap is not a violation
> of
> > 6-6/d which says the responsibility lies with the Committee not the
> player.
> > 6-6/d says nothing about who does the addition and handicap adjustment vs.
> > who audits the addition and adjustment.
> >
> snip
>
> When I responded to a similar post from Aress I expressed relief at his
> observation of the same thing. However, the Committee required that the
> players make their own handicap adjustments and total their own scores. In
> our weekly events an error here would get you DQ'ed - I assume (but don't
> know for sure) that the same thing would be true in the Association Tourney.
>
> Would seem to me that this is the same type of 'overstepping' that is being
> discussed relative to not DQ'ing for a 6-6d violation.
Yup, Decision 33-1/7.
> Darn - I was so close to back to being a golfer :-)
Actually, it just means that they are not a "real" Committee;
it has no effect on real-ness as a golfer.
--
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mr. People who use golf as some sort of status
Aress symbol are destined to go unfulfilled.
Gee -- Golf's Most Beloved Figure
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 08:13:20
From: Aress Gee
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level
|
"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > writes:
> "Aress Gee" <invalid@not_real_address.com> wrote in message
> news:bark63592zf.fsf@server007.serverquality.com...
> > "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> writes:
> >
> > > I suggest you ask the Committee as the decision is totally within their
> > > powers.
> >
> > Totally within their powers when exceptional circumstances exist.
> >
> > > You cut the part where somebody posted that the Committee waived the ROG
> > > which they clearly did not do.
> >
> > So? I'm asking you to tell me why the Committtee, in this case,
> > would have been justified in waiving the DQ. I say 'would have been'
> > because we have no indication that they did waive the DQ; we only
> > know that the player was not disqualified which may have been due
> > to ignorance on the Committee's part.
> >
> > --
> FWIW, the committee was well-aware of 6-6d and 33-7. Who knows - maybe the
> exceptional circumstances were that they were having a hard time reaching an
> agreement, it was cocktail hour, and the only available avenue to not
> missing cocktail hour was to not DQ. But IMHO they didn't want to do that
> under these circumstances for a couple of club-specific reasons and 33-7 was
> the best they could come up with.
>
> But what the heck - these guys even allow the competitors to add their own
> scores (audit only by the committee) and make their own handicap adjustments
> for net scores (strokes indicated on the card by the committee). And this is
> in clear violation of 6-6d.
It is not a breach of the Rules if the player totals his card or
applies his handicap; the Committee should just disregard it
and do its own work.
--
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mr. People who use golf as some sort of status
Aress symbol are destined to go unfulfilled.
Gee -- Golf's Most Beloved Figure
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 13:27:09
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level
|
"Aress Gee" <invalid@not_real_address.com > wrote in message
news:bar1wpdn0cv.fsf@server007.serverquality.com...
> "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> writes:
>
> > "Aress Gee" <invalid@not_real_address.com> wrote in message
> > news:bark63592zf.fsf@server007.serverquality.com...
> > > "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> writes:
> > >
snip
>
> It is not a breach of the Rules if the player totals his card or
> applies his handicap; the Committee should just disregard it
> and do its own work.
>
> --
What a relief - maybe the audit is close enough and I really am playing golf
:-)
dave
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 19:48:56
From: Crispin Roche
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level
|
On Thu, 12 2006 12:58:24 GMT, "Dave Lee"
<DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote:
>
>"Aress Gee" <invalid@not_real_address.com> wrote in message
>news:bark63592zf.fsf@server007.serverquality.com...
>> "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> writes:
>>
>> > I suggest you ask the Committee as the decision is totally within their
>> > powers.
>>
>> Totally within their powers when exceptional circumstances exist.
>>
>> > You cut the part where somebody posted that the Committee waived the ROG
>> > which they clearly did not do.
>>
>> So? I'm asking you to tell me why the Committtee, in this case,
>> would have been justified in waiving the DQ. I say 'would have been'
>> because we have no indication that they did waive the DQ; we only
>> know that the player was not disqualified which may have been due
>> to ignorance on the Committee's part.
>>
>> --
>FWIW, the committee was well-aware of 6-6d and 33-7. Who knows - maybe the
>exceptional circumstances were that they were having a hard time reaching an
>agreement, it was cocktail hour, and the only available avenue to not
>missing cocktail hour was to not DQ. But IMHO they didn't want to do that
>under these circumstances for a couple of club-specific reasons and 33-7 was
>the best they could come up with.
>
So its quite ironic then that in a thread entitled "Integrity at the
Club Level" we have a set of actions by the committee which really
leave a lot to be desired.
Crispin Roche
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 20:05:26
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level
|
"Crispin Roche" <crispin.roche@ntlworld.com > wrote in message
news:067ti29b6g7ovoskrla5kdiiht8hoih3it@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 12 2006 12:58:24 GMT, "Dave Lee"
> <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Aress Gee" <invalid@not_real_address.com> wrote in message
> >news:bark63592zf.fsf@server007.serverquality.com...
> >> "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> writes:
> >>
> >> > I suggest you ask the Committee as the decision is totally within
their
> >> > powers.
> >>
> >> Totally within their powers when exceptional circumstances exist.
> >>
> >> > You cut the part where somebody posted that the Committee waived the
ROG
> >> > which they clearly did not do.
> >>
> >> So? I'm asking you to tell me why the Committtee, in this case,
> >> would have been justified in waiving the DQ. I say 'would have been'
> >> because we have no indication that they did waive the DQ; we only
> >> know that the player was not disqualified which may have been due
> >> to ignorance on the Committee's part.
> >>
> >> --
> >FWIW, the committee was well-aware of 6-6d and 33-7. Who knows - maybe
the
> >exceptional circumstances were that they were having a hard time reaching
an
> >agreement, it was cocktail hour, and the only available avenue to not
> >missing cocktail hour was to not DQ. But IMHO they didn't want to do that
> >under these circumstances for a couple of club-specific reasons and 33-7
was
> >the best they could come up with.
> >
>
> So its quite ironic then that in a thread entitled "Integrity at the
> Club Level" we have a set of actions by the committee which really
> leave a lot to be desired.
>
> Crispin Roche
Depends on your 'standards of integrity'. If you live in a very pure 'ROG
only' world, your statement might be accurate. If you live in a real world,
you might still feel that way or you might not. I'm on the 'not side', but
understand the point (re: my response to Birdie Bill in this thread).
dave
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 01:12:33
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level
|
"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote in message
news:aexXg.6268$Lv3.3987@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> Depends on your 'standards of integrity'. If you live in a very pure 'ROG
> only' world, your statement might be accurate. If you live in a real
> world,
> you might still feel that way or you might not. I'm on the 'not side', but
> understand the point (re: my response to Birdie Bill in this thread).
>
Looks as good a place as any to chime in. My take is that a strict reading
of the ROG seems to fairly clearly point towards a disqualification.
Strictly from the point of view of a rules lawyer, the Committee seems to
have not done it's job in this instance.
That said, I don't believe that in this case the point of view of a rules
lawyer is the best one. For me, I look at it from the perspective of the
guy who would have eventually won the tournament had the player in question
been disqualified going into round 2..
If I'm him, I really wouldn't want to win knowing that the leader in day 1
was disqualified for an innocent mistake that probably didn't give any undue
advantage (especially after _the player_ brought it to the Committee's
attention). That would make the win seem empty to me. If the leader isn't
disqualified, I at least have a chance of a win that is all mine. With the
disqualification, I think I'd have to pack the trophy away somewhere, or
time-share it with the Committee members. Of course, I'd have no problems
at all if he was disqualified in light of some intentional abuse of the
rules (for example, throwing out a substitute over in the weeds and
pretending it's that ball that was 'almost' lost, etc.). Just my two cents.
Scott
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 07:57:02
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level
|
If you wish us to assume you have more intelligence than the average amoeba,
then in fairness you might want to extend that same assumption to the
Committee in question
"Aress Gee" <invalid@not_real_address.com > wrote in message
news:bark63592zf.fsf@server007.serverquality.com...
> "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> writes:
>
>> I suggest you ask the Committee as the decision is totally within their
>> powers.
>
> Totally within their powers when exceptional circumstances exist.
>
>> You cut the part where somebody posted that the Committee waived the ROG
>> which they clearly did not do.
>
> So? I'm asking you to tell me why the Committtee, in this case,
> would have been justified in waiving the DQ. I say 'would have been'
> because we have no indication that they did waive the DQ; we only
> know that the player was not disqualified which may have been due
> to ignorance on the Committee's part.
>
> --
> +++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Mr. People who use golf as some sort of status
> Aress symbol are destined to go unfulfilled.
> Gee -- Golf's Most Beloved Figure
> +++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 07:13:19
From: Aress Gee
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level
|
"sfb" <sfb@spam.net > writes:
> If you wish us to assume you have more intelligence than the average amoeba,
> then in fairness you might want to extend that same assumption to the
> Committee in question
Please enlighten me, conc any set of circumstances related to
carrying a 15th club and failing to include that penalty that would
justify waiving the disqualification penalty.
The nearest, (by virtue of being equipment Decisions) Decisions relating to
this are 4-1/1 and 5-1/1. Or, perhaps the player's 15th club was providing
medical attention at the scene of an accident (6-3a/1.5)...
--
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mr. People who use golf as some sort of status
Aress symbol are destined to go unfulfilled.
Gee -- Golf's Most Beloved Figure
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 08:38:40
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level
|
The maximum 4 stroke penalty was assessed per ROG 4-4/a. Using authority
granted by ROG 33-7, the Committee waived the wrong hole score DQ in ROG
6-6/d. Whether the Committee was justified in this case is a question best
answered by the Committee which did not violate the ROG.
Them's the facts.
"Aress Gee" <invalid@not_real_address.com > wrote in message
news:barejtdn34w.fsf@server007.serverquality.com...
> "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> writes:
>
>> If you wish us to assume you have more intelligence than the average
>> amoeba,
>> then in fairness you might want to extend that same assumption to the
>> Committee in question
>
> Please enlighten me, conc any set of circumstances related to
> carrying a 15th club and failing to include that penalty that would
> justify waiving the disqualification penalty.
>
> The nearest, (by virtue of being equipment Decisions) Decisions relating
> to
> this are 4-1/1 and 5-1/1. Or, perhaps the player's 15th club was
> providing
> medical attention at the scene of an accident (6-3a/1.5)...
>
> --
> +++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Mr. People who use golf as some sort of status
> Aress symbol are destined to go unfulfilled.
> Gee -- Golf's Most Beloved Figure
> +++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 07:55:09
From: Aress Gee
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level
|
"sfb" <sfb@spam.net > writes:
> The maximum 4 stroke penalty was assessed per ROG 4-4/a. Using authority
> granted by ROG 33-7, the Committee waived the wrong hole score DQ in ROG
> 6-6/d. Whether the Committee was justified in this case is a question best
> answered by the Committee which did not violate the ROG.
>
> Them's the facts.
If no exceptional circumstances existed, the Committee exceeded
its authority under the Rules of Golf.
I know that you have already dug in your heels and are probably
no longer interested in the proper application of the Rules;
however, for those who may be, Decisions 33-7/4 and 33-7/4.5
may be of interest.
For a case where modifying the score rather than DQing the
player is correct one can look to the situation that occurred
with Lee Janzen in a U.S. Open several years ago.
Play was discontinued overnight and when Janzen returned to his ball
he mopped-up the dew around it (the grounds crew had 'whipped'
the fairway but had avoided Janzen's ball or ball-marker) in breach
of Rule 13-2. A member of the Committee witnessed the breach
but was unsure whether a penalty had been incurred and said nothing.
Janzen returned his scorecard without the 2ps incurred. When
the facts became known, the Committee altered Janzen's score.
This case is different because a member of the Committee was
had witnessed the breach and should have resolved his own doubt
so that Janzen could return a correct scorecard.
>
> "Aress Gee" <invalid@not_real_address.com> wrote in message
> news:barejtdn34w.fsf@server007.serverquality.com...
> > "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> writes:
> >
> >> If you wish us to assume you have more intelligence than the average
> >> amoeba,
> >> then in fairness you might want to extend that same assumption to the
> >> Committee in question
> >
> > Please enlighten me, conc any set of circumstances related to
> > carrying a 15th club and failing to include that penalty that would
> > justify waiving the disqualification penalty.
> >
> > The nearest, (by virtue of being equipment Decisions) Decisions relating
> > to
> > this are 4-1/1 and 5-1/1. Or, perhaps the player's 15th club was
> > providing
> > medical attention at the scene of an accident (6-3a/1.5)...
> >
> > --
> > +++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > Mr. People who use golf as some sort of status
> > Aress symbol are destined to go unfulfilled.
> > Gee -- Golf's Most Beloved Figure
> > +++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
--
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mr. People who use golf as some sort of status
Aress symbol are destined to go unfulfilled.
Gee -- Golf's Most Beloved Figure
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 09:22:03
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level
|
Aress Gee wrote:
> "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> writes:
>
>> The maximum 4 stroke penalty was assessed per ROG 4-4/a. Using authority
>> granted by ROG 33-7, the Committee waived the wrong hole score DQ in ROG
>> 6-6/d. Whether the Committee was justified in this case is a question best
>> answered by the Committee which did not violate the ROG.
>>
>> Them's the facts.
>
> If no exceptional circumstances existed, the Committee exceeded
> its authority under the Rules of Golf.
>
> I know that you have already dug in your heels and are probably
> no longer interested in the proper application of the Rules;
> however, for those who may be, Decisions 33-7/4 and 33-7/4.5
> may be of interest.
>
> For a case where modifying the score rather than DQing the
> player is correct one can look to the situation that occurred
> with Lee Janzen in a U.S. Open several years ago.
>
> Play was discontinued overnight and when Janzen returned to his ball
> he mopped-up the dew around it (the grounds crew had 'whipped'
> the fairway but had avoided Janzen's ball or ball-marker) in breach
> of Rule 13-2. A member of the Committee witnessed the breach
> but was unsure whether a penalty had been incurred and said nothing.
>
> Janzen returned his scorecard without the 2ps incurred. When
> the facts became known, the Committee altered Janzen's score.
>
> This case is different because a member of the Committee was
> had witnessed the breach and should have resolved his own doubt
> so that Janzen could return a correct scorecard.
Would the end result have changed? Would the assessed penalty to Janzen
have been any different.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 07:30:45
From: Aress Gee
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level
|
Aress Gee <invalid@not_real_address.com > writes:
> "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> writes:
>
> > If you wish us to assume you have more intelligence than the average amoeba,
> > then in fairness you might want to extend that same assumption to the
> > Committee in question
>
> Please enlighten me, conc any set of circumstances related to
> carrying a 15th club and failing to include that penalty that would
> justify waiving the disqualification penalty.
>
> The nearest, (by virtue of being equipment Decisions) Decisions relating to
> this are 4-1/1 and 5-1/1. Or, perhaps the player's 15th club was providing
> medical attention at the scene of an accident (6-3a/1.5)...
Of course, even if we determine that an exceptional
event (clubs mating and producing offspring during
the round, perhaps) occurred, the real issue is whether
exceptional circumstances surround the 6-6d penalty.
Going back to the original post (excerpt below) we learn
that the player's failure to include the 4-4a penalty in
his scores for the first two holes was caused by his
ignorance of the existence of this 15th club.
So, what exceptional circumstances can we find that prevented
the player from discovering this 15th club during his round?
I'm afraid that we (me and the other average amoeba) are
unable to come up with any circumstances other than
space aliens erasing the player's memory.
>> Excerpt from original post <<
That evening he called the tournament organizer and told him that
when he got home he discovered that he was carrying
15 clubs the whole round.
>>
> --
> +++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Mr. People who use golf as some sort of status
> Aress symbol are destined to go unfulfilled.
> Gee -- Golf's Most Beloved Figure
> +++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
--
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mr. People who use golf as some sort of status
Aress symbol are destined to go unfulfilled.
Gee -- Golf's Most Beloved Figure
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 13:16:45
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level
|
On 12 2006 07:30:45 -0500, Aress Gee
<invalid@not_real_address.com > wrote:
>Aress Gee <invalid@not_real_address.com> writes:
>
>So, what exceptional circumstances can we find that prevented
>the player from discovering this 15th club during his round?
>
Maybe his eyes were gouged out by a polar bear.
--
jvdp
Myke Plough-in-skee is not mentioned in this thread.
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com/files/OH_2006_make_a_putt.avi
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 12:39:24
From: Aress Gee
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level
|
John van der Pflum <jpflumjr@ughookugh.com > writes:
> On 12 2006 07:30:45 -0500, Aress Gee
> <invalid@not_real_address.com> wrote:
>
> >Aress Gee <invalid@not_real_address.com> writes:
> >
> >So, what exceptional circumstances can we find that prevented
> >the player from discovering this 15th club during his round?
> >
>
> Maybe his eyes were gouged out by a polar bear.
In the face this new evidence, I withdraw my previous comments.
--
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mr. People who use golf as some sort of status
Aress symbol are destined to go unfulfilled.
Gee -- Golf's Most Beloved Figure
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 08:29:08
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level
|
On 12 2006 07:13:19 -0500, Aress Gee
<invalid@not_real_address.com > wrote:
>"sfb" <sfb@spam.net> writes:
>
>> If you wish us to assume you have more intelligence than the average amoeba,
>> then in fairness you might want to extend that same assumption to the
>> Committee in question
>
>Please enlighten me, conc any set of circumstances related to
>carrying a 15th club and failing to include that penalty that would
>justify waiving the disqualification penalty.
>
>The nearest, (by virtue of being equipment Decisions) Decisions relating to
>this are 4-1/1 and 5-1/1. Or, perhaps the player's 15th club was providing
>medical attention at the scene of an accident (6-3a/1.5)...
Maybe the 15th club was really his prosthetic (sp?) arm that had been
ripped off and devoured by the polar bear.
--
jvdp
Myke Plough-in-skee is not mentioned in this thread.
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com/files/OH_2006_make_a_putt.avi
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 08:45:51
From: David Sneddon
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level
|
John van der Pflum wrote:
> On 12 2006 07:13:19 -0500, Aress Gee
> <invalid@not_real_address.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"sfb" <sfb@spam.net> writes:
>>
>>
>>>If you wish us to assume you have more intelligence than the average amoeba,
>>>then in fairness you might want to extend that same assumption to the
>>>Committee in question
>>
>>Please enlighten me, conc any set of circumstances related to
>>carrying a 15th club and failing to include that penalty that would
>>justify waiving the disqualification penalty.
>>
>>The nearest, (by virtue of being equipment Decisions) Decisions relating to
>>this are 4-1/1 and 5-1/1. Or, perhaps the player's 15th club was providing
>>medical attention at the scene of an accident (6-3a/1.5)...
>
>
> Maybe the 15th club was really his prosthetic (sp?) arm that had been
> ripped off and devoured by the polar bear.
The 'polar bear' analogy is not appropriate at all - quite silly in fact.
Polar bears are not found this far south, prefering the colder climes of
the Arctic and sub-arctic. His arm was ripped off, most probably, by a
brown or black bear. The bear may have been on it's way to a formal
function, dressed in a white tux, hence mistaken for a polar bear.
Just wanted to clear this up.
David
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 13:07:30
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level
|
On Thu, 12 2006 08:45:51 -0400, David Sneddon <nospam@nospam.net >
wrote:
>John van der Pflum wrote:
>> On 12 2006 07:13:19 -0500, Aress Gee
>> <invalid@not_real_address.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"sfb" <sfb@spam.net> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>If you wish us to assume you have more intelligence than the average amoeba,
>>>>then in fairness you might want to extend that same assumption to the
>>>>Committee in question
>>>
>>>Please enlighten me, conc any set of circumstances related to
>>>carrying a 15th club and failing to include that penalty that would
>>>justify waiving the disqualification penalty.
>>>
>>>The nearest, (by virtue of being equipment Decisions) Decisions relating to
>>>this are 4-1/1 and 5-1/1. Or, perhaps the player's 15th club was providing
>>>medical attention at the scene of an accident (6-3a/1.5)...
>>
>>
>> Maybe the 15th club was really his prosthetic (sp?) arm that had been
>> ripped off and devoured by the polar bear.
>
>The 'polar bear' analogy is not appropriate at all - quite silly in fact.
>
>Polar bears are not found this far south, prefering the colder climes of
>the Arctic and sub-arctic. His arm was ripped off, most probably, by a
>brown or black bear. The bear may have been on it's way to a formal
>function, dressed in a white tux, hence mistaken for a polar bear.
>
>Just wanted to clear this up.
>
>David
Well, I used the polar bear in the hope that it would provide an
"individual exceptional circumstance."
--
jvdp
Myke Plough-in-skee is not mentioned in this thread.
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com/files/OH_2006_make_a_putt.avi
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 16:46:37
From: David Sneddon
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level
|
John van der Pflum wrote:
> On Thu, 12 2006 08:45:51 -0400, David Sneddon <nospam@nospam.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>John van der Pflum wrote:
>>
>>>On 12 2006 07:13:19 -0500, Aress Gee
>>><invalid@not_real_address.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"sfb" <sfb@spam.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>If you wish us to assume you have more intelligence than the average amoeba,
>>>>>then in fairness you might want to extend that same assumption to the
>>>>>Committee in question
>>>>
>>>>Please enlighten me, conc any set of circumstances related to
>>>>carrying a 15th club and failing to include that penalty that would
>>>>justify waiving the disqualification penalty.
>>>>
>>>>The nearest, (by virtue of being equipment Decisions) Decisions relating to
>>>>this are 4-1/1 and 5-1/1. Or, perhaps the player's 15th club was providing
>>>>medical attention at the scene of an accident (6-3a/1.5)...
>>>
>>>
>>>Maybe the 15th club was really his prosthetic (sp?) arm that had been
>>>ripped off and devoured by the polar bear.
>>
>>The 'polar bear' analogy is not appropriate at all - quite silly in fact.
>>
>>Polar bears are not found this far south, prefering the colder climes of
>>the Arctic and sub-arctic. His arm was ripped off, most probably, by a
>>brown or black bear. The bear may have been on it's way to a formal
>>function, dressed in a white tux, hence mistaken for a polar bear.
>>
>>Just wanted to clear this up.
>>
>>David
>
>
> Well, I used the polar bear in the hope that it would provide an
> "individual exceptional circumstance."
I can see that, however I believe the black bear in a white tuxedo would
provide the same crcumstance.
David
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 22:06:05
From: Colin Wilson
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level
|
David Sneddon wrote:
> I can see that, however I believe the black bear in a white tuxedo would
> provide the same circumstance.
But pandas only live in China.
--
Cheers
Colin Wilson
------------------------------------------------------------------
Trentham Golf Club: http://www.trenthamgolf.com
Barnbougle Dunes: http://publishing.kyneton.net.au/barnbougle
------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 20:19:32
From: David Sneddon
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level
|
Colin Wilson wrote:
> David Sneddon wrote:
>
>> I can see that, however I believe the black bear in a white tuxedo
>> would provide the same circumstance.
>
>
> But pandas only live in China.
Then Chinese golfers better lookout.
David
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Oct 2006 00:33:49
From: Peter Strauss
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level
|
On Thu, 12 2006 22:06:05 GMT, Colin Wilson <nowhere@nospam.com >
wrote:
> David Sneddon wrote:
>
> > I can see that, however I believe the black bear in a white tuxedo would
> > provide the same circumstance.
>
> But pandas only live in China.
Very good point, Colin. Not, alas, for this thread or discussion, but
good point, nonetheless.
Except, of course, that it's incorrect. They also live in zoos in
other countries.
Koalas, on the other hand, are quite shy, we anthropomorphically
claim. They, however, see themselves as quite forward, they've told
me on more than one occasion. And in several different dialects, to
boot.
Peter
(evidently spinning wildly out of control)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 21:26:30
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level
|
David Sneddon <nospam@nospam.net > wrote:
: John van der Pflum wrote:
: > On Thu, 12 2006 08:45:51 -0400, David Sneddon <nospam@nospam.net>
: > wrote:
: >
: >
: >>John van der Pflum wrote:
: >>
: >>>On 12 2006 07:13:19 -0500, Aress Gee
: >>><invalid@not_real_address.com> wrote:
: >>>
: >>>
: >>>
: >>>>"sfb" <sfb@spam.net> writes:
: >>>>
: >>>>
: >>>>
: >>>>>If you wish us to assume you have more intelligence than the average amoeba,
: >>>>>then in fairness you might want to extend that same assumption to the
: >>>>>Committee in question
: >>>>
: >>>>Please enlighten me, conc any set of circumstances related to
: >>>>carrying a 15th club and failing to include that penalty that would
: >>>>justify waiving the disqualification penalty.
: >>>>
: >>>>The nearest, (by virtue of being equipment Decisions) Decisions relating to
: >>>>this are 4-1/1 and 5-1/1. Or, perhaps the player's 15th club was providing
: >>>>medical attention at the scene of an accident (6-3a/1.5)...
: >>>
: >>>
: >>>Maybe the 15th club was really his prosthetic (sp?) arm that had been
: >>>ripped off and devoured by the polar bear.
: >>
: >>The 'polar bear' analogy is not appropriate at all - quite silly in fact.
: >>
: >>Polar bears are not found this far south, prefering the colder climes of
: >>the Arctic and sub-arctic. His arm was ripped off, most probably, by a
: >>brown or black bear. The bear may have been on it's way to a formal
: >>function, dressed in a white tux, hence mistaken for a polar bear.
: >>
: >>Just wanted to clear this up.
: >>
: >>David
: >
: >
: > Well, I used the polar bear in the hope that it would provide an
: > "individual exceptional circumstance."
:
: I can see that, however I believe the black bear in a white tuxedo would
: provide the same crcumstance.
Sneddon, I believe I speak for most of the group when I tell
you that we are getting damned sick of your polarist attitude!
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 20:20:20
From: David Sneddon
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level
|
Chris Bellomy wrote:
> David Sneddon <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
> : I can see that, however I believe the black bear in a white tuxedo would
> : provide the same crcumstance.
>
> Sneddon, I believe I speak for most of the group when I tell
> you that we are getting damned sick of your polarist attitude!
That's only because we had snow today.
David
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 02:56:55
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level
|
David Sneddon <nospam@nospam.net > wrote:
: Chris Bellomy wrote:
: > David Sneddon <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
:
: > : I can see that, however I believe the black bear in a white tuxedo would
: > : provide the same crcumstance.
: >
: > Sneddon, I believe I speak for most of the group when I tell
: > you that we are getting damned sick of your polarist attitude!
:
: That's only because we had snow today.
Familiarity breeds contempt, eh?
(New motto of rsg?)
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 19:46:14
From: Crispin Roche
Subject: Re: Integrity at the Club Level
|
On Thu, 12 2006 07:24:43 -0400, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net > wrote:
>I suggest you ask the Committee as the decision is totally within their
>powers.
Although the committee have the power to waive the penalty of
disqualification (Rule 33-7) the decisions make it quite clear that
this responsibility is not something to do just for the heck of it.
With respect to the original post it seems to me that Decision 4-1/1
(the committee would not be justified in waiving the DQ penalty in the
case of a player unwittingly carrying a non conforming club which they
do not use) indicates that the player with 15 clubs should have been
disqualified.
Crispin Roche
|
| | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 11:29:56
From: Fairway
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Bobby Knight wrote:
> You used a stupid analogy. Which political side is the shank in your
> view?
It=B4s not a question of a "view". Any left wing ideology is a shank and
always has been. A particular right-winger may be a flawed character
(and who isn=B4t?), but politically he is doing a good job for progress
and humankind. F
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 14:39:02
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On 12 2006 11:29:56 -0700, "Fairway" <arminsson@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
>Bobby Knight wrote:
>> You used a stupid analogy. Which political side is the shank in your
>> view?
>Itīs not a question of a "view". Any left wing ideology is a shank and
>always has been. A particular right-winger may be a flawed character
>(and who isnīt?), but politically he is doing a good job for progress
>and humankind. F
I'm glad you cleared that up for humankind. Now, when you finally get
enough brains to realize that all you have is an opinion, let us
know....because it damned sure isn't fact.
___,
\o
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 20:09:11
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net > wrote:
: On 12 2006 11:29:56 -0700, "Fairway" <arminsson@yahoo.com > wrote:
:
: >
: >Bobby Knight wrote:
: >> You used a stupid analogy. Which political side is the shank in your
: >> view?
: >It?s not a question of a "view". Any left wing ideology is a shank and
: >always has been. A particular right-winger may be a flawed character
: >(and who isn?t?), but politically he is doing a good job for progress
: >and humankind. F
:
: I'm glad you cleared that up for humankind. Now, when you finally get
: enough brains to realize that all you have is an opinion, let us
: know....because it damned sure isn't fact.
AHEM.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 23:07:32
From: Matt 'Ocho' Aamold
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote in message
news:T86dnanlhut93bDYnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@giganews.com...
> "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote
> The problem with most conservatives today -- and while I respect his right
> to hold his opinions, John is no different -- is that they're not
> conservative at all, at least not in the way the conservative movement was
> first brought forth by people like Barry Goldwater, who believed in
> Libertarian principles like limited government, limited spending and
> protecting individual liberties.
>
> Today's modern conservatives in Washington are not about limited
> government, and most certainly are not about limited spending. They want
> government poking its head into various areas of our lives where it has no
> business. They want to limit individual freedoms, not protect them.
>
> In today's neocon world, individual "liberty" and "freedom" has become
> nothing but a faith-based initiative.
> Randy
you are merging the term 'Conservative' with 'Replublican'. The real issue
is there are no public servants anymore, just politicians
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 23:58:58
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Matt 'Ocho' Aamold" <maamold@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:3pydneaww8O5sLLYnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> ""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote in message
> news:T86dnanlhut93bDYnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@giganews.com...
>> "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote
>> The problem with most conservatives today -- and while I respect his
>> right to hold his opinions, John is no different -- is that they're not
>> conservative at all, at least not in the way the conservative movement
>> was first brought forth by people like Barry Goldwater, who believed in
>> Libertarian principles like limited government, limited spending and
>> protecting individual liberties.
>>
>> Today's modern conservatives in Washington are not about limited
>> government, and most certainly are not about limited spending. They want
>> government poking its head into various areas of our lives where it has
>> no business. They want to limit individual freedoms, not protect them.
>>
>> In today's neocon world, individual "liberty" and "freedom" has become
>> nothing but a faith-based initiative.
>> Randy
>
> you are merging the term 'Conservative' with 'Replublican'. The real issue
> is there are no public servants anymore, just politicians
If the Faith Based Repuclicans actually made some significant changes along
the ideas of Jesus' religion, I'd feel a lot different about the whol Bush
monstrosity. Have they created more programs for pregnant girls who can't
afford to have babies? Or do they continue to think "whore" and "sinner"
while blaming them for doing what everybody does ... the best they can.
Forget that ... what have the religious right done in the last 6 years to
promote God's kingdom on earth? Forget Mark Foley. What have the new
Republicans done to protect children in foster care? Or even find a way to
get the services that are there for the public to the right people. I think
the community information and referral system in this country sucks and
you'd think that the Republicans would at least try to see that the
taxpayers hard earned money, taken by the government. is spent in a
responsible way.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 11:08:37
From: Fairway
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"R&B" wrote:
> When's the last time you heard anyone on the right say "there's good on b=
oth
> sides?"
>
There ISN=B4T good on both sides - only on the good side. If we use an
analogy: a straight 300 yard=B4s drive is good but a shank is always
bad. F
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 13:16:31
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On 12 2006 11:08:37 -0700, "Fairway" <arminsson@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
>"R&B" wrote:
>> When's the last time you heard anyone on the right say "there's good on both
>> sides?"
>>
>There ISNīT good on both sides - only on the good side. If we use an
>analogy: a straight 300 yardīs drive is good but a shank is always
>bad. F
You used a stupid analogy. Which political side is the shank in your
view?
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 18:49:04
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net > wrote:
: On 12 2006 11:08:37 -0700, "Fairway" <arminsson@yahoo.com > wrote:
:
: >
: >"R&B" wrote:
: >> When's the last time you heard anyone on the right say "there's good on both
: >> sides?"
: >>
: >There ISN?T good on both sides - only on the good side. If we use an
: >analogy: a straight 300 yard?s drive is good but a shank is always
: >bad. F
:
: You used a stupid analogy. Which political side is the shank in your
: view?
Ahem.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 16:15:52
From: Tex
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
John B. wrote:
> Tex wrote:
> > Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> > > In article <1160508547.675906.99980@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Chris Bellomy wrote:
> > > > > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > : SS is basically an annuity fund. A rip off annuity fund, but an
> > > > > : annuity fund nonetheless. Rich or poor, you pay into it and you
> > > > > : deserve to get your money back.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, it's insurance, it was always insurance, it always will
> > > > > be insurance. It will never be privatized because privatization
> > > > > entails risk, and the entire point of insurance is to mitigate
> > > > > risk, not invite it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Everybody who wants to change SS fails to understand what it
> > > > > really is and why.
> > > >
> > > > But the "insurance" payout will begin to drop as more is taken out than
> > > > what is paid in. That's when the fallacy of your "insurance" scheme
> > > > becomes evident.
> > > >
> > > > There is risk in all things. Putting your money into a government run
> > > > program that is in the hands of Congress has a greater risk that just
> > > > investing in T-Bills...T-Bills pay on average 4X more than the return
> > > > of SS. T-Bills will fail about 1 day before the SS system will fail.
> > > >
> > > > Which "risk" would you choose?
> > > >
> > > > Tex
> > >
> > > Since it is only one day apart from failing T-bills, who would notice?
> > > ;-)
> > >
> > > SS is only as strong as the gov't and is an obligation that we, as
> > > citizens, must have endorsed since it has been around so long. Could it
> > > have been done better? Sure, but it wasn't and it is now what we have.
> > >
> > > It will take some work to get it functional, but the personal savings
> > > approach tried last year isn't it. Part of what makes it work is that
> > > it isn't a choice, all wage earners (with some exceptions) must pay into
> > > it. And it takes every penny of that money to make it work and last as
> > > well as it has.
> > >
> > > Question: If the personal savings 2% was such a hot idea, why doesn't
> > > the SS admin take the current receipts and start investing them instead
> > > of throwing them in the general tax revenue pot?
> >
> > Easy. Congress controls the money. SS Admin can't do anything with it
> > unless Congress writes it into law.
> >
> > Maybe the first "fix" to the system is to put Congress into SS rather
> > than their sweet retirement plan :)
> >
> > Tex
>
> Members of Congress pay FICA taxes just like everybody else. and their
> retirement plan isn't nearly as sweet as you think it is.
Really? Wow, when did that change?
When was the last time you checked into the retirement plan for
Congress??
I'd sure like to serve a few terms and "settle" with their "not so
sweet" retirement plan.
Wasn't it Sen. Byrd that walked out the door with $8+ MILLION ???
Sure, he served a long time....and you claim he paid in the FICA taxes
for that? What's that, $10K/year? Damn nice return.
Tex
|
| | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 20:33:40
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1160522152.923562.305450@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> John B. wrote:
>> Tex wrote:
>> > Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> > > In article <1160508547.675906.99980@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>> > > "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Chris Bellomy wrote:
>> > > > > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > : SS is basically an annuity fund. A rip off annuity fund, but
>> > > > > an
>> > > > > : annuity fund nonetheless. Rich or poor, you pay into it and
>> > > > > you
>> > > > > : deserve to get your money back.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > No, it's insurance, it was always insurance, it always will
>> > > > > be insurance. It will never be privatized because privatization
>> > > > > entails risk, and the entire point of insurance is to mitigate
>> > > > > risk, not invite it.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Everybody who wants to change SS fails to understand what it
>> > > > > really is and why.
>> > > >
>> > > > But the "insurance" payout will begin to drop as more is taken out
>> > > > than
>> > > > what is paid in. That's when the fallacy of your "insurance"
>> > > > scheme
>> > > > becomes evident.
>> > > >
>> > > > There is risk in all things. Putting your money into a government
>> > > > run
>> > > > program that is in the hands of Congress has a greater risk that
>> > > > just
>> > > > investing in T-Bills...T-Bills pay on average 4X more than the
>> > > > return
>> > > > of SS. T-Bills will fail about 1 day before the SS system will
>> > > > fail.
>> > > >
>> > > > Which "risk" would you choose?
>> > > >
>> > > > Tex
>> > >
>> > > Since it is only one day apart from failing T-bills, who would
>> > > notice?
>> > > ;-)
>> > >
>> > > SS is only as strong as the gov't and is an obligation that we, as
>> > > citizens, must have endorsed since it has been around so long. Could
>> > > it
>> > > have been done better? Sure, but it wasn't and it is now what we
>> > > have.
>> > >
>> > > It will take some work to get it functional, but the personal savings
>> > > approach tried last year isn't it. Part of what makes it work is
>> > > that
>> > > it isn't a choice, all wage earners (with some exceptions) must pay
>> > > into
>> > > it. And it takes every penny of that money to make it work and last
>> > > as
>> > > well as it has.
>> > >
>> > > Question: If the personal savings 2% was such a hot idea, why doesn't
>> > > the SS admin take the current receipts and start investing them
>> > > instead
>> > > of throwing them in the general tax revenue pot?
>> >
>> > Easy. Congress controls the money. SS Admin can't do anything with it
>> > unless Congress writes it into law.
>> >
>> > Maybe the first "fix" to the system is to put Congress into SS rather
>> > than their sweet retirement plan :)
>> >
>> > Tex
>>
>> Members of Congress pay FICA taxes just like everybody else. and their
>> retirement plan isn't nearly as sweet as you think it is.
>
> Really? Wow, when did that change?
> When was the last time you checked into the retirement plan for
> Congress??
>
> I'd sure like to serve a few terms and "settle" with their "not so
> sweet" retirement plan.
>
> Wasn't it Sen. Byrd that walked out the door with $8+ MILLION ???
> Sure, he served a long time....and you claim he paid in the FICA taxes
> for that? What's that, $10K/year? Damn nice return.
>
> Tex
How about Dan Rostenkowski who collected retirement while in jail ... nice.
Work 6 years and retire. There are lots of retirement plans like that
outside of Congress. Maybe in Sadam Husseins' family ... oops, maybe
congress is the only one.
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 13:16:55
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On Tue, 10 2006 20:33:40 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt"
<goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote:
>How about Dan Rostenkowski who collected retirement while in jail ... nice.
>Work 6 years and retire. There are lots of retirement plans like that
>outside of Congress. Maybe in Sadam Husseins' family ... oops, maybe
>congress is the only one.
Anybody with investments collects from them no matter where they live.
|
| |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 15:31:42
From: Dene
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Tex wrote:
>
> That's why you vote for Tex for Prez :)
>
> Tex
Who's the V.P.?? Phlum???
-Greg
|
| |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 14:50:01
From: Tex
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"R&B" wrote:
> "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote ...
> >
> > Tex wrote:
> >
> >> Fixing the debt is wrong if it rips $200B/year out of the economy.
> >>
> >> Use your personal experience to figure that out....run up $100,000 in
> >> debt, then go ask your employer for more $$. :)
> >>
> >> You *have* to cut spending to fix deficits. I'm not defending anyone's
> >> policy, but raising taxes cuts growth, which in turn cuts revenue,
> >> which in turn raises the debt.
> >
> > AMEN!
> >
> >> I would immediately stop the Prescription Drug Benefit. We can't
> >> afford it. Besides, it's a boon to the drug companies.
> >
> > Boon to Rx companies? Seniors were buying essential medications, with
> > or without coverage. Prior, some were getting discounts. Now,
> > insurance companies are negotiating the discounts. But....another
> > entitlement has been born.
> >
> >> I would immediately put a means test on Medicare/Medicaid...and
> >> anything "Medi*"
> >>
> >> I would also immediately put a means test on SS payments.
> >>
> >> Growing entitlements are going to sink us all. Fix it now before it's
> >> too late.
> >>
> >> Do all of that and you will almost balance the budget today ($250B this
> >> past year?)
> >>
> >> Next step, immediately pull troops out of all countries but the US.
> >> It's time we protect ourselves for awhile. That saves at least
> >> $100B/year.
> >
> > I would do that in Iraq within 6 months. I think we should stay longer
> > in Afghanistan. There, the population has the will to support the
> > government, but not the means. In Iraq, the will of the populace is
> > questionable.
> >
> >> We've got lots of desert along the CA/AZ/NM/Texas broder the troops can
> >> play in...and while doing that, they will curb the flow of illegals...
> >
> > AMEN!
> >
> >> Wow, did all that without raising taxes. :)
> >
> > How about a flat tax?
> >
> > -Greg
>
>
> Jeez....I can't believe I'm agreeing with you guyz on most of this.
>
> But one thing is certain. You won't get any of it from the administration
> presently occupying the WH.
>
That's why you vote for Tex for Prez :)
Tex
|
| |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 14:49:43
From: John B.
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Tex wrote:
> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> > In article <1160508547.675906.99980@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Chris Bellomy wrote:
> > > > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > : SS is basically an annuity fund. A rip off annuity fund, but an
> > > > : annuity fund nonetheless. Rich or poor, you pay into it and you
> > > > : deserve to get your money back.
> > > >
> > > > No, it's insurance, it was always insurance, it always will
> > > > be insurance. It will never be privatized because privatization
> > > > entails risk, and the entire point of insurance is to mitigate
> > > > risk, not invite it.
> > > >
> > > > Everybody who wants to change SS fails to understand what it
> > > > really is and why.
> > >
> > > But the "insurance" payout will begin to drop as more is taken out than
> > > what is paid in. That's when the fallacy of your "insurance" scheme
> > > becomes evident.
> > >
> > > There is risk in all things. Putting your money into a government run
> > > program that is in the hands of Congress has a greater risk that just
> > > investing in T-Bills...T-Bills pay on average 4X more than the return
> > > of SS. T-Bills will fail about 1 day before the SS system will fail.
> > >
> > > Which "risk" would you choose?
> > >
> > > Tex
> >
> > Since it is only one day apart from failing T-bills, who would notice?
> > ;-)
> >
> > SS is only as strong as the gov't and is an obligation that we, as
> > citizens, must have endorsed since it has been around so long. Could it
> > have been done better? Sure, but it wasn't and it is now what we have.
> >
> > It will take some work to get it functional, but the personal savings
> > approach tried last year isn't it. Part of what makes it work is that
> > it isn't a choice, all wage earners (with some exceptions) must pay into
> > it. And it takes every penny of that money to make it work and last as
> > well as it has.
> >
> > Question: If the personal savings 2% was such a hot idea, why doesn't
> > the SS admin take the current receipts and start investing them instead
> > of throwing them in the general tax revenue pot?
>
> Easy. Congress controls the money. SS Admin can't do anything with it
> unless Congress writes it into law.
>
> Maybe the first "fix" to the system is to put Congress into SS rather
> than their sweet retirement plan :)
>
> Tex
Members of Congress pay FICA taxes just like everybody else. and their
retirement plan isn't nearly as sweet as you think it is.
|
| | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 20:31:43
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1160516983.876843.255500@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Tex wrote:
>> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> > In article <1160508547.675906.99980@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>> > "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Chris Bellomy wrote:
>> > > > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > : SS is basically an annuity fund. A rip off annuity fund, but an
>> > > > : annuity fund nonetheless. Rich or poor, you pay into it and you
>> > > > : deserve to get your money back.
>> > > >
>> > > > No, it's insurance, it was always insurance, it always will
>> > > > be insurance. It will never be privatized because privatization
>> > > > entails risk, and the entire point of insurance is to mitigate
>> > > > risk, not invite it.
>> > > >
>> > > > Everybody who wants to change SS fails to understand what it
>> > > > really is and why.
>> > >
>> > > But the "insurance" payout will begin to drop as more is taken out
>> > > than
>> > > what is paid in. That's when the fallacy of your "insurance" scheme
>> > > becomes evident.
>> > >
>> > > There is risk in all things. Putting your money into a government
>> > > run
>> > > program that is in the hands of Congress has a greater risk that just
>> > > investing in T-Bills...T-Bills pay on average 4X more than the return
>> > > of SS. T-Bills will fail about 1 day before the SS system will fail.
>> > >
>> > > Which "risk" would you choose?
>> > >
>> > > Tex
>> >
>> > Since it is only one day apart from failing T-bills, who would notice?
>> > ;-)
>> >
>> > SS is only as strong as the gov't and is an obligation that we, as
>> > citizens, must have endorsed since it has been around so long. Could
>> > it
>> > have been done better? Sure, but it wasn't and it is now what we have.
>> >
>> > It will take some work to get it functional, but the personal savings
>> > approach tried last year isn't it. Part of what makes it work is that
>> > it isn't a choice, all wage earners (with some exceptions) must pay
>> > into
>> > it. And it takes every penny of that money to make it work and last as
>> > well as it has.
>> >
>> > Question: If the personal savings 2% was such a hot idea, why doesn't
>> > the SS admin take the current receipts and start investing them instead
>> > of throwing them in the general tax revenue pot?
>>
>> Easy. Congress controls the money. SS Admin can't do anything with it
>> unless Congress writes it into law.
>>
>> Maybe the first "fix" to the system is to put Congress into SS rather
>> than their sweet retirement plan :)
>>
>> Tex
>
> Members of Congress pay FICA taxes just like everybody else. and their
> retirement plan isn't nearly as sweet as you think it is.
You are full of shit.
|
| |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 14:46:08
From: Tex
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> In article <1160508547.675906.99980@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Chris Bellomy wrote:
> > > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > : SS is basically an annuity fund. A rip off annuity fund, but an
> > > : annuity fund nonetheless. Rich or poor, you pay into it and you
> > > : deserve to get your money back.
> > >
> > > No, it's insurance, it was always insurance, it always will
> > > be insurance. It will never be privatized because privatization
> > > entails risk, and the entire point of insurance is to mitigate
> > > risk, not invite it.
> > >
> > > Everybody who wants to change SS fails to understand what it
> > > really is and why.
> >
> > But the "insurance" payout will begin to drop as more is taken out than
> > what is paid in. That's when the fallacy of your "insurance" scheme
> > becomes evident.
> >
> > There is risk in all things. Putting your money into a government run
> > program that is in the hands of Congress has a greater risk that just
> > investing in T-Bills...T-Bills pay on average 4X more than the return
> > of SS. T-Bills will fail about 1 day before the SS system will fail.
> >
> > Which "risk" would you choose?
> >
> > Tex
>
> Since it is only one day apart from failing T-bills, who would notice?
> ;-)
>
> SS is only as strong as the gov't and is an obligation that we, as
> citizens, must have endorsed since it has been around so long. Could it
> have been done better? Sure, but it wasn't and it is now what we have.
>
> It will take some work to get it functional, but the personal savings
> approach tried last year isn't it. Part of what makes it work is that
> it isn't a choice, all wage earners (with some exceptions) must pay into
> it. And it takes every penny of that money to make it work and last as
> well as it has.
>
> Question: If the personal savings 2% was such a hot idea, why doesn't
> the SS admin take the current receipts and start investing them instead
> of throwing them in the general tax revenue pot?
Easy. Congress controls the money. SS Admin can't do anything with it
unless Congress writes it into law.
Maybe the first "fix" to the system is to put Congress into SS rather
than their sweet retirement plan :)
Tex
|
| |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 14:42:19
From: John B.
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Carbon wrote:
> On Tue, 10 2006 02:27:11 +0000, Frank Ketchum wrote:
> > "Carbon" <nobrac@nospam.verizon.net> wrote in message
> > news:pan.2006.10.10.00.56.57.516589@nospam.verizon.net...
> >>
> >> Who is smarter, George W Bush or Bill Clinton? Take your time.
> >
> > Well here is a picture of Bill "Einstein" Clinton surveying the DMZ
> > between North Korea and South Korea next to a picture of Bush doing the
> > same several years later. Care to defend the intellect of someone who
> > is too stupid to remove the lens covers from the binoculars while
> > looking through them?
> >
> > http://photos1.blogger.com/img/84/954/320/BushClintonBinoculars.jpg
> >
> > Wow, is it dark in North Korea all the time!?
>
> Both Bush and Clinton weaseled out of Vietnam. Bush did it by using
> various family connections to get into university and the Air National
> Guard. Clinton did it by winning a Rhodes scholarship. Can you even
> imagine an alternate universe where George "nucular" Bush could win a
> Rhodes scholarship? I didn't think so.
I can imagine such a place. It's where wings take dream.
|
| |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 14:12:57
From: John B.
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Tue, 10 2006 18:36:03 GMT, Chris Bellomy
> <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>
> >: SS is basically an annuity fund. A rip off annuity fund, but an
> >: annuity fund nonetheless. Rich or poor, you pay into it and you
> >: deserve to get your money back.
> >
> >No, it's insurance, it was always insurance, it always will
> >be insurance. It will never be privatized because privatization
> >entails risk, and the entire point of insurance is to mitigate
> >risk, not invite it.
> >
> >Everybody who wants to change SS fails to understand what it
> >really is and why.
>
> The major aim of SS is to provide a pension to retired Americans and
> that is what is know as an annuity. A pension is not insurance.
The major aim of SS is to SUPPLEMENT our own private retirement
savings, not to support us after we retire. If Americans did a good job
of this, e.g., by starting IRAs and 401(k)s when they're young rather
than waiting until they're 45, SS would be a lot less relevant and this
debate wouldn't be taking place. Unfortunately, though, most Americans
(myself included) do a terrible job of this and thus the inordinate
interest in SS income.
|
| |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 12:38:57
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Tex wrote:
> Chris Bellomy wrote:
> > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > : SS is basically an annuity fund. A rip off annuity fund, but an
> > : annuity fund nonetheless. Rich or poor, you pay into it and you
> > : deserve to get your money back.
> >
> > No, it's insurance, it was always insurance, it always will
> > be insurance. It will never be privatized because privatization
> > entails risk, and the entire point of insurance is to mitigate
> > risk, not invite it.
> >
> > Everybody who wants to change SS fails to understand what it
> > really is and why.
>
> But the "insurance" payout will begin to drop as more is taken out than
> what is paid in. That's when the fallacy of your "insurance" scheme
> becomes evident.
>
> There is risk in all things. Putting your money into a government run
> program that is in the hands of Congress has a greater risk that just
> investing in T-Bills...T-Bills pay on average 4X more than the return
> of SS. T-Bills will fail about 1 day before the SS system will fail.
>
> Which "risk" would you choose?
>
I had always thought the idea of the US SS retirement system was that
people paid money into a fund that was set aside to fund retirement,
period: the payout is a function of what is in there...but the
politicians couldn't keep their hands off the money, so the fund has
absolutely no money in it at all and is 100% dependent on the ability
of the US government ot raise mony (via T Bills and the like) to keep
it going. What I like is that the citizens of the past used the money
for "investments" like roads and bridges to help drive the
economy...and spent the money, and now want citizens of the present
future to still pay out retirement benefits from it! Talk about wanting
to have your cake and eat it too!!
|
| | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 15:09:03
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On 10 2006 12:38:57 -0700, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:
>I had always thought the idea of the US SS retirement system was that
>people paid money into a fund that was set aside to fund retirement,
>period: the payout is a function of what is in there...but the
>politicians couldn't keep their hands off the money, so the fund has
>absolutely no money in it at all and is 100% dependent on the ability
>of the US government ot raise mony (via T Bills and the like) to keep
>it going. What I like is that the citizens of the past used the money
>for "investments" like roads and bridges to help drive the
>economy...and spent the money, and now want citizens of the present
>future to still pay out retirement benefits from it! Talk about wanting
>to have your cake and eat it too!!
Whoa! Those "citizens of the past" damned sure weren't the pubic who
funded SS. They didn't get a vote on congress spending those monies,
and all they want is what was promised from SS. It would've worked as
promised if the pols hadn't siphoned it off.
--
___,
\o
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 20:28:53
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:n2vni2h9mga5letsjshltu7i9lbm2aat1k@4ax.com...
> On 10 2006 12:38:57 -0700, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I had always thought the idea of the US SS retirement system was that
>>people paid money into a fund that was set aside to fund retirement,
>>period: the payout is a function of what is in there...but the
>>politicians couldn't keep their hands off the money, so the fund has
>>absolutely no money in it at all and is 100% dependent on the ability
>>of the US government ot raise mony (via T Bills and the like) to keep
>>it going. What I like is that the citizens of the past used the money
>>for "investments" like roads and bridges to help drive the
>>economy...and spent the money, and now want citizens of the present
>>future to still pay out retirement benefits from it! Talk about wanting
>>to have your cake and eat it too!!
>
> Whoa! Those "citizens of the past" damned sure weren't the pubic who
> funded SS. They didn't get a vote on congress spending those monies,
> and all they want is what was promised from SS. It would've worked as
> promised if the pols hadn't siphoned it off.
>
> --
> ___,
> \o
>
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 04:30:49
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
AKA Gray Asphalt <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote:
: It would be nice if someone, anyone, could actually prove what the original
: purpose of the SS fund was. It would be nice to know when it started being
: raided, if it was, and it would be nice to know which congressman voted to
: steal from it and why the rest let it get by.
It sounds like you're not very familiar with this issue.
This article by Kevin Drum is a good start:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_12/005312.php
This chart is also helpful:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_12/005316.php
The short version is that if you honestly believe the gloom and
doom predictions by politicians about Social Security, you are
being spun. They're just not true. SS is doing fine.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 00:43:42
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:0T3hkgt9IlddN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> AKA Gray Asphalt <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
>
> : It would be nice if someone, anyone, could actually prove what the
> original
> : purpose of the SS fund was. It would be nice to know when it started
> being
> : raided, if it was, and it would be nice to know which congressman voted
> to
> : steal from it and why the rest let it get by.
>
> It sounds like you're not very familiar with this issue.
> This article by Kevin Drum is a good start:
>
> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_12/005312.php
>
> This chart is also helpful:
>
> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_12/005316.php
>
> The short version is that if you honestly believe the gloom and
> doom predictions by politicians about Social Security, you are
> being spun. They're just not true. SS is doing fine.
>
> --
> Chris Bellomy
> C-List Charter Member
> http://clist.org/
That social security is doing fine is kind of hard to believe since Clinton
and Bush the first both said it was doomed during their debates.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 16:11:32
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
AKA Gray Asphalt <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote:
:
: "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
: news:0T3hkgt9IlddN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
: > AKA Gray Asphalt <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
: >
: > : It would be nice if someone, anyone, could actually prove what the
: > original
: > : purpose of the SS fund was. It would be nice to know when it started
: > being
: > : raided, if it was, and it would be nice to know which congressman voted
: > to
: > : steal from it and why the rest let it get by.
: >
: > It sounds like you're not very familiar with this issue.
: > This article by Kevin Drum is a good start:
: >
: > http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_12/005312.php
: >
: > This chart is also helpful:
: >
: > http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_12/005316.php
: >
: > The short version is that if you honestly believe the gloom and
: > doom predictions by politicians about Social Security, you are
: > being spun. They're just not true. SS is doing fine.
:
: That social security is doing fine is kind of hard to believe since Clinton
: and Bush the first both said it was doomed during their debates.
They both were using it as a political football. They both are
assholes. What do you expect?
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 21:14:55
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:0T3hlq0lIgknN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> AKA Gray Asphalt <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
> :
> : "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
> : news:0T3hkgt9IlddN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> :> AKA Gray Asphalt <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
> :>
> :> : It would be nice if someone, anyone, could actually prove what the
> :> original
> :> : purpose of the SS fund was. It would be nice to know when it started
> :> being
> :> : raided, if it was, and it would be nice to know which congressman
> voted
> :> to
> :> : steal from it and why the rest let it get by.
> :>
> :> It sounds like you're not very familiar with this issue.
> :> This article by Kevin Drum is a good start:
> :>
> :> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_12/005312.php
> :>
> :> This chart is also helpful:
> :>
> :> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_12/005316.php
> :>
> :> The short version is that if you honestly believe the gloom and
> :> doom predictions by politicians about Social Security, you are
> :> being spun. They're just not true. SS is doing fine.
> :
> : That social security is doing fine is kind of hard to believe since
> Clinton
> : and Bush the first both said it was doomed during their debates.
>
> They both were using it as a political football. They both are
> assholes. What do you expect?
>
> --
> Chris Bellomy
> C-List Charter Member
> http://clist.org/
If you don't believe the leaders of either party, then where do you get the
information that SS is doing fine? Is there someone who is untouched by one
or the other?
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 04:39:08
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
AKA Gray Asphalt <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote:
:
: "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
: news:0T3hlq0lIgknN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
: > AKA Gray Asphalt <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
: > :
: > : "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
: > : news:0T3hkgt9IlddN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
: > :> AKA Gray Asphalt <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
: > :>
: > :> : It would be nice if someone, anyone, could actually prove what the
: > :> original
: > :> : purpose of the SS fund was. It would be nice to know when it started
: > :> being
: > :> : raided, if it was, and it would be nice to know which congressman
: > voted
: > :> to
: > :> : steal from it and why the rest let it get by.
: > :>
: > :> It sounds like you're not very familiar with this issue.
: > :> This article by Kevin Drum is a good start:
: > :>
: > :> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_12/005312.php
: > :>
: > :> This chart is also helpful:
: > :>
: > :> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_12/005316.php
: > :>
: > :> The short version is that if you honestly believe the gloom and
: > :> doom predictions by politicians about Social Security, you are
: > :> being spun. They're just not true. SS is doing fine.
: > :
: > : That social security is doing fine is kind of hard to believe since
: > Clinton
: > : and Bush the first both said it was doomed during their debates.
: >
: > They both were using it as a political football. They both are
: > assholes. What do you expect?
:
: If you don't believe the leaders of either party, then where do you get the
: information that SS is doing fine? Is there someone who is untouched by one
: or the other?
The actuaries that govern the SSA produce an annual report
that tends to be pretty spin-free... being produced by
actuaries, who aren't exactly the most excitable people
on earth. Plus, their numbers over the years tell a pretty
consistent and believable story.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 05:09:31
From: The poster formerly known as Colleyville Alan
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:0T3hn5f0Id4N34@redshark.goodshow.net...
>
> The actuaries that govern the SSA produce an annual report
> that tends to be pretty spin-free... being produced by
> actuaries, who aren't exactly the most excitable people
> on earth.
Do you know how to tell whether you are speaking with a CPA or with an
actuary? If you are talking with a CPA, he'll be looking at *your* shoes.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 13:44:59
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:0T3hn5f0Id4N34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> AKA Gray Asphalt <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
> :
> : "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
> : news:0T3hlq0lIgknN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> :> AKA Gray Asphalt <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
> :> :
> :> : "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
> :> : news:0T3hkgt9IlddN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> :> :> AKA Gray Asphalt <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
> :> :>
> :> :> : It would be nice if someone, anyone, could actually prove what the
> :> :> original
> :> :> : purpose of the SS fund was. It would be nice to know when it
> started
> :> :> being
> :> :> : raided, if it was, and it would be nice to know which congressman
> :> voted
> :> :> to
> :> :> : steal from it and why the rest let it get by.
> :> :>
> :> :> It sounds like you're not very familiar with this issue.
> :> :> This article by Kevin Drum is a good start:
> :> :>
> :> :>
> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_12/005312.php
> :> :>
> :> :> This chart is also helpful:
> :> :>
> :> :>
> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_12/005316.php
> :> :>
> :> :> The short version is that if you honestly believe the gloom and
> :> :> doom predictions by politicians about Social Security, you are
> :> :> being spun. They're just not true. SS is doing fine.
> :> :
> :> : That social security is doing fine is kind of hard to believe since
> :> Clinton
> :> : and Bush the first both said it was doomed during their debates.
> :>
> :> They both were using it as a political football. They both are
> :> assholes. What do you expect?
> :
> : If you don't believe the leaders of either party, then where do you get
> the
> : information that SS is doing fine? Is there someone who is untouched by
> one
> : or the other?
>
> The actuaries that govern the SSA produce an annual report
> that tends to be pretty spin-free... being produced by
> actuaries, who aren't exactly the most excitable people
> on earth. Plus, their numbers over the years tell a pretty
> consistent and believable story.
>
> --
> Chris Bellomy
> C-List Charter Member
> http://clist.org/
Or you are being fooled. If you can buy a forensic psychiatrist (Jeffrey
Dahmer was sane and Lorena Bobbit wasn't), then you can buy an actuary.
Doesn't a respected source just mean that the two parties got together and
agreed to lie about the same issue?
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 21:25:04
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
AKA Gray Asphalt <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote:
:
: "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
: news:0T3hn5f0Id4N34@redshark.goodshow.net...
: > AKA Gray Asphalt <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
: > :
: > : "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
: > : news:0T3hlq0lIgknN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
: > :> AKA Gray Asphalt <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
: > :> :
: > :> : "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
: > :> : news:0T3hkgt9IlddN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
: > :> :> AKA Gray Asphalt <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
: > :> :>
: > :> :> : It would be nice if someone, anyone, could actually prove what the
: > :> :> original
: > :> :> : purpose of the SS fund was. It would be nice to know when it
: > started
: > :> :> being
: > :> :> : raided, if it was, and it would be nice to know which congressman
: > :> voted
: > :> :> to
: > :> :> : steal from it and why the rest let it get by.
: > :> :>
: > :> :> It sounds like you're not very familiar with this issue.
: > :> :> This article by Kevin Drum is a good start:
: > :> :>
: > :> :>
: > http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_12/005312.php
: > :> :>
: > :> :> This chart is also helpful:
: > :> :>
: > :> :>
: > http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_12/005316.php
: > :> :>
: > :> :> The short version is that if you honestly believe the gloom and
: > :> :> doom predictions by politicians about Social Security, you are
: > :> :> being spun. They're just not true. SS is doing fine.
: > :> :
: > :> : That social security is doing fine is kind of hard to believe since
: > :> Clinton
: > :> : and Bush the first both said it was doomed during their debates.
: > :>
: > :> They both were using it as a political football. They both are
: > :> assholes. What do you expect?
: > :
: > : If you don't believe the leaders of either party, then where do you get
: > the
: > : information that SS is doing fine? Is there someone who is untouched by
: > one
: > : or the other?
: >
: > The actuaries that govern the SSA produce an annual report
: > that tends to be pretty spin-free... being produced by
: > actuaries, who aren't exactly the most excitable people
: > on earth. Plus, their numbers over the years tell a pretty
: > consistent and believable story.
:
: Or you are being fooled. If you can buy a forensic psychiatrist (Jeffrey
: Dahmer was sane and Lorena Bobbit wasn't), then you can buy an actuary.
: Doesn't a respected source just mean that the two parties got together and
: agreed to lie about the same issue?
Are you suggesting that the SS actuaries have been conspiring
to seem too pessimistic but actually be too optimistic for over
twenty years? Occam's Razor, dude.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 20:48:21
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:2T3hp0npIlkkN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> AKA Gray Asphalt <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
> :
> : "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
> : news:0T3hn5f0Id4N34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> :> AKA Gray Asphalt <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
> :> :
> :> : "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
> :> : news:0T3hlq0lIgknN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> :> :> AKA Gray Asphalt <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
> :> :> :
> :> :> : "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
> :> :> : news:0T3hkgt9IlddN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> :> :> :> AKA Gray Asphalt <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> : It would be nice if someone, anyone, could actually prove what
> the
> :> :> :> original
> :> :> :> : purpose of the SS fund was. It would be nice to know when it
> :> started
> :> :> :> being
> :> :> :> : raided, if it was, and it would be nice to know which
> congressman
> :> :> voted
> :> :> :> to
> :> :> :> : steal from it and why the rest let it get by.
> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> It sounds like you're not very familiar with this issue.
> :> :> :> This article by Kevin Drum is a good start:
> :> :> :>
> :> :> :>
> :> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_12/005312.php
> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> This chart is also helpful:
> :> :> :>
> :> :> :>
> :> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_12/005316.php
> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> The short version is that if you honestly believe the gloom and
> :> :> :> doom predictions by politicians about Social Security, you are
> :> :> :> being spun. They're just not true. SS is doing fine.
> :> :> :
> :> :> : That social security is doing fine is kind of hard to believe
> since
> :> :> Clinton
> :> :> : and Bush the first both said it was doomed during their debates.
> :> :>
> :> :> They both were using it as a political football. They both are
> :> :> assholes. What do you expect?
> :> :
> :> : If you don't believe the leaders of either party, then where do you
> get
> :> the
> :> : information that SS is doing fine? Is there someone who is untouched
> by
> :> one
> :> : or the other?
> :>
> :> The actuaries that govern the SSA produce an annual report
> :> that tends to be pretty spin-free... being produced by
> :> actuaries, who aren't exactly the most excitable people
> :> on earth. Plus, their numbers over the years tell a pretty
> :> consistent and believable story.
> :
> : Or you are being fooled. If you can buy a forensic psychiatrist (Jeffrey
> : Dahmer was sane and Lorena Bobbit wasn't), then you can buy an actuary.
> : Doesn't a respected source just mean that the two parties got together
> and
> : agreed to lie about the same issue?
>
> Are you suggesting that the SS actuaries have been conspiring
> to seem too pessimistic but actually be too optimistic for over
> twenty years? Occam's Razor, dude.
>
> --
> Chris Bellomy
> C-List Charter Member
> http://clist.org/
Occam's razor only applies when you have enough information. We will never
have enough information about the workings of government. The Warren
Commission explained the details until more facts, that everyone suspected
came out. I don't know if that is true, but it illustrates my point. So if
it's true or not doesn't matter. Sound familiar?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 04:57:51
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
AKA Gray Asphalt <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote:
: "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
: news:2T3hp0npIlkkN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
:
: > Are you suggesting that the SS actuaries have been conspiring
: > to seem too pessimistic but actually be too optimistic for over
: > twenty years? Occam's Razor, dude.
:
: Occam's razor only applies when you have enough information.
I think we clearly have plenty of information here. We have
historical economic performance data, we have the published
assumptions of the actuaries, we have a ton of raw numbers
to analyze. The meaning of the numbers is clear: if our economy
continues to grow at a historically typical rate, Social Security
is fine. If it doesn't, SS will run into trouble about 35 years
from now. In the end, it's all math. Complex math, perhaps, but
still math.
: We will never
: have enough information about the workings of government. The Warren
: Commission explained the details until more facts, that everyone suspected
: came out.
I'm sorry, man, you've just completely lost me here.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 23:53:05
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:1T3hpqorIso7N34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> AKA Gray Asphalt <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
> : "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
> : news:2T3hp0npIlkkN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> :
> :> Are you suggesting that the SS actuaries have been conspiring
> :> to seem too pessimistic but actually be too optimistic for over
> :> twenty years? Occam's Razor, dude.
> :
> : Occam's razor only applies when you have enough information.
>
> I think we clearly have plenty of information here. We have
> historical economic performance data, we have the published
> assumptions of the actuaries, we have a ton of raw numbers
> to analyze. The meaning of the numbers is clear: if our economy
> continues to grow at a historically typical rate, Social Security
> is fine. If it doesn't, SS will run into trouble about 35 years
> from now. In the end, it's all math. Complex math, perhaps, but
> still math.
>
> : We will never
> : have enough information about the workings of government. The Warren
> : Commission explained the details until more facts, that everyone
> suspected
> : came out.
>
> I'm sorry, man, you've just completely lost me here.
>
> --
> Chris Bellomy
> C-List Charter Member
> http://clist.org/
Forget the Warren report stuff. I don't believe the unemployment numbers,
myself. Who can tell how many people have given up? And who knows how the
questionaires have been changed over the years? I was kind of directly
involved in politics for a while as a lobbyist and as Perot-ite. I don't
trust a GD thing they say and I've seen administrators lie directly to their
own bosses in the legislature about the health and safety of foster kids ...
and I've seen Bob Dole's old press secretary, who was a graduate of
Annapolis, bully most of the volunteers of an entire state. I don't know
about Bob Dole anymore. And if you think Hollywood can act, you should get
to know some politicians.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 15:07:52
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
AKA Gray Asphalt <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote:
: Forget the Warren report stuff. I don't believe the unemployment numbers,
: myself. Who can tell how many people have given up?
Dig deeper. Those numbers are there:
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ln
Yes, the unemployment rate is misleading, but you can get the
numbers on Discouraged Workers, for example, to get some idea
what's going on. Or, better yet, the Civilian Employment-
Population Ratio is very handy for telling us what percentage
of the population has jobs.
The biggest/best bellwether for labor conditions, though, is
wage growth. If the job market is strong, wages rise. If it
isn't, they stay soft or fall. Simple.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 14:14:54
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
[snip]
Just curious. What do you think about the energy policy? And hydrogen
economy ...
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 22:40:20
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
AKA Gray Asphalt <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote:
:
: [snip]
:
: Just curious. What do you think about the energy policy? And hydrogen
: economy ...
Not sure what you mean by "hydrogen economy."
I think the oil and gas industry has been setting energy policy
in this country ever since the days of Standard Oil -- and that
90% of what's wrong with this country economically and in foreign
policy is in some way traceable to that.
I'd like to say that the Democrats have been a foil in all this,
but they haven't really. Too many southern Dems (who used to have
all the plum committee assignments in Congress) were in the pockets
of big oil for that to be true. Maybe that gets better now that
most of the southerners with seniority are Republicans, but I'm
not holding my breath.
It's a serious, deeply profound problem, and I don't really know
how we start to fix it.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 17:12:02
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:0T3hrpasI10fN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> AKA Gray Asphalt <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
> :
> : [snip]
> :
> : Just curious. What do you think about the energy policy? And hydrogen
> : economy ...
>
> Not sure what you mean by "hydrogen economy."
>
> I think the oil and gas industry has been setting energy policy
> in this country ever since the days of Standard Oil -- and that
> 90% of what's wrong with this country economically and in foreign
> policy is in some way traceable to that.
>
> I'd like to say that the Democrats have been a foil in all this,
> but they haven't really. Too many southern Dems (who used to have
> all the plum committee assignments in Congress) were in the pockets
> of big oil for that to be true. Maybe that gets better now that
> most of the southerners with seniority are Republicans, but I'm
> not holding my breath.
>
> It's a serious, deeply profound problem, and I don't really know
> how we start to fix it.
>
> --
> Chris Bellomy
> C-List Charter Member
> http://clist.org/
Hydrogen economy is the buzzword for alternative fules based on hydrogen,
like ethanol and methanol and others. Apparently some fuels burn without
creating greenhouse gases. One can be pumped from existing gasoline pumps
now and run easily currently available technology .... at least that's the
hype but it is coming from Nobel Laureates. It seems like new crops are
being discovered and developed that have a high yield of energy from a
smaller amount of crop with less energy used to raise them ... algae grown
in water and poplar trees that seem to grow almost everywhere.
I didn't mean to get into this that much but I thought you might be up on
this since you really do seem to be informed about social security and some
other issues.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 17:42:56
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On Wed, 11 2006 04:30:49 GMT, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
>The short version is that if you honestly believe the gloom and
>doom predictions by politicians about Social Security, you are
>being spun. They're just not true. SS is doing fine.
LOL, that date of 2042 is when the SS trust fund is exhausted and can
no longer be used to make up the shortfall between benefits paid and
revenue collected.
However, the trust fund has no money in it. The government is going
to have to make up the shortfall by paying off all the debt it has
created by raiding the trust fund. So SS is going to be costing the
taxpayer more money long before 2042.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 23:52:01
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
: On Wed, 11 2006 04:30:49 GMT, Chris Bellomy
: <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
:
: >The short version is that if you honestly believe the gloom and
: >doom predictions by politicians about Social Security, you are
: >being spun. They're just not true. SS is doing fine.
:
: LOL, that date of 2042 is when the SS trust fund is exhausted and can
: no longer be used to make up the shortfall between benefits paid and
: revenue collected.
If that date of 2042 had been pegged ten years ago and was
still pegged today, I would be a lot more concerned. But
every year, that date gets pushed back a year. That should
tell you something.
IIRC, the SS actuaries prepare three forecasts each year:
optimistic, pessimistic, and (essentially) median. The 2042
date comes from the pessimistic forecast (again IIRC) in which
birth rate craters, immigration craters, and the economy
craters. The median forecast has the exhaustion date in the
2080s sometime (again getting pushed further back each year).
The optimistic forecast has SS running at a surplus forever.
I'm trying to come up with some links to these three models
so I can drop the IIRC crap. :)
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 23:48:46
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On Wed, 11 2006 23:52:01 GMT, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
>If that date of 2042 had been pegged ten years ago and was
>still pegged today, I would be a lot more concerned. But
>every year, that date gets pushed back a year. That should
>tell you something.
Projections can change due to economic conditions. The more jobs that
the economy creates means the more revenue into the system. Over the
past five or six years, lots of jobs have been created and that has
changed the projections for the better. But, you have to remember
that this is a two way street. In times of recession with high
unemployment the projections go south.
However, nothing will change the fact that in 2008, the people born in
1946 will be eligible for SS benefits. Over the next 18 years, a
total of around 80 million people will join the ranks of the retired
and will be receiving SS payments. The shortfall will happen around
2012. When the government says that SS is funded until 2042 it's an
accountant's slight of hand.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 04:11:27
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
: On Wed, 11 2006 23:52:01 GMT, Chris Bellomy
: <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
:
: >If that date of 2042 had been pegged ten years ago and was
: >still pegged today, I would be a lot more concerned. But
: >every year, that date gets pushed back a year. That should
: >tell you something.
:
: Projections can change due to economic conditions. The more jobs that
: the economy creates means the more revenue into the system. Over the
: past five or six years, lots of jobs have been created and that has
: changed the projections for the better.
The last six years have not been good, but they've still
been far better than the 1.8% annual GDP growth that makes
the 2042 doomsday scenario work. If we continue with just the
anemic growth of the Bush years, SS will remain solvent
indefinitely and it won't even be close. The SSA's own
numbers tell the tale.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 13:36:21
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On Thu, 12 2006 04:11:27 GMT, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
> If we continue with just the
>anemic growth of the Bush years, SS will remain solvent
>indefinitely and it won't even be close. The SSA's own
>numbers tell the tale.
If you read the SSA's own 2006 annual summary, which are their
numbers, the projection are that the system will start to experience a
shortfall in 2017. By the year 2040, the receipts will only cover 74%
of the payments. That certainly doesn't sound like solvency to me.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 18:51:52
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
: On Thu, 12 2006 04:11:27 GMT, Chris Bellomy
: <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
:
: > If we continue with just the
: >anemic growth of the Bush years, SS will remain solvent
: >indefinitely and it won't even be close. The SSA's own
: >numbers tell the tale.
:
: If you read the SSA's own 2006 annual summary, which are their
: numbers, the projection are that the system will start to experience a
: shortfall in 2017.
Why do you keep dodging the issue of their growth assumptions,
Jack? You seem like a smart guy, stop and digest and think for
a few minutes about this. Seriously.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 22:53:36
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On Thu, 12 2006 18:51:52 GMT, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
>: If you read the SSA's own 2006 annual summary, which are their
>: numbers, the projection are that the system will start to experience a
>: shortfall in 2017.
>
>Why do you keep dodging the issue of their growth assumptions,
>Jack? You seem like a smart guy, stop and digest and think for
>a few minutes about this. Seriously.
These are projections. They could be better or they could be worse.
It could turn out that the economy goes south. It always has in the
past.
My fear is that the baby boom problem will send the economy into a
recession. This problem is also happening in Europe and for some
European countries it's even worse. Economic growth requires capital
and the baby boomers have been a good source of capital because they
invest their 401K money in equities. Another good source of capital
are the pension plans run by companies both public and private. The
flow of this capital will go from a net gain to a net loss. Stocks,
bonds and real estate being sold by fund managers to meet the
withdrawals of the baby boomers.
The Europeans are in trouble as well. It's worse because the public
sector is so much larger. There are a lot of governments in Europe
who are expected to provide a comfortable retirement to an awful lot
of people who have government pensions. And I can assure you that,
just like the US, they don't have any money sitting around in a trust
fund
I could be wrong, but I see some difficult financial times on the
horizon.
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 13:14:43
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On Tue, 10 2006 15:09:03 -0500, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net >
wrote:
>Whoa! Those "citizens of the past" damned sure weren't the pubic who
>funded SS. They didn't get a vote on congress spending those monies,
>and all they want is what was promised from SS. It would've worked as
>promised if the pols hadn't siphoned it off.
At first glance, it appears attractive to invest the portion of our
social security taxes designed to pay for retirement. But there are
some problems with having the feds deciding which corporations get our
federal investments (and ownership). This back-door socialism has
risky elements.
|
| | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 14:53:15
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
In article <1160509137.844421.252760@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com >,
"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:
> Tex wrote:
> > Chris Bellomy wrote:
> > > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > : SS is basically an annuity fund. A rip off annuity fund, but an
> > > : annuity fund nonetheless. Rich or poor, you pay into it and you
> > > : deserve to get your money back.
> > >
> > > No, it's insurance, it was always insurance, it always will
> > > be insurance. It will never be privatized because privatization
> > > entails risk, and the entire point of insurance is to mitigate
> > > risk, not invite it.
> > >
> > > Everybody who wants to change SS fails to understand what it
> > > really is and why.
> >
> > But the "insurance" payout will begin to drop as more is taken out than
> > what is paid in. That's when the fallacy of your "insurance" scheme
> > becomes evident.
> >
> > There is risk in all things. Putting your money into a government run
> > program that is in the hands of Congress has a greater risk that just
> > investing in T-Bills...T-Bills pay on average 4X more than the return
> > of SS. T-Bills will fail about 1 day before the SS system will fail.
> >
> > Which "risk" would you choose?
> >
>
> I had always thought the idea of the US SS retirement system was that
> people paid money into a fund that was set aside to fund retirement,
> period: the payout is a function of what is in there...but the
> politicians couldn't keep their hands off the money, so the fund has
> absolutely no money in it at all and is 100% dependent on the ability
> of the US government ot raise mony (via T Bills and the like) to keep
> it going. What I like is that the citizens of the past used the money
> for "investments" like roads and bridges to help drive the
> economy...and spent the money, and now want citizens of the present
> future to still pay out retirement benefits from it! Talk about wanting
> to have your cake and eat it too!!
There never was a 'fund' and it was never part of the idea.
|
| |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 12:29:07
From: Tex
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Chris Bellomy wrote:
> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>
> : SS is basically an annuity fund. A rip off annuity fund, but an
> : annuity fund nonetheless. Rich or poor, you pay into it and you
> : deserve to get your money back.
>
> No, it's insurance, it was always insurance, it always will
> be insurance. It will never be privatized because privatization
> entails risk, and the entire point of insurance is to mitigate
> risk, not invite it.
>
> Everybody who wants to change SS fails to understand what it
> really is and why.
But the "insurance" payout will begin to drop as more is taken out than
what is paid in. That's when the fallacy of your "insurance" scheme
becomes evident.
There is risk in all things. Putting your money into a government run
program that is in the hands of Congress has a greater risk that just
investing in T-Bills...T-Bills pay on average 4X more than the return
of SS. T-Bills will fail about 1 day before the SS system will fail.
Which "risk" would you choose?
Tex
|
| | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 03:04:18
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Tex <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:
:
: Chris Bellomy wrote:
: > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
: >
: > : SS is basically an annuity fund. A rip off annuity fund, but an
: > : annuity fund nonetheless. Rich or poor, you pay into it and you
: > : deserve to get your money back.
: >
: > No, it's insurance, it was always insurance, it always will
: > be insurance. It will never be privatized because privatization
: > entails risk, and the entire point of insurance is to mitigate
: > risk, not invite it.
: >
: > Everybody who wants to change SS fails to understand what it
: > really is and why.
:
: But the "insurance" payout will begin to drop as more is taken out than
: what is paid in. That's when the fallacy of your "insurance" scheme
: becomes evident.
No, that's why the payroll tax was increased in 1982. Payouts
will exceed income but the difference already has been collected.
That's why the system is solvent. (Contrary to the speculation
of many, the Social Security system is not even close to being
in trouble.)
: There is risk in all things. Putting your money into a government run
: program that is in the hands of Congress has a greater risk that just
: investing in T-Bills...T-Bills pay on average 4X more than the return
: of SS. T-Bills will fail about 1 day before the SS system will fail.
:
: Which "risk" would you choose?
Why the binary proposition? The risk of T-Bills is that inflation
will exceed the rate of return, such that every dollar you invest
ends up being $0.80 at maturity. Social Security has automatic
COLAs built in. I damn sure don't want to give up SS for T-Bills,
but I also think that T-Bills are a reasonable part of any long-
term investment portfolio. But this illustrates well the difference
between old age insurance and long term investment.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 14:52:23
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
In article <1160508547.675906.99980@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >,
"Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:
> Chris Bellomy wrote:
> > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > : SS is basically an annuity fund. A rip off annuity fund, but an
> > : annuity fund nonetheless. Rich or poor, you pay into it and you
> > : deserve to get your money back.
> >
> > No, it's insurance, it was always insurance, it always will
> > be insurance. It will never be privatized because privatization
> > entails risk, and the entire point of insurance is to mitigate
> > risk, not invite it.
> >
> > Everybody who wants to change SS fails to understand what it
> > really is and why.
>
> But the "insurance" payout will begin to drop as more is taken out than
> what is paid in. That's when the fallacy of your "insurance" scheme
> becomes evident.
>
> There is risk in all things. Putting your money into a government run
> program that is in the hands of Congress has a greater risk that just
> investing in T-Bills...T-Bills pay on average 4X more than the return
> of SS. T-Bills will fail about 1 day before the SS system will fail.
>
> Which "risk" would you choose?
>
> Tex
Since it is only one day apart from failing T-bills, who would notice?
;-)
SS is only as strong as the gov't and is an obligation that we, as
citizens, must have endorsed since it has been around so long. Could it
have been done better? Sure, but it wasn't and it is now what we have.
It will take some work to get it functional, but the personal savings
approach tried last year isn't it. Part of what makes it work is that
it isn't a choice, all wage earners (with some exceptions) must pay into
it. And it takes every penny of that money to make it work and last as
well as it has.
Question: If the personal savings 2% was such a hot idea, why doesn't
the SS admin take the current receipts and start investing them instead
of throwing them in the general tax revenue pot?
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 20:30:51
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
[snip]
> SS is only as strong as the gov't and is an obligation that we, as
> citizens, must have endorsed since it has been around so long. Could it
> have been done better? Sure ...
I think they stold just about as much as possible. It probably was done as
well as can be expected.
[snip]
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 20:38:46
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On Tue, 10 2006 14:52:23 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:
>Question: If the personal savings 2% was such a hot idea, why doesn't
>the SS admin take the current receipts and start investing them instead
>of throwing them in the general tax revenue pot?
What the government does is to take the surplus money from the SS
Trust Fund and "invests" it in Treasury Bonds. The government then
spends the money like any other tax revenue. In effect, Social
Security is more like a Ponzi scheme than an annuity or insurance
program.
In addition, any surplus money in the SS Trust Fund results in another
tax because the government converts the money into debt. The
government borrows the money by issuing a special type of Treasury
note. In the future, when these Treasuries have to be paid off, the
money will come from tax revenue. Not only that, the Treasuries have
interest attached to them. So the second hand tax is actually more
than the original amount.
It's also important to note that not one of these special Treasury
bonds has ever been paid off. They just keep building up both
principle and interest as long as there is a surplus. The interest on
all these Treasuries is credited to the fund in the form of more
Treasuries. In effect, you are now paying interest on the interest.
The amount owed to the fund is well over a trillion dollars.
If a private investment or insurance company ever tried to pull off
something like this, they'd all end up in jail.
If the system was privatized after WW2, the surplus funds would have
been invested in real equities and actually be worth something. It's
too late because there is no real trust fund and the Ponzi scheme will
collapse soon.
|
| |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 10:22:27
From: Fairway
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
John B. wrote:
>
> "Winning" the Cold War means that the United States caused the Soviet
> empire to collapse. Can you explain to me how we did that?
The ailing president Roosevelt handed East Europe over to his friend
Stalin, and that=B4s a fact. But it=B4s mainly thanks to steadfast
presidents of the USA and the creation of NATO that the Russians
didn=B4t overrun Europe and take it all with dire consequences for the
whole world (USA included). More than anyone else it was the USA that
won the cold war and the Russians lost it. The ideals of the free
market won and socialism lost. Only a commie bastard would deny that. F
|
| |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 07:52:45
From: John B.
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
the Moderator wrote:
> "AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message
> news:Ka%Vg.2797$v43.804@fed1read02...
> >
> > Thanks, However, I am neither a liberal nor a democrat. I would love to
> see
> > John McCain get elected. Or Guiliani. Or anyone Republican with allegiance
> > to American values instead of big business and the religious fringe. Or
> > maybe it would be nice to have a balanced budget with Hillary.
> >
>
> Or Gingrich, the actual man responsible for balancing the budget.
Wow! I'd sure like to hear you explain that one. Are you talking about
the same Gigngrich who shut down the federal govt. becaue he didn't
like his seat on Air Force One?
|
| |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 07:46:12
From: John B.
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1160516983.876843.255500@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Tex wrote:
> >> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> >> > In article <1160508547.675906.99980@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> >> > "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Chris Bellomy wrote:
> >> > > > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > : SS is basically an annuity fund. A rip off annuity fund, but an
> >> > > > : annuity fund nonetheless. Rich or poor, you pay into it and you
> >> > > > : deserve to get your money back.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > No, it's insurance, it was always insurance, it always will
> >> > > > be insurance. It will never be privatized because privatization
> >> > > > entails risk, and the entire point of insurance is to mitigate
> >> > > > risk, not invite it.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Everybody who wants to change SS fails to understand what it
> >> > > > really is and why.
> >> > >
> >> > > But the "insurance" payout will begin to drop as more is taken out
> >> > > than
> >> > > what is paid in. That's when the fallacy of your "insurance" scheme
> >> > > becomes evident.
> >> > >
> >> > > There is risk in all things. Putting your money into a government
> >> > > run
> >> > > program that is in the hands of Congress has a greater risk that just
> >> > > investing in T-Bills...T-Bills pay on average 4X more than the return
> >> > > of SS. T-Bills will fail about 1 day before the SS system will fail.
> >> > >
> >> > > Which "risk" would you choose?
> >> > >
> >> > > Tex
> >> >
> >> > Since it is only one day apart from failing T-bills, who would notice?
> >> > ;-)
> >> >
> >> > SS is only as strong as the gov't and is an obligation that we, as
> >> > citizens, must have endorsed since it has been around so long. Could
> >> > it
> >> > have been done better? Sure, but it wasn't and it is now what we have.
> >> >
> >> > It will take some work to get it functional, but the personal savings
> >> > approach tried last year isn't it. Part of what makes it work is that
> >> > it isn't a choice, all wage earners (with some exceptions) must pay
> >> > into
> >> > it. And it takes every penny of that money to make it work and last as
> >> > well as it has.
> >> >
> >> > Question: If the personal savings 2% was such a hot idea, why doesn't
> >> > the SS admin take the current receipts and start investing them instead
> >> > of throwing them in the general tax revenue pot?
> >>
> >> Easy. Congress controls the money. SS Admin can't do anything with it
> >> unless Congress writes it into law.
> >>
> >> Maybe the first "fix" to the system is to put Congress into SS rather
> >> than their sweet retirement plan :)
> >>
> >> Tex
> >
> > Members of Congress pay FICA taxes just like everybody else. and their
> > retirement plan isn't nearly as sweet as you think it is.
>
> You are full of shit.
Am I now? Would you care to elaborate?
|
| | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 21:20:50
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1160577972.420442.212750@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
>> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1160516983.876843.255500@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Tex wrote:
>> >> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> >> > In article <1160508547.675906.99980@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> > "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > Chris Bellomy wrote:
>> >> > > > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > : SS is basically an annuity fund. A rip off annuity fund, but
>> >> > > > an
>> >> > > > : annuity fund nonetheless. Rich or poor, you pay into it and
>> >> > > > you
>> >> > > > : deserve to get your money back.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > No, it's insurance, it was always insurance, it always will
>> >> > > > be insurance. It will never be privatized because privatization
>> >> > > > entails risk, and the entire point of insurance is to mitigate
>> >> > > > risk, not invite it.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Everybody who wants to change SS fails to understand what it
>> >> > > > really is and why.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > But the "insurance" payout will begin to drop as more is taken out
>> >> > > than
>> >> > > what is paid in. That's when the fallacy of your "insurance"
>> >> > > scheme
>> >> > > becomes evident.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > There is risk in all things. Putting your money into a government
>> >> > > run
>> >> > > program that is in the hands of Congress has a greater risk that
>> >> > > just
>> >> > > investing in T-Bills...T-Bills pay on average 4X more than the
>> >> > > return
>> >> > > of SS. T-Bills will fail about 1 day before the SS system will
>> >> > > fail.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Which "risk" would you choose?
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Tex
>> >> >
>> >> > Since it is only one day apart from failing T-bills, who would
>> >> > notice?
>> >> > ;-)
>> >> >
>> >> > SS is only as strong as the gov't and is an obligation that we, as
>> >> > citizens, must have endorsed since it has been around so long.
>> >> > Could
>> >> > it
>> >> > have been done better? Sure, but it wasn't and it is now what we
>> >> > have.
>> >> >
>> >> > It will take some work to get it functional, but the personal
>> >> > savings
>> >> > approach tried last year isn't it. Part of what makes it work is
>> >> > that
>> >> > it isn't a choice, all wage earners (with some exceptions) must pay
>> >> > into
>> >> > it. And it takes every penny of that money to make it work and last
>> >> > as
>> >> > well as it has.
>> >> >
>> >> > Question: If the personal savings 2% was such a hot idea, why
>> >> > doesn't
>> >> > the SS admin take the current receipts and start investing them
>> >> > instead
>> >> > of throwing them in the general tax revenue pot?
>> >>
>> >> Easy. Congress controls the money. SS Admin can't do anything with it
>> >> unless Congress writes it into law.
>> >>
>> >> Maybe the first "fix" to the system is to put Congress into SS rather
>> >> than their sweet retirement plan :)
>> >>
>> >> Tex
>> >
>> > Members of Congress pay FICA taxes just like everybody else. and their
>> > retirement plan isn't nearly as sweet as you think it is.
>>
>> You are full of shit.
>
> Am I now? Would you care to elaborate?
How about getting retirement after working for six years to start? I've got
a book with a list of their perks but I don't see the motivation to go
hunting for it when it's been a topic of debate over the last 15 years. If
there were any money in it, I would be glad to put a little bet in escrow.
But first tell me who else gets retirement after 6 years. Then we can talk
about their health isurance.
|
| |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 07:43:41
From: John B.
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Tex wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > Tex wrote:
> > > Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> > > > In article <1160508547.675906.99980@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Chris Bellomy wrote:
> > > > > > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > : SS is basically an annuity fund. A rip off annuity fund, but an
> > > > > > : annuity fund nonetheless. Rich or poor, you pay into it and you
> > > > > > : deserve to get your money back.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, it's insurance, it was always insurance, it always will
> > > > > > be insurance. It will never be privatized because privatization
> > > > > > entails risk, and the entire point of insurance is to mitigate
> > > > > > risk, not invite it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Everybody who wants to change SS fails to understand what it
> > > > > > really is and why.
> > > > >
> > > > > But the "insurance" payout will begin to drop as more is taken out than
> > > > > what is paid in. That's when the fallacy of your "insurance" scheme
> > > > > becomes evident.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is risk in all things. Putting your money into a government run
> > > > > program that is in the hands of Congress has a greater risk that just
> > > > > investing in T-Bills...T-Bills pay on average 4X more than the return
> > > > > of SS. T-Bills will fail about 1 day before the SS system will fail.
> > > > >
> > > > > Which "risk" would you choose?
> > > > >
> > > > > Tex
> > > >
> > > > Since it is only one day apart from failing T-bills, who would notice?
> > > > ;-)
> > > >
> > > > SS is only as strong as the gov't and is an obligation that we, as
> > > > citizens, must have endorsed since it has been around so long. Could it
> > > > have been done better? Sure, but it wasn't and it is now what we have.
> > > >
> > > > It will take some work to get it functional, but the personal savings
> > > > approach tried last year isn't it. Part of what makes it work is that
> > > > it isn't a choice, all wage earners (with some exceptions) must pay into
> > > > it. And it takes every penny of that money to make it work and last as
> > > > well as it has.
> > > >
> > > > Question: If the personal savings 2% was such a hot idea, why doesn't
> > > > the SS admin take the current receipts and start investing them instead
> > > > of throwing them in the general tax revenue pot?
> > >
> > > Easy. Congress controls the money. SS Admin can't do anything with it
> > > unless Congress writes it into law.
> > >
> > > Maybe the first "fix" to the system is to put Congress into SS rather
> > > than their sweet retirement plan :)
> > >
> > > Tex
> >
> > Members of Congress pay FICA taxes just like everybody else. and their
> > retirement plan isn't nearly as sweet as you think it is.
>
> Really? Wow, when did that change?
> When was the last time you checked into the retirement plan for
> Congress??
>
When I worked there. I don't remember the details, but the
congressional retirement system is not much different than what other
large employers offer. My last employer offered a much better
retirement plan than any Senator or House member gets.
> I'd sure like to serve a few terms and "settle" with their "not so
> sweet" retirement plan.
>
> Wasn't it Sen. Byrd that walked out the door with $8+ MILLION ???
> Sure, he served a long time....and you claim he paid in the FICA taxes
> for that? What's that, $10K/year? Damn nice return.
>
> Tex
|
| |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 07:28:40
From: Tex
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
John B. wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I would immediately put a means test on Medicare/Medicaid...and
> > > > anything "Medi*"
> > > >
> > > > I would also immediately put a means test on SS payments.
> > >
> > > You cannot "immediately" means test any of these entitlement programs.
> > > Congress would have to change the laws that govern them. If that's
> > > politically possible, and I suspect it's not, it would take years.
> >
> > Anytime I hear "can't", what you really mean is you don't know how to
> > do it, or you don't want it done. "can't be done" is a challenge to a
> > software engineer :)
>
> You sound like Ross Perot. You think you've got all the answers. And
> it's all so simple.
It is simple. First thing, stop making changes. Congress keeps
changing laws, added new taxes, changing regulations, etc.,
etc....things change so fast, you have no idea what is fixed and what
is broken. They are a make work project. Stop.
That's why you have Congress go on a 4 yr hiatus...live back in their
districts and listen to the people, not the Lobbyists. What harm can
come from that?
You might find that we get along just fine without them :)
Lastly, if you think the worst of people, you'll probably get the worst
of people.
You sound like the guy with the 60ft putt that says, "This looks like a
3putt" and promptly does.
Tex
|
| |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 07:11:07
From: John B.
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
> > >
> > > I would immediately put a means test on Medicare/Medicaid...and
> > > anything "Medi*"
> > >
> > > I would also immediately put a means test on SS payments.
> >
> > You cannot "immediately" means test any of these entitlement programs.
> > Congress would have to change the laws that govern them. If that's
> > politically possible, and I suspect it's not, it would take years.
>
> Anytime I hear "can't", what you really mean is you don't know how to
> do it, or you don't want it done. "can't be done" is a challenge to a
> software engineer :)
You sound like Ross Perot. You think you've got all the answers. And
it's all so simple.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 21:05:41
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1160575867.071740.195580@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>> > >
>> > > I would immediately put a means test on Medicare/Medicaid...and
>> > > anything "Medi*"
>> > >
>> > > I would also immediately put a means test on SS payments.
>> >
>> > You cannot "immediately" means test any of these entitlement programs.
>> > Congress would have to change the laws that govern them. If that's
>> > politically possible, and I suspect it's not, it would take years.
>>
>> Anytime I hear "can't", what you really mean is you don't know how to
>> do it, or you don't want it done. "can't be done" is a challenge to a
>> software engineer :)
>
> You sound like Ross Perot. You think you've got all the answers. And
> it's all so simple.
Ross Perot didn't have all the answers. He did listen to those who knew and
wasn't afraid to say what a lot of them wouldn't, maybe they had a good
reason. Take a look at NAFTA and say Perot was wrong. Take a look at
government officials going over to work for foreign governments. Take a look
at the loss of control over the nation debt. Perot didn't have all of the
answers but I think if I took out one of his books, almost everyone here
wold agree with every single chapter heading.
|
| |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 07:03:34
From: John B.
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Tex wrote:
> AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
> > "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1160428794.587173.258000@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > Dene wrote:
> > >> Tex wrote:
> > >> > Dene wrote:
> > >> > > Tex wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > Fixing the debt is wrong if it rips $200B/year out of the economy.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Use your personal experience to figure that out....run up $100,000
> > >> > > > in
> > >> > > > debt, then go ask your employer for more $$. :)
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > You *have* to cut spending to fix deficits. I'm not defending
> > >> > > > anyone's
> > >> > > > policy, but raising taxes cuts growth, which in turn cuts revenue,
> > >> > > > which in turn raises the debt.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > AMEN!
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > I would immediately stop the Prescription Drug Benefit. We can't
> > >> > > > afford it. Besides, it's a boon to the drug companies.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Boon to Rx companies? Seniors were buying essential medications,
> > >> > > with
> > >> > > or without coverage. Prior, some were getting discounts. Now,
> > >> > > insurance companies are negotiating the discounts. But....another
> > >> > > entitlement has been born.
> > >> >
> > >> > There is nothing in the bill that forces the government to negotiate
> > >> > discounts...which, as a policy is wrong. However, we don't need
> > >> > another entitlement program AND we certainly don't need another every
> > >> > growing arm of Government.
> > >> >
> > >> > > > I would immediately put a means test on Medicare/Medicaid...and
> > >> > > > anything "Medi*"
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > I would also immediately put a means test on SS payments.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Growing entitlements are going to sink us all. Fix it now before
> > >> > > > it's
> > >> > > > too late.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Do all of that and you will almost balance the budget today ($250B
> > >> > > > this
> > >> > > > past year?)
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Next step, immediately pull troops out of all countries but the US.
> > >> > > > It's time we protect ourselves for awhile. That saves at least
> > >> > > > $100B/year.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I would do that in Iraq within 6 months. I think we should stay
> > >> > > longer
> > >> > > in Afghanistan. There, the population has the will to support the
> > >> > > government, but not the means. In Iraq, the will of the populace is
> > >> > > questionable.
> > >> >
> > >> > I could agree with that. But don't announce "when"...just do it.
> > >> >
> > >> > > > We've got lots of desert along the CA/AZ/NM/Texas broder the troops
> > >> > > > can
> > >> > > > play in...and while doing that, they will curb the flow of
> > >> > > > illegals...
> > >> > >
> > >> > > AMEN!
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > Wow, did all that without raising taxes. :)
> > >> > >
> > >> > > How about a flat tax?
> > >> >
> > >> > I'm all for a flat tax...trouble is, it strips away the housing
> > >> > entitlement program :)
> > >> > Which, as a policy is crazy. The government should never use the tax
> > >> > code to encourage/discourage behavior. And a true flat tax solves
> > >> > that.
> > >> >
> > >> > Tex
> > >>
> > >> I'm with Mike. TEX FOR PREZ. Grant drank more than you and he was a
> > >> fine President.
> > >
> > > I'm sure he drinks more than me now since I'm almost drinking
> > > "nothing".
> > >
> > >> What Republican do you read/listen to who inspires your thinking?
> > >> O'Reilly?
> > >
> > > I listen to alot of different views and decide for myself.
> > > Mostly, politicians suck eggs. They say whatever it takes to get
> > > votes.
> > > Which is another good reason for term limits...12 yrs max for Congress.
> > >
> > > Tex
> >
> > I"m not sure about term limits but the line item veto would be nice. It's my
> > understanding that before Nixon's problems, the executive branch had a lot
> > more say in what got funded and what didn't, so there wasn't as much of a
> > need of a line item veto, they just didn't fund the bs, but the executive
> > branch lost a lot of that power because congress grabbed it during Nixon's
> > problems.
>
> > But George Bush only vetoed one bill in his entire presidency, so far...
> > doesn't that say something, to someone? If you don't respond to this Tex,
> > I'll assume you are avoiding it.
>
> When did you stop beating your wife?
>
> Loaded question gain you nothing but a good laugh.
>
> Yes, true, Bush hasn't veteod alot of bills...so what?
> As I've said, time and time again, throw *ALL* of the bums out. None
> of them are worth a shit. They just want to get elected, they just
> want to control TRILLIONS of dollars...and you average citizen doesn't
> have a clue...so they just keep voting the same back in.
>
Throw them out and replace them with who? Is there a big crowd of
idealistic, altruistic people out there waiting to take the place of
the "bums?"
|
| |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 07:00:51
From: John B.
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
the Moderator wrote:
> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1160350827.980044.64220@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > PNAC is a true neo-con organization. Their philosophy is that the US,
> > having "won" the Cold War (we didn't really win the Cold War, it just
> > ended), we have a moral duty to essentially Americanize the rest of the
> > world, by force if necessary. PNAC's charter members were Rrumsfeld,
> > Cheney, Wolfowitz, Doug Feith and others of that ilk. If you think
> > these guys are "good, progressive, responsible," then you're pretty
> > loony.
> >
>
> Wow, we didn't win the cold war. Only a liberal would make such a
> ridiculous statement. A lot of men fought and died to win the cold war.
"Winning" the Cold War means that the United States caused the Soviet
empire to collapse. Can you explain to me how we did that?
|
| | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 14:37:15
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On 11 2006 07:00:51 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>
>"Winning" the Cold War means that the United States caused the Soviet
>empire to collapse. Can you explain to me how we did that?
Not necessarily. There were lots of winners who weren't even active
participants.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 21:40:06
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On 11 2006 07:00:51 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>"Winning" the Cold War means that the United States caused the Soviet
>empire to collapse. Can you explain to me how we did that?
The Soviet Union fell apart and the US is still around. It was a long
struggle that lasted almost 50 years. There was no military victory
for the US so I'd call it a TKO. The Soviet Union failed to answer
the bell.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 09:09:34
From: Tex
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Bobby Knight wrote:
> On 12 2006 08:27:34 -0700, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Bobby Knight wrote:
>
> >> I really don't give a crap about who has power anymore. They're all
> >> fucked up. The thing that I don't understand is why you, Tex, don't
> >> agree that Bush is a bumbling idiot. Hell, as someone who is more
> >> left of center than right, I can agree that Carter was a terrible
> >> president.
> >
> >I really don't understand why you waste energy complaining about
> >something you can't fix.
> >Regardless of what you think of him, Bush is the President. Your
> >complaints about his mistakes, bumblings, or policy isn't going to
> >change that one bit.
> >
> >Posting all the blogs in the world to back up your arguments doesn't do
> >anything either.
> >It's all a waste of time. When you cast your vote, you can affect
> >change.
> >
> >Anything in between is just pissing into the wind.
> >
> >Tex
>
> Of course nothing said here will change anything, but you're right in
> there pissing into the wind with the rest of us.!!
>
> I consider you a smart guy, and although we may disagree on some
> issues, respect your political views. What I don't understand is why
> you can't admit that GWB is an inept, bumbling, nincompoop, and an
> embarrassment as the President of the United States of America. Hell,
> you can remain a staunch conservative and agree with that.
Why do I need to? It changes my life in "no way" and for the life of
me, I can't see how it changes anything else. Other than to perhaps
feed some deep desire of yours to have others agree with your
viewpoint.
When politicians affect my day to day life, then we have a problem.
Until then, it's mostly daytime drama for all you drama queens that are
so hell bent on finding "anything" to point as a "mistake".
> Please don't answer with a reference to other Presidents....that's a
> dodge. There were many other embarrassments...but this one is
> comical.
Please don't assume I'm going to do anything. That's comical.
Tex
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 11:33:00
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On 12 2006 09:09:34 -0700, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:
>Bobby Knight wrote:
>> On 12 2006 08:27:34 -0700, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Bobby Knight wrote:
>> Of course nothing said here will change anything, but you're right in
>> there pissing into the wind with the rest of us.!!
>>
>> I consider you a smart guy, and although we may disagree on some
>> issues, respect your political views. What I don't understand is why
>> you can't admit that GWB is an inept, bumbling, nincompoop, and an
>> embarrassment as the President of the United States of America. Hell,
>> you can remain a staunch conservative and agree with that.
>
>Why do I need to? It changes my life in "no way" and for the life of
>me, I can't see how it changes anything else. Other than to perhaps
>feed some deep desire of yours to have others agree with your
>viewpoint.
>
You don't "need" to, and I don't really care that you agree with my
specific viewpoint. Your posts, when referencing GWB seem to skirt
the issue of his persona and image, and it looks as if you apologize
for him.
>When politicians affect my day to day life, then we have a problem.
You've got to be kidding!!! For one thing, you complain about most
entitlements, and politicians affected that. You can't say that
doesn't affect your day to day life.
>Until then, it's mostly daytime drama for all you drama queens that are
>so hell bent on finding "anything" to point as a "mistake".
That's bullshit and you know it. I resent the implication. Why the
fuck can't you carry on a conversation without stooping to such? The
problem is that you can't stand to have anyone say anything slightly
critical about the right wing, and continually dodge the fact that
your leader is a stupid fuck.
Incidentally, there's nothing dramatic about George Bush's
image...it's all comedic. One doesn't have to be hell bent on
pointing out his daily faux pas. He's an idiot, and you know it, but
you'll keep dodging and spinning that fact.
>
>> Please don't answer with a reference to other Presidents....that's a
>> dodge. There were many other embarrassments...but this one is
>> comical.
>
>Please don't assume I'm going to do anything. That's comical.
>
I didn't assume anything, I just asked that you not use the tired
dodge that both sides use when trying to apologize for their guy.
You might want to check that definition of ideologue. Number two fits
you perfectly.
___,
\o
|
| | | | |
Date: 15 Oct 2006 07:33:39
From: John B.
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
larry wrote:
> On Fri, 13 2006 14:12:15 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
>
> >In article <1160759072.395786.199200@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Fairway" <arminsson@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> John B. wrote:
> >> > > Intelligent but inarticulate people say intelligent things
> >> > inarticulately.
> >>
> >> Not necessarily. Many intelligent people have been clumsy with words.
> >> Niels Bohr, one of the most brilliant scientists of the 20th century
> >> was a notoriously bad speaker. On the other hand, his brother Harald,
> >> also a fine physicist, was a very good speaker. At the University, all
> >> the students flocked to listen to Niels, not Harald, because of his
> >> fame and glory. And, John, another brilliant man - but clumsy with
> >> words - is the present president of the United States. F
> >
> >And who the hell "flocks to listen" to Dubya? Only those neocons still
> >in the "Emperor's new clothes" mode. Besides, Neils Bohr was made famous
> >by what he had written. The comparison ends right there.
>
> Actually Abraham Lincoln was a poor orator-- and very poor
> extemporaneous speaker. So what?
>
> Larry
Wow, Larry, you seem absolutely determined to prove your ignorance.
Well, you can stop now, beecause you've proven it beyond any doubt.
|
| | | | |
Date: 15 Oct 2006 17:23:34
From: John B.
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <0ei2j2hhu41v5qdkjs8pg23rr2t53cegcq@4ax.com>,
> larry <larry@delmardata.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 13 2006 14:12:15 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> > <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >In article <1160759072.395786.199200@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "Fairway" <arminsson@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> John B. wrote:
> > >> > > Intelligent but inarticulate people say intelligent things
> > >> > inarticulately.
> > >>
> > >> Not necessarily. Many intelligent people have been clumsy with words.
> > >> Niels Bohr, one of the most brilliant scientists of the 20th century
> > >> was a notoriously bad speaker. On the other hand, his brother Harald,
> > >> also a fine physicist, was a very good speaker. At the University, all
> > >> the students flocked to listen to Niels, not Harald, because of his
> > >> fame and glory. And, John, another brilliant man - but clumsy with
> > >> words - is the present president of the United States. F
> > >
> > >And who the hell "flocks to listen" to Dubya? Only those neocons still
> > >in the "Emperor's new clothes" mode. Besides, Neils Bohr was made famous
> > >by what he had written. The comparison ends right there.
> >
> > Actually Abraham Lincoln was a poor orator-- and very poor
> > extemporaneous speaker. So what?
> >
> > Larry
>
> But Lincoln could write, and express ideas in a different format.
>
> Dubya and "ideas" do not belong in the same sentence. That's the crucial
> difference.
>
> William Clark
Lincoln was a truly gifted writer, as anyone who's read the Gettysburg
Address or the 2nd Inaugural speech knows.
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 15:14:19
From: Fairway
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
> A good speaker does not indicate moral goodness. Why would you post that?
> Evil genius is a problem.
I never said that - or didn=B4t intend to. A misunderstanding somewhere
- don=B4t know whether it=B4s my fault or your=B4s. Anyway, Asphalt, good
night and have a nice weekend. And congrats with this thread - it=B4s
your baby :) F
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 17:07:20
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Fairway" <arminsson@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1160777659.816958.211740@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
> A good speaker does not indicate moral goodness. Why would you post that?
> Evil genius is a problem.
I never said that - or didnīt intend to. A misunderstanding somewhere
- donīt know whether itīs my fault or yourīs. Anyway, Asphalt, good
night and have a nice weekend. And congrats with this thread - itīs
your baby :) F
Goodnight. And remember whatever it was Michael Caine said to the children
in that movie, "Ciderhouse Rules".
|
| |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 05:46:15
From: Tex
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
> "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
> news:1T3hkh16IlddN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> > AKA Gray Asphalt <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
> > :
> > : "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
> > : news:0T3hje1oIb3hN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> > :> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
> > :>
> > :> : SS is basically an annuity fund. A rip off annuity fund, but an
> > :> : annuity fund nonetheless. Rich or poor, you pay into it and you
> > :> : deserve to get your money back.
> > :>
> > :> No, it's insurance, it was always insurance, it always will
> > :> be insurance. It will never be privatized because privatization
> > :> entails risk, and the entire point of insurance is to mitigate
> > :> risk, not invite it.
> > :>
> > :> Everybody who wants to change SS fails to understand what it
> > :> really is and why.
> > :
> > : I don't care what it was. It should have been an insurance fund and it
> > : should be now.
> >
> > Well, that's exactly what it is. If you get old, you get paid.
> > If you don't, you don't. That's insurance.
> >
> > --
> > Chris Bellomy
> > C-List Charter Member
> > http://clist.org/
>
> If you need the money, you get paid, if you're a millionaire, you shouldn't.
Agreed. It's a "insurance safety net" design to assist those that for
whatever the reason, need support in the retirement years. Those that
don't need the support should have their hand out. Yes, everyone pays
in, but that's Socialism 101...care for those that need it.
Tex
p.s. don't get me wrong, I'm against it on principle, but if we are
going to have it, at least put the means test on it.
|
| |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 15:30:33
From: Dene
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
> I find myself at a loss when seeing sane ideas come out of previously insane
> sources. What do you say when a nut, no offense really, says something
> intelligent. It kind of makes you want to take something to wake up.
Which nut are you referring to? If to me, my response is this....
Thanks!
-Greg
|
| |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 11:45:37
From: Fairway
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
John B. wrote:
> Aren't you the psychopath who said that members of Congress molesting
> teenage boys was a minor issue? Only a faggot would say that. J
Silly retorts will bring you nowhere. Foley didn=B4t molest anyone. From
what I=B4ve read he didn=B4t do anything illegal - immoral, yes, but not
illegal. F
|
| | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 20:45:43
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Fairway" <arminsson@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1160592337.736037.218900@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
John B. wrote:
> Aren't you the psychopath who said that members of Congress molesting
> teenage boys was a minor issue? Only a faggot would say that. J
Silly retorts will bring you nowhere. Foley didnīt molest anyone. From
what Iīve read he didnīt do anything illegal - immoral, yes, but not
illegal. F
What is your point? We aren't trying Foley in a court of law. If the laws
are stupid that doesn't make Foley any less guilty. Actually, I think Foley
is just fucked up. And I don't think he can help himself. Have you ever
watched that program on tv where they catch the online child predators? One
guy got caught and arrested, I think, yeah he had to have been arrested
because they arrest all of them, and he did the same thing the next day. He
even used the same name online. I think the guy is psycho or something else
that psychology doesn't understand. Like people getting off on sheep or
screwing hand bags ... we just do not understand it and they don't either.
Now, Hasstert is another story. Does anyone really think he didn't cover
this up?
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 07:34:21
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
> Now, Hasstert is another story. Does anyone really think he didn't cover
> this up?
What about Sen. Reid's recently detailed real estate windfall. It
appears that ethical and legal problems are on his plate. Let's talk
about his problems for a little while.
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 21:07:20
From: tiggerspalewife
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
In article
Moot point. He hasn't owned the property for 3 years.
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 13:25:00
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
OK. I haven't heard anything about this.
"Bert Robbins" <screw@you.com > wrote in message
news:K6Gdna0JsvyjtbPYnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d@comcast.com...
> AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
>> Now, Hasstert is another story. Does anyone really think he didn't cover
>> this up?
>
> What about Sen. Reid's recently detailed real estate windfall. It appears
> that ethical and legal problems are on his plate. Let's talk about his
> problems for a little while.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 21:22:22
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
It's a story that noted AP hack John Solomon got wrong on
several accounts.
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001782.php
Much of the media is as corrupt as the current government. :(
cb
AKA Gray Asphalt <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote:
:
: OK. I haven't heard anything about this.
:
: "Bert Robbins" <screw@you.com > wrote in message
: news:K6Gdna0JsvyjtbPYnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d@comcast.com...
: > AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
: >> Now, Hasstert is another story. Does anyone really think he didn't cover
: >> this up?
: >
: > What about Sen. Reid's recently detailed real estate windfall. It appears
: > that ethical and legal problems are on his plate. Let's talk about his
: > problems for a little while.
:
:
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 16:35:16
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:1T3hp0h8IlkkN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> It's a story that noted AP hack John Solomon got wrong on
> several accounts.
>
> http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001782.php
>
> Much of the media is as corrupt as the current government. :(
>
> cb
>
And biased.
TPMmuckraker.com is published by TPM Media LLC (publisher of Talking Points
Memo and TPMCafe). It is funded by paid advertisements and contributions
from readers.
<one of their "approved sites" is DailyKos, lol >
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 21:57:15
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
MnMikew <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote:
:
: "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
: news:1T3hp0h8IlkkN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
: > It's a story that noted AP hack John Solomon got wrong on
: > several accounts.
: >
: > http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001782.php
: >
: > Much of the media is as corrupt as the current government. :(
:
: And biased.
:
: TPMmuckraker.com is published by TPM Media LLC (publisher of Talking Points
: Memo and TPMCafe). It is funded by paid advertisements and contributions
: from readers.
: <one of their "approved sites" is DailyKos, lol >
I know you hold regular people in contempt, Mike, but you probably
shouldn't be so blatant about it.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 11:40:22
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:1T3hp2klIm94N34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> MnMikew <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote:
> :
> : "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
> : news:1T3hp0h8IlkkN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> :> It's a story that noted AP hack John Solomon got wrong on
> :> several accounts.
> :>
> :> http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001782.php
> :>
> :> Much of the media is as corrupt as the current government. :(
> :
> : And biased.
> :
> : TPMmuckraker.com is published by TPM Media LLC (publisher of Talking
> Points
> : Memo and TPMCafe). It is funded by paid advertisements and contributions
> : from readers.
> : <one of their "approved sites" is DailyKos, lol>
>
> I know you hold regular people in contempt, Mike, but you probably
> shouldn't be so blatant about it.
>
Regular people?
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Oct 2006 04:13:25
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On 16--2006, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote:
> > : TPMmuckraker.com is published by TPM Media LLC (publisher of Talking
> > Points
> > : Memo and TPMCafe). It is funded by paid advertisements and
> > contributions
> > : from readers.
> > : <one of their "approved sites" is DailyKos, lol>
> >
> > I know you hold regular people in contempt, Mike, but you probably
> > shouldn't be so blatant about it.
> >
> Regular people?
Yeah, you know, people that have a BM every day!
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 15:41:56
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote in message
news:GExXg.3318$v43.1345@fed1read02...
>
> OK. I haven't heard anything about this.
>
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061011/D8KMO6NG0.html
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 14:01:59
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote in message
news:4p7nkkFhl1ssU1@individual.net...
>
> "AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message
> news:GExXg.3318$v43.1345@fed1read02...
>>
>> OK. I haven't heard anything about this.
>>
> http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061011/D8KMO6NG0.html
A little technical for me and I think, the general public. If Hillary can
buy futures from a crook and make a bunch and then just stop because she
said what .. it was too stressful ... and the America public can swallow
that (no pun intended), then Reid's deal will go unnoticed. I'd still like
to see a point by point response to Michael Moor's movie. It wasn't all bs.
That was kind of obvious.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 16:19:43
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote in message
news:lbyXg.3327$v43.3116@fed1read02...
>
> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:4p7nkkFhl1ssU1@individual.net...
>>
>> "AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message
>> news:GExXg.3318$v43.1345@fed1read02...
>>>
>>> OK. I haven't heard anything about this.
>>>
>> http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061011/D8KMO6NG0.html
>
> A little technical for me and I think, the general public. If Hillary can
> buy futures from a crook and make a bunch and then just stop because she
> said what .. it was too stressful ... and the America public can swallow
> that (no pun intended), then Reid's deal will go unnoticed. I'd still like
> to see a point by point response to Michael Moor's movie. It wasn't all
> bs. That was kind of obvious.
>
Do a google of Michael Moore lies, have fun. The Reid thing is probably a
non-issue, or he forgot some form or another. Of course if it was a Repub it
would be a major scandal.
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 16:01:38
From: Tex
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Bobby Knight wrote:
> On 12 2006 11:19:13 -0700, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
> >And why do you have to immediately go over the edge and say FUCK when
> >someone doesn't agree with you? You are a drama queen Bobby...you
> >always have been.
>
> Bullshit called again. For instance, I have no problem with any of
> the conservatives on this ng, except for Larrrry, and for some reason,
> you. Larrrry because he's just blind to reason. I still can't figure
> you out. I know that you're bright.
>
> > Tell us again about all the trouble you have when you fly....it's funny. But it's "drama" and you love to bitch and moan
> >about it. You also LOVE to bitch and moan about Bush....and yet, he's>still President, and you are still moaning.
>
> You have the wrong person. What trouble when I fly???
> What moaning? Those are catch words that you use when you can't think
> of anything else...which is getting to be more often.
Really? Hmmm, shall I send the Google expert out to find your quotes?
Start with why you drove to RSG-WI....
What normal brained individual drives 1000+ miles (each way) rather
than fly?
> You know nothing about his intelligence? Have you never seen one of
> his press conferences? Anyone with common sense can see that he isn't
> very bright. Can you see that?
I see, so to you, the ability to speak in public is a sign of
intelligence?
You are on a roll today Bobby...maybe the Dems will give you a Cabinet
position.
Or maybe Soros will throw some money your way.
Whatever it is, you are determined.
Tex
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 20:31:28
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1160694098.714391.302130@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Bobby Knight wrote:
>> On 12 2006 11:19:13 -0700, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >And why do you have to immediately go over the edge and say FUCK when
>> >someone doesn't agree with you? You are a drama queen Bobby...you
>> >always have been.
>>
>> Bullshit called again. For instance, I have no problem with any of
>> the conservatives on this ng, except for Larrrry, and for some reason,
>> you. Larrrry because he's just blind to reason. I still can't figure
>> you out. I know that you're bright.
>>
>> > Tell us again about all the trouble you have when you fly....it's
>> > funny. But it's "drama" and you love to bitch and moan
>> >about it. You also LOVE to bitch and moan about Bush....and yet,
>> >he's>still President, and you are still moaning.
>>
>> You have the wrong person. What trouble when I fly???
>> What moaning? Those are catch words that you use when you can't think
>> of anything else...which is getting to be more often.
>
> Really? Hmmm, shall I send the Google expert out to find your quotes?
> Start with why you drove to RSG-WI....
> What normal brained individual drives 1000+ miles (each way) rather
> than fly?
>
>> You know nothing about his intelligence? Have you never seen one of
>> his press conferences? Anyone with common sense can see that he isn't
>> very bright. Can you see that?
>
> I see, so to you, the ability to speak in public is a sign of
> intelligence?
>
> You are on a roll today Bobby...maybe the Dems will give you a Cabinet
> position.
> Or maybe Soros will throw some money your way.
> Whatever it is, you are determined.
>
> Tex
John Daly doesn't fly, does he? Bush does though, but not for the national
guard.
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 18:35:35
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On 12 2006 16:01:38 -0700, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:
>
>Bobby Knight wrote:
>> You have the wrong person. What trouble when I fly???
>> What moaning? Those are catch words that you use when you can't think
>> of anything else...which is getting to be more often.
>
>Really? Hmmm, shall I send the Google expert out to find your quotes?
>Start with why you drove to RSG-WI....
>What normal brained individual drives 1000+ miles (each way) rather
>than fly?
>
I drove because I had nothing but time...retired you know. Plus not
having to deal with screwing with baggage and clubs, leaving my car at
the airport, renting one in Milwaukee, then screwing with baggage and
clubs on the return flight. Fuel and one extra night each way in a
motel was still less $$ than the flight. And I have a great car to
drive. That's normal brained in my book...but then if I drove a
Hummer it never would've entered my mind.
I'd do it again in a heartbeat.
>> You know nothing about his intelligence? Have you never seen one of
>> his press conferences? Anyone with common sense can see that he isn't
>> very bright. Can you see that?
>
>I see, so to you, the ability to speak in public is a sign of
>intelligence?
>
You're really something else. Speak in public? He is the butt of
every comedian's jokes because he is an idiot every time he opens his
mouth. Being able to talk, if one isn't mute, is a definite sign of
being bright.
>You are on a roll today Bobby...maybe the Dems will give you a Cabinet
>position. Or maybe Soros will throw some money your way.
>Whatever it is, you are determined.
t
I'm determined to vote for someone that will be capable of leading
this country. At this time, that happens to be a republican,
(something you wouldn't understand; voting for a person and not a
strict party line) so I won't get an appointment. .
As far as Soros, I applaud him for his realization of Bush's failure,
but don't want his money.
BK
|
| | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 16:55:17
From: larry
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On Thu, 12 2006 18:35:35 -0500, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net >
wrote:
>On 12 2006 16:01:38 -0700, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Bobby Knight wrote:
>
>>> You have the wrong person. What trouble when I fly???
>>> What moaning? Those are catch words that you use when you can't think
>>> of anything else...which is getting to be more often.
>>
>>Really? Hmmm, shall I send the Google expert out to find your quotes?
>>Start with why you drove to RSG-WI....
>>What normal brained individual drives 1000+ miles (each way) rather
>>than fly?
>>
>I drove because I had nothing but time...retired you know. Plus not
>having to deal with screwing with baggage and clubs, leaving my car at
>the airport, renting one in Milwaukee, then screwing with baggage and
>clubs on the return flight. Fuel and one extra night each way in a
>motel was still less $$ than the flight. And I have a great car to
>drive. That's normal brained in my book...but then if I drove a
>Hummer it never would've entered my mind.
>
>I'd do it again in a heartbeat.
>
>>> You know nothing about his intelligence? Have you never seen one of
>>> his press conferences? Anyone with common sense can see that he isn't
>>> very bright. Can you see that?
>>
>>I see, so to you, the ability to speak in public is a sign of
>>intelligence?
>>
>You're really something else. Speak in public? He is the butt of
>every comedian's jokes because he is an idiot every time he opens his
>mouth. Being able to talk, if one isn't mute, is a definite sign of
>being bright.
>
>>You are on a roll today Bobby...maybe the Dems will give you a Cabinet
>>position. Or maybe Soros will throw some money your way.
>>Whatever it is, you are determined.
>t
>I'm determined to vote for someone that will be capable of leading
>this country. At this time, that happens to be a republican,
>(something you wouldn't understand; voting for a person and not a
>strict party line) so I won't get an appointment. .
>
>As far as Soros, I applaud him for his realization of Bush's failure,
>but don't want his money.
>
>BK
Doesn't it make you laugh? An almost total failure in life
criticizing a guy who worked the oil fields with his hands, got a Yale
and Harvard MBA education, became a jet pilot, then a multimillionaire
baseball team owner, then governor of Texas, then reelected with the
highest plurality in Texas history (he did a great job and they liked
him!!). and then became president of the US, then reelected. As
president, instead of coasting like the moron he replaced, he took on
the most difficult problems of any president since Lincoln, like
Lincoln was hated as a result-- but history will recognize his courage
and persistence. GW Bush will have made a difference.
You are criticizing someone you would need to stand on a stool to kiss
his ass.....you are a midget talking about a giant.
Larry
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 20:33:41
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"larry" <larry@delmardata.com > wrote in message
news:n5lti2pidticrcriff19t90q06dstnq3tc@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 12 2006 18:35:35 -0500, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
> wrote:
>
>>On 12 2006 16:01:38 -0700, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Bobby Knight wrote:
>>
>>>> You have the wrong person. What trouble when I fly???
>>>> What moaning? Those are catch words that you use when you can't think
>>>> of anything else...which is getting to be more often.
>>>
>>>Really? Hmmm, shall I send the Google expert out to find your quotes?
>>>Start with why you drove to RSG-WI....
>>>What normal brained individual drives 1000+ miles (each way) rather
>>>than fly?
>>>
>>I drove because I had nothing but time...retired you know. Plus not
>>having to deal with screwing with baggage and clubs, leaving my car at
>>the airport, renting one in Milwaukee, then screwing with baggage and
>>clubs on the return flight. Fuel and one extra night each way in a
>>motel was still less $$ than the flight. And I have a great car to
>>drive. That's normal brained in my book...but then if I drove a
>>Hummer it never would've entered my mind.
>>
>>I'd do it again in a heartbeat.
>>
>>>> You know nothing about his intelligence? Have you never seen one of
>>>> his press conferences? Anyone with common sense can see that he isn't
>>>> very bright. Can you see that?
>>>
>>>I see, so to you, the ability to speak in public is a sign of
>>>intelligence?
>>>
>>You're really something else. Speak in public? He is the butt of
>>every comedian's jokes because he is an idiot every time he opens his
>>mouth. Being able to talk, if one isn't mute, is a definite sign of
>>being bright.
>>
>>>You are on a roll today Bobby...maybe the Dems will give you a Cabinet
>>>position. Or maybe Soros will throw some money your way.
>>>Whatever it is, you are determined.
>>t
>>I'm determined to vote for someone that will be capable of leading
>>this country. At this time, that happens to be a republican,
>>(something you wouldn't understand; voting for a person and not a
>>strict party line) so I won't get an appointment. .
>>
>>As far as Soros, I applaud him for his realization of Bush's failure,
>>but don't want his money.
>>
>>BK
>
> Doesn't it make you laugh? An almost total failure in life
> criticizing a guy who worked the oil fields with his hands, got a Yale
> and Harvard MBA education, became a jet pilot, then a multimillionaire
> baseball team owner, then governor of Texas, then reelected with the
> highest plurality in Texas history (he did a great job and they liked
> him!!). and then became president of the US, then reelected. As
> president, instead of coasting like the moron he replaced, he took on
> the most difficult problems of any president since Lincoln, like
> Lincoln was hated as a result-- but history will recognize his courage
> and persistence. GW Bush will have made a difference.
>
> You are criticizing someone you would need to stand on a stool to kiss
> his ass.....you are a midget talking about a giant.
>
> Larry
Sir, you should write captions for the models in a wax museum. There are
some interesting characters in history who need a good PR man.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 19:16:50
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On Thu, 12 2006 16:55:17 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:
=
>Doesn't it make you laugh? An almost total failure in life
>criticizing a guy who worked the oil fields with his hands, got a Yale
>and Harvard MBA education, became a jet pilot, then a multimillionaire
>baseball team owner, then governor of Texas, then reelected with the
>highest plurality in Texas history (he did a great job and they liked
>him!!). and then became president of the US, then reelected. As
>president, instead of coasting like the moron he replaced, he took on
>the most difficult problems of any president since Lincoln, like
>Lincoln was hated as a result-- but history will recognize his courage
>and persistence. GW Bush will have made a difference.
>
>You are criticizing someone you would need to stand on a stool to kiss
>his ass.....you are a midget talking about a giant.
>
>Larry
I thought you never read my posts, LLLLLarry.
You have no idea whether or not I'm a success, or failure, a genius or
a dolt. What you do have is a zero thought for yourself. You're a
follower, and have picked a real doozie. He never worked for
anything, coming from a patrician Massachusetts family, and given
everything. You fall for that image building bullshit that all
politicians, and movie stars pay big bucks for.
I live in Texas, and have actually met Dubya. He was as dumb looking
and blanked faced then as he is now. There is nothing outstanding
about him at all. His tenure here as governor is not even remembered,
because he did the same thing here as in Washington...as little as
possible. Those that surround him now do all of the thinking...and
with Rumsfeld and Cheney, he (and the nation) is in deep crap. He's
making a difference all right, and it's ugly.
If that's what you want to set as an example, be my guest.
Mentioning his name in the ranks of Lincoln show how imbecilic you
are..but we all knew that anyway.
I on't want to steal your dream...so you can borrow the stool for a
mini-midget to midget ass kissing.
BK
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 20:36:27
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:dnlti2lkmjtpks4d7lvvfq4qn4dg1f9gd2@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 12 2006 16:55:17 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com>
> wrote:
>
> =
>>Doesn't it make you laugh? An almost total failure in life
>>criticizing a guy who worked the oil fields with his hands, got a Yale
>>and Harvard MBA education, became a jet pilot, then a multimillionaire
>>baseball team owner, then governor of Texas, then reelected with the
>>highest plurality in Texas history (he did a great job and they liked
>>him!!). and then became president of the US, then reelected. As
>>president, instead of coasting like the moron he replaced, he took on
>>the most difficult problems of any president since Lincoln, like
>>Lincoln was hated as a result-- but history will recognize his courage
>>and persistence. GW Bush will have made a difference.
>>
>>You are criticizing someone you would need to stand on a stool to kiss
>>his ass.....you are a midget talking about a giant.
>>
>>Larry
>
> I thought you never read my posts, LLLLLarry.
>
> You have no idea whether or not I'm a success, or failure, a genius or
> a dolt. What you do have is a zero thought for yourself. You're a
> follower, and have picked a real doozie. He never worked for
> anything, coming from a patrician Massachusetts family, and given
> everything. You fall for that image building bullshit that all
> politicians, and movie stars pay big bucks for.
>
> I live in Texas, and have actually met Dubya. He was as dumb looking
> and blanked faced then as he is now. There is nothing outstanding
> about him at all. His tenure here as governor is not even remembered,
> because he did the same thing here as in Washington...as little as
> possible. Those that surround him now do all of the thinking...and
> with Rumsfeld and Cheney, he (and the nation) is in deep crap. He's
> making a difference all right, and it's ugly.
>
> If that's what you want to set as an example, be my guest.
>
> Mentioning his name in the ranks of Lincoln show how imbecilic you
> are..but we all knew that anyway.
>
> I on't want to steal your dream...so you can borrow the stool for a
> mini-midget to midget ass kissing.
>
> BK
I'm curious BK, what you think of Ross Perot. He gave Bush a half-hearted
endorsement, saying that Bush did well on education issues in Texas. That
was all Perot said, afaik. It seemed like 'damned by faint praise' but maybe
it helped Bush.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 11:43:38
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:htiti2tj4o60oh7i7c75cqt78fne7b19vv@4ax.com...
>>
> I drove because I had nothing but time...retired you know. Plus not
> having to deal with screwing with baggage and clubs, leaving my car at
> the airport, renting one in Milwaukee, then screwing with baggage and
> clubs on the return flight. Fuel and one extra night each way in a
> motel was still less $$ than the flight. And I have a great car to
> drive. That's normal brained in my book...but then if I drove a
> Hummer it never would've entered my mind.
>
> I'd do it again in a heartbeat.
Don't blame you, Flying is a PITA nowadays.
>
>>> You know nothing about his intelligence? Have you never seen one of
>>> his press conferences? Anyone with common sense can see that he isn't
>>> very bright. Can you see that?
>>
>>I see, so to you, the ability to speak in public is a sign of
>>intelligence?
>>
> You're really something else. Speak in public? He is the butt of
> every comedian's jokes because he is an idiot every time he opens his
> mouth. Being able to talk, if one isn't mute, is a definite sign of
> being bright.
There were plenty of jokes flying about Kerry as well when he was running.
>
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 15:15:21
From: Fairway
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> > >
> > I was thinking about Syria and Egypt - unfortunately Lebanon can hardly
> > be mentioned in this context. There is a fragile democracy in Iraq and
> > Afghanistan too. F
>
> Egypt possibly, but Syria? What makes you think that?
>
They withdrew their army from Lebanon. Would they have done that a few
years ago? I think there is some democratic process underway, but since
I=B4m no expert - and in fact not particularly interested in Middle East
politics - I only know what I read in the papers and watch on TV.
Perhaps you are better informed than I am, but such was my general
impression. F
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 17:19:11
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
In article <1160691321.797980.197400@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com >,
"Fairway" <arminsson@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> > > >
> > > I was thinking about Syria and Egypt - unfortunately Lebanon can hardly
> > > be mentioned in this context. There is a fragile democracy in Iraq and
> > > Afghanistan too. F
> >
> > Egypt possibly, but Syria? What makes you think that?
> >
> They withdrew their army from Lebanon. Would they have done that a few
> years ago? I think there is some democratic process underway, but since
> Iīm no expert - and in fact not particularly interested in Middle East
> politics - I only know what I read in the papers and watch on TV.
> Perhaps you are better informed than I am, but such was my general
> impression. F
No they wouldn't have, but that isn't democracy, it is moderating their
stance a bit.
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 14:44:34
From: Fairway
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> Where is democracy growing in the middle east? Certainly not Iraq and
> Afghanistan. Baghdad is in shambles and the 3 groups are involved in
> horrible infighting. And in Afghanistan, only in Kabul is there any
> semblance of government by anyone other than the war lords.
>
I was thinking about Syria and Egypt - unfortunately Lebanon can hardly
be mentioned in this context. There is a fragile democracy in Iraq and
Afghanistan too. F
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 16:49:59
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
In article <1160689474.316726.81900@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >,
"Fairway" <arminsson@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> > Where is democracy growing in the middle east? Certainly not Iraq and
> > Afghanistan. Baghdad is in shambles and the 3 groups are involved in
> > horrible infighting. And in Afghanistan, only in Kabul is there any
> > semblance of government by anyone other than the war lords.
> >
> I was thinking about Syria and Egypt - unfortunately Lebanon can hardly
> be mentioned in this context. There is a fragile democracy in Iraq and
> Afghanistan too. F
Egypt possibly, but Syria? What makes you think that?
And to call what is in Iraq and Afghanistan 'fragile democracy' is quite
a stretch.
In Afghanistan, I would call it more back to what it was. Taliban
rising, everything else falling.
And Iraq is just a mess. As much as the Muslims of various sects hate
us, they hate each other. Someone forgot about that when we marched in.
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 14:06:58
From: Tex
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:4p7mmkFh50sqU1@individual.net...
> >
> > "Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
> > news:4m5ti2l6r46qpb5juqe0h0b36cdjjooujg@4ax.com...
> >>>
> >> You know nothing about his intelligence? Have you never seen one of
> >> his press conferences? Anyone with common sense can see that he isn't
> >> very bright. Can you see that?
> >>>
> > Just because he isnt the greatest public speaker dosent make him stupid.
>
> What do you think would happen if Bush was given a geography test? Or a
> history test? Or political science? And how do you think it would stack up
> against Clinton ... either Clinton.
Let's ask Bill how many of his sexual encounters he can remember.
I'll bet he plays dumb :)
Tex
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 14:07:07
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1160687218.663189.223230@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
>> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:4p7mmkFh50sqU1@individual.net...
>> >
>> > "Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>> > news:4m5ti2l6r46qpb5juqe0h0b36cdjjooujg@4ax.com...
>> >>>
>> >> You know nothing about his intelligence? Have you never seen one of
>> >> his press conferences? Anyone with common sense can see that he isn't
>> >> very bright. Can you see that?
>> >>>
>> > Just because he isnt the greatest public speaker dosent make him
>> > stupid.
>>
>> What do you think would happen if Bush was given a geography test? Or a
>> history test? Or political science? And how do you think it would stack
>> up
>> against Clinton ... either Clinton.
>
> Let's ask Bill how many of his sexual encounters he can remember.
> I'll bet he plays dumb :)
>
> Tex
The guy is a pig, but if you lined up the liberals and conservatives ...
lined them up and filled them with truth serum, there would be more fooling
around by the dems but more murders covering it up by the Rs.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 16:22:49
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote in message
news:8gyXg.3329$v43.2553@fed1read02...
>
> "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1160687218.663189.223230@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
>>> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4p7mmkFh50sqU1@individual.net...
>>> >
>>> > "Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>>> > news:4m5ti2l6r46qpb5juqe0h0b36cdjjooujg@4ax.com...
>>> >>>
>>> >> You know nothing about his intelligence? Have you never seen one of
>>> >> his press conferences? Anyone with common sense can see that he
>>> >> isn't
>>> >> very bright. Can you see that?
>>> >>>
>>> > Just because he isnt the greatest public speaker dosent make him
>>> > stupid.
>>>
>>> What do you think would happen if Bush was given a geography test? Or a
>>> history test? Or political science? And how do you think it would stack
>>> up
>>> against Clinton ... either Clinton.
>>
>> Let's ask Bill how many of his sexual encounters he can remember.
>> I'll bet he plays dumb :)
>>
>> Tex
>
> The guy is a pig, but if you lined up the liberals and conservatives ...
> lined them up and filled them with truth serum, there would be more
> fooling around by the dems but more murders covering it up by the Rs.
>
Vince Foster is on line 1.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 20:28:12
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote in message
news:4p7q19Fhne17U1@individual.net...
>
> "AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message
> news:8gyXg.3329$v43.2553@fed1read02...
>>
>> "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1160687218.663189.223230@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
>>>> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:4p7mmkFh50sqU1@individual.net...
>>>> >
>>>> > "Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>>>> > news:4m5ti2l6r46qpb5juqe0h0b36cdjjooujg@4ax.com...
>>>> >>>
>>>> >> You know nothing about his intelligence? Have you never seen one of
>>>> >> his press conferences? Anyone with common sense can see that he
>>>> >> isn't
>>>> >> very bright. Can you see that?
>>>> >>>
>>>> > Just because he isnt the greatest public speaker dosent make him
>>>> > stupid.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think would happen if Bush was given a geography test? Or a
>>>> history test? Or political science? And how do you think it would stack
>>>> up
>>>> against Clinton ... either Clinton.
>>>
>>> Let's ask Bill how many of his sexual encounters he can remember.
>>> I'll bet he plays dumb :)
>>>
>>> Tex
>>
>> The guy is a pig, but if you lined up the liberals and conservatives ...
>> lined them up and filled them with truth serum, there would be more
>> fooling around by the dems but more murders covering it up by the Rs.
>>
> Vince Foster is on line 1.
I don't believe that Vince Foster was murdered and if he was it was by
Republicans (forgive us President Lincoln) who knew it might be blamed on
Billary. Maybe they did kill Foster but I can't imagine that because that
would mean that there is even less reason for any hope of our government
ever being what it should be. And I don't really blame the Republicans, but
it is just as feasible to me that they might have, if Foster really was
murdered. God rest his soul, please.
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 13:31:42
From: John B.
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Fairway wrote:
> Bobby Knight wrote:
> > You know nothing about his intelligence? Have you never seen one of
> > his press conferences? Anyone with common sense can see that he isn't
> > very bright. Can you see that?
> > >
> I think you are overestimating eloquence. George W. Bush is a very
> intelligent man and an achiever of the highest degree, but he is not
> eloquent. The French, for instance, would never elect a man so clumsy
> with words. I watched his verbal contests with Kerry before the
> election - Kerry was very eloquent but he was not convincing; Bush was
> the opposite. Anyway, look at the bright side, whether you like him or
> not: there has been no terrorist activity in the USA since 9/11, the
> USA has invaded two hostile countries with admirable success, democracy
> is growing in the Middle East. Be proud of your man, Bobby! F
Admirable success? Democracy growing in the Middle East? You cannot be
serious. PLEASE tell me you're joking.
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 10:40:18
From: Alan Murphy
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1160685101.975605.122190@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Fairway wrote:
>> Bobby Knight wrote:
>> > You know nothing about his intelligence? Have you never seen one of
>> > his press conferences? Anyone with common sense can see that he isn't
>> > very bright. Can you see that?
>> > >
>> I think you are overestimating eloquence. George W. Bush is a very
>> intelligent man and an achiever of the highest degree, but he is not
>> eloquent. The French, for instance, would never elect a man so clumsy
>> with words. I watched his verbal contests with Kerry before the
>> election - Kerry was very eloquent but he was not convincing; Bush was
>> the opposite. Anyway, look at the bright side, whether you like him or
>> not: there has been no terrorist activity in the USA since 9/11, the
>> USA has invaded two hostile countries with admirable success, democracy
>> is growing in the Middle East. Be proud of your man, Bobby! F
>
> Admirable success? Democracy growing in the Middle East? You cannot be
> serious. PLEASE tell me you're joking.
Draw his attention to the Lancet/John Hopkin's
report, out this week, which states that 600,000
Iraqis have been killed in this conflict so far.
Some way of spreading democracy.
Alan
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 02:54:29
From: jeffc
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1160685101.975605.122190@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> I think you are overestimating eloquence. George W. Bush is a very
>> intelligent man and an achiever of the highest degree
Bwahahahahahaha. Please stop my abs are killin! W is a failure at almost
everything he's done. Everything that he has "accomplished" was in fact
accomplished by someone else. He's a clod in a nice suit that was picked
out by someone else.
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 13:08:32
From: Fairway
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Bobby Knight wrote:
> You know nothing about his intelligence? Have you never seen one of
> his press conferences? Anyone with common sense can see that he isn't
> very bright. Can you see that?
> >
I think you are overestimating eloquence. George W. Bush is a very
intelligent man and an achiever of the highest degree, but he is not
eloquent. The French, for instance, would never elect a man so clumsy
with words. I watched his verbal contests with Kerry before the
election - Kerry was very eloquent but he was not convincing; Bush was
the opposite. Anyway, look at the bright side, whether you like him or
not: there has been no terrorist activity in the USA since 9/11, the
USA has invaded two hostile countries with admirable success, democracy
is growing in the Middle East. Be proud of your man, Bobby! F
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 16:21:12
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
In article <1160683712.038383.122290@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >,
"Fairway" <arminsson@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Bobby Knight wrote:
> > You know nothing about his intelligence? Have you never seen one of
> > his press conferences? Anyone with common sense can see that he isn't
> > very bright. Can you see that?
> > >
> I think you are overestimating eloquence. George W. Bush is a very
> intelligent man and an achiever of the highest degree, but he is not
> eloquent. The French, for instance, would never elect a man so clumsy
> with words. I watched his verbal contests with Kerry before the
> election - Kerry was very eloquent but he was not convincing; Bush was
> the opposite. Anyway, look at the bright side, whether you like him or
> not: there has been no terrorist activity in the USA since 9/11, the
> USA has invaded two hostile countries with admirable success, democracy
> is growing in the Middle East. Be proud of your man, Bobby! F
Whatever you are smoking, I want some!
Where is democracy growing in the middle east? Certainly not Iraq and
Afghanistan. Baghdad is in shambles and the 3 groups are involved in
horrible infighting. And in Afghanistan, only in Kabul is there any
semblance of government by anyone other than the war lords.
And if you look at Bush's history, it is amazing that he could get as
far as he did. Failed in business, military and sports; and yet, gets
elected to President.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 16:26:18
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote in message
news:lloydparsons-C9CA93.16211212102006@individual.net...
> In article <1160683712.038383.122290@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> "Fairway" <arminsson@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Bobby Knight wrote:
>> > You know nothing about his intelligence? Have you never seen one of
>> > his press conferences? Anyone with common sense can see that he isn't
>> > very bright. Can you see that?
>> > >
>> I think you are overestimating eloquence. George W. Bush is a very
>> intelligent man and an achiever of the highest degree, but he is not
>> eloquent. The French, for instance, would never elect a man so clumsy
>> with words. I watched his verbal contests with Kerry before the
>> election - Kerry was very eloquent but he was not convincing; Bush was
>> the opposite. Anyway, look at the bright side, whether you like him or
>> not: there has been no terrorist activity in the USA since 9/11, the
>> USA has invaded two hostile countries with admirable success, democracy
>> is growing in the Middle East. Be proud of your man, Bobby! F
>
> Whatever you are smoking, I want some!
>
> Where is democracy growing in the middle east? Certainly not Iraq and
> Afghanistan. Baghdad is in shambles and the 3 groups are involved in
> horrible infighting. And in Afghanistan, only in Kabul is there any
> semblance of government by anyone other than the war lords.
>
> And if you look at Bush's history, it is amazing that he could get as
> far as he did. Failed in business, military and sports; and yet, gets
> elected to President.
You're just jealous.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 16:44:23
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
In article <4p7q7qFhatudU1@individual.net >,
"MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote:
> "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:lloydparsons-C9CA93.16211212102006@individual.net...
> > In article <1160683712.038383.122290@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Fairway" <arminsson@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Bobby Knight wrote:
> >> > You know nothing about his intelligence? Have you never seen one of
> >> > his press conferences? Anyone with common sense can see that he isn't
> >> > very bright. Can you see that?
> >> > >
> >> I think you are overestimating eloquence. George W. Bush is a very
> >> intelligent man and an achiever of the highest degree, but he is not
> >> eloquent. The French, for instance, would never elect a man so clumsy
> >> with words. I watched his verbal contests with Kerry before the
> >> election - Kerry was very eloquent but he was not convincing; Bush was
> >> the opposite. Anyway, look at the bright side, whether you like him or
> >> not: there has been no terrorist activity in the USA since 9/11, the
> >> USA has invaded two hostile countries with admirable success, democracy
> >> is growing in the Middle East. Be proud of your man, Bobby! F
> >
> > Whatever you are smoking, I want some!
> >
> > Where is democracy growing in the middle east? Certainly not Iraq and
> > Afghanistan. Baghdad is in shambles and the 3 groups are involved in
> > horrible infighting. And in Afghanistan, only in Kabul is there any
> > semblance of government by anyone other than the war lords.
> >
> > And if you look at Bush's history, it is amazing that he could get as
> > far as he did. Failed in business, military and sports; and yet, gets
> > elected to President.
>
> You're just jealous.
Of what?
Bush is still working and calls cutting brush a vacation.
I play golf every day and don't take vacations at all...
So who's got it worse? ;-)
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 11:36:47
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote in message
news:lloydparsons-AF9925.16442312102006@individual.net...
> In article <4p7q7qFhatudU1@individual.net>,
> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote in message
>> news:lloydparsons-C9CA93.16211212102006@individual.net...
>> > In article <1160683712.038383.122290@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>> > "Fairway" <arminsson@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Bobby Knight wrote:
>> >> > You know nothing about his intelligence? Have you never seen one of
>> >> > his press conferences? Anyone with common sense can see that he
>> >> > isn't
>> >> > very bright. Can you see that?
>> >> > >
>> >> I think you are overestimating eloquence. George W. Bush is a very
>> >> intelligent man and an achiever of the highest degree, but he is not
>> >> eloquent. The French, for instance, would never elect a man so clumsy
>> >> with words. I watched his verbal contests with Kerry before the
>> >> election - Kerry was very eloquent but he was not convincing; Bush was
>> >> the opposite. Anyway, look at the bright side, whether you like him or
>> >> not: there has been no terrorist activity in the USA since 9/11, the
>> >> USA has invaded two hostile countries with admirable success,
>> >> democracy
>> >> is growing in the Middle East. Be proud of your man, Bobby! F
>> >
>> > Whatever you are smoking, I want some!
>> >
>> > Where is democracy growing in the middle east? Certainly not Iraq and
>> > Afghanistan. Baghdad is in shambles and the 3 groups are involved in
>> > horrible infighting. And in Afghanistan, only in Kabul is there any
>> > semblance of government by anyone other than the war lords.
>> >
>> > And if you look at Bush's history, it is amazing that he could get as
>> > far as he did. Failed in business, military and sports; and yet, gets
>> > elected to President.
>>
>> You're just jealous.
>
> Of what?
>
> Bush is still working and calls cutting brush a vacation.
>
> I play golf every day and don't take vacations at all...
>
> So who's got it worse? ;-)
I would need a vacation from golf if I played that much. :-)
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 13:38:02
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Fairway" <arminsson@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1160683712.038383.122290@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Bobby Knight wrote:
>> You know nothing about his intelligence? Have you never seen one of
>> his press conferences? Anyone with common sense can see that he isn't
>> very bright. Can you see that?
>> >
> I think you are overestimating eloquence. George W. Bush is a very
> intelligent man and an achiever of the highest degree, but he is not
> eloquent. The French, for instance, would never elect a man so clumsy
> with words. I watched his verbal contests with Kerry before the
> election - Kerry was very eloquent but he was not convincing; Bush was
> the opposite. Anyway, look at the bright side, whether you like him or
> not: there has been no terrorist activity in the USA since 9/11, the
> USA has invaded two hostile countries with admirable success, democracy
> is growing in the Middle East. Be proud of your man, Bobby! F
I hate to say it but it seems the arguement about not being attacked is an
invitation to the nuts to do something. It would cause a spike in Bush's
approval and be great for the Rs. It is ober. But maybe the Rs don't want
to win and be responsible for the conditions in 2008 when they have had
power over both houses and the presidency.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 16:46:19
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
In article <TQxXg.3321$v43.1450@fed1read02 >,
"AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote:
> "Fairway" <arminsson@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1160683712.038383.122290@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Bobby Knight wrote:
> >> You know nothing about his intelligence? Have you never seen one of
> >> his press conferences? Anyone with common sense can see that he isn't
> >> very bright. Can you see that?
> >> >
> > I think you are overestimating eloquence. George W. Bush is a very
> > intelligent man and an achiever of the highest degree, but he is not
> > eloquent. The French, for instance, would never elect a man so clumsy
> > with words. I watched his verbal contests with Kerry before the
> > election - Kerry was very eloquent but he was not convincing; Bush was
> > the opposite. Anyway, look at the bright side, whether you like him or
> > not: there has been no terrorist activity in the USA since 9/11, the
> > USA has invaded two hostile countries with admirable success, democracy
> > is growing in the Middle East. Be proud of your man, Bobby! F
>
> I hate to say it but it seems the arguement about not being attacked is an
> invitation to the nuts to do something. It would cause a spike in Bush's
> approval and be great for the Rs. It is ober. But maybe the Rs don't want
> to win and be responsible for the conditions in 2008 when they have had
> power over both houses and the presidency.
There are some R's saying that very thing right now.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 12:15:43
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On Thu, 12 2006 16:46:19 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:
>. But maybe the Rs don't want
>> to win and be responsible for the conditions in 2008 when they have had
>> power over both houses and the presidency.
>
>There are some R's saying that very thing right now.
I don't think that the Republicans want to lose either the House or
Senate. Ultimately, even if they do, it wont matter very much because
Bush can veto anything that they come up with that he doesn't like. If
they lose the Senate, Bush's judicial nominees will never get to the
floor for a vote. That would be a problem if one of the USSC Justice
resigns or dies.
However, you are correct that having the House and Senate in
Democratic hands would make it easier for the Republican Presidential
nominee to win in 2008.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 12:27:48
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
In article <0u22j2d2lqe9gg5hgfo52nfsjug66r7dj8@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
> On Thu, 12 2006 16:46:19 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >. But maybe the Rs don't want
> >> to win and be responsible for the conditions in 2008 when they have had
> >> power over both houses and the presidency.
> >
> >There are some R's saying that very thing right now.
>
> I don't think that the Republicans want to lose either the House or
> Senate. Ultimately, even if they do, it wont matter very much because
> Bush can veto anything that they come up with that he doesn't like. If
> they lose the Senate, Bush's judicial nominees will never get to the
> floor for a vote. That would be a problem if one of the USSC Justice
> resigns or dies.
>
> However, you are correct that having the House and Senate in
> Democratic hands would make it easier for the Republican Presidential
> nominee to win in 2008.
It is obvious you don't understand how the federal gov't is supposed to
operate. From the very beginnings, the concept of compromise was part
and parcel of the process. That's why the house and senate have so many
members.
We get our poorest gov't and laws when one party or the other is in
total control. Right now, we've gotten the worst of it by a larger
margin than is usual. To have a President in office for 7 years with
nary a veto is unheard of. To have a congress send no bill to him that
even slightly makes him think of vetoing it is just as bad.
All indications in congress point to the fact that the reps have totally
shut out not only democrats from the process, but even parts of their
own party (ie; log cabin republicans and others)
And whether or not giving both houses of congress to the dems is
possible, it won't affect the next presidential election, imo. I think
people are ready for some changes and while I think both parties suck,
unless the dems field an impossibly poor candidate, they will take the
next presidential election.
Currently both parties are led by the more radical elements within their
respective parties. That is more an issue to me than other issues.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 21:17:54
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On Sat, 14 2006 12:27:48 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:
>We get our poorest gov't and laws when one party or the other is in
>total control. Right now, we've gotten the worst of it by a larger
>margin than is usual.
Total control is when one party has a majority in the House, sixty
Senate seats (to stop a filibuster) and the White House. And that
also assumes that the President is able to control all of these votes
in Congress. Even then, all legislation is subject to review by the
USSC. So you also need at least 5 SC Justices on your side.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 20:34:51
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
In article <mm23j2lp4de0rtujvo4bi4pni43pfoa160@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
> On Sat, 14 2006 12:27:48 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >We get our poorest gov't and laws when one party or the other is in
> >total control. Right now, we've gotten the worst of it by a larger
> >margin than is usual.
>
> Total control is when one party has a majority in the House, sixty
> Senate seats (to stop a filibuster) and the White House. And that
> also assumes that the President is able to control all of these votes
> in Congress. Even then, all legislation is subject to review by the
> USSC. So you also need at least 5 SC Justices on your side.
To your first part, that seems almost exactly what it is. No vetoes and
no bills that the President even seriously considered vetoing.
As to the SSC, hopefully they will follow the constitution in their
deliberations. An idealogue SSC would be a terrible tragedy.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 16:50:04
From: tiggerspalewife
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
In article <0u22j2d2lqe9gg5hgfo52nfsjug66r7dj8@4ax.com >
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
Bush suffers more. He can veto but that veto can be overridden. If the
house is dem, they decide which bills come up and when. If the senate is
dem and the house isn't, they can vote down anything the house wants. If
the house is dem and the senate not, any bills bush wants will not even
reach committee. It would be a stalemate for all but at this point,
controlling the white house might be the most important thing to history.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 12:28:36
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
In article <6ENV3TFI39004.5347685185@twistycreek.com >,
tiggerspalewife <anon@comments.header > wrote:
> In article <0u22j2d2lqe9gg5hgfo52nfsjug66r7dj8@4ax.com>
> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Bush suffers more. He can veto but that veto can be overridden. If the
> house is dem, they decide which bills come up and when. If the senate is
> dem and the house isn't, they can vote down anything the house wants. If
> the house is dem and the senate not, any bills bush wants will not even
> reach committee. It would be a stalemate for all but at this point,
> controlling the white house might be the most important thing to history.
There are those of us that think a good stalemate might be in the
country's best interest...
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 23:12:44
From: tiggerspalewife
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
In article <lloydparsons-C16BCA.12283614102006@individual.net >
Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:
When you're already so far in the hole, no need to yell for a shovel. A
stalemate stops the downward spiral, thus, adding a positive. It's truly
bad times when doing nothing is heading back in the right direction.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 19:42:52
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On 14 2006 23:12:44 -0000, tiggerspalewife <anon@comments.header >
wrote:
>In article <lloydparsons-C16BCA.12283614102006@individual.net>
>Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>
>When you're already so far in the hole, no need to yell for a shovel. A
>stalemate stops the downward spiral, thus, adding a positive. It's truly
>bad times when doing nothing is heading back in the right direction.
>
It sure would be nice for you to include a clip of the post to which
you're responding. Otherwise your posts don't make sense.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Oct 2006 14:41:52
From: tiggerspalewife
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
In article <st03j25nmm954amitetc2i9s2p7dn3eoq3@4ax.com >
Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net > wrote:
Understood. This program doesn't do that but if you're following the
thread tree, it should make sense. Pro and cons. Some of the threads get
so long that you're scrolling through lines and lines to find the current
reply at the bottom. I think it's set up to try to eliminate more wasted
bandwidth.
I responded to "There are those of us that think a good stalemate might
be in the
country's best interest..." which was the post right above.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Oct 2006 01:52:38
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On 14--2006, tiggerspalewife <anon@comments.header > wrote:
> Bush suffers more. He can veto but that veto can be overridden.
Not if all they have is a simple majority.
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 17:53:12
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
: On Thu, 12 2006 16:46:19 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
: <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:
:
: >. But maybe the Rs don't want
: >> to win and be responsible for the conditions in 2008 when they have had
: >> power over both houses and the presidency.
: >
: >There are some R's saying that very thing right now.
:
: I don't think that the Republicans want to lose either the House or
: Senate. Ultimately, even if they do, it wont matter very much because
: Bush can veto anything that they come up with that he doesn't like. If
: they lose the Senate, Bush's judicial nominees will never get to the
: floor for a vote. That would be a problem if one of the USSC Justice
: resigns or dies.
It's the subpoena power they don't want to give up more
than anything. Halliburton hearings are going to go on for
a long damn time.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 15:40:29
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On Sat, 14 2006 17:53:12 GMT, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
>It's the subpoena power they don't want to give up more
>than anything. Halliburton hearings are going to go on for
>a long damn time.
Actually, Chris, if the Dems did that, it would totally alienate the
independent voters thus assuring a Republican victory in 2008.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 20:22:15
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
: On Sat, 14 2006 17:53:12 GMT, Chris Bellomy
: <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
:
: >It's the subpoena power they don't want to give up more
: >than anything. Halliburton hearings are going to go on for
: >a long damn time.
:
: Actually, Chris, if the Dems did that, it would totally alienate the
: independent voters thus assuring a Republican victory in 2008.
I take it you haven't seen the polling on this. People are
pissed that they're being ripped off and want the Democrats
to investigate the White House. What will guarantee Democratic
defeat is more spinelessness in the face of rampant corruption.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 22:35:05
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On Sat, 14 2006 20:22:15 GMT, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
>People are
>pissed that they're being ripped off and want the Democrats
>to investigate the White House.
I hope the Democrats open up as many investigations as they can. The
more the better. It will be a disaster for them.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Oct 2006 03:04:37
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
: On Sat, 14 2006 20:22:15 GMT, Chris Bellomy
: <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
:
: >People are
: >pissed that they're being ripped off and want the Democrats
: >to investigate the White House.
:
: I hope the Democrats open up as many investigations as they can. The
: more the better. It will be a disaster for them.
Yeah, just like Watergate.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 15:42:06
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On 12 2006 13:08:32 -0700, "Fairway" <arminsson@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
>Bobby Knight wrote:
>> You know nothing about his intelligence? Have you never seen one of
>> his press conferences? Anyone with common sense can see that he isn't
>> very bright. Can you see that?
>> >
>I think you are overestimating eloquence. George W. Bush is a very
>intelligent man and an achiever of the highest degree, but he is not
>eloquent. The French, for instance, would never elect a man so clumsy
>with words. I watched his verbal contests with Kerry before the
>election - Kerry was very eloquent but he was not convincing; Bush was
>the opposite. Anyway, look at the bright side, whether you like him or
>not: there has been no terrorist activity in the USA since 9/11, the
>USA has invaded two hostile countries with admirable success, democracy
>is growing in the Middle East. Be proud of your man, Bobby! F
The only ones that have stopped any known terroristswere the British.
Proud? You're kidding.
___,
\o
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 01:41:47
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On 12 2006 13:08:32 -0700, "Fairway" <arminsson@yahoo.com > wrote:
>I think you are overestimating eloquence. George W. Bush is a very
>intelligent man and an achiever of the highest degree, but he is not
>eloquent. The French, for instance, would never elect a man so clumsy
>with words.
And the U.S. would rather elect someone who talked like a Good Old
Boy. GWB learned that early and well - and got virtually all the
rural counties for his wins.
Which has nothing to do with who would do a good job as president -
only on who the voters are comfortable voting for.
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 10:04:32
From: Fairway
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
John B. wrote:
> > Intelligent but inarticulate people say intelligent things
> inarticulately.
Not necessarily. Many intelligent people have been clumsy with words.
Niels Bohr, one of the most brilliant scientists of the 20th century
was a notoriously bad speaker. On the other hand, his brother Harald,
also a fine physicist, was a very good speaker. At the University, all
the students flocked to listen to Niels, not Harald, because of his
fame and glory. And, John, another brilliant man - but clumsy with
words - is the present president of the United States. F
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 14:12:15
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
In article <1160759072.395786.199200@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com >,
"Fairway" <arminsson@yahoo.com > wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > > Intelligent but inarticulate people say intelligent things
> > inarticulately.
>
> Not necessarily. Many intelligent people have been clumsy with words.
> Niels Bohr, one of the most brilliant scientists of the 20th century
> was a notoriously bad speaker. On the other hand, his brother Harald,
> also a fine physicist, was a very good speaker. At the University, all
> the students flocked to listen to Niels, not Harald, because of his
> fame and glory. And, John, another brilliant man - but clumsy with
> words - is the present president of the United States. F
And who the hell "flocks to listen" to Dubya? Only those neocons still
in the "Emperor's new clothes" mode. Besides, Neils Bohr was made famous
by what he had written. The comparison ends right there.
William Clark
|
| | | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 13:34:43
From: larry
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On Fri, 13 2006 14:12:15 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote:
>In article <1160759072.395786.199200@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> "Fairway" <arminsson@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> John B. wrote:
>> > > Intelligent but inarticulate people say intelligent things
>> > inarticulately.
>>
>> Not necessarily. Many intelligent people have been clumsy with words.
>> Niels Bohr, one of the most brilliant scientists of the 20th century
>> was a notoriously bad speaker. On the other hand, his brother Harald,
>> also a fine physicist, was a very good speaker. At the University, all
>> the students flocked to listen to Niels, not Harald, because of his
>> fame and glory. And, John, another brilliant man - but clumsy with
>> words - is the present president of the United States. F
>
>And who the hell "flocks to listen" to Dubya? Only those neocons still
>in the "Emperor's new clothes" mode. Besides, Neils Bohr was made famous
>by what he had written. The comparison ends right there.
Actually Abraham Lincoln was a poor orator-- and very poor
extemporaneous speaker. So what?
Larry
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 18:02:46
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On Sat, 14 2006 13:34:43 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:
>On Fri, 13 2006 14:12:15 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
><clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
>
>>In article <1160759072.395786.199200@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
>> "Fairway" <arminsson@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> John B. wrote:
>>> > > Intelligent but inarticulate people say intelligent things
>>> > inarticulately.
>>>
>>> Not necessarily. Many intelligent people have been clumsy with words.
>>> Niels Bohr, one of the most brilliant scientists of the 20th century
>>> was a notoriously bad speaker. On the other hand, his brother Harald,
>>> also a fine physicist, was a very good speaker. At the University, all
>>> the students flocked to listen to Niels, not Harald, because of his
>>> fame and glory. And, John, another brilliant man - but clumsy with
>>> words - is the present president of the United States. F
>>
>>And who the hell "flocks to listen" to Dubya? Only those neocons still
>>in the "Emperor's new clothes" mode. Besides, Neils Bohr was made famous
>>by what he had written. The comparison ends right there.
>
>Actually Abraham Lincoln was a poor orator-- and very poor
>extemporaneous speaker. So what?
>
>Larry
Lincoln wasn't a bumbling idiot.
___,
\o
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 18:49:06
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Weren't the Lincoln - Douglas debates known for their intelligence, civility
and well spoken thoughtful views? Maybe I'm thinking of something else.
"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:v3r2j215jbvgq87e07r0285k4vvn6odn4g@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 14 2006 13:34:43 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 13 2006 14:12:15 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
>><clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <1160759072.395786.199200@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
>>> "Fairway" <arminsson@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> John B. wrote:
>>>> > > Intelligent but inarticulate people say intelligent things
>>>> > inarticulately.
>>>>
>>>> Not necessarily. Many intelligent people have been clumsy with words.
>>>> Niels Bohr, one of the most brilliant scientists of the 20th century
>>>> was a notoriously bad speaker. On the other hand, his brother Harald,
>>>> also a fine physicist, was a very good speaker. At the University, all
>>>> the students flocked to listen to Niels, not Harald, because of his
>>>> fame and glory. And, John, another brilliant man - but clumsy with
>>>> words - is the present president of the United States. F
>>>
>>>And who the hell "flocks to listen" to Dubya? Only those neocons still
>>>in the "Emperor's new clothes" mode. Besides, Neils Bohr was made famous
>>>by what he had written. The comparison ends right there.
>>
>>Actually Abraham Lincoln was a poor orator-- and very poor
>>extemporaneous speaker. So what?
>>
>>Larry
>
> Lincoln wasn't a bumbling idiot.
> ___,
> \o
>
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 13:59:58
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"larry" <larry@delmardata.com > wrote in message
news:0ei2j2hhu41v5qdkjs8pg23rr2t53cegcq@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 13 2006 14:12:15 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
>
>>In article <1160759072.395786.199200@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
>> "Fairway" <arminsson@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> John B. wrote:
>>> > > Intelligent but inarticulate people say intelligent things
>>> > inarticulately.
>>>
>>> Not necessarily. Many intelligent people have been clumsy with words.
>>> Niels Bohr, one of the most brilliant scientists of the 20th century
>>> was a notoriously bad speaker. On the other hand, his brother Harald,
>>> also a fine physicist, was a very good speaker. At the University, all
>>> the students flocked to listen to Niels, not Harald, because of his
>>> fame and glory. And, John, another brilliant man - but clumsy with
>>> words - is the present president of the United States. F
>>
>>And who the hell "flocks to listen" to Dubya? Only those neocons still
>>in the "Emperor's new clothes" mode. Besides, Neils Bohr was made famous
>>by what he had written. The comparison ends right there.
>
> Actually Abraham Lincoln was a poor orator-- and very poor
> extemporaneous speaker. So what?
>
> Larry
I wonder, seriously, if Bush can explain the thoughts in the Gettysburg
address. He sure couldn't answer questions like "Do you get help with your
foreign policy from God? Does he speak to you in an audible voice? Did He
tell you there would be no casualties in Iraq, as you told Pat Robertson,
according to Robertson?"
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 15 Oct 2006 13:15:08
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
In article <0ei2j2hhu41v5qdkjs8pg23rr2t53cegcq@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:
> On Fri, 13 2006 14:12:15 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
>
> >In article <1160759072.395786.199200@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Fairway" <arminsson@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> John B. wrote:
> >> > > Intelligent but inarticulate people say intelligent things
> >> > inarticulately.
> >>
> >> Not necessarily. Many intelligent people have been clumsy with words.
> >> Niels Bohr, one of the most brilliant scientists of the 20th century
> >> was a notoriously bad speaker. On the other hand, his brother Harald,
> >> also a fine physicist, was a very good speaker. At the University, all
> >> the students flocked to listen to Niels, not Harald, because of his
> >> fame and glory. And, John, another brilliant man - but clumsy with
> >> words - is the present president of the United States. F
> >
> >And who the hell "flocks to listen" to Dubya? Only those neocons still
> >in the "Emperor's new clothes" mode. Besides, Neils Bohr was made famous
> >by what he had written. The comparison ends right there.
>
> Actually Abraham Lincoln was a poor orator-- and very poor
> extemporaneous speaker. So what?
>
> Larry
But Lincoln could write, and express ideas in a different format.
Dubya and "ideas" do not belong in the same sentence. That's the crucial
difference.
William Clark
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 03:04:11
From: jeffc
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"larry" <larry@delmardata.com > wrote in message
news:0ei2j2hhu41v5qdkjs8pg23rr2t53cegcq@4ax.com...
>
> Actually Abraham Lincoln was a poor orator-- and very poor
> extemporaneous speaker. So what?
So nothing. Speaking ability is not the issue. Rather, no one is claiming
that poor speaking ability implies lack of intelligence or leadership
skills. If you weren't so blind and ignorant you might understand that. W
is not stupid because he's a bad speaker. He's not a bad leader because
he's a bad speaker. He's stupid and a bad leader just because he is.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 12:34:23
From: JJK
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"larry" wrote:
> Actually Abraham Lincoln was a poor orator-- and very poor
> extemporaneous speaker. So what?
How would you know?
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 20:08:25
From: Otto
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
At least, although self taught, Lincoln could read with some comprehension.
Otto
> "larry" wrote:
>> Actually Abraham Lincoln was a poor orator-- and very poor
>> extemporaneous speaker. So what?
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 08:20:59
From: larry
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On Tue, 31 2006 20:08:25 -0500, "Otto"
<ottondebREMove#$@^%!@*&@bellsouth.net > wrote:
>At least, although self taught, Lincoln could read with some comprehension.
So achieving a Harvard MBA and successfully completing jet fighter
training doesn't require reading comprehension? You are revealing
your ignorance-- and blind hatred.
Larry
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 07:37:31
From: John B.
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Carbon wrote:
> On Thu, 12 2006 16:01:38 -0700, Tex wrote:
> > Bobby Knight wrote:
>
> >> You know nothing about his intelligence? Have you never seen one of
> >> his press conferences? Anyone with common sense can see that he isn't
> >> very bright. Can you see that?
> >
> > I see, so to you, the ability to speak in public is a sign of
> > intelligence?
>
> Obviously.
Intelligent but inarticulate people say intelligent things
inarticulately. Does that describe GWB? Certainly not. I have never
heard him express an intelligent thought or an interesting or
intriguing idea, even inartfully. I have never heard him say anything
that clearly orginiated in his mind, rather than someone else's. I
have never seen anything that he has written, and as far as I know he
has never written anything since grad school. Intellectual
give-and-take is of no interest to him, which may be fine for a
baseball team owner, but not for the president of the United States.
Plenty of very smart people are not good public speakers. But they
still manage to express themselves in ways that show their
intelligence. GWB has never done that, or even come close.
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 14:14:06
From: Fairway
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
>
> Being able to speak is a sign of intelligence but not being able to speak is
> not always a sign of the opposite. Steven Hawking comes to mind. Also my
> spelling is a sign of intelligence, ie not being hindered by common useage.
> : -)
Well said, you bloody commie rat. Always nice to meet a clever commie. F
|
| | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 14:18:17
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
In article <1160774046.769419.187440@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com >,
"Fairway" <arminsson@yahoo.com > wrote:
> AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
> >
> > Being able to speak is a sign of intelligence but not being able to speak is
> > not always a sign of the opposite. Steven Hawking comes to mind. Also my
> > spelling is a sign of intelligence, ie not being hindered by common useage.
> > : -)
> Well said, you bloody commie rat. Always nice to meet a clever commie. F
Nice - reduced to nothing more than cheap, out of date, sneers.
William Clark
|
| | | | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 11:46:46
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote in message
news:clark.31-77CE0F.14181714102006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> In article <1160774046.769419.187440@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> "Fairway" <arminsson@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
>> >
>> > Being able to speak is a sign of intelligence but not being able to
>> > speak is
>> > not always a sign of the opposite. Steven Hawking comes to mind. Also
>> > my
>> > spelling is a sign of intelligence, ie not being hindered by common
>> > useage.
>> > : -)
>> Well said, you bloody commie rat. Always nice to meet a clever commie. F
>
> Nice - reduced to nothing more than cheap, out of date, sneers.
>
And borish one line retorts.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 17 Oct 2006 10:39:12
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
In article <4phrbnFj35o5U1@individual.net >,
"MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote:
> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message
> news:clark.31-77CE0F.14181714102006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > In article <1160774046.769419.187440@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Fairway" <arminsson@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Being able to speak is a sign of intelligence but not being able to
> >> > speak is
> >> > not always a sign of the opposite. Steven Hawking comes to mind. Also
> >> > my
> >> > spelling is a sign of intelligence, ie not being hindered by common
> >> > useage.
> >> > : -)
> >> Well said, you bloody commie rat. Always nice to meet a clever commie. F
> >
> > Nice - reduced to nothing more than cheap, out of date, sneers.
> >
> And borish one line retorts.
The word is "boorish".
William Clark
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 14:06:01
From: Fairway
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
John B. wrote:
> I thought you might have been deranged. Now I'm sure of it. The great
> statesman Stalin murdered 20 million people. And he was a communist,
> unlike all the other people you accuse of being "commies."
Oh, shut up, you boring little prick. Stalin was a commie alright, and
a mass murderer, but he was super intelligent and a fascinating
personality - albeit a bad speaker - and that=B4s what I was commenting
on. Unlike you I=B4m able to see the world in colors. F
|
| | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 13:52:09
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
In article <1160773561.731109.45390@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com >,
"Fairway" <arminsson@yahoo.com > wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > I thought you might have been deranged. Now I'm sure of it. The great
> > statesman Stalin murdered 20 million people. And he was a communist,
> > unlike all the other people you accuse of being "commies."
>
> Oh, shut up, you boring little prick. Stalin was a commie alright, and
> a mass murderer, but he was super intelligent and a fascinating
> personality - albeit a bad speaker - and thatīs what I was commenting
> on. Unlike you Iīm able to see the world in colors. F
Now we get to the normal level of neocon articulation. Obscene abuse
coupled with absence of intelligent thought.
William Clark
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 13:38:22
From: John B.
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Fairway wrote:
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > > Not necessarily. Many intelligent people have been clumsy with words.
> > > Niels Bohr, one of the most brilliant scientists of the 20th century
> > > was a notoriously bad speaker. On the other hand, his brother Harald,
> > > also a fine physicist, was a very good speaker. At the University, all
> > > the students flocked to listen to Niels, not Harald, because of his
> > > fame and glory. And, John, another brilliant man - but clumsy with
> > > words - is the present president of the United States. F
> >
> > And who the hell "flocks to listen" to Dubya? Only those neocons still
> > in the "Emperor's new clothes" mode. Besides, Neils Bohr was made famous
> > by what he had written. The comparison ends right there.
> >
> You are an educated man but naive and narrow minded. Joseph Stalin is
> another great statesman, super intelligent and well-read, who was a
> notoriously bad speaker - his voice was flat and monotonous. His
> speeches were never interesting. In the end you and your commie friends
> over there must accept the fact, that even if Bush is a lousy speaker
> he is a great politician. No contradiction there. F
I thought you might have been deranged. Now I'm sure of it. The great
statesman Stalin murdered 20 million people. And he was a communist,
unlike all the other people you accuse of being "commies."
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 12:03:29
From: John B.
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Fairway wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > > Intelligent but inarticulate people say intelligent things
> > inarticulately.
>
> Not necessarily. Many intelligent people have been clumsy with words.
> Niels Bohr, one of the most brilliant scientists of the 20th century
> was a notoriously bad speaker. On the other hand, his brother Harald,
> also a fine physicist, was a very good speaker. At the University, all
> the students flocked to listen to Niels, not Harald, because of his
> fame and glory. And, John, another brilliant man - but clumsy with
> words - is the present president of the United States. F
Ok, Fairway, you just stay there in your little dream world.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 23:03:00
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On 11 2006 11:45:37 -0700, "Fairway" <arminsson@yahoo.com > wrote:
>Silly retorts will bring you nowhere. Foley didnīt molest anyone. From
>what Iīve read he didnīt do anything illegal - immoral, yes, but not
>illegal. F
That remains to be seen.
Some of Foley's emails were sent from a hotel in Florida. Florida has
a statute that forbids harmful transmissions to minors under the age
of eighteen. If the recipient of those emails was a minor, he could
be charged with a crime. Of course, the content of the emails would
have to be judged as harmful.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 06:29:16
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On 11 2006 11:45:37 -0700, "Fairway" <arminsson@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
>John B. wrote:
>> Aren't you the psychopath who said that members of Congress molesting
>> teenage boys was a minor issue? Only a faggot would say that. J
>Silly retorts will bring you nowhere. Foley didnīt molest anyone. From
>what Iīve read he didnīt do anything illegal - immoral, yes, but not
>illegal. F
If the page was underage it certainly could be illegal. Watch
Dateline and see that perverts that just converse through email are
arrested, and they haven't laid a hand on the "victim". We haven't
seen the emails that Foley sent yet. They could well be illegal.
___,
\o
|
| |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 11:41:50
From: John B.
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Fairway wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> >
> > "Winning" the Cold War means that the United States caused the Soviet
> > empire to collapse. Can you explain to me how we did that?
> The ailing president Roosevelt handed East Europe over to his friend
> Stalin, and that=B4s a fact. But it=B4s mainly thanks to steadfast
> presidents of the USA and the creation of NATO that the Russians
> didn=B4t overrun Europe and take it all with dire consequences for the
> whole world (USA included). More than anyone else it was the USA that
> won the cold war and the Russians lost it. The ideals of the free
> market won and socialism lost. Only a commie bastard would deny that. F
Aren't you the psychopath who said that members of Congress molesting
teenage boys was a minor issue? Only a faggot would say that. J
|
| | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 13:48:12
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1160592110.721382.35870@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Fairway wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> >
> > "Winning" the Cold War means that the United States caused the Soviet
> > empire to collapse. Can you explain to me how we did that?
> The ailing president Roosevelt handed East Europe over to his friend
> Stalin, and thatīs a fact. But itīs mainly thanks to steadfast
> presidents of the USA and the creation of NATO that the Russians
> didnīt overrun Europe and take it all with dire consequences for the
> whole world (USA included). More than anyone else it was the USA that
> won the cold war and the Russians lost it. The ideals of the free
> market won and socialism lost. Only a commie bastard would deny that. F
Aren't you the psychopath who said that members of Congress molesting
teenage boys was a minor issue? Only a faggot would say that. J
Sure was a minor issue when the dems were in charge.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 11:19:13
From: Tex
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Bobby Knight wrote:
> On 12 2006 09:09:34 -0700, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Bobby Knight wrote:
> >> On 12 2006 08:27:34 -0700, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Bobby Knight wrote:
>
> >> Of course nothing said here will change anything, but you're right in
> >> there pissing into the wind with the rest of us.!!
> >>
> >> I consider you a smart guy, and although we may disagree on some
> >> issues, respect your political views. What I don't understand is why
> >> you can't admit that GWB is an inept, bumbling, nincompoop, and an
> >> embarrassment as the President of the United States of America. Hell,
> >> you can remain a staunch conservative and agree with that.
> >
> >Why do I need to? It changes my life in "no way" and for the life of
> >me, I can't see how it changes anything else. Other than to perhaps
> >feed some deep desire of yours to have others agree with your
> >viewpoint.
> >
> You don't "need" to, and I don't really care that you agree with my
> specific viewpoint. Your posts, when referencing GWB seem to skirt
> the issue of his persona and image, and it looks as if you apologize
> for him.
If I don't need to, why do you continually ask me "why I can't..." ?
> >When politicians affect my day to day life, then we have a problem.
>
> You've got to be kidding!!! For one thing, you complain about most
> entitlements, and politicians affected that. You can't say that
> doesn't affect your day to day life.
What affects my life Bobby is every payday when they STEAL money from
me to pay taxes.
That amount of money has decreased because of the current
administration.
No matter what I do, what you do, or many times you call the President
an idiot, Congress will still spend the money we allow them to STEAL
from us.
Tell me again how they affect my day to day life??
> >Until then, it's mostly daytime drama for all you drama queens that are
> >so hell bent on finding "anything" to point as a "mistake".
>
> That's bullshit and you know it. I resent the implication. Why the
> fuck can't you carry on a conversation without stooping to such? The
> problem is that you can't stand to have anyone say anything slightly
> critical about the right wing, and continually dodge the fact that
> your leader is a stupid fuck.
And why do you have to immediately go over the edge and say FUCK when
someone doesn't agree with you? You are a drama queen Bobby...you
always have been. Tell us again about all the trouble you have when
you fly....it's funny. But it's "drama" and you love to bitch and moan
about it. You also LOVE to bitch and moan about Bush....and yet, he's
still President, and you are still moaning.
> Incidentally, there's nothing dramatic about George Bush's
> image...it's all comedic. One doesn't have to be hell bent on
> pointing out his daily faux pas. He's an idiot, and you know it, but
> you'll keep dodging and spinning that fact.
I know nothing about his intelligence, but I do know you aren't
qualified to measure it.
> >
> >> Please don't answer with a reference to other Presidents....that's a
> >> dodge. There were many other embarrassments...but this one is
> >> comical.
> >
> >Please don't assume I'm going to do anything. That's comical.
> >
> I didn't assume anything, I just asked that you not use the tired
> dodge that both sides use when trying to apologize for their guy.
You did assume, that's why you warned me in advance not to do it. Had
you not assumed I would, why did you bother with warning me? Come on
Bobby, you are supposed intelligent. Figure it out.
> You might want to check that definition of ideologue. Number two fits
> you perfectly.
Really? Ok, I am. How does that change anything?
I'll answer....It doesn't. Bush is still President and you'll keep
moaning and groaning.
Tex
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 14:37:45
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On 12 2006 11:19:13 -0700, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:
>And why do you have to immediately go over the edge and say FUCK when
>someone doesn't agree with you? You are a drama queen Bobby...you
>always have been.
Bullshit called again. For instance, I have no problem with any of
the conservatives on this ng, except for Larrrry, and for some reason,
you. Larrrry because he's just blind to reason. I still can't figure
you out. I know that you're bright.
> Tell us again about all the trouble you have when you fly....it's funny. But it's "drama" and you love to bitch and moan
>about it. You also LOVE to bitch and moan about Bush....and yet, he's>still President, and you are still moaning.
You have the wrong person. What trouble when I fly???
What moaning? Those are catch words that you use when you can't think
of anything else...which is getting to be more often.
>
>I know nothing about his intelligence, but I do know you aren't
>qualified to measure it.
>
You know nothing about his intelligence? Have you never seen one of
his press conferences? Anyone with common sense can see that he isn't
very bright. Can you see that?
>
>> You might want to check that definition of ideologue. Number two fits
>> you perfectly.
>
>Really? Ok, I am. How does that change anything?
>I'll answer....It doesn't. Bush is still President and you'll keep
>oaning and groaning.
>Tex
A catchword again. Show me where I ever moaned about him. I just
laugh at him, and all of you that aren't embarrassed with him as
President.
___,
\o
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 15:25:55
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:4m5ti2l6r46qpb5juqe0h0b36cdjjooujg@4ax.com...
>>
> You know nothing about his intelligence? Have you never seen one of
> his press conferences? Anyone with common sense can see that he isn't
> very bright. Can you see that?
>>
Just because he isnt the greatest public speaker dosent make him stupid.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 13:54:07
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote in message
news:4p7mmkFh50sqU1@individual.net...
>
> "Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
> news:4m5ti2l6r46qpb5juqe0h0b36cdjjooujg@4ax.com...
>>>
>> You know nothing about his intelligence? Have you never seen one of
>> his press conferences? Anyone with common sense can see that he isn't
>> very bright. Can you see that?
>>>
> Just because he isnt the greatest public speaker dosent make him stupid.
What do you think would happen if Bush was given a geography test? Or a
history test? Or political science? And how do you think it would stack up
against Clinton ... either Clinton.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 16:16:40
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote in message
news:Y3yXg.3326$v43.3155@fed1read02...
>
> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:4p7mmkFh50sqU1@individual.net...
>>
>> "Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>> news:4m5ti2l6r46qpb5juqe0h0b36cdjjooujg@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>> You know nothing about his intelligence? Have you never seen one of
>>> his press conferences? Anyone with common sense can see that he isn't
>>> very bright. Can you see that?
>>>>
>> Just because he isnt the greatest public speaker dosent make him stupid.
>
> What do you think would happen if Bush was given a geography test? Or a
> history test? Or political science? And how do you think it would stack up
> against Clinton ... either Clinton.
>
I bet it would be close.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 20:30:09
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote in message
news:4p7ploFhdvngU1@individual.net...
>
> "AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message
> news:Y3yXg.3326$v43.3155@fed1read02...
>>
>> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:4p7mmkFh50sqU1@individual.net...
>>>
>>> "Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>>> news:4m5ti2l6r46qpb5juqe0h0b36cdjjooujg@4ax.com...
>>>>>
>>>> You know nothing about his intelligence? Have you never seen one of
>>>> his press conferences? Anyone with common sense can see that he isn't
>>>> very bright. Can you see that?
>>>>>
>>> Just because he isnt the greatest public speaker dosent make him stupid.
>>
>> What do you think would happen if Bush was given a geography test? Or a
>> history test? Or political science? And how do you think it would stack
>> up against Clinton ... either Clinton.
>>
> I bet it would be close.
I wonder if Bush can pronounce geography. g-auger-fee : the common fee for a
drill bit.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 14:05:24
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Bush has a guy who has had like 200 heart attacks and another guy who is
capable of shooting someone by mistake ... and now he's talking to Henry
Kissinger. Is there such a thing as an Alzheimer's contingency? And I mean
no disrespect to those who are suffering from Alzheimer's and their families
who are suffering and have suffered.
"AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote in message
news:Y3yXg.3326$v43.3155@fed1read02...
>
> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:4p7mmkFh50sqU1@individual.net...
>>
>> "Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>> news:4m5ti2l6r46qpb5juqe0h0b36cdjjooujg@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>> You know nothing about his intelligence? Have you never seen one of
>>> his press conferences? Anyone with common sense can see that he isn't
>>> very bright. Can you see that?
>>>>
>> Just because he isnt the greatest public speaker dosent make him stupid.
>
> What do you think would happen if Bush was given a geography test? Or a
> history test? Or political science? And how do you think it would stack up
> against Clinton ... either Clinton.
>
>
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 16:20:58
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote in message
news:xeyXg.3328$v43.1557@fed1read02...
>
> Bush has a guy who has had like 200 heart attacks and another guy who is
> capable of shooting someone by mistake ...
Aren't these guys one in the same (cheney)?
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 20:25:09
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote in message
news:4p7ptqFg998vU1@individual.net...
>
> "AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message
> news:xeyXg.3328$v43.1557@fed1read02...
>>
>> Bush has a guy who has had like 200 heart attacks and another guy who is
>> capable of shooting someone by mistake ...
>
> Aren't these guys one in the same (cheney)?
Oh yeah. I resign my commission in the national guard.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 10:40:05
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On Thu, 12 2006 13:54:07 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt"
<goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote:
>
>What do you think would happen if Bush was given a geography test? Or a
>history test? Or political science? And how do you think it would stack up
>against Clinton ... either Clinton.
Bush had a higher GPA at Yale then the so-called intellectual Kerry.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 22:32:10
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea
|
On Fri, 13 2006 03:41:11 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt"
<goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote:
>The JH report was the second one in the
>last couple of years and was detailed on public radio back about a year ago,
>maybe
There was a similar study published in the Lancet. The trouble is
that it said the number was 100,000 deaths. Now this study says the
number is six and a half times as much in only a year. Variability
like that does not give you confidence in the methodology. In
addition, the number of deaths is almost 3% of the population.
The Iraqi body count group, which actually tries to count bodies or
verify that someone had died has the count at 48,000. If the 655K
figure is real them around 92% of the bodies are unaccounted for.
I'd say this study is speculative at best. In addition, the media
doesn't seem to be paying much attention to it. It's already
yesterday's news.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 22:33:40
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea
|
"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message
news:fp63j21a1t4t8nv35cb2lg0l6kqc4e2l4h@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 13 2006 03:41:11 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt"
> <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
>
>>The JH report was the second one in the
>>last couple of years and was detailed on public radio back about a year
>>ago,
>>maybe
>
> There was a similar study published in the Lancet. The trouble is
> that it said the number was 100,000 deaths. Now this study says the
> number is six and a half times as much in only a year. Variability
> like that does not give you confidence in the methodology. In
> addition, the number of deaths is almost 3% of the population.
>
> The Iraqi body count group, which actually tries to count bodies or
> verify that someone had died has the count at 48,000. If the 655K
> figure is real them around 92% of the bodies are unaccounted for.
>
> I'd say this study is speculative at best. In addition, the media
> doesn't seem to be paying much attention to it. It's already
> yesterday's news.
John's Hopkins did a similar study a while ago and reported about it on
public radio. There methods seemed sound then and there methods now,
apparently have met the muster of all of the scientific boards or whatever,
that do that kind of validation. Hearing the guys talk about how they
collected the information was pretty intense ... and believable. Does
someone have a suspected motive for JH to make an unscientific study?
Would'nt it hurt their reputation to a great degree and bring them no
advantage? Is John Hopkins known as a partisan school?
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 18:01:02
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
: On Thu, 12 2006 13:54:07 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt"
: <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote:
:
: >
: >What do you think would happen if Bush was given a geography test? Or a
: >history test? Or political science? And how do you think it would stack up
: >against Clinton ... either Clinton.
:
: Bush had a higher GPA at Yale then the so-called intellectual Kerry.
He's done a lot of drugs and drink since then, and may have
some sort of neurological disorder. Check this out (warning,
there is polemic surrounding the archival video, just ignore
that and focus on how different Bush was in 1994):
http://ia300136.us.archive.org/0/items/BrainTenYrs/BrainTenYrs.mov
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 07:32:37
From: Tex
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Bert Robbins wrote:
> AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
> > Now, Hasstert is another story. Does anyone really think he didn't cover
> > this up?
>
> What about Sen. Reid's recently detailed real estate windfall. It
> appears that ethical and legal problems are on his plate. Let's talk
> about his problems for a little while.
Don't make their heads spin! It's all about Bush being Evil, Stupid,
Smart, Clever, Dumb, etc....nothing else matters...anyone who will bash
Bush is "good" and the rest are "dumb".
Not a great platform for change, but they think they will get their
power back that way.
Tex
|
| | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 09:40:19
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On 12 2006 07:32:37 -0700, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:
>
>Bert Robbins wrote:
>> AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
>> > Now, Hasstert is another story. Does anyone really think he didn't cover
>> > this up?
>>
>> What about Sen. Reid's recently detailed real estate windfall. It
>> appears that ethical and legal problems are on his plate. Let's talk
>> about his problems for a little while.
>
>Don't make their heads spin! It's all about Bush being Evil, Stupid,
>Smart, Clever, Dumb, etc....nothing else matters...anyone who will bash
>Bush is "good" and the rest are "dumb".
>
>Not a great platform for change, but they think they will get their
>power back that way.
>
>Tex
I really don't give a crap about who has power anymore. They're all
fucked up. The thing that I don't understand is why you, Tex, don't
agree that Bush is a bumbling idiot. Hell, as someone who is more
left of center than right, I can agree that Carter was a terrible
president.
I have no problems at all with your politics...but your politician
sucks.
___,
\o
|
| | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 17:59:09
From: Tex
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Bobby Knight wrote:
> On 12 2006 16:01:38 -0700, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Bobby Knight wrote:
>
> >> You have the wrong person. What trouble when I fly???
> >> What moaning? Those are catch words that you use when you can't think
> >> of anything else...which is getting to be more often.
> >
> >Really? Hmmm, shall I send the Google expert out to find your quotes?
> >Start with why you drove to RSG-WI....
> >What normal brained individual drives 1000+ miles (each way) rather
> >than fly?
> >
> I drove because I had nothing but time...retired you know. Plus not
> having to deal with screwing with baggage and clubs, leaving my car at
> the airport, renting one in Milwaukee, then screwing with baggage and
> clubs on the return flight. Fuel and one extra night each way in a
> motel was still less $$ than the flight. And I have a great car to
> drive. That's normal brained in my book...but then if I drove a
> Hummer it never would've entered my mind.
Who owns a Hummer Bobby? And is that your half hearted attempt at
humor or a dig?
FTR, bitching about "screwing with luggage" is still bitching.
And I'd lay odds I burn less gas than you do...even when I drove a
Hummer.
Mostly because I don't drive hundreds of miles each week just to play
golf at a club that I moved away from. But then, you are "normal
brained"...for an Altzheimer's patient.
Tex
|
| | |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 14:47:57
From: John B.
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Fairway wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > I thought you might have been deranged. Now I'm sure of it. The great
> > statesman Stalin murdered 20 million people. And he was a communist,
> > unlike all the other people you accuse of being "commies."
>
> Oh, shut up, you boring little prick. Stalin was a commie alright, and
> a mass murderer, but he was super intelligent and a fascinating
> personality - albeit a bad speaker - and that=B4s what I was commenting
> on. Unlike you I=B4m able to see the world in colors. F
What about Hitler? You like him, too?
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 03:57:00
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On 13--2006, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
> What about Hitler? You like him, too?
I invoke Godwin's Law! This thread is toast and John B. loses!
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 00:01:31
From: The Grand Beckoning
Subject: Re: Oops!
|
On Sat, 14 2006 04:45:55 +0100, James Farrar
<james.s.farrar@gmail.com > wrote:
>On Sat, 14 2006 00:53:38 +0100, "Jessica" <wertyuio@ertyuiop.com>
>wrote:
>
>>"The Grand Beckoning" <the@gr4ndb3ck0n1ng.com> wrote in message
>>news:1h5ti29j1u2abv1dimchl2t024k008mlsd@4ax.com...
>
>>> The UN resolutions most certainly spelled out grave consequences.
>>
>>Exactly. "Grave consequences". Just like when a criminal is charged with a
>>crime, there will be consequences, and it's up to a jury to evaluate the
>>situation and decide on those consequences. In this case, that was a job for
>>the Security Council, not the "arresting officer", so to speak.
>
>UNSCR1441 threatened "serious consequenses", UNSC code for "military
>intervention".
I WIN!!! I WIN I WIN WIN!!!!!
Yayyyyy me!!!! Yay!!!!
Fricka, fracka, firecracker
siss, boom, bah.
Me! Me!
Rah! Rah! Rah!
|
| | |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 10:20:53
From: John B.
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
MnMikew wrote:
> "Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
> news:htiti2tj4o60oh7i7c75cqt78fne7b19vv@4ax.com...
> >>
> > I drove because I had nothing but time...retired you know. Plus not
> > having to deal with screwing with baggage and clubs, leaving my car at
> > the airport, renting one in Milwaukee, then screwing with baggage and
> > clubs on the return flight. Fuel and one extra night each way in a
> > motel was still less $$ than the flight. And I have a great car to
> > drive. That's normal brained in my book...but then if I drove a
> > Hummer it never would've entered my mind.
> >
> > I'd do it again in a heartbeat.
>
> Don't blame you, Flying is a PITA nowadays.
>
>
> >
> >>> You know nothing about his intelligence? Have you never seen one of
> >>> his press conferences? Anyone with common sense can see that he isn't
> >>> very bright. Can you see that?
> >>
> >>I see, so to you, the ability to speak in public is a sign of
> >>intelligence?
> >>
> > You're really something else. Speak in public? He is the butt of
> > every comedian's jokes because he is an idiot every time he opens his
> > mouth. Being able to talk, if one isn't mute, is a definite sign of
> > being bright.
>
> There were plenty of jokes flying about Kerry as well when he was running.
> >
I don't think any of them related to his intelligence.
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 13:49:57
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1161019253.061118.207630@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> MnMikew wrote:
>> "Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>> news:htiti2tj4o60oh7i7c75cqt78fne7b19vv@4ax.com...
>> >>
>> > I drove because I had nothing but time...retired you know. Plus not
>> > having to deal with screwing with baggage and clubs, leaving my car at
>> > the airport, renting one in Milwaukee, then screwing with baggage and
>> > clubs on the return flight. Fuel and one extra night each way in a
>> > motel was still less $$ than the flight. And I have a great car to
>> > drive. That's normal brained in my book...but then if I drove a
>> > Hummer it never would've entered my mind.
>> >
>> > I'd do it again in a heartbeat.
>>
>> Don't blame you, Flying is a PITA nowadays.
>>
>>
>> >
>> >>> You know nothing about his intelligence? Have you never seen one of
>> >>> his press conferences? Anyone with common sense can see that he
>> >>> isn't
>> >>> very bright. Can you see that?
>> >>
>> >>I see, so to you, the ability to speak in public is a sign of
>> >>intelligence?
>> >>
>> > You're really something else. Speak in public? He is the butt of
>> > every comedian's jokes because he is an idiot every time he opens his
>> > mouth. Being able to talk, if one isn't mute, is a definite sign of
>> > being bright.
>>
>> There were plenty of jokes flying about Kerry as well when he was
>> running.
>> >
>
> I don't think any of them related to his intelligence.
>
Some, but mostly about his very droll speaking. "I have a plaaannnn..."
|
| |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 18:42:41
From: John B.
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Fairway wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > Aren't you the psychopath who said that members of Congress molesting
> > teenage boys was a minor issue? Only a faggot would say that. J
> Silly retorts will bring you nowhere. Foley didn=B4t molest anyone. From
> what I=B4ve read he didn=B4t do anything illegal - immoral, yes, but not
> illegal. F
How the hell do you know he didn't molest anyone? You don't know about
it, therefore it never happened. Is that your argument? We do know that
Foley spent a lot of time and energy chasing these boys around and
trying to get them into bed. To assume that he never succeeded is
ridiculously naive. We may never find out about it, but you know he did
it. By the way, my "silly retort" came only in response to your calling
me a "fucking commie" or something like that.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 13:10:54
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
On 12 2006 18:42:41 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>How the hell do you know he didn't molest anyone?
He doesn't and you don't know that he did. This is why they have
investigations.
|
| |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 15:54:30
From: Tex
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Chris Bellomy wrote:
> MnMikew <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote:
> :
> : "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
> : news:1T3hp0h8IlkkN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> :> It's a story that noted AP hack John Solomon got wrong on
> :> several accounts.
> :>
> :> http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001782.php
> :>
> :> Much of the media is as corrupt as the current government. :(
> :
> : And biased.
> :
> : TPMmuckraker.com is published by TPM Media LLC (publisher of Talking Points
> : Memo and TPMCafe). It is funded by paid advertisements and contributions
> : from readers.
> : <one of their "approved sites" is DailyKos, lol>
>
> I know you hold regular people in contempt, Mike, but you probably
> shouldn't be so blatant about it.
Regular by your definition?
I know you hold people that aren't "regular" in contempt, CB, but you
are very blantant about it.
Tex
|
| | |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 02:43:53
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Tex <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:
:
: Chris Bellomy wrote:
: > MnMikew <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote:
: > :
: > : "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
: > : news:1T3hp0h8IlkkN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
: > :> It's a story that noted AP hack John Solomon got wrong on
: > :> several accounts.
: > :>
: > :> http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001782.php
: > :>
: > :> Much of the media is as corrupt as the current government. :(
: > :
: > : And biased.
: > :
: > : TPMmuckraker.com is published by TPM Media LLC (publisher of Talking Points
: > : Memo and TPMCafe). It is funded by paid advertisements and contributions
: > : from readers.
: > : <one of their "approved sites" is DailyKos, lol>
: >
: > I know you hold regular people in contempt, Mike, but you probably
: > shouldn't be so blatant about it.
:
: Regular by your definition?
I suppose so. I mean "outside the beltway, ordinary, working,
and relatively powerless" in this case.
: I know you hold people that aren't "regular" in contempt, CB, but you
: are very blantant about it.
The only people I hold in contempt are liars and those who
prey on the weak. You escape contempt because you didn't
make me play you for money. :)
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 19:16:20
From: dsc
Subject: Re: George W. Bush
|
Frank Ketchum wrote:
> "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
> news:c43ii2tuhm9epah1udbb74k7qdl9j82osa@4ax.com...
> >
> > Funny thing - that's pretty much the same definition that the
> > Religious Right, the Religious Left, the Big Business Right, the
> > Welfare Left, the AARP, the School Lobby, the Environmentalists, the
> > KKK, the anti-Mexicans, the pro-Hollywood, and those routing for
> > Auburn have.
>
> You left out Miss America contestants.
Nah... they all just want world peace...
|
|
