OT:The Perfect Political Campaign Button '06



On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 00:50:29 GMT, "Bill the fukin' puke Sornson"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Re-plonk. (Now please stop changing your user-name and/or address.)


Coming from the nym-shifting scumbag freeper itself that's funny.
--
zk
 
"Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Gooserider wrote:


>> Would seem to me that cutting taxes while raising spending is pretty stupid.

>
>Hey, it worked for Ronnie Raygun; he was out of office before the fit
>hit the shan. George II figured he'd give it a try, too.


Heh. You should study history before you invoke it. Go back and look
at the effect on tax REVENUE that tax cuts have had since Kennedy. In
all cases, the tax cuts resulted in big increases in tax revenue by
increasing the generation of wealth and prosperity (where a dollar in
the hands of a consumer can do more good than if it's stuck in
Washington DC).

Just facts.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
 
[email protected] wrote:

>If you'd put it in the stock market 6 years ago you'd have to work an
>extra year or so to make up the difference lost to inflation.


If your entire working career was 6 years, you'd have a point. Look
at any reasonable length of time and there's nowhere you could park a
normal work life on the chart and not come out WAY ahead.

>The stock market goes up and it goes down, but over the last 40 years
>it also has spent a lot of time going sideways while inflation goes up.
>I would like my retirement baseline to be based on a sure thing.


You sound like a "savings account" kind of "investor". Nothing wrong
with that, but they get left in the dust by those who invest in the
market. Those of us who aren't hopelessly paranoid about the market
would prefer the choice (aka "freedom") to control our own destinies
as much as possible.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
 
Mark Hickey wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Gooserider wrote:

>
>>> Would seem to me that cutting taxes while raising spending is
>>> pretty stupid.

>>
>> Hey, it worked for Ronnie Raygun; he was out of office before the fit
>> hit the shan. George II figured he'd give it a try, too.

>
> Heh. You should study history before you invoke it. Go back and look
> at the effect on tax REVENUE that tax cuts have had since Kennedy. In
> all cases, the tax cuts resulted in big increases in tax revenue by
> increasing the generation of wealth and prosperity (where a dollar in
> the hands of a consumer can do more good than if it's stuck in
> Washington DC).
>
> Just facts.


'Zark and the Wreck don't do facts, Mark. Clue in, man.
 
di wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> *Real* bad job if one is concerned about the US becoming a rogue state,
>> about the right to privacy, about civil liberties, about due process,
>> about adhering to the Geneva Conventions, about not engaging in
>> torture, about not lying to the populace.....
>>
>> But as long as taxes are low for *you* and you can afford to fill up
>> the SUV, all is right in the world.

>
>
> You really believe all this political trash don't you, really feel sorry for
> you.
>
>

I was going to avoid this, but you just had to mention political trash.
It's all in Washington, and it's called the Republican party.
Look at the chain of command; Bush, Cheney, Hastert,....
That makes me want Bush to stay healthy for 2 more years.
We would go from moron, to complete idiot, to lying fat sack of ****.
At least Rush Limbaugh isn't running for office, Thank God.

--
Bill (Sleepless biker) Baka
 
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> di wrote:
>> "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> *Real* bad job if one is concerned about the US becoming a rogue state,
>>> about the right to privacy, about civil liberties, about due process,
>>> about adhering to the Geneva Conventions, about not engaging in
>>> torture, about not lying to the populace.....
>>>
>>> But as long as taxes are low for *you* and you can afford to fill up
>>> the SUV, all is right in the world.

>>
>>
>> You really believe all this political trash don't you, really feel sorry
>> for you.

> I was going to avoid this, but you just had to mention political trash.
> It's all in Washington, and it's called the Republican party.
> Look at the chain of command; Bush, Cheney, Hastert,....
> That makes me want Bush to stay healthy for 2 more years.
> We would go from moron, to complete idiot, to lying fat sack of ****.
> At least Rush Limbaugh isn't running for office, Thank God.
>
> --
> Bill (Sleepless biker) Baka


Clueless Bill with his usual words of wisdom
 
Mark Hickey wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Gooserider wrote:

>
> >> Would seem to me that cutting taxes while raising spending is pretty stupid.

> >
> >Hey, it worked for Ronnie Raygun; he was out of office before the fit
> >hit the shan. George II figured he'd give it a try, too.

>
> Heh. You should study history before you invoke it. Go back and look
> at the effect on tax REVENUE that tax cuts have had since Kennedy. In
> all cases, the tax cuts resulted in big increases in tax revenue by
> increasing the generation of wealth and prosperity (where a dollar in
> the hands of a consumer can do more good than if it's stuck in
> Washington DC).
>


That must be why Raygun brought down the deficit so successfully, eh?


> Just facts.
>


Not from your Repugnantlican talking points.
 
Per Ted:
>I have not seen any evidence that the populace is being lied to.


- The White House specifically stated that the "Mission Accomplished"
thing on the aircraft carrier was a spontaneous demonstration.
Later they admitted that they set it up.

- The Medicare (prescription drug?... can't remember) thing a year or
so ago: actual cost was tb something like 500 mil (bil?). Administration
presented it as 300-and-some. Some tech guy on the ground had
the right figures and was told he'd be fired if he said one word.

- The aluminum tube thing. From what I heard, experts from all over
called it ridiculous from the get-go - but they continued to present
it as evidence of nuclear weapons development

- The yellow cake scandal.

- Repeated, blatant denials that global warming was a legitimate concept.
Presenting a few fringes against virtually the entire scientific
community - and then talking about "the climate change debate". There
was no serious debate left at that time.


Geeze! These are not nice people.... they're *Politicians* for goodness sake...
Dems, Repubs, whoever..... leave too many of them in one place for too long and
more bad things happen than if you shuffle them around regularly.



"not seen evidence of their being tortured.."? You never will. They redefine
torture to suite their agenda. As far as I know, at least one Japanese officer
got something like 5-15 hard labor for water boarding US troops in WWII. When
the KGB did it, it was torture....Now it's OK? Besides - you think they let
the Red Cross or Amnesty International just wander around in those places?
If you don't the USA is torturing people as a matter of official policy, either
you've got some splinter definition of torture going or you're actively ignoring
a *lot* of things.


--
PeteCresswell
 
di wrote:
> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> di wrote:
>>> "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> *Real* bad job if one is concerned about the US becoming a rogue state,
>>>> about the right to privacy, about civil liberties, about due process,
>>>> about adhering to the Geneva Conventions, about not engaging in
>>>> torture, about not lying to the populace.....
>>>>
>>>> But as long as taxes are low for *you* and you can afford to fill up
>>>> the SUV, all is right in the world.
>>>
>>> You really believe all this political trash don't you, really feel sorry
>>> for you.

>> I was going to avoid this, but you just had to mention political trash.
>> It's all in Washington, and it's called the Republican party.
>> Look at the chain of command; Bush, Cheney, Hastert,....
>> That makes me want Bush to stay healthy for 2 more years.
>> We would go from moron, to complete idiot, to lying fat sack of ****.
>> At least Rush Limbaugh isn't running for office, Thank God.
>>
>> --
>> Bill (Sleepless biker) Baka

>
> Clueless Bill with his usual words of wisdom
>
>

Clueless my ass. Dimwit weed ruined the company I worked for and now my
$75K job has been sent to China where they are minting new engineers
about ten to one over us. Now I can get one of weed's new jobs that he
created at maybe a hair over minimum wage. Progress, huh? Wait until
China becomes the superpower and we become the has been.
If clueless means being underemployed because dip **** cares more about
his stupid war than the economy and well being of Americans then I am
proudly clueless and anti everything Bush. He has now killed almost as
many Americans as were killed in the 9/11 attacks and only managed to
get Saddam out of power and all the Muslims to hate the US. Damn, with
progress like that we will be at war with all the Muslim countries until
we run out of oil when they cut us of completely. The money he has spent
to protect his oil interests could have made a hell of a dent in
alternative energy research, but he doesn't care about that. He is from
Texas, after all.

--
Bill (Sleepless biker) Baka
 
Ted WHO? wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > Never have a word and a picture gone together quite so well!
> >
> > You Bushies should avoid clicking on this link, we all know the truth
> > and the truth will hurt ;-)
> >

> Let's see... The current administration cut taxes so lower income
> groups do not pay income taxes now, they are doing away with the death
> tax so you don't have to sell the farm when Granddad dies, the tax
> revenues are higher than they have ever been, unemployment is the
> lowest in years, the stock market is the highest ever, inflation is
> staying low, over 500 warheads filled with sarin and mustard gas were
> removed from Iraq, Bush's judges don't want to confiscate privately
> owned houses by eminent domain to build shopping centers Yeah, bad
> job.


PLEASE PROVIDE A CITIATION FOR A FAMILY FARM LOST BECAUSE OF ESTATE
TAXES.

The concentration of wealth to the very few is greater than ever, real
wages have been falling for all but upper management, low wage jobs are
replacing middle class jobs, the debt burden is spiraling, medical
costs are rising much faster than inflation, the chemical weapons found
in Iraq were a motley collection of pre-1991 warheads scattered here
and there (and severely degraded), no active chemical, biological or
nuclear weapons programs were found, more Iraqis are dying from
violence and disease related to the US occupation than were killed by
the Baath regime under Saddam Hussein, quality of life (by the normal
measures in Iraq) is worse than under Saddam Hussein, women in Iraq
have less rights than under Saddam Hussein, a low-level civil war has
started in Iraq, more than 1 million Iraqis are refugees, North Korea
has developed low yield nuclear weapons, habeas corpus is dead after
eight centuries, a rubber stamp Congress approved torture and immunity
for war crimes, global warming is fast approaching the "tipping point"
with nothing being done about it, and the housing bubble is starting to
deflate which will move many from the middle class to lower class.

YOU'RE DOING A HECK OF A JOB, GWB!

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
 
[email protected] wrote:
> di wrote:
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > t.
> > >
> > > No, the administration wants to intercept whatever damn international
> > > phone calls they want to. Right now they _say_ calls involving only
> > > known terrorists. (Well, that's not exactly what they say; it's more
> > > like "people who have talked to people who are suspected to have at
> > > some time or the other have talked to someone who was sympathetic to
> > > Islamic radicals.")

> >
> >
> > Don't be so paranoid, if they wanted to know what you are talking about, do
> > you really think they would need some approval to do so?

>
> I think they _do_ know what I'm talking about. You think the NSA isn't
> scanning usenet? I think that probably I'm not at the threshold for
> getting attention; afterall, about 60% of Americans anymore think that
> Bush is a lousy president.


It would be rather difficult to put 60% of the population into
concentration camps - even Stalin managed less than 10% (by available
estimates).

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
 
Mark Hickey wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >If you'd put it in the stock market 6 years ago you'd have to work an
> >extra year or so to make up the difference lost to inflation.

>
> If your entire working career was 6 years, you'd have a point. Look
> at any reasonable length of time and there's nowhere you could park a
> normal work life on the chart and not come out WAY ahead.
>
> >The stock market goes up and it goes down, but over the last 40 years
> >it also has spent a lot of time going sideways while inflation goes up.
> >I would like my retirement baseline to be based on a sure thing.

>
> You sound like a "savings account" kind of "investor". Nothing wrong
> with that, but they get left in the dust by those who invest in the
> market. Those of us who aren't hopelessly paranoid about the market
> would prefer the choice (aka "freedom") to control our own destinies
> as much as possible.


Unless a person is independently wealthy, they are a fool if they think
they have real freedom. That freedom disappeared with the frontier more
than a century ago.

The non-wealthy in Northern/Western Europe have more freedom, since
they are not tied to the goodwill of an employer for the basic
necessities of food, housing and medical care.

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
 
In article <[email protected]>, "di" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > di wrote:
> >> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ********. The "lower income groups" pay FICA to finance the huge
> >> > taxcuts given to the ultra-wealthiest on the promise that they
> >> > will get a Social Security pension that these "taxcutters" are
> >> > trying their damndest to make smaller.
> >>
> >> The only thing that's made SS smaller in recent years was the tax
> >> Bill Clinton put on it,

> >
> > And you can thank the Democrats in Congress for stopping Bush's
> > attempt at Social Security "reform". But he said in an interview
> > last week, it's back on the table after this election.

>
> What's wrong with "reform". I'm on SS, after Clinton's tax I get
> around $1500/month, if I had put that money in the stock market the
> 40 years I worked instead of the Washington Cesspool, my monthly
> income would maybe be $10,000/15,000 a month or more.


Maybe. Or more likely not, given how returns on the stock market are
largely eaten up by fund managers and fees and the like. Return on
investment has been quite anemic for years, and the nature of the stock
market is such that there is no protection whatsoever for investors.
The real money is made by fund owners and fund managers, not investors.

Watching my 401(k)'s performance since 2000, I will most likely actually
lose money once inflation, taxes and fees are taken into account. The
only saving grace is matching contributions from my employer which
*might* balance it out. Currently I would do better putting my money in
a savings account. At the rate things are going I will not be able to
retire until I am too feeble to work.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >If you'd put it in the stock market 6 years ago you'd have to work
> >an extra year or so to make up the difference lost to inflation.

>
> If your entire working career was 6 years, you'd have a point. Look
> at any reasonable length of time and there's nowhere you could park a
> normal work life on the chart and not come out WAY ahead.


Actually, when you look very closely at most defined contribution
retirement plans (e.g., 401(k) plans that are commonly available) you
will see that the returns to investors are very, very low. The returns
are heavily diverted to fund managers, fund owners, etc., who minimize
their risk while passing the risk on to the investors.

> >The stock market goes up and it goes down, but over the last 40
> >years it also has spent a lot of time going sideways while inflation
> >goes up. I would like my retirement baseline to be based on a sure
> >thing.

>
> You sound like a "savings account" kind of "investor". Nothing wrong
> with that, but they get left in the dust by those who invest in the
> market. Those of us who aren't hopelessly paranoid about the market
> would prefer the choice (aka "freedom") to control our own destinies
> as much as possible.


You are deluding yourself, Mark, if you think you have the freedom to
control your own financial destiny through investing in the stock
market. You have no more control with the stock market than you do with
a slot machine.
 
Tim McNamara wrote:
> Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > You sound like a "savings account" kind of "investor". Nothing wrong
> > with that, but they get left in the dust by those who invest in the
> > market. Those of us who aren't hopelessly paranoid about the market
> > would prefer the choice (aka "freedom") to control our own destinies
> > as much as possible.

>
> You are deluding yourself, Mark, if you think you have the freedom to
> control your own financial destiny through investing in the stock
> market. You have no more control with the stock market than you do with
> a slot machine.


Wait a minute. If you pull the handle aren't you in control of the
slot machine?

R
 
Ted wrote:
> ... over 500 warheads filled with sarin and mustard gas were
> removed from Iraq


"Warheads" is a bit of an escalation, isn't it? I saw artillery shells
on tv. So what size were they? - (googles a bit) - they were 155mms. I
mean, it's not something you want shot at yourself personally, but it's
not an ICMB, either.

And many of those initial reports were wrong, and they were
conventional shells, according to online sources.
 
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> Never have a word and a picture gone together quite so well!
>
> You Bushies should avoid clicking on this link, we all know the truth
> and the truth will hurt ;-)
>
> http://www.ozarkbicycleservice.com/gwbperfect.jpg
>
> Remember to vote the bums out next Tuesday!


Oh Dog, is it that time of year again allready?
 
On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 06:53:00 GMT, "Bill the simian cur Sornson"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> I've NOT changed my e-mail even once much
>less "at least twice" since you claimed to have plonked me.


Stop pretending, kook. You've shifted nyms and changed your email
address so many times you can't keep your lies straight anymore.

Sat, 08 Apr 2006 07:00:13 GMT,"Sorni"
<[email protected]>

That when I plonked you.

Okay? Now pay attention.

On Tues, Jun 27 2006 7:56 am you posted as "Bill Sornson"
<[email protected]>

Now you're claiming to be "Billl Sornson" <[email protected]>

That's two in case you can't count.

You're a kook, a bad actor and a pitiable, yet worthless, shitsack.
Now go pass another kidney stone since that last one seems to have
put you in such a good mood.

Die kook.
--
zk