OT:The Perfect Political Campaign Button '06

[Bill Sornson]

Snoot 'n Puss wrote (why all the edits, Mr. Honest?!?):
> On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 06:53:00 GMT, "Bill the simian cur Sornson" (hey, I
> kinda like that one!)
> <[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.

Says you. I don't believe 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.

Boy, time flies when you're having fun.

Since I don't keep voluminous files and records on you, Snoot, like you do
on me (even though I'm "not worth" your time and trouble LOL ), I won't
bother making up a date when you last lied and /said/ you plonked me.

My statement that I haven't changed it in many months stands. Now either
plonk me or quitcher *****in', you hateful lying NAMBLA-sympathizing scumbag
dickwad.

HTH

 

[Mark Hickey]

"Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote:

>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?

His tax cuts produced a deficit initially, but (unless you slept
through the period or are so partisan that you won't admit it), it
jump-started the slalled Carter-era US economy, producing a HUGE
inflow of tax revenue.

The problem is that the SPENDING ramped up to meet the new revenue,
not that the revenue wasn't there, and wasn't far more than adequate
to handle what should have been spent, and then some.

>> Just facts.

>Not from your Repugnantlican talking points.

Heh - so you judge whether something's true or not based on it's
political perspective. That is REALLY sad (and I mean that literally
and most sincerely). It's also a very common shortcoming these days,
which is why honest discussion is so difficult.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:

>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.

What the heck are you talking about??? Every 401(k) I've seen has a
number of investment options - some very safe, low-risk, low return...
and other market-based with the associated risk. I won't bother to
brag about the return I've gotten from my own 401(k), but it's many
times what I would have gotten had it been sunk into a Social Security
fund.

>> >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.

Keep telling yourself that all us investors out there aren't REALLY
making a lot of money, and that you're doing just as well. And then
look up the real meaning of "deluding".

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

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!

C'mon, I don't think he's an A__H__e..I just think he's not very smart
and has some crooked handlers..the Rummy, Cheny, Rove mob..

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >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?
>
> His tax cuts produced a deficit initially, but (unless you slept
> through the period or are so partisan that you won't admit it), it
> jump-started the slalled Carter-era US economy, producing a HUGE
> inflow of tax revenue.
>
> The problem is that the SPENDING ramped up to meet the new revenue,
> not that the revenue wasn't there, and wasn't far more than adequate
> to handle what should have been spent, and then some.
>

Mark, "Gooserider" wrote: "Would seem to me that cutting taxes while
raising spending is pretty stupid" (just scroll up to verify this).

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

That's where you jumped in....

Now, it seems you agree that that's what Raygun did, in fact, do: cut
taxes while increasing spending.

And, most of the "economic recovery" came as a result of out-of-control
deficit spending by the Raygun administration, not as a result of tax
cuts. Anytime the government spends freely (hot war, cold war, space
race, star wars, etc.), the economy gets a boost. Unfortunately,
someone has to pay the piper somewhere down the road.

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

Qui si parla Campagnolo 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 ;-)
> >
> > http://www.ozarkbicycleservice.com/gwbperfect.jpg
> >
> > Remember to vote the bums out next Tuesday!
>
> C'mon, I don't think he's an A__H__e..I just think he's not very smart
> and has some crooked handlers..the Rummy, Cheny, Rove mob..

I guess it depends on your definitiopn of A__H__e. To me, someone who
is in way over their head, who is stubborn and arrogant, who is
aggressive and pugnacious, and surrounds himself with sinister creeps
like Cheney, malignant, cynical political manipulators like Rove and a
real life Dr. Strangelove like Rumsfeld fits the definition. YMMV.

 

[[email protected]]

di wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> If you think SS is a sure thing, you have a lot to learn.

No, it's not a sure thing- Bush has been trying to make it less sure
since he took office. First he steals money from the trust fund to
finance his taxcuts to the ultra-wealthy, then he tells us it must be
"reformed" because his taxcuts have left the treasury too poor to repay
the trust fund. Bush is a liar and a thief. He steals from the poor and
gives to the very rich who are his REAL constituents.

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

[email protected] wrote:
> di wrote:
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> >
> > If you think SS is a sure thing, you have a lot to learn.
>
> No, it's not a sure thing- Bush has been trying to make it less sure
> since he took office. First he steals money from the trust fund to
> finance his taxcuts to the ultra-wealthy, then he tells us it must be
> "reformed" because his taxcuts have left the treasury too poor to repay
> the trust fund. Bush is a liar and a thief. He steals from the poor and
> gives to the very rich who are his REAL constituents.

And these are just a few of his charming traits.

Tune in next week for the next installment: "George W. Bush, Warmonger".

 

[[email protected]]

Bill wrote:
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.

He and his family are from Connecticut. 30 years ago or so we woulda
called 'em carpetbaggers; now Texans just bend over for him. It's
pathetic.

 

[[email protected]]

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.

No. I said I want my retirement baseline to be a sure thing, guaranteed
by the government. The reality is that the stock market has gone
sideways or worse taking inflation into account for most of the years
since 1929. (Or maybe we should include pre-1929 since the Crash set
the economic circumstances that lead to the creation of Social Security
in the first place. Can't happen again, right? The conditions are
there; all that has to happen is for China to start dumping the US govt
bonds that it holds.)

 

[Dane Buson]

In rec.bicycles.misc Bill Sornson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> More like ten thou (or more) a clone. Why else would that couple in
> Missouri pour nearly /$30M/ into a state constitutional amendment
> masquerading as a stem cell propostion?

Why, whenever these sorts of subjects come up, do people start going off
on wild tangents like cloning? [1] I'm assuming you're talking about
"The Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures"? If so, they're fairly
innocuous as far as I can tell. Oh my god, they want to make sure if
new technology comes about to cure sick people, that Missourans can
benefit too! The horror! The horror!

- ensures that Missouri patients will have equal access to any
federally approved stem cell cures that are available to other Americans

- ensures that Missouri medical institutions can provide and help
find those cures; and creates responsible ethical guidelines for
stem cell research.

- including a *strict ban* on any attempt to *clone a human being*.

The 'strict ban' portion doesn't really leave a lot of wiggle room.

[1] Not that I give a fig if someone wants to clone themselves really.
I'm confident they'll be disappointed with the results. [2]
[2] The cloned pet people are not exactly rolling in the dough. Now
multiply the problems fifty fold for working with humans. Oh yeah,
that will be popular. </sarcasm>

--
Dane Buson - [email protected]
"Necessity is the mother of invention" is a silly proverb. "Necessity
is the mother of futile dodges" is much nearer the truth.
-- Alfred North Whitehead

 

[damyth]

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!

Forget the button. Just remember the following when you go to the
polls:
1. Iraq war mess
2. Afghanistan (falling back into Taliban hands again)
2. Katrina/FEMA
3. Abramoff
4. DeLay
5. Ney
6. Foley
7. "Scooter" Libby, Karl Rove, Plame affair
8. Terri Schiavo
9. Deficit spending and emergency funding for Iraq war

If this doesn't get your blood pressure up, nothing will. Throw the
lying incompetent bums out!

 

[damyth]

damyth 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 ;-)
> >
> > http://www.ozarkbicycleservice.com/gwbperfect.jpg
> >
> > Remember to vote the bums out next Tuesday!
>
> Forget the button. Just remember the following when you go to the
> polls:
> 1. Iraq war mess
> 2. Afghanistan (falling back into Taliban hands again)
> 2. Katrina/FEMA
> 3. Abramoff
> 4. DeLay
> 5. Ney
> 6. Foley
> 7. "Scooter" Libby, Karl Rove, Plame affair
> 8. Terri Schiavo
> 9. Deficit spending and emergency funding for Iraq war
>
> If this doesn't get your blood pressure up, nothing will. Throw the
> lying incompetent bums out!

Sigh... I know I forgot something:
10. Extra-ordinary renditions, splitting hairs re definition of
"torture", Gitmo, evisceration of Geneva Conventions.

 

[G.T.]

Dane Buson wrote:
> In rec.bicycles.misc Bill Sornson <[email protected]> wrote:
>> More like ten thou (or more) a clone. Why else would that couple in
>> Missouri pour nearly /$30M/ into a state constitutional amendment
>> masquerading as a stem cell propostion?
>
> Why, whenever these sorts of subjects come up, do people start going off
> on wild tangents like cloning?

Yeah, that non-sequitur kind of stumped me.

Greg

--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

damyth wrote:
> damyth 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 ;-)
> > >
> > > http://www.ozarkbicycleservice.com/gwbperfect.jpg
> > >
> > > Remember to vote the bums out next Tuesday!
> >
> > Forget the button. Just remember the following when you go to the
> > polls:
> > 1. Iraq war mess
> > 2. Afghanistan (falling back into Taliban hands again)
> > 2. Katrina/FEMA
> > 3. Abramoff
> > 4. DeLay
> > 5. Ney
> > 6. Foley
> > 7. "Scooter" Libby, Karl Rove, Plame affair
> > 8. Terri Schiavo
> > 9. Deficit spending and emergency funding for Iraq war
> >
> > If this doesn't get your blood pressure up, nothing will. Throw the
> > lying incompetent bums out!
>
> Sigh... I know I forgot something:
> 10. Extra-ordinary renditions, splitting hairs re definition of
> "torture", Gitmo, evisceration of Geneva Conventions.

You forgot:

11. Unauthorized wiretaps.

 

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

[email protected] wrote:
> di wrote:

> > If you think SS is a sure thing, you have a lot to learn.
>
>
> ...he tells us it must be "reformed" because
> his taxcuts have left the treasury too poor to repay
> the trust fund.

SS owes you and I exactly $0 (in real dollars).

"Social Security is neither solvent nor bankrupt."

"In Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960), the U.S. Supreme Court set
the record straight. Social Security is actually nothing more than an
umbrella term for two schemes that are legally unrelated: a taxation
scheme and a welfare scheme."

"Nestor stood on the shoulders of a previous case, Helvering v. Davis,
301 U.S. 619 (1937). In Davis, the Court had confirmed that Social
Security is not an insurance program."
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=949&month=44&title=no+more+euphemisms&id=44

also:
http://www.mises.org/asc/essays/attarian.pdf

I don't know why you're ranting about Bush and SS. He's no worse than
any other president on that score. Which is to say they all suck.

 

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> Mark Hickey wrote:
> > "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >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?
> >
> > His tax cuts produced a deficit initially, but (unless you slept
> > through the period or are so partisan that you won't admit it), it
> > jump-started the slalled Carter-era US economy, producing a HUGE
> > inflow of tax revenue.
> >
> > The problem is that the SPENDING ramped up to meet the new revenue,
> > not that the revenue wasn't there, and wasn't far more than adequate
> > to handle what should have been spent, and then some.
> >
>
> Mark, "Gooserider" wrote: "Would seem to me that cutting taxes while
> raising spending is pretty stupid" (just scroll up to verify this).
>
> To which I replied "Hey, it worked for Ronnie Raygun; he was out of
> office before the fit hit the shan. George II figured he'd give ot a
> try, too".
>
> That's where you jumped in....
>
> Now, it seems you agree that that's what Raygun did, in fact, do: cut
> taxes while increasing spending.
>
> And, most of the "economic recovery" came as a result of out-of-control
> deficit spending by the Raygun administration, not as a result of tax
> cuts. Anytime the government spends freely (hot war, cold war, space
> race, star wars, etc.), the economy gets a boost. Unfortunately,
> someone has to pay the piper somewhere down the road.

http://www.russmo.com/04_06_08.html

 

[Mark Hickey]

"Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark, "Gooserider" wrote: "Would seem to me that cutting taxes while
>raising spending is pretty stupid" (just scroll up to verify this).
>
>To which I replied "Hey, it worked for Ronnie Raygun; he was out of
>office before the fit hit the shan. George II figured he'd give ot a
>try, too".
>
>That's where you jumped in....
>
>Now, it seems you agree that that's what Raygun did, in fact, do: cut
>taxes while increasing spending.

There were other threads in this that were talking about tax revenue -
so you're right that my response could have been taken as a bit
off-topic to Gooserider's comment. My real point though, was that
cutting taxes ultimately increases tax revenues, making "cutting taxes
while spending more" less stupid than "not cutting taxes and spending
the same amount" (from a long term perspective, of course).

>And, most of the "economic recovery" came as a result of out-of-control
>deficit spending by the Raygun administration, not as a result of tax
>cuts. Anytime the government spends freely (hot war, cold war, space
>race, star wars, etc.), the economy gets a boost. Unfortunately,
>someone has to pay the piper somewhere down the road.

Ultimately I think it's pretty clear that "it worked" when looked at
as a whole. The US economy is the envy of the rest of the world (and
the center of the world market, without a doubt). To some degree I
guess it's all smoke and mirrors no matter what approach is taken by
the feds though.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

"SLAVE of THE STATE" <[email protected]> wrote:

>also:
>http://www.mises.org/asc/essays/attarian.pdf
>
>I don't know why you're ranting about Bush and SS. He's no worse than
>any other president on that score. Which is to say they all suck.

Careful - if you try to interject facts into the discussion, they call
you rude names.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

[email protected] wrote:

>
>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.
>
>No. I said I want my retirement baseline to be a sure thing, guaranteed
>by the government.

You really ARE a "savings account investor". If you can learn to live
on those kind of returns in your old age, more power to you. I
personally have worked hard and invested (usually) wisely so my family
could be in good shape when I retire. That involved taking some risks
along the way, and (shudder...) they weren't guaranteed by Uncle Sam
or anyone else. I put down my money, hoped for the best, took some
beatings but won a lot more than I lost.

>The reality is that the stock market has gone
>sideways or worse taking inflation into account for most of the years
>since 1929. (Or maybe we should include pre-1929 since the Crash set
>the economic circumstances that lead to the creation of Social Security
>in the first place. Can't happen again, right? The conditions are
>there; all that has to happen is for China to start dumping the US govt
>bonds that it holds.)

You imply that those who've put their money into the market haven't
made much over the years. Balderdash... they've made a huge amount.
If you're scared to lose a little occasionally, you miss out on the
opportunity to make a lot more on other days. The stock market has
outpaced almost every other type of investment over the years, and
will almost certainly continue to do so.

Considering the effective return on money you invest in SS (around 2%
as I recall), it's hard to imagine the market doing worse over any
reasonable period of time. It certainly never has had a
"career-length" period where the return wouldn't have outpaced SS many
times over.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame