On Jun 4, 8:20 pm, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jun 4, 7:32 pm, Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>, .@. says...
>
> > > McCain will be 75 by the time his term ends.
> > > You do the math. What are the
> > > odds for McCain?
>
> > You tell me. His mother is out campaigning for him -- I'd say his
> > chances look pretty good.
>
> How about his aunt? (His mother is one half of twins.)
>
> The odds that a man who is 70 will live to be 75 are
> much better than the odds that a man who is 40 will
> live to be 75.
>
> --
>
> FF
Let's hope so. I'll be 70 this year. Of course, the odds that I'll
live another 35 years are one helluva lot worse than they were when I
was 40.
On Jun 5, 1:43=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Jun 5, 12:53 pm, Woodie <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Robatoy wrote:
> >>> On Jun 5, 11:46 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> 7) Obama has scared off a good part of the liberal Jewish vote.
> >>>> =A0 =A0While only 3-4% of the electorate, it's enough alone to be
> >>>> =A0 =A0the swing in a tight election.
> >>> That's right. They only influence 3-4% of the political process. Give
> >>> your head a shake.
> >> I'd really love to see you amplify that insinuation into a defendable
> >> statement.
>
> > Sorry bro'. No bait for me just now, I just ate.
>
> > But I will ask you one question. If all that's at stake is 3-4% of the
> > electorate, why are all candidates sucking up to AIPAC?
> > Any candidate that calls Israel on its behaviour towards the
> > Palestinians doesn't stand a chance to get elected...and that is NOT
> > because of the 3-4%. You figure it out.
>
> Because - notwithstanding your blatant racism masquerading as analysis
> - the US is not a homogeneous population. It is deeply pluralistic and
> candidates have to form demographic and ideological coalitions to win.
> More specifically, when the left-right political divide is almost
> perfectly 50/50, a very small percentage shift can be the swing vote
> in any election.
>
> The problem for any politician is that some voting blocs are open to
> moving and some are not. For example, urban blacks resoundingly vote
> for Democrats - that's why my vote in IL is irrelevant - IL will go to
> the left every time no matter how bad the candidate. But other groups
> - e.g., the Blue Dog Democrats, some portions of the Jewish vote - are
> open to changing sides on a candidate-by-candidate basis and *that* is
> why politicians try to build coalitions with them. Your insinuation
> that Jews have a disproportionate influence on these matters is thus
> both morally repugnant (for its embedded bigotry) and not true (as a
> matter of fact).
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------=
- -
> Tim Daneliuk =A0 =A0 [email protected]
> PGP Key: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
My God, you ARE Karl Rove!! Destroy the messenger so that the message
loses its truth.
The ol' swiftboat routine.
If you have your head planted so far up your ass that you don't see
that ANY group can have more influence than their voting percentage
would indicate, than all that intelligent-sounding rhetoric of yours
is nothing but a smokescreen covering up your ignorance.
Good luck in your dream-world. I prefer to deal with reality.
It's funny. You can sound so intelligent sometimes. But once sorted
out, you're an idiot.
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 07:25:14 -0500, Leon wrote:
>
>>
>> I think you're wrong on this one, Leon. Take a look at an insurance
>> company life expectancy chart sometime. Or the IRS chart for minimum IRA
>> withdrawals based on age.
>>
>> The idea is that life expectancy at birth is brought down by infant
>> mortality, teenage idiocy, war, etc.. By the time one is 60 or 70, we've
>> escaped all that.
>
> Well, my life insurance increases the closer to 70 that I get. I'm thinking that the older I get
> the more likely the policy is in having to pay off. My insurance has no cash value so it is all
> profit unless I die. I had a 20 year term that cost me $24 per month, it expired a couple of
> months ago and my new 16 year term went up to $125 per month, 5 times more. I chose the 10 year
> term for $36 per month.
One description of life insurance is that you are betting with the insurance
company that you will die before a certain age ... and hoping that the
insurance company wins. ;-)
On Jun 5, 3:31=A0pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <vQU1k.141154$TT4.37988@attbi_s22>, Woodie <[email protected]> wro=
te:
> >It is illustrative that Bill has been on a whoring binge during
> >Hillary's campaign. Recently reported that staffers tried to hold an
> >"intervention" aimed at his behavior.
> >If he were interested in helping Hillary's effort, he could have tried
> >to lay off a little bit during this time. Rather it seems he stepped it u=
p.
>
> Like I said... he doesn't really want her to be elected.
>
> >She really should have dumped him. She'd be better off.
>
> That will never happen: as long as they're still married, neither one can =
be
> compelled to testify against the other in a criminal proceeding.
Holy shit!! Miller GETS IT!
On Jun 7, 8:47 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <2200602c-98ee-4ed5-a06a-f36097a7c...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >Agreed. the difference in our opinions, perhaps,
> >is I don't think she thinks she could do it and not
> >get caught.
>
> We disagree on that aspect, too. IMHO, her hubris knows no bounds, and ISTM
> that _of_course_ she thinks she won't get caught. She's the Anointed One.
>
> ...
You might well be right. Those people (e.g. politicians,
televangelists,
marketers) are so used to lying in plain sight they don't worry about
getting caught. One thing BJ Clinton and GW Bush have in common
is that smirk they wear on their face when they're telling a
baldfaced
lie that they expect to get away with, because it is politically
incorrect
to call them on it.
--
FF
On Jun 7, 1:55 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <fcedcc2f-d228-4b73-9ee5-6f89343ab...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
>
> >I don't agree. Sabotaging his campaign or administration
> >would ruin her as well. If she stabs him in the back, not
> >matter how subtly, she'll never get (or deserve) widespread
> >party support again.
>
> Only if she gets caught.
Agreed. the difference in out opinions, perhaps,
is I don't think she thinks she could do it and not
get caught.
Maybe she'll try to catch him in bed with Bill...
--
FF
On Jun 5, 5:15=A0pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:c8c49be8-d38e-4552-b7fe-0e99b013a2c1@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 5, 4:43 pm, "Dan Coby" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Don't buy life insurance, buy all the farmland you can afford for the
> same payments.
>
> For $300 a year, how much farm land can I buy? =A0;~_
Okay, maybe a window box full of dirt? <G>
On Jun 4, 1:58 am, "RogerM" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Garage_Woodworks" <.@.> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...> Sorry Hillary
> >http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blpic-hillarybillfirst...
>
> But what are the odds that he will;
>
> a) be assisinated before the elections; 10:1
> b) be assisinated after the elections letting his vice president (Hilary)
> become president; 2:1
> c) photographs found of him in a compromising position with a goat; evens.
What makes you think any goat would sink that low?
Lou
On Jun 5, 12:41 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Jun 5, 7:39 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> In article
> > <[email protected]>, Fred the
> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >On Jun 4, 7:29 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> >> In article
> >> > <f8231aee-0ad1-49d7-b373-33e8b49ab...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Fred
> > the
> >> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >> >How many VPs have gone on to be elected President,
> >> >> >without first becoming President through the line of
> >> >> >succession?
>
> >> >> >Bush
> >> >> >Nixon
> >> >> >??
>
> >> >> John Adams (VP under Washington)
> >> >> Thomas Jefferson (Adams)
> >> >> Martin Van Buren (Jackson)
> >> --
> >> >Add to that Ford,
>
> >> No; Ford *did* go through the line of succession.
>
> >No, Ford *did* go through the line of succession, that is
> >why I added him. Context is not irrelevant.
>
> >The first list was of for Presidents assassinated in
> >office. The second list, incorporating the first, was
> >of eight Presidents who died in office. Their Vice
> >Presidents ascended to office via the line of succesison.
>
> >The third list was of Vice Presidents elected
> >to office without first becoming President through
> >the line of succession.
>
> >The fourth list was Ford, whom, as you will note,
> >did not meet the criteria of the first three lists.
>
> As originally stated, your wording ("Add to that Ford;") implied that you
> meant to add him to one of those categories, not to start a fourth (and
> so far unique) category. In any event, all is clear now.
Wrong. As originally stated, "Add to *them*" I was adding
him to the list of Vice Presidents who became President.
--
FF
On Jun 4, 8:12 am, "Garage_Woodworks" <.@.> wrote:
> Heart attack stats for men:
>
> For men over age 55, the incidence of stroke more than doubles in each
> successive decade.
> A man's average age for a first heart attack is 66 years old.
>
> McCain will be 75 by the time his term ends. You do the math. What are the
> odds for McCain?
OTOH, the older a person is, the greater their life expectancy.
IIRC the odds were substantially in favor of Reagan surviving
through two terms.
--
FF
"RogerM" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Garage_Woodworks" <.@.> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Sorry Hillary
>> http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blpic-hillarybillfirstlady.htm
>>
> But what are the odds that he will;
The odds are much greater that McCain keels over due to a heart attack or
stroke and Condaleeza takes the helm.
On Jun 4, 7:32 pm, Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, .@. says...
>
>
>
> > McCain will be 75 by the time his term ends.
> > You do the math. What are the
> > odds for McCain?
>
> You tell me. His mother is out campaigning for him -- I'd say his
> chances look pretty good.
How about his aunt? (His mother is one half of twins.)
The odds that a man who is 70 will live to be 75 are
much better than the odds that a man who is 40 will
live to be 75.
--
FF
Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
> "evodawg" wrote:
>
>> Well lets hope so! Just what we need, a Socialist in the White
>> House. If
>> elected, hold on to your ASS. Cause he'll stick it to all of us.
>
> Unless you are in the top 1% of the income earners, you have already
> been given a real screwing with out a kiss the last 7-1/2 years, so
> why not relax and enjoy the ride?<G>
>
> Lew
Actually I've been doing very well the last 8 years and I'm not in that 1%
of income earners. Just lately have I been taking a hit but that happens
every election year, don't it?
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586
On Jun 4, 9:01 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Garage_Woodworks" <.@.> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Heart attack stats for men:
>
> > For men over age 55, the incidence of stroke more than doubles in each
> > successive decade.
> > A man's average age for a first heart attack is 66 years old.
>
> > McCain will be 75 by the time his term ends. You do the math. What are
> > the odds for McCain?
>
> But to add the whole truth, "black" men have the same risks but
> unfortunately at a significantly younger age.
Obama, like Franco Harris, is a half-black.
Oddly enough, no oe refers to either as an Italian
American, though that term is at least as appropriate
to each as 'black' or 'African American'.
--
FF
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> On Jun 5, 10:27 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>> Doug Miller wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> <f8231aee-0ad1-49d7-b373-33e8b49ab...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> How many VPs have gone on to be elected President,
>>>>> without first becoming President through the line of
>>>>> succession?
>>>>> Bush
>>>>> Nixon
>>>>> ??
>>>> John Adams (VP under Washington)
>>>> Thomas Jefferson (Adams)
>>>> Martin Van Buren (Jackson)
>>> If he takes Hillary as his VP, the name he should think about is Vince
>>> Foster.
>> She'll be more subtle - she'll hire Ted Kennedy as his driver...
>>
>
> Regardless, Obmama needs the Clintons on his side. He can
> no more win with the Clintons against him than McCain can with
> the religofascists against him.
>
> --
>
> FF
I personally don't think he can win *at all* (though I could certainly
be wrong). He has a number of huge political liabilities that his
wheezing media admirers have either underreported or ignored entirely:
1) He is far to the left of even Hillary. This makes him unpalatable
to moderates in the middle of both parties.
2) His 20 year history with Wright's overt bigotry cannot be ignored.
Even people tending left are uncomfortable when they see him attend
a "Let's Get Whitey" church for decades and then claim he's never
heard a word of it. The Phelger vomitus will also come back to
haunt him: "How could go to a church that let's people like Phelger
into the pulpit?" His 11th hour exit from that church is a
sham and everyone knows it.
3) He will be hammered for his condescension to the masses,
his outright animus towards guns and their owners (he has
consistently tried to violate the 2nd Amendment in his votes
here in IL), and his failure to reject the bigoted voices
of the Nation Of Islam that work in his campaign. His wife's
slimy commentary will also not go ignored.
4) He deep connections to the just-convicted Tony Rezko in IL
are about to leap off the page. One local paper called
Rezko "Obama's real estate fairy" who got the Obamas into
a house they rather magically were suddenly able to afford.
Not bad for a US Senator who spends his spare time saving the
poor and downtrodden.
5) There are a lot of angry Hillary supporters who thought she got
the short end of the stick and will vote against Obama to make
a point.
6) Whether we like it or not, there is a significant portion of
the country that will not vote for a black president. Most
of these people likely would not vote for ANY democrat. But
some of them were likely to vote for Clinton had she won the
nomination because they feel betrayed by the new phony
Republicans.
7) Obama has scared off a good part of the liberal Jewish vote.
While only 3-4% of the electorate, it's enough alone to be
the swing in a tight election.
In short, it is very doubtful that Obama can create the necessary
cross-demographic coalition it would take for him to win. This
pleases me because I find him personally and even moreso his
ideas deeply vile. However, it does also have the consequence
of handing the election to a phony Republican, which is only
slightly better. My deepest hope is that - since no one seems to
much care about the Constitution and rule of law anymore - we
can at least preserve Federal gridlock. To that end, I hope the
election season is as contentious as possible with lots of hurt
feelings on both sides and that McCain wins. Both parties can
then spend the next 4 years beating each other up and the rest
of us can just live our lives.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Jun 5, 12:53=A0pm, Woodie <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Jun 5, 11:46 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> 7) Obama has scared off a good part of the liberal Jewish vote.
> >> =A0 =A0While only 3-4% of the electorate, it's enough alone to be
> >> =A0 =A0the swing in a tight election.
>
> > That's right. They only influence 3-4% of the political process. Give
> > your head a shake.
>
> I'd really love to see you amplify that insinuation into a defendable
> statement.
Sorry bro'. No bait for me just now, I just ate.
But I will ask you one question. If all that's at stake is 3-4% of the
electorate, why are all candidates sucking up to AIPAC?
Any candidate that calls Israel on its behaviour towards the
Palestinians doesn't stand a chance to get elected...and that is NOT
because of the 3-4%. You figure it out.
On Jun 5, 4:19=A0pm, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jun 4, 8:20 pm, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 4, 7:32 pm, Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > In article <[email protected]>, .@. says...
>
> > > > McCain will be 75 by the time his term ends.
> > > > You do the math. =A0What are the
> > > > odds for McCain?
>
> > > You tell me. His mother is out campaigning for him -- I'd say his
> > > chances look pretty good.
>
> > How about his aunt? =A0(His mother is one half of twins.)
>
> > The odds that a man who is 70 will live to be 75 are
> > much better than the odds that a man who is 40 will
> > live to be 75.
>
> > --
>
> > FF
>
> Let's hope so. I'll be 70 this year. Of course, the odds that I'll
> live another 35 years are one helluva lot worse than they were when I
> was 40.
Gawd!! What's going on??? This place is just awash in common sense
today. <G>
My big chuckle came when McCain (I don't really dislike him too much,
btw) said something about O8ama's young age. Now, if *I* was a speech
writer for 08ama, I would have instantly pointed out the fact that it
took him 25 years LESS time to become a nominee than it did McCain.
So who's dumb now? (I'm also not a big 08ama fan either, as he is
toooooo far left, but hey.. it's all you guys have.)
Again, in parenthesis, you don't want a one-legged man to come to bat
at the world series in the deciding inning, but.. if he swings a bat
well enough...who cares if he doesn't run as fast as the others?
08ama is in for a helluva rough ride and I, for one, do not believe
racism is sound asleep anywhere in North America. It's like the crazy
uncle in the attic. Everybody knows he's up there, but nobody talks
about it.
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> evodawg wrote:
>> Looks like he's screwed either way.
>>
>> Well lets hope so! Just what we need, a Socialist in the White House. If
>> elected, hold on to your ASS. Cause he'll stick it to all of us.
>>
>
> Uh, there already *is* a socialist in the White House. With the
> exception of Reagan, ever president of the 20th century was fine
> with raping the wallets of some to distribute to others. W is no
> exception.
>
Agree, maybe I should have said Communist instead.
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586
In article <[email protected]>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Jun 4, 7:29 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article
> <f8231aee-0ad1-49d7-b373-33e8b49ab...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Fred the
> Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >How many VPs have gone on to be elected President,
>> >without first becoming President through the line of
>> >succession?
>>
>> >Bush
>> >Nixon
>> >??
>>
>> John Adams (VP under Washington)
>> Thomas Jefferson (Adams)
>> Martin Van Buren (Jackson)
>
>Add to that Ford,
No; Ford *did* go through the line of succession.
The Constitution makes no distinction between the different manners by which
the office of the President may become vacant: "In case of the removal of the
President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall
become President." [Amendment XXV, Section 1]
In article <f8231aee-0ad1-49d7-b373-33e8b49ab1e6@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>How many VPs have gone on to be elected President,
>without first becoming President through the line of
>succession?
>
>Bush
>Nixon
>??
John Adams (VP under Washington)
Thomas Jefferson (Adams)
Martin Van Buren (Jackson)
On Jun 5, 3:53=A0pm, Woodie <[email protected]> wrote:
> Doug Miller wrote:
> > In article <vQU1k.141154$TT4.37988@attbi_s22>, Woodie <[email protected]> w=
rote:
>
> >> It is illustrative that Bill has been on a whoring binge during
> >> Hillary's campaign. Recently reported that staffers tried to hold an
> >> "intervention" aimed at his behavior.
> >> If he were interested in helping Hillary's effort, he could have tried
> >> to lay off a little bit during this time. Rather it seems he stepped it=
up.
>
> > Like I said... he doesn't really want her to be elected.
>
> >> She really should have dumped him. She'd be better off.
>
> > That will never happen: as long as they're still married, neither one ca=
n be
> > compelled to testify against the other in a criminal proceeding.
>
> Actually, they can divorce and still be covered under marital privilege
> for the time they were married. You don't have to remain married, the
> privilege stands for any communication that occurred during the
> marriage, regardless of the current status of the relationship.
NOW he tells me....
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 07:25:14 -0500, Leon wrote:
>
> I think you're wrong on this one, Leon. Take a look at an insurance
> company life expectancy chart sometime. Or the IRS chart for minimum IRA
> withdrawals based on age.
>
> The idea is that life expectancy at birth is brought down by infant
> mortality, teenage idiocy, war, etc.. By the time one is 60 or 70, we've
> escaped all that.
Well, my life insurance increases the closer to 70 that I get. I'm thinking
that the older I get the more likely the policy is in having to pay off. My
insurance has no cash value so it is all profit unless I die. I had a 20
year term that cost me $24 per month, it expired a couple of months ago and
my new 16 year term went up to $125 per month, 5 times more. I chose the 10
year term for $36 per month.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article
> <[email protected]>, Fred
> the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Jun 4, 7:29 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>>> In article
>> <f8231aee-0ad1-49d7-b373-33e8b49ab...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Fred
>> the
>> Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >How many VPs have gone on to be elected President,
>>> >without first becoming President through the line of
>>> >succession?
>>>
>>> >Bush
>>> >Nixon
>>> >??
>>>
>>> John Adams (VP under Washington)
>>> Thomas Jefferson (Adams)
>>> Martin Van Buren (Jackson)
>>
>>Add to that Ford,
>
> No; Ford *did* go through the line of succession.
AND, Ford was never elected to be President.
"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:f2e62725-cfef-4985-96b0-8b40af6ced3a@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Regardless, Obmama needs the Clintons on his side. He can
> no more win with the Clintons against him than McCain can with
> the religofascists against him.
Huh? Do you think that the Clinton's are going to start rooting for the
Republicans? I really don't think that he needs the Clinton's on his side,
they are as much a liability as an asset.
In article <vQU1k.141154$TT4.37988@attbi_s22>, Woodie <[email protected]> wrote:
>It is illustrative that Bill has been on a whoring binge during
>Hillary's campaign. Recently reported that staffers tried to hold an
>"intervention" aimed at his behavior.
>If he were interested in helping Hillary's effort, he could have tried
>to lay off a little bit during this time. Rather it seems he stepped it up.
Like I said... he doesn't really want her to be elected.
>She really should have dumped him. She'd be better off.
That will never happen: as long as they're still married, neither one can be
compelled to testify against the other in a criminal proceeding.
Leon wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:c8c49be8-d38e-4552-b7fe-0e99b013a2c1@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 5, 4:43 pm, "Dan Coby" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Don't buy life insurance, buy all the farmland you can afford for the
> same payments.
>
> For $300 a year, how much farm land can I buy? ;~_
>
>
Just a small view plot on a hillside with a marker and some guy to mow
it twice a month.
snile, don't smarl
jo4hn
Robatoy wrote:
> On Jun 5, 11:46 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 7) Obama has scared off a good part of the liberal Jewish vote.
>> While only 3-4% of the electorate, it's enough alone to be
>> the swing in a tight election.
>>
>
> That's right. They only influence 3-4% of the political process. Give
> your head a shake.
I'd really love to see you amplify that insinuation into a defendable
statement.
"Garage_Woodworks" <.@.> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Sorry Hillary
> http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blpic-hillarybillfirstlady.htm
>
But what are the odds that he will;
a) be assisinated before the elections; 10:1
b) be assisinated after the elections letting his vice president (Hilary)
become president; 2:1
c) photographs found of him in a compromising position with a goat; evens.
"Garage_Woodworks" <.@.> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Heart attack stats for men:
>
> For men over age 55, the incidence of stroke more than doubles in each
> successive decade.
> A man's average age for a first heart attack is 66 years old.
>
> McCain will be 75 by the time his term ends. You do the math. What are
> the odds for McCain?
But to add the whole truth, "black" men have the same risks but
unfortunately at a significantly younger age.
In article <[email protected]>, .@. says...
>
> McCain will be 75 by the time his term ends. You do the math. What are the
> odds for McCain?
You tell me. His mother is out campaigning for him -- I'd say his
chances look pretty good.
"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:4a99bcde-3efd-4886-a7e1-51fc4b4e1f84@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 4, 7:32 pm, Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, .@. says...
>>
>>
>>
>> > McCain will be 75 by the time his term ends.
>> > You do the math. What are the
>> > odds for McCain?
>>
>> You tell me. His mother is out campaigning for him -- I'd say his
>> chances look pretty good.
>
> How about his aunt? (His mother is one half of twins.)
>
> The odds that a man who is 70 will live to be 75 are
> much better than the odds that a man who is 40 will
> live to be 75.
Wrong! I know what you are trying to say here but the odds are equal. The
man that is 70 was once 40.
Now having said that and because for the first time in many many years the
life expectancy of U.S. citizens has actually dropped recently, an older
person today may live longer than a younger person.
Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
> "evodawg" wrote:
>
>> Well lets hope so! Just what we need, a Socialist in the White
>> House. If
>> elected, hold on to your ASS. Cause he'll stick it to all of us.
>
> Unless you are in the top 1% of the income earners, you have already
> been given a real screwing with out a kiss the last 7-1/2 years, so
> why not relax and enjoy the ride?<G>
>
> Lew
You really don't have a clue do you? How is it that everybody who paid
taxes gets a tax cut somehow translates into only the top 1% are the ones
who benefited. You don't understand how percentages work, do you? Just
because a person who paid (as an example) $2800 in taxes only got maybe
$280 reduced, while a person who paid $28000 got a $2800 reduction, doesn't
mean that the guy who only got $280 reduced got screwed. They both
benefited equally relative to their tax burdens.
The facts (I'd be surprised if you even read this far, but we'll try):
The top 1% of wage earners pay 39% of all federal income taxes, this is up
from 37% in 2000. Remember, 2000 was when Bush took office. Somehow, as a
result of those tax breaks for the rich, they are now paying 2% more of the
total federal income tax burden compared to before Bush took office. Yeah,
that sounds like they really came out ahead.
The top 50% of wage earners pay 97% of federal income taxes
The top 25% of wage earners pay 86% of federal income taxes
So, guess what, if you implement a tax cut, it only makes sense that those
who pay the biggest share of taxes will see the largest amount of
reduction. The flip side is, that when you take away the friction of taxes
so that people benefit more from the fruits of their labor, they often do
more and wind up making more and thus paying more taxes (but at a lower
rate).
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Jun 5, 4:23 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> messagenews:f2e62725-cfef-4985-96b0-8b40af6ced3a@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > Regardless, Obmama needs the Clintons on his side. He can
>> > no more win with the Clintons against him than McCain can with
>> > the religofascists against him.
>>
>> Huh? Do you think that the Clinton's are going to start rooting for the
>> Republicans? I really don't think that he needs the Clinton's on his
>> side,
>> they are as much a liability as an asset.
>
> False dichotomy. Not vigorously supporting Obama is not the
> same as rooting for Republicans.
And the same can be said that "not" supporting Obama is not the same as
rooting for the Republicans.
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Well, my life insurance increases the closer to 70 that I get. I'm
> thinking that the older I get the more likely the policy is in having to
> pay off. My insurance has no cash value so it is all profit unless I die.
> I had a 20 year term that cost me $24 per month, it expired a couple of
> months ago and my new 16 year term went up to $125 per month, 5 times
> more. I chose the 10 year term for $36 per month.
Go for cheap. You won't be able to spend it anyway.
In article <[email protected]>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Jun 5, 7:39 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article
> <[email protected]>, Fred the
> Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jun 4, 7:29 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> >> In article
>> > <f8231aee-0ad1-49d7-b373-33e8b49ab...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Fred
> the
>> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> >How many VPs have gone on to be elected President,
>> >> >without first becoming President through the line of
>> >> >succession?
>>
>> >> >Bush
>> >> >Nixon
>> >> >??
>>
>> >> John Adams (VP under Washington)
>> >> Thomas Jefferson (Adams)
>> >> Martin Van Buren (Jackson)
>> --
>> >Add to that Ford,
>>
>> No; Ford *did* go through the line of succession.
>
>No, Ford *did* go through the line of succession, that is
>why I added him. Context is not irrelevant.
>
>The first list was of for Presidents assassinated in
>office. The second list, incorporating the first, was
>of eight Presidents who died in office. Their Vice
>Presidents ascended to office via the line of succesison.
>
>The third list was of Vice Presidents elected
>to office without first becoming President through
>the line of succession.
>
>The fourth list was Ford, whom, as you will note,
>did not meet the criteria of the first three lists.
>
As originally stated, your wording ("Add to that Ford;") implied that you
meant to add him to one of those categories, not to start a fourth (and
so far unique) category. In any event, all is clear now.
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 21:04:42 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>> The facts (I'd be surprised if you even read this far, but we'll try):
>> The top 1% of wage earners pay 39% of all federal income taxes, this is
>> up
>> from 37% in 2000. Remember, 2000 was when Bush took office. Somehow, as
>> a result of those tax breaks for the rich, they are now paying 2% more of
>> the
>> total federal income tax burden compared to before Bush took office.
>> Yeah, that sounds like they really came out ahead.
>
> Ah yes, lies, damm lies, and statistics :-).
>
Yep, forget the facts, especially if they get in the way of a good
class-envy rant.
> IIRC, the top 1% of earners now get a larger share of the nations income
> than they did in 2000. Of course they're paying more taxes.
Well, this is partially true, in 2000 (per the IRS web site), the top 1%
of income earners had 20.1% of adjusted gross income share, while in 2005,
they had 21.2% of adjusted gross income share. Let's see, their share of
total AGI went up 1.1% while their share of federal income taxes went up
from 37.4% in 2000 to 39.4% in 2005, or a rise of 2% in that same time
period. Seems like they are not coming out ahead in that transaction, does
it? And, bringing back your original rant, this was *after* the tax cuts
took effect.
Actually, when you look at the percent of AGI numbers, it is highly
variable from year to year. For example, in 2002, the top 1% had only
16.1%of AGI, yet still paid 33.7% of all federal income taxes. In 2001,
they had 17.5% of AGI and paid 33.9% of all federal income taxes.
The old rant about the rich not paying their fair share (whatever the @#$%
that is supposed to mean) or benefiting unfairly from the tax cuts just
doesn't ring true no matter how you slice it.
[and no, I don't fall into that 1% category -- I'm just tired of the
politics of class envy]
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
In article <2200602c-98ee-4ed5-a06a-f36097a7cb6a@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Jun 7, 1:55 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article
> <fcedcc2f-d228-4b73-9ee5-6f89343ab...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Fred the
> Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>> >I don't agree. Sabotaging his campaign or administration
>> >would ruin her as well. If she stabs him in the back, not
>> >matter how subtly, she'll never get (or deserve) widespread
>> >party support again.
>>
>> Only if she gets caught.
>
>Agreed. the difference in out opinions, perhaps,
>is I don't think she thinks she could do it and not
>get caught.
We disagree on that aspect, too. IMHO, her hubris knows no bounds, and ISTM
that _of_course_ she thinks she won't get caught. She's the Anointed One.
>
>Maybe she'll try to catch him in bed with Bill...
>
Naw, won't happen. *Hill* is the one who plays on the same side of the street,
not Bill. You might catch either one of the Clintons in bed with Michelle, but
never with Barack.
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:c8c49be8-d38e-4552-b7fe-0e99b013a2c1@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 5, 4:43 pm, "Dan Coby" <[email protected]> wrote:
Don't buy life insurance, buy all the farmland you can afford for the
same payments.
For $300 a year, how much farm land can I buy? ;~_
In article <fcedcc2f-d228-4b73-9ee5-6f89343ab72e@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Jun 5, 6:52 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article
> <[email protected]>, Fred the
> Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > I'm not claiming it'll be easy to get the
>> >Clintons on his side, only that it'll be necessary.
>>
>> I don't disagree with you about the necessity. I just think it's not going to
>> happen.
>>
>>
>>
>> >As we noted before, being VP is a good route to the
>> >Presidency. *If* Obama wins, her best bet is to be
>> >VP. He needs to cut a deal that gives her something
>> >she values now, and preserves a shot at the Presidency.
>>
>> I think picking her as his running mate would be the worst possible move he
>> could make, on several grounds.
>>
>> First, she'd do everything she could to subtly sabotage the campaign. She
> does
>> *not* want him to win.
>
>I don't agree. Sabotaging his campaign or administration
>would ruin her as well. If she stabs him in the back, not
>matter how subtly, she'll never get (or deserve) widespread
>party support again.
Only if she gets caught.
>Her best bet for becoming President
>is for Obama to win and not survive eight years. It's not a
>good bet, just the best she has left. Next best is2016. If
>Obama oses because of her lack of support, or wins and
>fails as President because of her lack of support, she loses
>too.
OTOH, if he loses *despite* her *apparent* support yet *because* of her lack
of *actual* support... Wheels within wheels, and all that.
>
>Not good bets, just IMHO, the best she has left.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. IMHO her best bet is to
subtly ensure that he doesn't win while appearing to back him.
>
>If she ever runs again she will need the support of his
>people--like the way McCain has won the (dubiously
>valuable) support from GWB.
>
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Fourth, some thirty percent of her supporters have told pollsters they'd vote
>> for McCain over Obama, and a similar percentage of his supporters say they'd
>> never vote for her. The two of them together on the same ticket will probably
>> attract substantially fewer voters than either one of them would with a
>> different running mate.
>
>That is why he HAS to have her support. Otherwise he loses that
>10% of her supporters, and he cannot afford that. Plus the Clintons'
>have the most powerful political machine in the Country,. Obama
>is the only person who has ever beaten it, and he needs it on
>his side now.
Which is exactly why I think he won't get it -- not from Hill, anyway, but
probably from Bill. IMHO, Bill doesn't want her to be President any more than
Obama does, or I do.
>
>I think I have made a good argument that he can't with without her.
>OTOH you make a good argument that he can't win with her
>either. Looks like he's screwed either way.
Fine with me!
>
>>
>> I just don't see it happening.
>>
>
>Understood.
>
On Jun 5, 7:39 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Jun 4, 7:29 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> In article
> > <f8231aee-0ad1-49d7-b373-33e8b49ab...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Fred the
> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >How many VPs have gone on to be elected President,
> >> >without first becoming President through the line of
> >> >succession?
>
> >> >Bush
> >> >Nixon
> >> >??
>
> >> John Adams (VP under Washington)
> >> Thomas Jefferson (Adams)
> >> Martin Van Buren (Jackson)
> --
> >Add to that Ford,
>
> No; Ford *did* go through the line of succession.
No, Ford *did* go through the line of succession, that is
why I added him. Context is not irrelevant.
The first list was of for Presidents assassinated in
office. The second list, incorporating the first, was
of eight Presidents who died in office. Their Vice
Presidents ascended to office via the line of succesison.
The third list was of Vice Presidents elected
to office without first becoming President through
the line of succession.
The fourth list was Ford, whom, as you will note,
did not meet the criteria of the first three lists.
--
FF
Robatoy wrote:
> On Jun 5, 12:53 pm, Woodie <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>> On Jun 5, 11:46 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> 7) Obama has scared off a good part of the liberal Jewish vote.
>>>> While only 3-4% of the electorate, it's enough alone to be
>>>> the swing in a tight election.
>>> That's right. They only influence 3-4% of the political process. Give
>>> your head a shake.
>> I'd really love to see you amplify that insinuation into a defendable
>> statement.
>
> Sorry bro'. No bait for me just now, I just ate.
>
> But I will ask you one question. If all that's at stake is 3-4% of the
> electorate, why are all candidates sucking up to AIPAC?
> Any candidate that calls Israel on its behaviour towards the
> Palestinians doesn't stand a chance to get elected...and that is NOT
> because of the 3-4%. You figure it out.
Because - notwithstanding your blatant racism masquerading as analysis
- the US is not a homogeneous population. It is deeply pluralistic and
candidates have to form demographic and ideological coalitions to win.
More specifically, when the left-right political divide is almost
perfectly 50/50, a very small percentage shift can be the swing vote
in any election.
The problem for any politician is that some voting blocs are open to
moving and some are not. For example, urban blacks resoundingly vote
for Democrats - that's why my vote in IL is irrelevant - IL will go to
the left every time no matter how bad the candidate. But other groups
- e.g., the Blue Dog Democrats, some portions of the Jewish vote - are
open to changing sides on a candidate-by-candidate basis and *that* is
why politicians try to build coalitions with them. Your insinuation
that Jews have a disproportionate influence on these matters is thus
both morally repugnant (for its embedded bigotry) and not true (as a
matter of fact).
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Jun 5, 11:46=A0am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 7) Obama has scared off a good part of the liberal Jewish vote.
> =A0 =A0While only 3-4% of the electorate, it's enough alone to be
> =A0 =A0the swing in a tight election.
>
That's right. They only influence 3-4% of the political process. Give
your head a shake.
On Jun 6, 6:47 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> Socialism, Facism, Nazis, Communists, Tribalism, Nationalism, and so
> forth are all part of the same school of thought: Collectivism - the
> idea that the good of the group is more important than the good of the
> individual. They are all evil and all lead to some form of
> oppression sooner or later. The only difference between a Communist
> and Socialist, for instance, is that the Communists took power via
> revolution and force, whereas we *elect* our Socialists. We are
> the instruments of our own destruction:
>
Been hitting the bottle? *How* they took power is not the
criterion that separates ideologies.
--
FF
On Jun 5, 4:23=A0pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:f2e627=
[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > Regardless, Obmama needs the Clintons on his side. =A0He can
> > no more win with the Clintons against him than McCain can with
> > the religofascists against him.
>
> Huh? =A0Do you think that the Clinton's are going to start rooting for the=
> Republicans? =A0I really don't think that he needs the Clinton's on his si=
de,
> they are as much a liability as an asset.
He doesn't need them. He'd be better off without them. Bill is a
liability, and she is a douchebag.
In article <[email protected]>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>As you note, her best chance is if Obama loses this year.
>So she is very unmotivated to help him win. But she will
>lose a lot of party support if she does not support Obama
>for President.
Or at least appear to...
> I'm not claiming it'll be easy to get the
>Clintons on his side, only that it'll be necessary.
I don't disagree with you about the necessity. I just think it's not going to
happen.
>
>As we noted before, being VP is a good route to the
>Presidency. *If* Obama wins, her best bet is to be
>VP. He needs to cut a deal that gives her something
>she values now, and preserves a shot at the Presidency.
I think picking her as his running mate would be the worst possible move he
could make, on several grounds.
First, she'd do everything she could to subtly sabotage the campaign. She does
*not* want him to win.
Second, he has positioned himself as the "candidate of change", and cast her
as a "Washington insider". Choosing her as his VP would call into question the
depth of his commitment to "change", and surely alienate many of his
supporters.
Third, the GOP would have a field day. Hillary Clinton has the highest
negative ratings of any of this year's crop of candidates, and they'll take
full advantage of it. I can see the ads now: "If you want this woman <photo of
Hillary> one heartbeat away from the Presidency, vote for Obama."
Fourth, some thirty percent of her supporters have told pollsters they'd vote
for McCain over Obama, and a similar percentage of his supporters say they'd
never vote for her. The two of them together on the same ticket will probably
attract substantially fewer voters than either one of them would with a
different running mate.
I just don't see it happening.
On Jun 5, 4:43=A0pm, "Dan Coby" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 07:25:14 -0500, Leon wrote:
>
> >> I think you're wrong on this one, Leon. =A0Take a look at an insurance
> >> company life expectancy chart sometime. =A0Or the IRS chart for minimum=
IRA
> >> withdrawals based on age.
>
> >> The idea is that life expectancy at birth is brought down by infant
> >> mortality, teenage idiocy, war, etc.. =A0By the time one is 60 or 70, w=
e've
> >> escaped all that.
>
> > Well, my life insurance increases the closer to 70 that I get. =A0I'm th=
inking that the older I get
> > the more likely the policy is in having to pay off. =A0My insurance has =
no cash value so it is all
> > profit unless I die. =A0I had a 20 year term that cost me $24 per month,=
it expired a couple of
> > months ago and my new 16 year term went up to $125 per month, 5 times mo=
re. =A0I chose the 10 year
> > term for $36 per month.
>
> One description of life insurance is that you are betting with the insuran=
ce
> company that you will die before a certain age ... and hoping that the
> insurance company wins. =A0 ;-)
Don't buy life insurance, buy all the farmland you can afford for the
same payments.
Some idiot wanted me to buy a burial plot for me.
He wanted $ 6000.00
I said: "6 grand??? For THREE days????"
<that was a joke...okay?>
On Jun 4, 9:28=A0pm, Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote:
> Doug Miller wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]=
s.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> How many VPs have gone on to be elected President,
> >> without first becoming President through the line of
> >> succession?
>
> >> Bush
> >> Nixon
> >> ??
>
> > John Adams (VP under Washington)
> > Thomas Jefferson (Adams)
> > Martin Van Buren (Jackson)
>
> If he takes Hillary as his VP, the name he should think about is Vince
> Foster.
And he should hire a food taster. She won't stop at anything.
ANYthing. You can see that lust for power in her demonic narcissistic
eyes.
On Jun 5, 4:23 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:f2e62725-cfef-4985-96b0-8b40af6ced3a@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Regardless, Obmama needs the Clintons on his side. He can
> > no more win with the Clintons against him than McCain can with
> > the religofascists against him.
>
> Huh? Do you think that the Clinton's are going to start rooting for the
> Republicans? I really don't think that he needs the Clinton's on his side,
> they are as much a liability as an asset.
False dichotomy. Not vigorously supporting Obama is not the
same as rooting for Republicans.
--
FF
Robatoy wrote:
> On Jun 5, 1:43 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>> On Jun 5, 12:53 pm, Woodie <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Robatoy wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 5, 11:46 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> 7) Obama has scared off a good part of the liberal Jewish vote.
>>>>>> While only 3-4% of the electorate, it's enough alone to be
>>>>>> the swing in a tight election.
>>>>> That's right. They only influence 3-4% of the political process. Give
>>>>> your head a shake.
>>>> I'd really love to see you amplify that insinuation into a defendable
>>>> statement.
>>> Sorry bro'. No bait for me just now, I just ate.
>>> But I will ask you one question. If all that's at stake is 3-4% of the
>>> electorate, why are all candidates sucking up to AIPAC?
>>> Any candidate that calls Israel on its behaviour towards the
>>> Palestinians doesn't stand a chance to get elected...and that is NOT
>>> because of the 3-4%. You figure it out.
>> Because - notwithstanding your blatant racism masquerading as analysis
>> - the US is not a homogeneous population. It is deeply pluralistic and
>> candidates have to form demographic and ideological coalitions to win.
>> More specifically, when the left-right political divide is almost
>> perfectly 50/50, a very small percentage shift can be the swing vote
>> in any election.
>>
>> The problem for any politician is that some voting blocs are open to
>> moving and some are not. For example, urban blacks resoundingly vote
>> for Democrats - that's why my vote in IL is irrelevant - IL will go to
>> the left every time no matter how bad the candidate. But other groups
>> - e.g., the Blue Dog Democrats, some portions of the Jewish vote - are
>> open to changing sides on a candidate-by-candidate basis and *that* is
>> why politicians try to build coalitions with them. Your insinuation
>> that Jews have a disproportionate influence on these matters is thus
>> both morally repugnant (for its embedded bigotry) and not true (as a
>> matter of fact).
>>
>> --
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
>> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
>> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>
> My God, you ARE Karl Rove!! Destroy the messenger so that the message
> loses its truth.
> The ol' swiftboat routine.
> If you have your head planted so far up your ass that you don't see
> that ANY group can have more influence than their voting percentage
> would indicate, than all that intelligent-sounding rhetoric of yours
> is nothing but a smokescreen covering up your ignorance.
> Good luck in your dream-world. I prefer to deal with reality.
>
> It's funny. You can sound so intelligent sometimes. But once sorted
> out, you're an idiot.
Is there are response anywhere in that or are just just beet red from
being exposed (once again) as a virulent racist?
The only people who hate entire groups by race, gender, ethnicity, and
so on are people who don't like themselves very much and fundamentally
feel inadequate. You demonstrate this amply.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Jun 5, 4:41=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Is there are response anywhere in that or are just just beet red from
> being exposed (once again) as a virulent racist?
>
>>>>Tim's attempt at humour.
You ARE an old school Rovian. You believe that if you repeat it often
enough, people are going to believe that Robatoy is racist.
You, however, have no evidence of that other than your paranoia.
So, how's that fear agenda working out for you?
You know, I never imagined that The Great Tim Daneliuk would stoop
this low. You, sir, disappoint me.
Now go away. You have served your purpose.
Shoo!
On Jun 4, 7:29 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <f8231aee-0ad1-49d7-b373-33e8b49ab...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >How many VPs have gone on to be elected President,
> >without first becoming President through the line of
> >succession?
>
> >Bush
> >Nixon
> >??
>
> John Adams (VP under Washington)
> Thomas Jefferson (Adams)
> Martin Van Buren (Jackson)
Add to that Ford, and 14 of the 43 Presidents
were Vice Presidents, more than one third.
--
FF
On Jun 5, 12:36 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <f2e62725-cfef-4985-96b0-8b40af6ce...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Regardless, Obmama needs the Clintons on his side. He can
> >no more win with the Clintons against him than McCain can with
> >the religofascists against him.
>
> How do you propose he's going to get the Clintons on his side? Hillary, at
> least, doesn't want to see him win this election, because if he does, she
> won't have a realistic chance until 2016 -- when she'll be 69 years old. She
> really has only one shot left, in 2012, and that depends on John McCain
> winning this year.
> ..
As you note, her best chance is if Obama loses this year.
So she is very unmotivated to help him win. But she will
lose a lot of party support if she does not support Obama
for President. I'm not claiming it'll be easy to get the
Clintons on his side, only that it'll be necessary.
As we noted before, being VP is a good route to the
Presidency. *If* Obama wins, her best bet is to be
VP. He needs to cut a deal that gives her something
she values now, and preserves a shot at the Presidency.
--
FF
On Jun 5, 8:25 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:4a99bcde-3efd-4886-a7e1-51fc4b4e1f84@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jun 4, 7:32 pm, Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> In article <[email protected]>, .@. says...
>
> >> > McCain will be 75 by the time his term ends.
> >> > You do the math. What are the
> >> > odds for McCain?
>
> >> You tell me. His mother is out campaigning for him -- I'd say his
> >> chances look pretty good.
>
> > How about his aunt? (His mother is one half of twins.)
>
> > The odds that a man who is 70 will live to be 75 are
> > much better than the odds that a man who is 40 will
> > live to be 75.
>
> Wrong! I know what you are trying to say here but the odds are equal. The
> man that is 70 was once 40.
Wrong! I don't know what you are trying to say here but many
other persons who were forty at the same time did NOT live to be
70. They drag the odds down.
IIUC, all you are saying is that the probability of a 70 year old
having once been 40 years old is unity.
--
FF
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:bec10543-29b3-40c2-9953-21aa4be7887e@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 5, 4:23 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in
> messagenews:f2e62725-cfef-4985-96b0-8b40af6ced3a@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Regardless, Obmama needs the Clintons on his side. He can
> > no more win with the Clintons against him than McCain can with
> > the religofascists against him.
>
> Huh? Do you think that the Clinton's are going to start rooting for the
> Republicans? I really don't think that he needs the Clinton's on his side,
> they are as much a liability as an asset.
He doesn't need them. He'd be better off without them. Bill is a
liability, and she is a douchebag.
I'm reeeeeeely getting tired of you sugar coating your feelings. ;~)
On Jun 5, 10:27 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Doug Winterburn wrote:
> > Doug Miller wrote:
> >> In article
> >> <f8231aee-0ad1-49d7-b373-33e8b49ab...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> >> Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> How many VPs have gone on to be elected President,
> >>> without first becoming President through the line of
> >>> succession?
>
> >>> Bush
> >>> Nixon
> >>> ??
>
> >> John Adams (VP under Washington)
> >> Thomas Jefferson (Adams)
> >> Martin Van Buren (Jackson)
>
> > If he takes Hillary as his VP, the name he should think about is Vince
> > Foster.
>
> She'll be more subtle - she'll hire Ted Kennedy as his driver...
>
Regardless, Obmama needs the Clintons on his side. He can
no more win with the Clintons against him than McCain can with
the religofascists against him.
--
FF
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> On Jun 5, 12:36 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article <f2e62725-cfef-4985-96b0-8b40af6ce...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Regardless, Obmama needs the Clintons on his side. He can
>>> no more win with the Clintons against him than McCain can with
>>> the religofascists against him.
>> How do you propose he's going to get the Clintons on his side? Hillary, at
>> least, doesn't want to see him win this election, because if he does, she
>> won't have a realistic chance until 2016 -- when she'll be 69 years old. She
>> really has only one shot left, in 2012, and that depends on John McCain
>> winning this year.
>> ..
>
> As you note, her best chance is if Obama loses this year.
> So she is very unmotivated to help him win. But she will
> lose a lot of party support if she does not support Obama
> for President. I'm not claiming it'll be easy to get the
> Clintons on his side, only that it'll be necessary.
>
> As we noted before, being VP is a good route to the
> Presidency. *If* Obama wins, her best bet is to be
> VP. He needs to cut a deal that gives her something
> she values now, and preserves a shot at the Presidency.
>
> --
>
> FF
All she has to hear is Obama guarantee her that Bill will be the
new ambassador to North Korea or Myanmar or ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Jun 4, 6:40 am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
> > "RogerM" wrote:
>
> >> But what are the odds that he will;
>
> > <snip a bunch of garbage>
>
> > You are one sick son of a bitch.
>
> More like realistic. I don't agree with his numbers, but out of 43
> Presidents, 4 have been assassinated and there have been attempts on
> 11 more. So 10:1 would be pretty close even leaving aside the racial
> element.
>
Eight have died in office making the odds closer to 5;1,
though I daresay the risk is not the same as it once was.
Harrison
Taylor
Lincoln
Garfield
McKinley
Harding
Roosevelt
Kennedy
How many VPs have gone on to be elected President,
without first becoming President through the line of
succession?
Bush
Nixon
??
--
FF
In article <f2e62725-cfef-4985-96b0-8b40af6ced3a@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>Regardless, Obmama needs the Clintons on his side. He can
>no more win with the Clintons against him than McCain can with
>the religofascists against him.
How do you propose he's going to get the Clintons on his side? Hillary, at
least, doesn't want to see him win this election, because if he does, she
won't have a realistic chance until 2016 -- when she'll be 69 years old. She
really has only one shot left, in 2012, and that depends on John McCain
winning this year.
OTOH, I think *Bill* doesn't want to see *Hillary* become President, ever.
He's the consummate narcissist; seeing her do a better job than he did would
be more than he could stand.
I can imagine Bill actively working to support Obama's candidacy while Hillary
does all she can behind the scenes to sabotage it. The next five months should
be interesting.
On Jun 5, 6:52 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > I'm not claiming it'll be easy to get the
> >Clintons on his side, only that it'll be necessary.
>
> I don't disagree with you about the necessity. I just think it's not going to
> happen.
>
>
>
> >As we noted before, being VP is a good route to the
> >Presidency. *If* Obama wins, her best bet is to be
> >VP. He needs to cut a deal that gives her something
> >she values now, and preserves a shot at the Presidency.
>
> I think picking her as his running mate would be the worst possible move he
> could make, on several grounds.
>
> First, she'd do everything she could to subtly sabotage the campaign. She does
> *not* want him to win.
I don't agree. Sabotaging his campaign or administration
would ruin her as well. If she stabs him in the back, not
matter how subtly, she'll never get (or deserve) widespread
party support again. Her best bet for becoming President
is for Obama to win and not survive eight years. It's not a
good bet, just the best she has left. Next best is2016. If
Obama oses because of her lack of support, or wins and
fails as President because of her lack of support, she loses
too.
Not good bets, just IMHO, the best she has left.
If she ever runs again she will need the support of his
people--like the way McCain has won the (dubiously
valuable) support from GWB.
>
> ...
>
> Fourth, some thirty percent of her supporters have told pollsters they'd vote
> for McCain over Obama, and a similar percentage of his supporters say they'd
> never vote for her. The two of them together on the same ticket will probably
> attract substantially fewer voters than either one of them would with a
> different running mate.
That is why he HAS to have her support. Otherwise he loses that
10% of her supporters, and he cannot afford that. Plus the Clintons'
have the most powerful political machine in the Country,. Obama
is the only person who has ever beaten it, and he needs it on
his side now.
I think I have made a good argument that he can't with without her.
OTOH you make a good argument that he can't win with her
either. Looks like he's screwed either way.
>
> I just don't see it happening.
>
Understood.
--
FF
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "RogerM" wrote:
>
>> But what are the odds that he will;
>
> <snip a bunch of garbage>
>
> You are one sick son of a bitch.
More like realistic. I don't agree with his numbers, but out of 43
Presidents, 4 have been assassinated and there have been attempts on
11 more. So 10:1 would be pretty close even leaving aside the racial
element.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Robatoy wrote:
> On Jun 4, 9:28 pm, Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Doug Miller wrote:
>>> In article <f8231aee-0ad1-49d7-b373-33e8b49ab...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> How many VPs have gone on to be elected President,
>>>> without first becoming President through the line of
>>>> succession?
>>>> Bush
>>>> Nixon
>>>> ??
>>> John Adams (VP under Washington)
>>> Thomas Jefferson (Adams)
>>> Martin Van Buren (Jackson)
>> If he takes Hillary as his VP, the name he should think about is Vince
>> Foster.
>
> And he should hire a food taster. She won't stop at anything.
> ANYthing. You can see that lust for power in her demonic narcissistic
> eyes.
LOL. I opened this as the next-in-thread without looking at the poster.
Halfway through it, I thought to myself "That sounds like Robatoy"...
Tanus
Charlie Self wrote:
> On Jun 4, 8:20 pm, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Jun 4, 7:32 pm, Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <[email protected]>, .@. says...
>>>> McCain will be 75 by the time his term ends.
>>>> You do the math. What are the
>>>> odds for McCain?
>>> You tell me. His mother is out campaigning for him -- I'd say his
>>> chances look pretty good.
>> How about his aunt? (His mother is one half of twins.)
>>
>> The odds that a man who is 70 will live to be 75 are
>> much better than the odds that a man who is 40 will
>> live to be 75.
>>
>> --
>>
>> FF
>
> Let's hope so. I'll be 70 this year. Of course, the odds that I'll
> live another 35 years are one helluva lot worse than they were when I
> was 40.
Yabut you're so much more mellow now ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
evodawg wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> evodawg wrote:
>>> Looks like he's screwed either way.
>>>
>>> Well lets hope so! Just what we need, a Socialist in the White House. If
>>> elected, hold on to your ASS. Cause he'll stick it to all of us.
>>>
>> Uh, there already *is* a socialist in the White House. With the
>> exception of Reagan, ever president of the 20th century was fine
>> with raping the wallets of some to distribute to others. W is no
>> exception.
>>
>
> Agree, maybe I should have said Communist instead.
Socialism, Facism, Nazis, Communists, Tribalism, Nationalism, and so
forth are all part of the same school of thought: Collectivism - the
idea that the good of the group is more important than the good of the
individual. They are all evil and all lead to some form of
oppression sooner or later. The only difference between a Communist
and Socialist, for instance, is that the Communists took power via
revolution and force, whereas we *elect* our Socialists. We are
the instruments of our own destruction:
"Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder."
- Arnold Toynbee
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 21:04:42 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>> The facts (I'd be surprised if you even read this far, but we'll try):
>> The top 1% of wage earners pay 39% of all federal income taxes, this is up
>> from 37% in 2000. Remember, 2000 was when Bush took office. Somehow, as a
>> result of those tax breaks for the rich, they are now paying 2% more of the
>> total federal income tax burden compared to before Bush took office. Yeah,
>> that sounds like they really came out ahead.
>
> Ah yes, lies, damm lies, and statistics :-).
>
> IIRC, the top 1% of earners now get a larger share of the nations income
> than they did in 2000. Of course they're paying more taxes.
>
Uh, it's not the *nation's* income. It's *their* income.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> On Jun 6, 6:47 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> Socialism, Facism, Nazis, Communists, Tribalism, Nationalism, and so
>> forth are all part of the same school of thought: Collectivism - the
>> idea that the good of the group is more important than the good of the
>> individual. They are all evil and all lead to some form of
>> oppression sooner or later. The only difference between a Communist
>> and Socialist, for instance, is that the Communists took power via
>> revolution and force, whereas we *elect* our Socialists. We are
>> the instruments of our own destruction:
>>
>
> Been hitting the bottle? *How* they took power is not the
> criterion that separates ideologies.
>
> --
>
> FF
>
That's right - there is NO difference other than the manner
in which they assumed power - which was my point.
And, no, I've not been "hitting the bottle", though if I
were, it would no doubt be a lovely Canadian Rye.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 07:25:14 -0500, Leon wrote:
>> The odds that a man who is 70 will live to be 75 are
>> much better than the odds that a man who is 40 will
>> live to be 75.
>
>
> Wrong! I know what you are trying to say here but the odds are equal. The
> man that is 70 was once 40.
>
> Now having said that and because for the first time in many many years the
> life expectancy of U.S. citizens has actually dropped recently, an older
> person today may live longer than a younger person.
I think you're wrong on this one, Leon. Take a look at an insurance
company life expectancy chart sometime. Or the IRS chart for minimum IRA
withdrawals based on age.
The idea is that life expectancy at birth is brought down by infant
mortality, teenage idiocy, war, etc.. By the time one is 60 or 70, we've
escaped all that.
Just as an example, and these numbers are WAGs, if I can expect to live 10
more years at 70, when I reach 80 I can expect another 5. So my life
expectancy has increased from 80 to 85.
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 21:04:42 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
> The facts (I'd be surprised if you even read this far, but we'll try):
> The top 1% of wage earners pay 39% of all federal income taxes, this is up
> from 37% in 2000. Remember, 2000 was when Bush took office. Somehow, as a
> result of those tax breaks for the rich, they are now paying 2% more of the
> total federal income tax burden compared to before Bush took office. Yeah,
> that sounds like they really came out ahead.
Ah yes, lies, damm lies, and statistics :-).
IIRC, the top 1% of earners now get a larger share of the nations income
than they did in 2000. Of course they're paying more taxes.
Robatoy wrote:
> On Jun 5, 12:53 pm, Woodie <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>> On Jun 5, 11:46 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> 7) Obama has scared off a good part of the liberal Jewish vote.
>>>> While only 3-4% of the electorate, it's enough alone to be
>>>> the swing in a tight election.
>>> That's right. They only influence 3-4% of the political process. Give
>>> your head a shake.
>> I'd really love to see you amplify that insinuation into a defendable
>> statement.
>
> Sorry bro'. No bait for me just now, I just ate.
I don't blame you bro. That insinuation probably doesn't seem so
palatable once you look back at it.
> But I will ask you one question. If all that's at stake is 3-4% of the
> electorate, why are all candidates sucking up to AIPAC?
> Any candidate that calls Israel on its behaviour towards the
> Palestinians doesn't stand a chance to get elected...and that is NOT
> because of the 3-4%. You figure it out.
If the average US state is worth 2%, some far less than 1%, and
considered valuable to their campaign, they why *wouldn't* they court an
organization worth 3-4%?
It's got nothing to do with perceived Semitic control over world affairs
or any other conspiracy theory, racist or otherwise. It's got to do with
voter numbers.
As for the possibility of one of the candidates taking an anti-Israeli
stance; ask the average voting American whether an anti-American
terrorist is more likely to be a Palestinian or an Israeli. Or ask them
to categorize Israeli or Palestinian interests as either allied with or
against US interests. You know what the answers will be nine times out
of ten.
Again, it's got to do with voting numbers for the candidates, not
invisible Jewish puppet masters controlling their thoughts and actions.
"evodawg" wrote:
> Well lets hope so! Just what we need, a Socialist in the White
> House. If
> elected, hold on to your ASS. Cause he'll stick it to all of us.
Unless you are in the top 1% of the income earners, you have already
been given a real screwing with out a kiss the last 7-1/2 years, so
why not relax and enjoy the ride?<G>
Lew
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <f8231aee-0ad1-49d7-b373-33e8b49ab1e6@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> How many VPs have gone on to be elected President,
>> without first becoming President through the line of
>> succession?
>>
>> Bush
>> Nixon
>> ??
>
> John Adams (VP under Washington)
> Thomas Jefferson (Adams)
> Martin Van Buren (Jackson)
>
If he takes Hillary as his VP, the name he should think about is Vince
Foster.
evodawg wrote:
> Looks like he's screwed either way.
>
> Well lets hope so! Just what we need, a Socialist in the White House. If
> elected, hold on to your ASS. Cause he'll stick it to all of us.
>
Uh, there already *is* a socialist in the White House. With the
exception of Reagan, ever president of the 20th century was fine
with raping the wallets of some to distribute to others. W is no
exception.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Wrong! I know what you are trying to say here but the odds are equal.
>> The
>> man that is 70 was once 40.
>
> Wrong! I don't know what you are trying to say here but many
> other persons who were forty at the same time did NOT live to be
> 70. They drag the odds down.
>
> IIUC, all you are saying is that the probability of a 70 year old
> having once been 40 years old is unity.
OKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKKOK I am WRONG!!!!. Fred you are right on the "odds
issue. It took a discussion with my "SMART" son to paint me the picture.
It has been one of those days/weeks. I was looking at from a statistics
point of view, men in general will live to an age of 77.
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <f2e62725-cfef-4985-96b0-8b40af6ced3a@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Regardless, Obmama needs the Clintons on his side. He can
>> no more win with the Clintons against him than McCain can with
>> the religofascists against him.
>
> How do you propose he's going to get the Clintons on his side? Hillary, at
> least, doesn't want to see him win this election, because if he does, she
> won't have a realistic chance until 2016 -- when she'll be 69 years old. She
> really has only one shot left, in 2012, and that depends on John McCain
> winning this year.
>
> OTOH, I think *Bill* doesn't want to see *Hillary* become President, ever.
> He's the consummate narcissist; seeing her do a better job than he did would
> be more than he could stand.
>
> I can imagine Bill actively working to support Obama's candidacy while Hillary
> does all she can behind the scenes to sabotage it. The next five months should
> be interesting.
It is illustrative that Bill has been on a whoring binge during
Hillary's campaign. Recently reported that staffers tried to hold an
"intervention" aimed at his behavior.
If he were interested in helping Hillary's effort, he could have tried
to lay off a little bit during this time. Rather it seems he stepped it up.
She really should have dumped him. She'd be better off.
Doug Winterburn wrote:
> Doug Miller wrote:
>> In article
>> <f8231aee-0ad1-49d7-b373-33e8b49ab1e6@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>> Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> How many VPs have gone on to be elected President,
>>> without first becoming President through the line of
>>> succession?
>>>
>>> Bush
>>> Nixon
>>> ??
>>
>> John Adams (VP under Washington)
>> Thomas Jefferson (Adams)
>> Martin Van Buren (Jackson)
>>
>
> If he takes Hillary as his VP, the name he should think about is Vince
> Foster.
She'll be more subtle - she'll hire Ted Kennedy as his driver...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <vQU1k.141154$TT4.37988@attbi_s22>, Woodie <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> It is illustrative that Bill has been on a whoring binge during
>> Hillary's campaign. Recently reported that staffers tried to hold an
>> "intervention" aimed at his behavior.
>> If he were interested in helping Hillary's effort, he could have tried
>> to lay off a little bit during this time. Rather it seems he stepped it up.
>
> Like I said... he doesn't really want her to be elected.
>
>> She really should have dumped him. She'd be better off.
>
> That will never happen: as long as they're still married, neither one can be
> compelled to testify against the other in a criminal proceeding.
Actually, they can divorce and still be covered under marital privilege
for the time they were married. You don't have to remain married, the
privilege stands for any communication that occurred during the
marriage, regardless of the current status of the relationship.