Jeep thing or sheep thing?

David Allen wrote:
>
> I thought when you started out with "my gullible friend" you'd have a
> compelling arguement. But when you ended with the "Oil Buddy", Halliburton
> conspiracy theory I was disappointed. That theory is truly a fantasy refuge
> for Bush haters. To believe that Bush took us to war so his oil buddies
> could get oil contracts as spoils of war requires twisted thinking,. It
> requires one accept that Republicans are incapable of anything but evil on
> par with the likes of history's worst tyrants. If you believe that, then
> you have no standing to call anyone gullible.
>
> Can you not accept that there are GOOD people out there who think
> differently than you. Bush is an honest, straightforward, good man. He
> believes differently than you on the left. There's no conspriacy, it's just
> a different point of view of the world.

And you have to ask where the company that Nancy Pilosi's husband owns
20% of getting a multimillion $$ Iraq reconstruction contract fits in
with the conspiracy theory.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

"'nuther Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 17:29:19 -0500, "Douglas A. Shrader"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >And recounts were made, and made again.
> >And after the SC finally stopped the repetitive recounts,
>
> The US SC had no authority to stop a process mandated by the laws of
> the state of FL. Obviously, that didn't stop them from doing so.

Uh, yes they did. State laws are only valid if the Supreme Court of the
United States says they are, based upon it's interpretation of the
Constitution. All state laws must follow the US Constitution , and only the
US Supreme Court can legally decide if they do or not.

>
> >they were counted
> >one more time anyway, every single ballet was counted, no matter how
poorly
> >marked.
>
> There are two issues there: First, there was a great deal of judgement
> involved in determining which ballots were votes for who. Secondly,
> and probably more importantly, the ballots themselves were illegal
> under FL law. The FL laws were very specific about how a ballot was
> to be laid out in order to *avoid confusing ballots* and the Dade
> County ballot violated that law. This resulted in many votes for
> Pat Buchanan that were intended for Al Gore. But don't take my
> word for it, check the statement by Pat where he himself observed
> that there was no way he would have properly gotten that many
> votes in Dade County.
>
> While some will say "but Democratic and Republican representatives
> approved the ballot" that is a false argument. The law was passed
> by the FL Legislature to protect the *voter*, not the party. This
> ballot was an obvious need for strict adherence to such a law
> without relying on informal "approval" by an unelected
> representative of the party, not the people.
>
> >The result: Bush won by a larger margin than the original count had
> >given him. Gore lost, Bush won, end of story.
>
> Certainly the point is now moot.

Yes it is, but for some reason the Democrats won't let it drop.

>
> Bob
>

"Liberty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "'nuther Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 17:29:19 -0500, "Douglas A. Shrader"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >And recounts were made, and made again.
> > >And after the SC finally stopped the repetitive recounts,
> >
> > The US SC had no authority to stop a process mandated by the laws of
> > the state of FL. Obviously, that didn't stop them from doing so.
> >
> > >they were counted
> > >one more time anyway, every single ballet was counted, no matter how
> poorly
> > >marked.
> >
> > There are two issues there: First, there was a great deal of judgement
> > involved in determining which ballots were votes for who. Secondly,
> > and probably more importantly, the ballots themselves were illegal
> > under FL law. The FL laws were very specific about how a ballot was
> > to be laid out in order to *avoid confusing ballots* and the Dade
> > County ballot violated that law. This resulted in many votes for
> > Pat Buchanan that were intended for Al Gore. But don't take my
> > word for it, check the statement by Pat where he himself observed
> > that there was no way he would have properly gotten that many
> > votes in Dade County.
> >
> > While some will say "but Democratic and Republican representatives
> > approved the ballot" that is a false argument. The law was passed
> > by the FL Legislature to protect the *voter*, not the party. This
> > ballot was an obvious need for strict adherence to such a law
> > without relying on informal "approval" by an unelected
> > representative of the party, not the people.
> >
> > >The result: Bush won by a larger margin than the original count had
> > >given him. Gore lost, Bush won, end of story.
> >
> > Certainly the point is now moot.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> And who's fault were the ballot issues in the Florida counties where the
> election machine was completely
> controlled by democrats? I think if the democrat voters are to stupid to
> figure out a simple ballot then
> maybe they shouldn't vote? Possibly an IQ test for voters would be in
order
> but that would give an unfair
> advantage to the republican candidates.

What most amuses me, is the "hard to figure out" ballets were identical to
thoses used in Chicago, where voters had no trouble figuring them out.
They also should them on the evening news here, a five year old could have
fugured them out.

Ever notice that every time there
> is election fraud reported in the
> news that it is almost always the democrats who are behind it. It is
> becoming more and more appearant
> that the democratic party cannot win elections without bending the rules
and
> they cannot pass their agenda
> without the help of liberal activist judges. They can never get what they
> want through congress or the will
> of the American people because their socialist agenda is extreme. Just
> watch in 2004 as the senate and
> congress move farther to the right and away from the left just like in
2002.
>
>
>

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 07:46:11 -0800, Marc <[email protected]> wrote:

>Please explain how two identical funds, both funded with post-tax dollars,
>can have the only one of the two that is tax free for growth and tax free
>upon withdrawal and use of the gains (with certain limitations) not be
>necessarily better than the one that is taxed the whole way?

I don't know if I understand your questions, but here's an answer
that should apply:

The Traditional IRA allows you to deduct the full amount of the
contribution up front. Your savings grow tax sheltered. A $2K
contribution actually costs you (out of pocket) $2K since it
is fully deductible. The money When the contributions are withdrawn
(at retirement) they are generally taxable since you received a full
deduction when you made the initial contribution (i.e. you've never
paid taxes on the original income)

The Roth IRA provides no deduction up front. You pay with after-tax
dollars. Assuming a typical tax rate of 28%, your $2K contribution
actually costs you about $2550. The Roth's redeeming feature is that
all of the money is tax free at retirement since you already paid
the taxes on the original contribution.

The initial comparison seems to make the Roth the "off the cuff"
winner since there will obviously be substantial growth in the dollars
before retirement and non-taxable sounds better than taxable. However,
that leaves out the important aspect of the extra $550 that you had
to come up with _today_ to fund the Roth. That money would like wise
have been invested and you lose the potential investment income on
that $550 - computed as a growing investment over all the years
from now until retirement.

Also, once you retire your tax rate will most likely fall a good
15%, meaning that the money in the traditional IRA will be taxed at
a much lower rate than the 28% you pay now. (THis was the "draw"
of the original IRA).

Most people would still probably declare the Roth the off-the-cuff
winner at this point. However, you still have to consider "future
value". That $550 extra that you contribute _today_ is worth much,
much more at retirement time. At the least, a simple calculation
as an investment at the expected inflation rate over the number of
years until retirement gives you an idea of it's future value.
In other words, it's an investment too - or one you forgo in
order to do the Roth. Add in the fact that the Traditional IRA
investor can actually invest those dollars in something with a
good rate of return and you can see that the $550 per year is
a substantial amount at retirement (notably taxed each year).

Bottom line: the Roth is not a clear cut winner. You need to look
very closely at your current tax bracket, expected tax brackets,
and retirement tax bracket to decide which is a better alternative.

THe clear cut winner is the government, which gets you to pay your
taxes today on that money when using a Roth, increasing revenues.
Not many politicians care much about tax receipts in 20 years - they
want to have those dollars today in today's dollars. Likewise, all
of the rollovers into Roth's create a major windfall in tax collec-
tions since you pay the tax bill at the time of the rollover in
lieu of tax payments are retirement.

Bob

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 08:53:29 -0700, "Liberty" <[email protected]>
wrote:


>And who's fault were the ballot issues in the Florida counties where the
>election machine was completely controlled by democrats?

It's the fault of the FL elections council who prepared the ballots.

>I think if the democrat voters are to stupid to figure out a simple ballot then
>maybe they shouldn't vote? Possibly an IQ test for voters would be in order
>but that would give an unfair advantage to the republican candidates.

If Bush and Gore had been reversed on the ballot, it would be the
Republicans who complained. However, they key point is that the
ballot was ILLEGAL under FL law. It doesn't matter who wins, loses,
or complains, it was an illegal ballot.

>Ever notice that every time there is election fraud reported in the
>news that it is almost always the democrats who are behind it. It is
>becoming more and more appearant that the democratic party cannot win
>elections without bending the rules

Now you're making things up.

>and they cannot pass their agenda without the help of liberal activist judges.
>They can never get what they want through congress or the will of the American
>people because their socialist agenda is extreme.

The same arguments can easily be made for the right-wing agenda.

>Just watch in 2004 as the
>senate and congress move farther to the right and away from the left just like in 2002.

If you say so, it must be true.

Bob

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 16:56:56 GMT, "David Allen"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I thought when you started out with "my gullible friend" you'd have a
>compelling arguement. But when you ended with the "Oil Buddy", Halliburton
>conspiracy theory I was disappointed. That theory is truly a fantasy refuge
>for Bush haters. To believe that Bush took us to war so his oil buddies
>could get oil contracts as spoils of war requires twisted thinking,. It
>requires one accept that Republicans are incapable of anything but evil on
>par with the likes of history's worst tyrants. If you believe that, then
>you have no standing to call anyone gullible.

You really are gullible if you think the war in Iraq was about
anything except money via oil. You'll note that I do NOT subscribe
to the far fetched theory that we wanted/want to steal the Iraqi oil.
However, you need to go back and read Cheney's statements in the 90's
on the sanctions. You need to look at the Halliburton/Dresser sales.
You need to go take a look at those graphics of the Iraqi oil fields
that were extracted from Cheney's "Energy Task Force" under court
order and ask yourself why Cheney and friends would even be discussing
Iraqi oil when Bush was strumming the war drums. You do yourself an
injustice by refusing to take a look at the obvious evidence.

Again, if you think the war in Iraq was about WMD, or about
Saddaam, you are naive.

>Can you not accept that there are GOOD people out there who think
>differently than you. Bush is an honest, straightforward, good man. He
>believes differently than you on the left. There's no conspriacy, it's just
>a different point of view of the world.

Absolutely. There are Republicans that I respect and admire. There
are Democrats that I respect and admire. There are men of integrity
in government with high ideals. There are also a lot of folks in
politics for the money - today notably Bush and his fellow
neo-conservatives.

I think you fail to see the truth in a desire to think of Bush as
a "good man". I don't think he's all that bad a person but he is
naive, manipulable, and ignorant. Sorry, but he's not half the
President his Father was.

Bob

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 17:34:54 GMT, "David Allen"
<[email protected]> wrote:


>That's one of the big reasons why the budget balanced under Clinton.

I'm not the kind of ideologue that will argue against that. I call 'em
as I see 'em. The compromise in having a Republican Congress and a
Democratic President forced compromise and a moderately successful
budget process (moderately because they still paid each other off in
pork).

The point remains that Bush has been unable to balance the budget with
a Republican Congress. With his lack of attention to the matter, it's
not surprising.

>Their economy was always a failure. Their fall from power was a political
>failure, which Reagan helped to happen.

It was a failure of communism, but prefaced on a failure of the
economy under that system. If the economy had been healthier then the
politics would have been "as usual". 0

> More than anything, Reagan was right about the Soviets and their system.

Irrelevant. I think 99.9% of Americans disliked the Communist system.
I have personal reasons to hate the Communists which I will not detail
here. That doesn't mean that Reagan had anything substantial to do
with the fall.

> Peace Through Strenth
>works. Not rolling over.

You spend and tax liberals are all the same.

>Ask all those Solidarity Union workers what they think of Reagan. Those
>people hated the Soviets and Reagan uttered the words that none of them
>could and no previous US President had the backbone to utter

Puh-lease.

>And if you believe Reagan consulted astrologers, then you're living in a
>fantasy world yourself... or your just misinformed.

You must have missed the story then. It was front page news in every
paper in the land. Nancy and Ronnie admitted to it. What more proof
do you need ?

Bob

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 18:11:36 GMT, "David Allen"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>The FL legislature would have stopped the FSC had the
>SCOTUS not done so.

That would have been yet another Constitutional crises. The
legislature holds no power over the courts in our system.


>The ballots were not confusing. There's always someone out there who will
>be confused by any type ballot. It doesn't make any type of ballot illegal.

Go look at the ballot. Go read the FL law on ballot arrangement. It
was clearly illegal in FL.

>We have (oops! had) the same ballots here in Calif. (chads and all) They
>were not confusing to the average person.

Chads were not the issue with the ballot format. Chads were the issue
in tallying votes. The format issues were completely separate.

Bob

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 01:50:16 GMT, DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:


>>That, my gullible friend, is pure BS. There is/was no justifiable
>
>snip of typical liberal blather...

It has nothing to do with liberals. However, coming from a guy who
told us that the KKK was a liberal organization, that is the most
pointless comment of all.

>Sorry my idiot friend, but you are falling for the DNC's line due to
>your inability to think.

You're the one falling for the party line. I did look at the
evidence and statements concerning evidence before the invasion
and objectively concluded that they had no veracity. As of today,
the claims about Uranium have been voided and the claims about
WMD have shown that they had no real knowledge of any WMD
program. If they had, they would have been able to find at least
a shred of evidence by now.

>UN resolutions gave the US the right and responsibility to invade
>Iraq. Read them. We should have done so years ago, but Bush 1 and
>Clinton didn't have the balls.

Sorry, you're wrong about our "right" to invade by the UN resolution
and about our "responsibility" to police the world.

Bob

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 01:51:11 GMT, DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Well I graduated with a 4.0 on a 4.0 scale, so I can definitely learn,
>and I can also teach.
>You can't do ****.
>So **** off.

Let's see... inability to argue without name calling, posts with
statements like "the KKK is a liberal democratic organization"...
I'd guess that must be your GPA from fourth grade, right before you
dropped out.

Bob

'nuther Bob <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 07:46:11 -0800, Marc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Please explain how two identical funds, both funded with post-tax dollars,
>>can have the only one of the two that is tax free for growth and tax free
>>upon withdrawal and use of the gains (with certain limitations) not be
>>necessarily better than the one that is taxed the whole way?
>
>I don't know if I understand your questions, but here's an answer
>that should apply:
>
>The Traditional IRA allows you to deduct the full amount of the
>contribution up front. Your savings grow tax sheltered. A $2K
>contribution actually costs you (out of pocket) $2K since it
>is fully deductible. The money When the contributions are withdrawn
>(at retirement) they are generally taxable since you received a full
>deduction when you made the initial contribution (i.e. you've never
>paid taxes on the original income)
>
>The Roth IRA provides no deduction up front. You pay with after-tax
>dollars. Assuming a typical tax rate of 28%, your $2K contribution
>actually costs you about $2550. The Roth's redeeming feature is that
>all of the money is tax free at retirement since you already paid
>the taxes on the original contribution.
>
>The initial comparison seems to make the Roth the "off the cuff"
>winner since there will obviously be substantial growth in the dollars
>before retirement and non-taxable sounds better than taxable. However,
>that leaves out the important aspect of the extra $550 that you had
>to come up with _today_ to fund the Roth. That money would like wise
>have been invested and you lose the potential investment income on
>that $550 - computed as a growing investment over all the years
>from now until retirement.
>
>Also, once you retire your tax rate will most likely fall a good
>15%, meaning that the money in the traditional IRA will be taxed at
>a much lower rate than the 28% you pay now. (THis was the "draw"
>of the original IRA).
>
>Most people would still probably declare the Roth the off-the-cuff
>winner at this point. However, you still have to consider "future
>value". That $550 extra that you contribute _today_ is worth much,
>much more at retirement time. At the least, a simple calculation
>as an investment at the expected inflation rate over the number of
>years until retirement gives you an idea of it's future value.
>In other words, it's an investment too - or one you forgo in
>order to do the Roth.

No. It is certainly not an "investment." It is an opportunity cost. It
is an option eliminated because of another choice. If you are going to get
so technical in your denouncement of the Roth, you should at least use the
correct terminology.

>Add in the fact that the Traditional IRA
>investor can actually invest those dollars in something with a
>good rate of return and you can see that the $550 per year is
>a substantial amount at retirement (notably taxed each year).

Why use supposition? Why not just fill in numbers?

$2000 a year at 6% will come to $162,864 after 30 years. The additional
$550 a year comes to $44,787. If you pull it all out at once, you are
paying 0% on the 162,864 from the Roth and 28% on the 207,651. The take
home on the Roth is $162,864 and the take home on the traditional IRA is
$149,508.72.

In fact, for all numbers I entered into a retirement calculator I found,
the Roth beat the IRA (assuming that the traditional IRA, Roth, and
"additional investment" would all get the same return).

The only time I found the Roth "lost" the comparison is when the marginal
tax rate changes. However, for my retirement, I'm planning to remain in
the same marginal tax rate, so if I had the choice between a Roth and a
traditional IRA, the Roth seems to be the best choice. Thankfully, this is
all moot, as I'm contributing the maximum to my pre-tax and post-tax plans,
so there is no either/or choice to be made.

>Bottom line: the Roth is not a clear cut winner. You need to look
>very closely at your current tax bracket, expected tax brackets,
>and retirement tax bracket to decide which is a better alternative.

You did not answer my question. My question was about two post-tax funds.
I put the max in my 401(k), so I can not put any into a traditional IRA.
My two choices are a savings or investment account or a Roth. Both will be
funded with $3000 actual cash dollars (post tax). But your comparison was
between a traditional IRA (for which I'm not eligible) and a Roth (for
which I am eligible).

Evidently, you realize that the Roth does have benefits, but you seem to
have a grievance against the government that prevents the ability to
recognize that it may help people other than just the government itself.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

In article <[email protected]>,
Douglas A. Shrader <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>What most amuses me, is the "hard to figure out" ballets were identical to
>thoses used in Chicago, where voters had no trouble figuring them out.
>They also should them on the evening news here, a five year old could have
>fugured them out.

Some of the voters in Chicago have been voting for over 100 years;
they can figure out anything by now
--
Matthew T. Russotto [email protected]
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 18:25:52 -0800, Marc <[email protected]> wrote:


>No. It is certainly not an "investment." It is an opportunity cost. It
>is an option eliminated because of another choice.

Whatever. It's a _potential_ investment that I make with the $550 that
I did not give to the government with the Traditional IRA.

>If you are going to get
>so technical in your denouncement of the Roth, you should at least use the
>correct terminology.

Technical ? You mean if I want to actually pay attention to what
happens to my money instead of accepting the hype from the
folks who make money from my investment in a Roth ? (the brokers/banks
and the governments).

>The only time I found the Roth "lost" the comparison is when the marginal
>tax rate changes. However, for my retirement, I'm planning to remain in
>the same marginal tax rate, so if I had the choice between a Roth and a
>traditional IRA, the Roth seems to be the best choice.

Then that's the best choice for you. It's certainly not the best
choice for everyone, despite all the hype on the Roth.

>You did not answer my question.

I didn't understand your question. I believe I mentioned that.

Obviously if you can make the same investment into a tax free vs.
a taxable fund, the tax free wins (unless you will have a need for
the money that is beyond the "exceptions" allowed).

>Evidently, you realize that the Roth does have benefits, but you seem to
>have a grievance against the government that prevents the ability to
>recognize that it may help people other than just the government itself.

I don't have an axe to grind. However, the point is that the Roth is
not as exciting as it is made out to be. If your tax bracket drops at
retirement, then the Traditional IRA might be a better choice for you.
The only sure winners with the Roths are the investment houses and
the government. It's primary purpose was to create a giant windfall
of tax collections for the gov't in rollovers, which it did.

Bob

In article <[email protected]>,
'nuther Bob <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 07:46:11 -0800, Marc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Please explain how two identical funds, both funded with post-tax dollars,
>>can have the only one of the two that is tax free for growth and tax free
>>upon withdrawal and use of the gains (with certain limitations) not be
>>necessarily better than the one that is taxed the whole way?
>
>I don't know if I understand your questions, but here's an answer
>that should apply:
>
>The Traditional IRA allows you to deduct the full amount of the
>contribution up front.

Depending on your income, and whether you have a retirement plan at work.
Most people cannot deduct any of the amount as a result.


> Your savings grow tax sheltered. A $2K
>contribution actually costs you (out of pocket) $2K since it
>is fully deductible. The money When the contributions are withdrawn
>(at retirement) they are generally taxable since you received a full
>deduction when you made the initial contribution (i.e. you've never
>paid taxes on the original income)
>
>The Roth IRA provides no deduction up front. You pay with after-tax
>dollars. Assuming a typical tax rate of 28%, your $2K contribution
>actually costs you about $2550. The Roth's redeeming feature is that
>all of the money is tax free at retirement since you already paid
>the taxes on the original contribution.
>
>The initial comparison seems to make the Roth the "off the cuff"
>winner since there will obviously be substantial growth in the dollars
>before retirement and non-taxable sounds better than taxable. However,
>that leaves out the important aspect of the extra $550 that you had
>to come up with _today_ to fund the Roth. That money would like wise
>have been invested and you lose the potential investment income on
>that $550 - computed as a growing investment over all the years
>from now until retirement.
>
>Also, once you retire your tax rate will most likely fall a good
>15%, meaning that the money in the traditional IRA will be taxed at
>a much lower rate than the 28% you pay now. (THis was the "draw"
>of the original IRA).
>
>Most people would still probably declare the Roth the off-the-cuff
>winner at this point. However, you still have to consider "future
>value". That $550 extra that you contribute _today_ is worth much,
>much more at retirement time. At the least, a simple calculation
>as an investment at the expected inflation rate over the number of
>years until retirement gives you an idea of it's future value.
>In other words, it's an investment too - or one you forgo in
>order to do the Roth. Add in the fact that the Traditional IRA
>investor can actually invest those dollars in something with a
>good rate of return and you can see that the $550 per year is
>a substantial amount at retirement (notably taxed each year).
>
>Bottom line: the Roth is not a clear cut winner. You need to look
>very closely at your current tax bracket, expected tax brackets,
>and retirement tax bracket to decide which is a better alternative.
>
>THe clear cut winner is the government, which gets you to pay your
>taxes today on that money when using a Roth, increasing revenues.
>Not many politicians care much about tax receipts in 20 years - they
>want to have those dollars today in today's dollars. Likewise, all
>of the rollovers into Roth's create a major windfall in tax collec-
>tions since you pay the tax bill at the time of the rollover in
>lieu of tax payments are retirement.
>
>Bob

"Bill Putney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> David Allen wrote:
> >
> > I thought when you started out with "my gullible friend" you'd have a
> > compelling arguement. But when you ended with the "Oil Buddy",
Halliburton
> > conspiracy theory I was disappointed. That theory is truly a fantasy
refuge
> > for Bush haters. To believe that Bush took us to war so his oil buddies
> > could get oil contracts as spoils of war requires twisted thinking,. It
> > requires one accept that Republicans are incapable of anything but evil
on
> > par with the likes of history's worst tyrants. If you believe that,
then
> > you have no standing to call anyone gullible.
> >
> > Can you not accept that there are GOOD people out there who think
> > differently than you. Bush is an honest, straightforward, good man.
He
> > believes differently than you on the left. There's no conspriacy, it's
just
> > a different point of view of the world.
>
> And you have to ask where the company that Nancy Pilosi's husband owns
> 20% of getting a multimillion $$ Iraq reconstruction contract fits in
> with the conspiracy theory.
>

People have been "reverse engineering" conspiracy theories forever. All
that's required is to look at the results of something and extrapolate how
it got that way not knowing anything but rumors, coincidental facts and an
ability to swallow a camel while choking on a gnat.

"'nuther Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 16:56:56 GMT, "David Allen"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I thought when you started out with "my gullible friend" you'd have a
> >compelling arguement. But when you ended with the "Oil Buddy",
Halliburton
> >conspiracy theory I was disappointed. That theory is truly a fantasy
refuge
> >for Bush haters. To believe that Bush took us to war so his oil buddies
> >could get oil contracts as spoils of war requires twisted thinking,. It
> >requires one accept that Republicans are incapable of anything but evil
on
> >par with the likes of history's worst tyrants. If you believe that, then
> >you have no standing to call anyone gullible.
>
> You really are gullible if you think the war in Iraq was about
> anything except money via oil. You'll note that I do NOT subscribe
> to the far fetched theory that we wanted/want to steal the Iraqi oil.
> However, you need to go back and read Cheney's statements in the 90's
> on the sanctions. You need to look at the Halliburton/Dresser sales.
> You need to go take a look at those graphics of the Iraqi oil fields
> that were extracted from Cheney's "Energy Task Force" under court
> order and ask yourself why Cheney and friends would even be discussing
> Iraqi oil when Bush was strumming the war drums. You do yourself an
> injustice by refusing to take a look at the obvious evidence.
>

There is only one oil argument that is the least bit compelling. That is
were it not for oil, the west probably wouldn't have much interest in the
Middle East and it would probably still be a sleepy corner of the world with
no Bin Ladins or Islamic Jihads.

The US and the west have an interest in friendly Middle East governments.
This has been the case for the last 75-100 years. The introduction of
terrorism with the potential of using WMD changed the equation
significantly. The US interest in maintaining a stable oil supply is so
great that it's "worth it" to fight and defeat these terrorists AND
governments who likewise threaten the region and threaten the US (with our
dependency on the oil).

That's the oil angle and it seems pretty elementary to me. The fact that
there are oil and oil services companies that have an interest in doing
business anywhere in the world (let alone just Iraq) doesn't form the peak
of our interest in Iraq. The overwhelming interest being served here is a
stable oil supply for our entire society. Not Halliburton, not Texaco, nor
anyother oil interest.

> Again, if you think the war in Iraq was about WMD, or about
> Saddaam, you are naive.
>
> >Can you not accept that there are GOOD people out there who think
> >differently than you. Bush is an honest, straightforward, good man. He
> >believes differently than you on the left. There's no conspriacy, it's
just
> >a different point of view of the world.
>
> Absolutely. There are Republicans that I respect and admire. There
> are Democrats that I respect and admire. There are men of integrity
> in government with high ideals. There are also a lot of folks in
> politics for the money - today notably Bush and his fellow
> neo-conservatives.
>
> I think you fail to see the truth in a desire to think of Bush as
> a "good man". I don't think he's all that bad a person but he is
> naive, manipulable, and ignorant. Sorry, but he's not half the
> President his Father was.
>
> Bob
>

Well, we're all subject to our biases. One hopes history evolves such that
truth is approached and the biases of the moment recede. I think Bush is
much more capable than his critics suggest.

>
> >Ask all those Solidarity Union workers what they think of Reagan. Those
> >people hated the Soviets and Reagan uttered the words that none of them
> >could and no previous US President had the backbone to utter
>
> Puh-lease.
>

Evil Empire? Dust bin of history? Tear down this wall? The left was
writhing in pain and agony.


> >And if you believe Reagan consulted astrologers, then you're living in a
> >fantasy world yourself... or your just misinformed.
>
> You must have missed the story then. It was front page news in every
> paper in the land. Nancy and Ronnie admitted to it. What more proof
> do you need ?
>
> Bob

Oh, I'm aware of Nancy's astrologers. The way you put it though was to
associate the "White House" with astrologers as if Reagan himself consulted
the astrologers, which he never did.

On 31 Jul 2003 15:15:15 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

>
>Depending on your income, and whether you have a retirement plan at work.
>Most people cannot deduct any of the amount as a result.


Rules have changed in the last few years, so be sure to check the
current revisions before assuming that it's non-deductable. If
the Traditional is non-deductable for you then the advantages
will be lesser. It still _grows_ tax free, and the money you invest
is withdrawable tax free, but the initial tax savings is wiped out.

Bob

"'nuther Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 18:11:36 GMT, "David Allen"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >The FL legislature would have stopped the FSC had the
> >SCOTUS not done so.
>
> That would have been yet another Constitutional crises. The
> legislature holds no power over the courts in our system.
>
The state legislatures hold the keys of power of Presidential elections.

>
> >The ballots were not confusing. There's always someone out there who
will
> >be confused by any type ballot. It doesn't make any type of ballot
illegal.
>
> Go look at the ballot. Go read the FL law on ballot arrangement. It
> was clearly illegal in FL.
>
> >We have (oops! had) the same ballots here in Calif. (chads and all)
They
> >were not confusing to the average person.
>
> Chads were not the issue with the ballot format. Chads were the issue
> in tallying votes. The format issues were completely separate.
>
Chads are not the point. Calif. has used those ballots for years and years.
My own personal experience with them has been extensive enough that I can
say with objectivity they aren't confusing. But there's always people that
will be confused no matter how ballots are designed. The standard for
"confusion" can't be based on a tiny minority of voters who were confused,
which is what happened in FL. Gore's people blew that issue way out of
proportion.

> Bob

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 18:07:27 GMT, "David Allen"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Oh, I'm aware of Nancy's astrologers. The way you put it though was to
>associate the "White House" with astrologers as if Reagan himself consulted
>the astrologers, which he never did.


So, what was the astrologer doing there ?

Bob