Jeep thing or sheep thing?

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.

"'nuther Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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

Nancy was paranoid about Reagan being shot again. She used the sayings of
the astrologer to try to influence Reagan's schedule. Reagan's chief of
staff was appropriately annoyed by it. If his schedule actually was allowed
to be influenced by Nancy, it was not significant.

Using such a thing to trash the Reagan presidency is another reach; another
mud sling.


 
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 18:02:53 GMT, "David Allen"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>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.

Certainly true. There would have been no Desert Storm if there was no
oil in the Middle East.

> 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).

Well, you're coming around. It's about profits for oil companies and
those that supply the industry. Oil companies don't care much about
prices, they care about supply. The make money regardless of the
prices. They did want Iraq's oil in the market. The suppliers wanted
to sell to the Iraqi fields (we're talking billions here, real money).
How could they do that with the sanctions in place ? They couldn't,
and the only realistic way to remove the sanctions was to remove
Saddaam while they had a manipulable puppet of the oil industry in
the President's office.

(BTW - we don't use much Middle Eastern oil in the USA.)

Bob
 
In article <[email protected]>,
'nuther Bob <[email protected]> wrote:
>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
I opened a Roth a few years ago because with a retirement plan at work, I
couldn't deduct any for a traditional.
 
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 18:16:30 GMT, "David Allen"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"'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.

There is no way that the legislature can do what you suggested above,
that is, "fix" the problem with the election by invalidating what the
courts have just ruled. The legislature cannot overrule the court
system.

>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.

Let me repeat this one more time because you seem to have a problem
understanding it: The ballot was ILLEGAL under FLORIDA laws.

Now, it doesn't matter what you think makes up a good ballot, it
doesn't matter what I think. It doesn't matter what Al Gore, Pat
Buchanan or George Bush thinks about the ballot. The _layout_
was ILLEGAL under FLORIDA law - a law passed to avoid confusing
ballots.

It was not just Al Gore that thought it was confusing, it was
also Pat Buchanan who admitted that many of the votes for him
were in fact errors. It was not an insignificant number of
voters.

Bob
 
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 18:26:17 GMT, "David Allen"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Nancy was paranoid about Reagan being shot again. She used the sayings of
>the astrologer to try to influence Reagan's schedule. Reagan's chief of
>staff was appropriately annoyed by it. If his schedule actually was allowed
>to be influenced by Nancy, it was not significant.
>

Ronnie was highly influenced by Nancy. She was his "manager". He did
what she advised. He was just the front man, the actor. A good actor,
but just an actor.

>Using such a thing to trash the Reagan presidency is another reach; another
>mud sling.

Sorry, but there's no excuse for having an astrologer in the
White House. Also, I'm not using it to trash his presidency,
he did that himself.

Bob
 
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 13:59:39 GMT, 'nuther Bob
<[email protected]> wrote:

>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.

Hey bobby, try reading Florida law. The recounts were illegal after a
certain amount of time passed - like one week! Once the recounts
showed al bore lost, he kept fighting for months. The Florida courts
ruled he lost, yet your buddies the liberal judges on the Floriduh
supreme idiot court didn't care about the law.

>There are two issues there: First, there was a great deal of judgement
>involved in determining which ballots were votes for who. Secondly,

Yes, it is hard to say who someone voted for when they punched the
spot for Bush...

>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.

I am not sure, but didn't the dems create that ballot? Yes!


 
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 17:42:03 -0500, "Douglas A. Shrader"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"'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.

True, but what nutter bob is forgetting to mention is that the Florida
law was followed by the SCOTUS, the Florida courts (all except the one
with 7 liberal judges on it) and all the people who counted and
recounted the ballots. Yet, when their guy lost, the Floriduh supreme
court liberals decided to VOID FLORIDA LAW, and write their own.
 
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 23:42:04 GMT, 'nuther Bob
<[email protected]> wrote:

>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.

Sorry moron, but the dems in those counties prepared the ballot.

Your hyperbole makes it sound like all the ballots were the same
throughout the state.


 
'nuther Bob <[email protected]> wrote:

>(BTW - we don't use much Middle Eastern oil in the USA.)

But if the Middle East stopped producing, the people that currently buy it
would be wanting a piece of our Venezuelan and Mexican oil, so where the
actual oil comes from is irrelevant to the production of it affecting our
economy the same as if it were from closer sources.

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

Same effect. Nancy had a greater control over the White House than Hilary.

Funny how no one cares when it is a Republican wife with all that power,
but when it is a Democrat wife, there is no end to the whining...

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
 
'nuther Bob <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 18:25:52 -0800, Marc <[email protected]> wrote:

>>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).

$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).

No hype. Just the numbers that *proves* that for a constant tax bracket
and the same return on investments, the Roth is *necessarily* better than a
traditional IRA.

I don't care whether the government gets a tax difference for it too. All
I know is that it benefits *me* in every way I can conceive of. The
numbers clearly show that.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
 
"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"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.
>
They don't seem so coincidental when the theory predicts the future.
"Economic gain for friends and business associates" was listed as a reason
for getting involved in Iraq even before it was official. Actions taken
since have lined up nicely with that "conspiracy theory." It isn't reverse
engineering the theory, it was that the theory was voiced before official
action and actions since have been consistent with it.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
 
Marc wrote:
>
> "David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >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.
> >
> They don't seem so coincidental when the theory predicts the future.
> "Economic gain for friends and business associates" was listed as a reason
> for getting involved in Iraq even before it was official. Actions taken
> since have lined up nicely with that "conspiracy theory." It isn't reverse
> engineering the theory, it was that the theory was voiced before official
> action and actions since have been consistent with it.

What actions would those be, Marc. Major clean-up, paint-up, fix-up
operations are predictable following any war. Is there something beyond
that that you're referring to? I know that profits from oil are planned
to be used for self-funding of the Iraqi recovery, but beyond that?

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! =-----
 
DTJ wrote:
>
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 13:59:39 GMT, 'nuther Bob
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> Hey bobby, try reading Florida law. The recounts were illegal after a
> certain amount of time passed - like one week!...

Exactly.

> >There are two issues there: First, there was a great deal of judgement
> >involved in determining which ballots were votes for who. Secondly,
>
> Yes, it is hard to say who someone voted for when they punched the
> spot for Bush...

Exactly.

> >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.
>
> I am not sure, but didn't the dems create that ballot? Yes!

Exactly.

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! =-----
 
On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 02:12:11 GMT, DTJ <[email protected]>
a guy who actually posted that the KKK is made up of
liberals wrote:

>Hey bobby, try reading Florida law. The recounts were illegal after a
>certain amount of time passed - like one week!

The law was ambiguous on what happens when the recount if _not_
completed in time. That was the reason it was continued BY THE COURTS.
There was nothing illegal about it.

>yet your buddies the liberal judges on the Floriduh
>supreme idiot court didn't care about the law.

Perhaps you missed the part where they ruled on the law, or maybe
the part on where the Supreme Court fits into our system of
government.

>I am not sure, but didn't the dems create that ballot? Yes!

The ballot came from the FL elections council. It was "approved"
by the Republican and Democratic representatives. That still does no
make it legal. The FL laws specify the ballot layout in order to
make sure the _voter_ is protected, not the party.

Bob

 
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 23:17:41 -0800, Marc <[email protected]> wrote:

>'nuther Bob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>(BTW - we don't use much Middle Eastern oil in the USA.)
>
>But if the Middle East stopped producing, the people that currently buy it
>would be wanting a piece of our Venezuelan and Mexican oil, so where the
>actual oil comes from is irrelevant to the production of it affecting our
>economy the same as if it were from closer sources.

I was just trying to "clue up" the other poster.

It obviously would affect the price. However, I didn't see anywhere in
the Constitution where we're allowed to invade a foreign country to
prevent price hikes in goods and services. Maybe I missed that.

BOb
 
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 23:17:41 -0800, Marc <[email protected]> wrote:

>Funny how no one cares when it is a Republican wife with all that power,
>but when it is a Democrat wife, there is no end to the whining...


The Republicans hated Ms. Clinton with a passion the moment _he_ was
elected. I've never seen such unwarranted hate for a President's
wife. I think it was because the Washington Republicans saw that
she was a possible future political powerhouse (young, white, lawyer,
wife of a smart politician) and they were trying to "nip the shoot in
the bud" as it were. By starting a "hate Hillary now" campaign they
managed to get the rank and file "the party forms my opinion
for me" followers to hate Hillary too.

Bob




 
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 23:17:41 -0800, Marc <[email protected]> wrote:

>No hype. Just the numbers that *proves* that for a constant tax bracket
>and the same return on investments, the Roth is *necessarily* better than a
>traditional IRA.

Perhaps. A "constant tax bracket" is one issue. Most folks drop a bit
at Retirement. The second consideration is that none of those
calculations considers the future-value of those dollars in today's
terms. In other words, the $550 you save today is worth a lot more
than $550 in 30 years. This has the effect of discounting the whole
plan.

Bob
 
On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 06:38:42 -0400, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
wrote:

>What actions would those be, Marc. Major clean-up, paint-up, fix-up
>operations are predictable following any war. Is there something beyond
>that that you're referring to? I know that profits from oil are planned
>to be used for self-funding of the Iraqi recovery, but beyond that?


That's not what he's referring to. He's referring to the fact that
the war was created in order to financially benefit those who sell
oil field supplies and those who trade oil.

The war had nothing to do with "saving" the Iraqi people or "saving"
the world from Saddaam. Each of the points that Bush lied about to
stir up support: Saddaam purchasing Uranium, Saddaam having massive
WMD programs, Saddaam having any links to Al Queda; has been
disproven. It was all a ruse. Some people saw through it beforehand,
some afterwards, some are just learning - but since you're a died in
the wool Bush man, you'll ignore the evidence and keep polishing your
Bush bumper sticker.

Bob



 
Hitler gets a mention again...

Since you ask, it's 20 Apr.

DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"DTJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> >So how did you celebrate Adolf's birthday this year?
>
> I don't know? When was it?


 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Discodevon
Jeep Cherokee 2.7 crd 2002
Replies
9
Views
1K
Firebobby1
Firebobby1
F
Help 😪 this thing is driving me mad 😆
Replies
9
Views
1K
freelandertd4bmw
F
Zorro587
Noise gone but prop shaft queries abound
Replies
14
Views
1K
Chris_68
C
feyniriel
Gearbox fault P38?
Replies
3
Views
839
Grrrrrr
Grrrrrr
xDParis64
Freelander 1 Skid Plate Bolt Sizes + Engine Compression
Replies
19
Views
758
J_D
J_D
Back
Top