Jeep thing or sheep thing?

D

David Allen

Guest

• Aug 1, 2003

• #1,141

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

Hardly "coming around"! I don't think any straight thinking person can deny
that oil is vital to entire world economy and that our interest in
maintaining it's stable supply is extreme. What you're hoping I come around
on is to accept that the US interest is corporate profits instead of a
stable supply, which is absurd.

The long term goal of the terrorists is to create an Islamic Empire. As
long as middle eastern countries are friendly to the US and are part of the
oil machine driving the western economic engine it'll never happen. The US
protects those governments. Terrorism is how they want to destroy the
western economy and eject the west from the middle east. Delivering a
devastating blow to the west in the form of a nuclear blast in a major
western city would cripple the western economy and cause us to retreat. The
Islamists would then be able to overthrow those governments and create their
empire.

The 9/11 attack was not enough to knock down our economy. Our economy was
able to absort the hit. But it's affect was very significant. Economic
activity was hit (e.g., airlines, tourism) and government spending went up
(e.g., Homeland Security, Defense). A nuke attack would be orders of
magnitute greater in it's economic affect.

The war on terrorism is about WMD, it's about oil, and it's also about our
way of life. It's obvious that individual companies have a profit interest;
it's how things get done in our economy, but to say that Bush is not
motivated by the world view, but is lap dog to the corporate interest view
is to believe the absurd.

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

Doesn't matter. And I'm sure we agree on that.

 

D

David Allen

Guest

• Aug 1, 2003

• #1,142

"'nuther Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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 state courts have no power here. The constitution is plain. The power
to select presidential electors lies with the state legislatures, not the
courts. It was the legislature that decided to holde a popular election.
They have every right, in fact a responsibility, to ensure a fair process.
If they think something is wrong, they can take matters into their own
hands.


> >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

Well, nobody who has the responsibility for making such judgments agrees
with you. If the point of the "illegal" argument is "confusing", somebody
who matters has to agree.

However confusing they might have been, the margin was so close that all
kinds of factors might have changed the results of the elections, "white
noise" as it were. Gore had nothing to lose, so what the heck. The
butterfly ballots were good enough over the years to produce valid results.
And there is no voting method that is so confusion or error free as to not
be a factor in a very close election.

It's not a persuasive argument.

 

D

David Allen

Guest

• Aug 1, 2003

• #1,143

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

I don't agree. His political views and policy decisions were very much his
own. Nancy wasn't even on the radar screen. He may have humored her wrt
the astrologer, whether to go to give a speech on Wed. or Thurs., this week
or next, but to cast him as a smiling dummy able to fool us all with his
quick smile with Nancy and her astrologer running things is another
absurdity of the left.

 

B

Bill Putney

Guest

• Aug 1, 2003

• #1,144

'nuther Bob wrote:
>
> 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

Yes - so far that appears to have been wishful thinking - so there's
possibly one.

, Saddaam having massive
> WMD programs

You mean the one's that Clinton and Hans Blix said he had?

> , Saddaam having any links to Al Queda; has been
> disproven.

You mean the terrorist training camps and safe havens? Or do you mean
the payments to the families of those Islamists who blew themselves up
while intentionally murdering innocent people. Which of those have 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.

And you make such false assumptions because...?

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! =-----

 

B

Bill Putney

Guest

• Aug 1, 2003

• #1,145

David Allen wrote:
>
> "'nuther Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > ...Well, you're coming around. It's about profits...
> >
> Hardly "coming around"! I don't think any ***straight thinking*** person...

Did you slip that terminology in on purpose, David? You gotta watch out
- they'll jump all over you and call you names for using phrases like
that! 8^)

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! =-----

 

M

Marc

Guest

• Aug 2, 2003

• #1,146

Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>DTJ wrote:

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

I don't think there were any complaints about the number that voted for
Bush, but the number that thought they were voting for Gore and hit the
Green Party (I think, it may have been another candidate) instead. The
complaint was how the two sides lined up.

No, I'm not defending any argument, just clarifying what was being argued.

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

 

M

Marc

Guest

• Aug 2, 2003

• #1,147

'nuther Bob <[email protected]> wrote:
>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.

My retirement plan has me making more after retirement than I make now. At
least for me, the "tax bracket" issue is inconsequential. It is a factor,
as I pointed out, and should be taken into consideration by everyone. My
guess is that those that max out their 401(k) and Roth and do so for a
number of years are going to not have much movement in their tax bracket
after retirement.

I'm also expecting that the tax rate (for all brackets) will increase by
the time I retire. If that is true, then the Roth becomes an even better
deal.

The other assumption could be attacked as well. If you can find an
investment that will get you a better return, but the investment must be in
"real" cash (not some brokerage account), then the Roth does become a worse
deal. If you buy property with your $550 a month that returns 20%, but the
investments available in brokerage accounts for the IRAs return less, then
you will be better off not doing the Roth to keep the cash on hand to
invest in the real estate. However, I do not think that is common enough
to be a general trend.

>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.

Not in the least. I dealt with actual dollars. The inflation will not
change the actual dollars you are paid. It will only affect what they can
buy. The ratio (that the Roth *always* gives a better return with similar
rates and tax brackets) will remain the same.

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

 

M

Marc

Guest

• Aug 2, 2003

• #1,148

'nuther Bob <[email protected]> wrote:

>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.

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the
United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into
the actual Service of the United States;"

Given the history of the Republicans with Voodoo Economics (the theory that
giving tax cuts to the rich and only the rich benefits the entire country)
and such, it isn't any stretch to think that they would take making some of
the richest oil people richer to also benefit the entire country. Anything
that benefits the entire country would seem to be perfectly acceptable.

Not that they are correct, but at least on this point (benefiting the rich
with absolutely no direct benefit to anyone else is a Good Thing), they are
consistent.

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

 

M

Marc

Guest

• Aug 2, 2003

• #1,149

"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:

>The state courts have no power here. The constitution is plain. The power
>to select presidential electors lies with the state legislatures, not the
>courts. It was the legislature that decided to holde a popular election.
>They have every right, in fact a responsibility, to ensure a fair process.
>If they think something is wrong, they can take matters into their own
>hands.

The courts can rule on whether the actions of the legislature are legal.
Just as the courts had control over many of the election laws that were
deemed illegal (poll taxes and other ways that were discriminatory),
despite the authority of the legislature, they may or may not have
jurisdiction here.

No, I'm not arguing whether they do or don't, just that "The constitution
is plain" is simply a false statement if you are trying to imply that the
courts have no jurisdiction over the legislature for presidential election
matters.

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

 

D

David Allen

Guest

• Aug 2, 2003

• #1,150

"Marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >The state courts have no power here. The constitution is plain. The
power
> >to select presidential electors lies with the state legislatures, not the
> >courts. It was the legislature that decided to holde a popular election.
> >They have every right, in fact a responsibility, to ensure a fair
process.
> >If they think something is wrong, they can take matters into their own
> >hands.
>
> The courts can rule on whether the actions of the legislature are legal.
> Just as the courts had control over many of the election laws that were
> deemed illegal (poll taxes and other ways that were discriminatory),
> despite the authority of the legislature, they may or may not have
> jurisdiction here.
>
> No, I'm not arguing whether they do or don't, just that "The constitution
> is plain" is simply a false statement if you are trying to imply that the
> courts have no jurisdiction over the legislature for presidential election
> matters.

The point I was trying to make was that, according to the constitution, the
power resides with the legislature. That's what is plain. The role of the
state courts is to interpret laws the legislature passes and the role of the
fed courts is to ensure state laws pass constitutional muster. I don't
disagree with that.

I still say the FL legislature was poised to, and they felt they had the
constitutional power to, set aside the results of a flawed election and
select the presidential electors themselves. It would have been an
interesting and fascinating thing to watch.

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

 

N

'nuther Bob

Guest

• Aug 2, 2003

• #1,151

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 18:17:33 -0400, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
wrote:

>You mean the one's that Clinton and Hans Blix said he had?

Hans Blix wanted to finish the inspections to find out if Saddaam
had any WMD's. GWB couldn't wait for some reason. If you think about
it, the only reason not to wait was because they might _not_ find
WMD and then GWB had no reason to invade.
>
>> , Saddaam having any links to Al Queda; has been
>> disproven.
>
>You mean the terrorist training camps and safe havens?

There were a couple areas in Northern Iraq the some of those folks
were using. They were located in the Kurdish Territory where Saddaam
did not tread because the Kurds would not let him. There was no
support from Saddaam for those terrorists. We could easily have
taken those camps out with a targeted strike.

In all the papers they've found in Iraq, all the gov't buildings
they've searched, they have yet to find any direct links between
Saddaam and Al Queda. If they had, you can be sure they'd be waving
it like a flag at this point.

>Or do you mean
>the payments to the families of those Islamists who blew themselves up
>while intentionally murdering innocent people. Which of those have been
>disproven?

Saddaam was providing money to the families of dead terrorists who
were killed while engaged in terrorism in Israel. While I find it
repulsive, it was not a threat to the national security of the USA
and whether or not it constitutes support of terrorism is debatable.
Certainly the Palestinian supporters would disagree. If we are going
to invade every country that supports the Palestinians in some way,
we have another dozen to go.

I'll say it again: There is no link between Saddaam and Al Queda.

Bob

 

N

'nuther Bob

Guest

• Aug 2, 2003

• #1,152

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 18:16:49 GMT, "David Allen"
<[email protected]> wrote:


>The state courts have no power here. The constitution is plain. The power
>to select presidential electors lies with the state legislatures, not the
>courts. It was the legislature that decided to holde a popular election.
>They have every right, in fact a responsibility, to ensure a fair process.
>If they think something is wrong, they can take matters into their own
>hands.

I think you need to re-read the Constitution.



>Well, nobody who has the responsibility for making such judgments agrees
>with you. If the point of the "illegal" argument is "confusing", somebody
>who matters has to agree.

Everyone agreed that the ballot did not meet the FL standard
*including* the FL courts. So, somebody who matters did agree.
However, the courts held that a second election was not practical
and was also rife with Constitutional problems. That doesn't make
the ballot legal, it just makes it more difficult to correct.

>And there is no voting method that is so confusion or error free as to not
>be a factor in a very close election.
>It's not a persuasive argument.

There's no persuasion required. It was illegal. Thousands of votes
were incorrectly cast. The election is suspect.

Bob

 

N

'nuther Bob

Guest

• Aug 2, 2003

• #1,153

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 18:21:09 GMT, "David Allen"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I don't agree. His political views and policy decisions were very much his
>own. Nancy wasn't even on the radar screen.

BS.

> He may have humored her wrt
>the astrologer, whether to go to give a speech on Wed. or Thurs., this week
>or next, but to cast him as a smiling dummy able to fool us all with his
>quick smile with Nancy and her astrologer running things is another
>absurdity of the left.
>

He was an ACTOR. A very good actor as President, but still an ACTOR.

Bob

 

N

'nuther Bob

Guest

• Aug 2, 2003

• #1,154

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 17:54:24 -0800, Marc <[email protected]> wrote:

>"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the
>United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into
>the actual Service of the United States;"

That section of the Constitution on makes the President
Commander in Chief. It does not discuss National Defense. Other
sections do, you may want to review them.

Bob

 

N

'nuther Bob

Guest

• Aug 2, 2003

• #1,155

On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 05:13:36 GMT, "David Allen"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I still say the FL legislature was poised to, and they felt they had the
>constitutional power to, set aside the results of a flawed election and
>select the presidential electors themselves. It would have been an
>interesting and fascinating thing to watch.


And you have therefore proven my original point with which you started
this argument: It would have been a constitutional crisis.

Bob

 

D

DTJ

Guest

• Aug 2, 2003

• #1,156

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 17:54:24 -0800, Marc <[email protected]> wrote:

>Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>>DTJ wrote:
>
>>> Yes, it is hard to say who someone voted for when they punched the
>>> spot for Bush...
>>
>>Exactly.
>
>I don't think there were any complaints about the number that voted for
>Bush, but the number that thought they were voting for Gore and hit the
>Green Party (I think, it may have been another candidate) instead. The
>complaint was how the two sides lined up.

Yes, I know. The issue is that every person on the ballot had the
same requirements to determine what to check. So, anyone that voted
for the wrong guy due to their stupidity, which is what it was, could
have been a republican, democrat, green, blue, purple or any other
party.

Statistically no one candidate could have been harmed or benefitted
from the ballot.

 

D

David Allen

Guest

• Aug 2, 2003

• #1,157

"'nuther Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 18:16:49 GMT, "David Allen"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> >The state courts have no power here. The constitution is plain. The
power
> >to select presidential electors lies with the state legislatures, not the
> >courts. It was the legislature that decided to holde a popular election.
> >They have every right, in fact a responsibility, to ensure a fair
process.
> >If they think something is wrong, they can take matters into their own
> >hands.
>
> I think you need to re-read the Constitution.
>

Why? So I can read once again that the power to select presidential electors
lies with the state legislatures?

>
>
> >Well, nobody who has the responsibility for making such judgments agrees
> >with you. If the point of the "illegal" argument is "confusing",
somebody
> >who matters has to agree.
>
> Everyone agreed that the ballot did not meet the FL standard
> *including* the FL courts. So, somebody who matters did agree.
> However, the courts held that a second election was not practical
> and was also rife with Constitutional problems. That doesn't make
> the ballot legal, it just makes it more difficult to correct.
>

Wrong. Here's what the FL Supreme Court had to say:

"In the present case, even accepting appellants' allegations, we conclude as
a matter of law that the Palm Beach County Ballot does not constitute
substantial noncompliance with the statutory requirements mandating the
voiding of the election".

http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/election2000/fscfladelldismiss1201.pdf

> >And there is no voting method that is so confusion or error free as to
not
> >be a factor in a very close election.
> >It's not a persuasive argument.
>
> There's no persuasion required. It was illegal. Thousands of votes
> were incorrectly cast. The election is suspect.
>
> Bob

 

D

DTJ

Guest

• Aug 2, 2003

• #1,158

On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 13:24:03 GMT, 'nuther Bob
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Saddaam was providing money to the families of dead terrorists who
>were killed while engaged in terrorism in Israel. While I find it
>repulsive, it was not a threat to the national security of the USA

Nutter bobby, treaties require us to come to the aid of our allies.

If not, you would be speaking german right now.

>and whether or not it constitutes support of terrorism is debatable.

Supporting terrorists is not supporting terrorism. You must be a
****ing liberal.

 

D

David Allen

Guest

• Aug 2, 2003

• #1,159

"'nuther Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 05:13:36 GMT, "David Allen"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I still say the FL legislature was poised to, and they felt they had the
> >constitutional power to, set aside the results of a flawed election and
> >select the presidential electors themselves. It would have been an
> >interesting and fascinating thing to watch.
>
>
> And you have therefore proven my original point with which you started
> this argument: It would have been a constitutional crisis.
>
> Bob

It was already that. My point was that FL legislature was poised to take
matters into their own hands, making whatever decision the SCOTUS made to
allow further recounts moot. No doubt, that action would have been
challenged. The result? Speculation.

 

M

Marc

Guest

• Aug 2, 2003

• #1,160

DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 17:54:24 -0800, Marc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>DTJ wrote:
>>
>>>> Yes, it is hard to say who someone voted for when they punched the
>>>> spot for Bush...
>>>
>>>Exactly.
>>
>>I don't think there were any complaints about the number that voted for
>>Bush, but the number that thought they were voting for Gore and hit the
>>Green Party (I think, it may have been another candidate) instead. The
>>complaint was how the two sides lined up.
>
>Yes, I know. The issue is that every person on the ballot had the
>same requirements to determine what to check. So, anyone that voted
>for the wrong guy due to their stupidity, which is what it was, could
>have been a republican, democrat, green, blue, purple or any other
>party.
>
>Statistically no one candidate could have been harmed or benefitted
>from the ballot.

Suppose that 50% wanted Gore, 45% wanted Bush, 2% for the Green Party, 2%
for the Libertarians, and 1% for the others. If 10% of all voters were to
select a random party from confusion, then the results would be
47/42.5/3.8/3.8/2.9 for the percentages.

So, statistically, the voter with the greatest popular support is harmed
the most.

Again, I'm not asserting that Gore had more support, or that this is what
happened. I'm just pointing out that your assertion that all would be
statistically affected the same is incorrect.

There was further complaints that Bush had a near-zero number of confused
voters because Bush was first on the ballot. It was the ones below him
that became confusing. If true, this would be a further dilution of the
most popular candidate that was not first on the ballot. Another assertion
that is contradictory to your assertion that it couldn't have hurt any one
candidate.

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