"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 May 2011 15:59:47 -0500, Ignoramus21144
wrote:


And you guys were bragging bout Iggys openmindedness....chortle...

Gunner, 50% of the "hissing" and 80% of falsified chain emails that I
referred to, came from you personally. So, I find your comment above to
be slightly amusing.

Son..Ive never sent you an email. So why are you lying this way?

Hey, he didn't say you sent them to him. He said that the phony e-mails that
he was referring to came from you. You post them here. You've been doing it
for years. Or is that someone else named Gunner, who covers up his failings
with snide remarks?


Its not normal for Americans to lie.

HAHAHAHAha...ho. gasp This, said by one of the all-time fibbers on Usenet.
How fast did you go on that motorcycle again? g

Gunner, if you're going to be sarcastic, clean up your act.

Now I know you came from Russia
where lying IS normal..or was for 70 yrs..but Iggy...it doesnt do your
case any good to try to pull such a transparent and utterly lame stunt.


Ive just lost a fair amount of respect for you in those two sentences
you spit out.

That's like losing the respect of a street beggar because you didn't give
him enough of a handout.


Gunner

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 28 May 2011 20:00:08 -0700, Hawke
wrote:
snip
When are people going to wise up and understand what the republicans are
trying to do? Didn't anyone notice what having Bush and the republicans
in charge of the country for two terms did to us? Only the insane would
want more of that.
snip

While this may well be correct for the majority of citizens,
if you are lucky enough to be in the top 5% or 1% of the
wealth/income distribution, this is a golden age, you never
had it so good, and it is entirely rational to hope for more
of the same only better and more of it..

It all depends who "counts" as a person and citizen...


-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

On 2011-05-29, Ed Huntress wrote:

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 May 2011 15:59:47 -0500, Ignoramus21144
wrote:


And you guys were bragging bout Iggys openmindedness....chortle...

Gunner, 50% of the "hissing" and 80% of falsified chain emails that I
referred to, came from you personally. So, I find your comment above to
be slightly amusing.

Son..Ive never sent you an email. So why are you lying this way?

Hey, he didn't say you sent them to him. He said that the phony e-mails that
he was referring to came from you. You post them here. You've been doing it
for years. Or is that someone else named Gunner, who covers up his failings
with snide remarks?

Exactly. He was doing it and he knows it.


Its not normal for Americans to lie.

HAHAHAHAha...ho. gasp This, said by one of the all-time fibbers on Usenet.
How fast did you go on that motorcycle again? g

Gunner, if you're going to be sarcastic, clean up your act.

Now I know you came from Russia
where lying IS normal..or was for 70 yrs..but Iggy...it doesnt do your
case any good to try to pull such a transparent and utterly lame stunt.


Ive just lost a fair amount of respect for you in those two sentences
you spit out.

That's like losing the respect of a street beggar because you didn't give
him enough of a handout.


Gunner

On Sun, 29 May 2011 09:26:20 -0500, Ignoramus18141
wrote:

On 2011-05-29, Ed Huntress wrote:

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 May 2011 15:59:47 -0500, Ignoramus21144
wrote:


And you guys were bragging bout Iggys openmindedness....chortle...

Gunner, 50% of the "hissing" and 80% of falsified chain emails that I
referred to, came from you personally. So, I find your comment above to
be slightly amusing.

Son..Ive never sent you an email. So why are you lying this way?

Hey, he didn't say you sent them to him. He said that the phony e-mails that
he was referring to came from you. You post them here. You've been doing it
for years. Or is that someone else named Gunner, who covers up his failings
with snide remarks?

Exactly. He was doing it and he knows it.

You mean "citations"?

Ive posted a few here indeed. Some were wrong, the vast majority were
correct and squeaky clean.

Now neither of you two gentlemen bother posting cites..just giving your
"opinions"...and as we know..opinions are like assholes..everybody has
one..and they all stink.




Its not normal for Americans to lie.

HAHAHAHAha...ho. gasp This, said by one of the all-time fibbers on Usenet.
How fast did you go on that motorcycle again? g

Gunner, if you're going to be sarcastic, clean up your act.

Now I know you came from Russia
where lying IS normal..or was for 70 yrs..but Iggy...it doesnt do your
case any good to try to pull such a transparent and utterly lame stunt.


Ive just lost a fair amount of respect for you in those two sentences
you spit out.

That's like losing the respect of a street beggar because you didn't give
him enough of a handout.


Gunner


One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

On 2011-05-29, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2011 09:26:20 -0500, Ignoramus18141
wrote:

On 2011-05-29, Ed Huntress wrote:

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 May 2011 15:59:47 -0500, Ignoramus21144
wrote:


And you guys were bragging bout Iggys openmindedness....chortle...

Gunner, 50% of the "hissing" and 80% of falsified chain emails that I
referred to, came from you personally. So, I find your comment above to
be slightly amusing.

Son..Ive never sent you an email. So why are you lying this way?

Hey, he didn't say you sent them to him. He said that the phony e-mails that
he was referring to came from you. You post them here. You've been doing it
for years. Or is that someone else named Gunner, who covers up his failings
with snide remarks?

Exactly. He was doing it and he knows it.

You mean "citations"?

You can call those phony emails, that you posted here, any way you
want.

Ive posted a few here indeed. Some were wrong, the vast majority were
correct and squeaky clean.

Yep, you did it.


i

On 5/29/2011 1:03 AM, F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Sat, 28 May 2011 20:00:08 -0700, Hawke
wrote:
snip
When are people going to wise up and understand what the republicans are
trying to do? Didn't anyone notice what having Bush and the republicans
in charge of the country for two terms did to us? Only the insane would
want more of that.
snip

While this may well be correct for the majority of citizens,
if you are lucky enough to be in the top 5% or 1% of the
wealth/income distribution, this is a golden age, you never
had it so good, and it is entirely rational to hope for more
of the same only better and more of it..

It all depends who "counts" as a person and citizen...

I'll agree that for the people on top voting for republicans is in their
interests. That is if all they care about is increasing their wealth and
decreasing their tax burden. But even those people lost lots of money
from the market crash and the financial melt down. Many of the rich were
hurt badly by republican policies.

And even if those on top only vote because of money issues they should
have noticed what happened to the country during Bush's tenure. The
country went into debt like nothing before, we became a virtual pariah
to most of the world, our infrastructure crumbled, the mood of the
country went into the toilet, and the people were stirred up to the
point of getting out the torches and pitchforks.

So I would say all Americans saw the negative effects that having the
republicans in charge produced for the country. But I never fail to be
amazed that so many people are ready to go right back and do it all over
again. I makes me wonder what it would take to get the die hards to
finally give up on the republicans. A bullet in the forehead?

Hawke

On Sun, 29 May 2011 16:44:37 -0700, Hawke
wrote:

On 5/29/2011 1:03 AM, F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Sat, 28 May 2011 20:00:08 -0700, Hawke
wrote:
snip
When are people going to wise up and understand what the republicans are
trying to do? Didn't anyone notice what having Bush and the republicans
in charge of the country for two terms did to us? Only the insane would
want more of that.
snip

While this may well be correct for the majority of citizens,
if you are lucky enough to be in the top 5% or 1% of the
wealth/income distribution, this is a golden age, you never
had it so good, and it is entirely rational to hope for more
of the same only better and more of it..

It all depends who "counts" as a person and citizen...

I'll agree that for the people on top voting for republicans is in their
interests. That is if all they care about is increasing their wealth and
decreasing their tax burden. But even those people lost lots of money
from the market crash and the financial melt down. Many of the rich were
hurt badly by republican policies.

Being in the top one percent is not the same as being in the
top 10 percent of the wealth/income. Just because you want
to be or think you are a member of the plutocracy or
oligarchy does not make you one. The difference between a
net worth of one million and one billion is a factor of
1,000, and several of the people at the top are multi
billionaires.


And even if those on top only vote because of money issues they should
have noticed what happened to the country during Bush's tenure. The
country went into debt like nothing before, we became a virtual pariah
to most of the world, our infrastructure crumbled, the mood of the
country went into the toilet, and the people were stirred up to the
point of getting out the torches and pitchforks.

Which is why the people in the top 1 percent have private
jets and "second" homes in Switzerland, Brasil, etc. and
maintain large offshore bank accounts denominated in other
than US dollars. What part of "The very rich are different
than you and I" is it that you don't understand.

So I would say all Americans saw the negative effects that having the
republicans in charge produced for the country. But I never fail to be
amazed that so many people are ready to go right back and do it all over
again. I makes me wonder what it would take to get the die hards to
finally give up on the republicans. A bullet in the forehead?


They keep thinking they will be asked to dine at the
captain's table... They will not admit to themselves they
will never make it as they are playing a rigged game (and
have been for years). Think "If at first you don't succeed,
try -- try again.

Mein Kampf (My Battle) by Adolf Hitler is published in its
first part (see beer hall putsch, 1923). Hitler has dictated
the book to his aide (Walter Richard) Rudolf Hess, 31, while
in prison and will complete it in 1927, saying, =="The
great masses of the people . . . will more easily fall
victims to a great lie than to a small one."==

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people
will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be
maintained only for such time as the State can shield the
people from the political, economic and/or military
consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important
for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent,
for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by
extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."

"It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient
repetition and a psychological understanding of the people
concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere
words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and
disguise."

Joseph Goebbels (1897-1945), National Socialist Minister of
Truth and Public Enlightenment

Hawke



-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

On Sun, 29 May 2011 15:17:17 -0500, Ignoramus18141
wrote:


Exactly. He was doing it and he knows it.

You mean "citations"?

You can call those phony emails, that you posted here, any way you
want.

Odd that you would call a citation such as this..a "phoney email"

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=56494

That is your claim, right? Ive posted that a number of times.



Ive posted a few here indeed. Some were wrong, the vast majority were
correct and squeaky clean.

Yep, you did it.

And you have posted ....none. Only your opinion. While a few of mine
were wrong..the vast majority were good and valid..and yet..you claim
your Opinion is somehow far superior to the good and valid cites Ive
posted.

That sounds like you are suffering from that dreaded Leftwingers
disease..mental illness.

I pray its not so.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=56494

Afterall...its not good for you if Dr. Rossiter has your number..is
it...tovarich?

Gunner

One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 May 2011 15:17:17 -0500, Ignoramus18141
wrote:


Exactly. He was doing it and he knows it.

You mean "citations"?

You can call those phony emails, that you posted here, any way you
want.

Odd that you would call a citation such as this..a "phoney email"

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=56494

That is your claim, right? Ive posted that a number of times.



Ive posted a few here indeed. Some were wrong, the vast majority were
correct and squeaky clean.

Yep, you did it.

And you have posted ....none. Only your opinion. While a few of mine
were wrong..the vast majority were good and valid..and yet..you claim
your Opinion is somehow far superior to the good and valid cites Ive
posted.

That sounds like you are suffering from that dreaded Leftwingers
disease..mental illness.

I pray its not so.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=56494

Afterall...its not good for you if Dr. Rossiter has your number..is
it...tovarich?

Gunner

I kind of like this quote from Rossiter (who cribbed much of his book from
Ayn Rand): "Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal
responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet
their needs from cradle to grave."

Jeez, he must have heard about you and your health care situation, Gunner.

--
Ed Huntress

On 5/29/2011 10:06 PM, F. George McDuffee wrote:

I'll agree that for the people on top voting for republicans is in their
interests. That is if all they care about is increasing their wealth and
decreasing their tax burden. But even those people lost lots of money
from the market crash and the financial melt down. Many of the rich were
hurt badly by republican policies.

Being in the top one percent is not the same as being in the
top 10 percent of the wealth/income. Just because you want
to be or think you are a member of the plutocracy or
oligarchy does not make you one. The difference between a
net worth of one million and one billion is a factor of
1,000, and several of the people at the top are multi
billionaires.

I can't say for sure but I wouldn't be surprised if all the people in
the top 1% are billionaires. Or at least close to it. People make the
mistake all the time when confusing assets with income. It's assets that
count. The people in the top 1% of assets are the plutocracy. But I'd
say the people who have incomes in the billions per year, like Soros,
are too.



And even if those on top only vote because of money issues they should
have noticed what happened to the country during Bush's tenure. The
country went into debt like nothing before, we became a virtual pariah
to most of the world, our infrastructure crumbled, the mood of the
country went into the toilet, and the people were stirred up to the
point of getting out the torches and pitchforks.

Which is why the people in the top 1 percent have private
jets and "second" homes in Switzerland, Brasil, etc. and
maintain large offshore bank accounts denominated in other
than US dollars. What part of "The very rich are different
than you and I" is it that you don't understand.

I understand all of it. Unlike most people I actually do know about the
very rich. The amount of wealth held by the top 300,000 families in
America is truly amazing. It's obscenely wrong. But it is amazing that
so few have so much. Especially in a country where we supposedly care so
much about equality. Our uber rich are on a scale unlike anything
ordinary people have a clue about.

What's the name of that Frenchman who is under house arrest for sexually
assaulting his hotel maid? Strausse-Kahn, or something like that. He's
staying in a NY property where the monthly rent is 50K. That should give
you an idea of how much the wealthy can afford. The one thing beyond
their ability to handle is higher taxes.


So I would say all Americans saw the negative effects that having the
republicans in charge produced for the country. But I never fail to be
amazed that so many people are ready to go right back and do it all over
again. I makes me wonder what it would take to get the die hards to
finally give up on the republicans. A bullet in the forehead?


They keep thinking they will be asked to dine at the
captain's table... They will not admit to themselves they
will never make it as they are playing a rigged game (and
have been for years). Think "If at first you don't succeed,
try -- try again.

I guess you never know how badly some people want things. Apparently, so
many want to be a part of that "special" class that they'll delude
themselves into just about anything.


Mein Kampf (My Battle) by Adolf Hitler is published in its
first part (see beer hall putsch, 1923). Hitler has dictated
the book to his aide (Walter Richard) Rudolf Hess, 31, while
in prison and will complete it in 1927, saying, =="The
great masses of the people . . . will more easily fall
victims to a great lie than to a small one."==

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people
will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be
maintained only for such time as the State can shield the
people from the political, economic and/or military
consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important
for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent,
for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by
extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."

"It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient
repetition and a psychological understanding of the people
concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere
words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and
disguise."

Joseph Goebbels (1897-1945), National Socialist Minister of
Truth and Public Enlightenment


Yeah, that's one of the first principles of propaganda, and it usually
works. But there is a flip side to it. Big lies don't work forever.
Propaganda doesn't work forever. It has a life to it. Once people begin
to doubt the propaganda it becomes ineffective. Mussolini learned this
the hard way. Lies can only get you so far. I think you're seeing an
example of this in the republican's lie that they are not out to end
Medicare. No one believes them no matter how often they deny it.

Hawke

On May 30, 3:37*pm, Hawke wrote:


I can't say for sure but I wouldn't be surprised if all the people in
the top 1% are billionaires. Or at least close to it. People make the
mistake all the time when confusing assets with income. It's assets that
count. The people in the top 1% of assets are the plutocracy. But I'd
say the people who have incomes in the billions per year, like Soros,
are too.



I think you are math challenged. The United States has about 300
million people. The top 1% would be 3 million people. That works
out to about 60,000 per state. And if they were billionaires their
total wealth would be 3 million times one billion ( assuming that
they all barely had a billion in wealth, in fact one would expect
some would have more. ) or 3 X 10^15th. That is 3 quadrillion
dollars. In comparison to that, our national debt looks tiny.

Dan


Hawke

"Steve Ackman" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 May 2011 15:59:47 -0500, Ignoramus21144 wrote:

I find notions such as "we will balance the budget by collecting less
taxes and starting more wars", to be somewhat mathematically challenged.

i

So you find Obama mathematically challenged?

I don't think that was Obama's notion. His notion was to restore the '90s
tax rate in the highest bracket, but the numbnuts in Congress made it clear
that would catch hell and never pass.

--
Ed Huntress

On 2011-06-01, Ed Huntress wrote:

"Steve Ackman" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 May 2011 15:59:47 -0500, Ignoramus21144 wrote:

I find notions such as "we will balance the budget by collecting less
taxes and starting more wars", to be somewhat mathematically challenged.

i

So you find Obama mathematically challenged?

I don't think that was Obama's notion. His notion was to restore the '90s
tax rate in the highest bracket, but the numbnuts in Congress made it clear
that would catch hell and never pass.


They are not numbnuts, they know exactly what they are doing.

i

"Ignoramus23186" wrote in message
...
On 2011-06-01, Ed Huntress wrote:

"Steve Ackman" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 May 2011 15:59:47 -0500, Ignoramus21144 wrote:

I find notions such as "we will balance the budget by collecting less
taxes and starting more wars", to be somewhat mathematically
challenged.

i

So you find Obama mathematically challenged?

I don't think that was Obama's notion. His notion was to restore the '90s
tax rate in the highest bracket, but the numbnuts in Congress made it
clear
that would catch hell and never pass.


They are not numbnuts, they know exactly what they are doing.

i

But what they're doing is behaving like numbnuts. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 11:43:00 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Ignoramus23186" wrote in message
m...
On 2011-06-01, Ed Huntress wrote:

"Steve Ackman" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 May 2011 15:59:47 -0500, Ignoramus21144 wrote:

I find notions such as "we will balance the budget by collecting less
taxes and starting more wars", to be somewhat mathematically
challenged.

i

So you find Obama mathematically challenged?

I don't think that was Obama's notion. His notion was to restore the '90s
tax rate in the highest bracket, but the numbnuts in Congress made it
clear
that would catch hell and never pass.


They are not numbnuts, they know exactly what they are doing.

i

But what they're doing is behaving like numbnuts. d8-)


But if it gets them re-elected ?

"john B." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 11:43:00 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Ignoramus23186" wrote in message
om...
On 2011-06-01, Ed Huntress wrote:

"Steve Ackman" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 May 2011 15:59:47 -0500, Ignoramus21144 wrote:

I find notions such as "we will balance the budget by collecting less
taxes and starting more wars", to be somewhat mathematically
challenged.

i

So you find Obama mathematically challenged?

I don't think that was Obama's notion. His notion was to restore the
'90s
tax rate in the highest bracket, but the numbnuts in Congress made it
clear
that would catch hell and never pass.


They are not numbnuts, they know exactly what they are doing.

i

But what they're doing is behaving like numbnuts. d8-)


But if it gets them re-elected ?

Then we have numbnuts electing them because they're behaving like numbnuts,
which is familiar to them and reassures those voters that they and others of
the numbnuts persuasion will be well represented.

Democracy is a wonderland. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Jun 1, 11:43*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

I don't think that was Obama's notion. His notion was to restore the '90s
tax rate in the highest bracket, but the numbnuts in Congress made it
clear
that would catch hell and never pass.

They are not numbnuts, they know exactly what they are doing.

i

But what they're doing is behaving like numbnuts. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress


Must be lonely to be the only person who is right all the time.

Dan

wrote in message
...
On Jun 1, 11:43 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

I don't think that was Obama's notion. His notion was to restore the
'90s
tax rate in the highest bracket, but the numbnuts in Congress made it
clear
that would catch hell and never pass.

They are not numbnuts, they know exactly what they are doing.

i

But what they're doing is behaving like numbnuts. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress


Must be lonely to be the only person who is right all the time.

Dan

I've often thought that about you, too, Dan.

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 22:10:27 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"john B." wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 11:43:00 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Ignoramus23186" wrote in message
news:Wa6dnVxyBNt2wXvQnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@giganews. com...
On 2011-06-01, Ed Huntress wrote:

"Steve Ackman" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 May 2011 15:59:47 -0500, Ignoramus21144 wrote:

I find notions such as "we will balance the budget by collecting less
taxes and starting more wars", to be somewhat mathematically
challenged.

i

So you find Obama mathematically challenged?

I don't think that was Obama's notion. His notion was to restore the
'90s
tax rate in the highest bracket, but the numbnuts in Congress made it
clear
that would catch hell and never pass.


They are not numbnuts, they know exactly what they are doing.

i

But what they're doing is behaving like numbnuts. d8-)


But if it gets them re-elected ?

Then we have numbnuts electing them because they're behaving like numbnuts,
which is familiar to them and reassures those voters that they and others of
the numbnuts persuasion will be well represented.

Democracy is a wonderland. d8-)

Err yes. I read the news groups too :-)

On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 22:10:27 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Then we have numbnuts electing them because they're behaving like numbnuts,
which is familiar to them and reassures those voters that they and others of
the numbnuts persuasion will be well represented.

Democracy is a wonderland. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress
================
Problem is that before you can rate the success or failure
of a policy, you must know what the objective/goal was.

It is entirely possible for the same policy/outcome to be a
roaring success for one group and an abject failure for many
other groups. For example, one [tiny] group under supply
side economics, trickle down, and globalization have grown
rich beyond the dreams of avarice over the last 30 years,
while the majority have "enjoyed" static to declining real
[inflation/tax/fee/benifit adjusted] incomes and suffered
horrendous capital/wealth losses, e.g. housing, IRAs, 401Ks,
mutual funds, pension plans, etc.


-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

On Thu, 26 May 2011 10:51:05 -0500, Ignoramus31410
wrote:

That shows greed, a very common affliction of nearly all pols. Now
divorcing wives when they become seriously ill shows heartless; a
truly terrible weakness.


Yep, very sad.
========
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Indeed, even an individuals perception of significant or
absolute power appears to be extremely debilitating from a
psychological viewpoint, even when you start with a more or
less sane individual.


-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 22:10:27 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Then we have numbnuts electing them because they're behaving like
numbnuts,
which is familiar to them and reassures those voters that they and others
of
the numbnuts persuasion will be well represented.

Democracy is a wonderland. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress
================
Problem is that before you can rate the success or failure
of a policy, you must know what the objective/goal was.

It is entirely possible for the same policy/outcome to be a
roaring success for one group and an abject failure for many
other groups. For example, one [tiny] group under supply
side economics, trickle down, and globalization have grown
rich beyond the dreams of avarice over the last 30 years,
while the majority have "enjoyed" static to declining real
[inflation/tax/fee/benifit adjusted] incomes and suffered
horrendous capital/wealth losses, e.g. housing, IRAs, 401Ks,
mutual funds, pension plans, etc.


-- Unka George (George McDuffee)

Not to worry, George. The rising tide will lift all boats, except in this
boat basin, where all of the little boats are tied with short rodes straight
to the bottom.

Democracy is a wonderland. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On 6/1/2011 8:38 AM, Ignoramus23186 wrote:
On 2011-06-01, Ed wrote:

"Steve wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 May 2011 15:59:47 -0500, Ignoramus21144 wrote:

I find notions such as "we will balance the budget by collecting less
taxes and starting more wars", to be somewhat mathematically challenged.

i

So you find Obama mathematically challenged?

I don't think that was Obama's notion. His notion was to restore the '90s
tax rate in the highest bracket, but the numbnuts in Congress made it clear
that would catch hell and never pass.


They are not numbnuts, they know exactly what they are doing.

i

At least the republicans do. They are fighting hard to reduce taxes on
the wealthy and on business while at the same time trying to reduce what
the government pays out to people who need help, like seniors and the
poor. But that is just like they always are.

Hawke

On 6/3/2011 4:34 PM, F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 22:10:27 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Then we have numbnuts electing them because they're behaving like numbnuts,
which is familiar to them and reassures those voters that they and others of
the numbnuts persuasion will be well represented.

Democracy is a wonderland. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress
================
Problem is that before you can rate the success or failure
of a policy, you must know what the objective/goal was.

It is entirely possible for the same policy/outcome to be a
roaring success for one group and an abject failure for many
other groups. For example, one [tiny] group under supply
side economics, trickle down, and globalization have grown
rich beyond the dreams of avarice over the last 30 years,
while the majority have "enjoyed" static to declining real
[inflation/tax/fee/benifit adjusted] incomes and suffered
horrendous capital/wealth losses, e.g. housing, IRAs, 401Ks,
mutual funds, pension plans, etc.


So it was a very successful policy as it worked exactly as they wanted
it to when they put it in place.

Hawke