Everybody wants to know where the bottom of the DOW is....

6330

Robatoy wrote:
Everybody wants to know where the bottom of the DOW is....

6330

0

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Damn Clintons

cm
"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
Everybody wants to know where the bottom of the DOW is....

6330

On Oct 9, 10:01*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
Everybody wants to know where the bottom of the DOW is....

6330

0

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
Tim Daneliuk * *
PGP Key: * * * *http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

=o)

Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 9, 10:01 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
Everybody wants to know where the bottom of the DOW is....
6330
0

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

=o)

Buy at -1

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Oct 10, 12:26*am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 9, 10:01 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
Everybody wants to know where the bottom of the DOW is....
6330
0

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
Tim Daneliuk * *
PGP Key: * * * *http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

=o)

Buy at -1

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
Tim Daneliuk * *
PGP Key: * * * *http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Hey.. I did okay with Lee Iacocca's Chrysler in the 80's. Some people
called me an opportunist..and I was proud of that moniker. See? It
*is* possible to make a fistful of capitalist dollars AND have a
conscience.
I would still hate to see you have to sell your inventory of vino from
under your staircase at 10-cents-to-the-dollars just because you got
sick... but I'd buy it... EG

On Oct 9, 10:40*pm, "cm" wrote:
Damn Clintons

cm"Robatoy" wrote in message

...

Everybody wants to know where the bottom of the DOW is....

6330

Yeah... the Clintons.. such slime balls. One thing I can't, for the
life of me, figure out, why Bill had to do wimmen like Flowers and
Lewinski.... I mean.. I 'get' WHY he was not doing broad-ass Hillary,
but, ****... could he not have found something a bit more do-able than
the ones he did?

"Robatoy" wrote

Yeah... the Clintons.. such slime balls. One thing I can't, for the
life of me, figure out, why Bill had to do wimmen like Flowers and
Lewinski.... I mean.. I 'get' WHY he was not doing broad-ass Hillary,
but, ****... could he not have found something a bit more do-able than
the ones he did?
************************************************** *******************

Was it Bill Mahr who did the comedy bit about poor slick willie being
unlucky in his extra marital affairs?

And the solution was to take up a collection so Uncle Bill could finally
have some "first class pussy".

Clintons sure had a hand in this problem.

Would you believe that it really started with Jimmy Carter??

P D Q

"cm" wrote in message ...
Damn Clintons

cm
"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
Everybody wants to know where the bottom of the DOW is....

6330

No I think it started a little earlier than Carter and I would say the
republicans are just as much to blame. Assuming your talking about the
latest financial situation and not marital infidelity. Well I guess both
greed and extra marital affairs pre dated the Carter administration.



cm


"PDQ" wrote in message
...
Clintons sure had a hand in this problem.

Would you believe that it really started with Jimmy Carter??

P D Q

cm wrote:
: No I think it started a little earlier than Carter and I would say the
: republicans are just as much to blame. Assuming your talking about the
: latest financial situation and not marital infidelity. Well I guess both
: greed and extra marital affairs pre dated the Carter administration.



: cm


: "PDQ" wrote in message
: ...
: Clintons sure had a hand in this problem.

: Would you believe that it really started with Jimmy Carter??

: P D Q

Is this the lust comment from the playboy interview?

On Oct 10, 8:56*am, "Lee Michaels"
wrote:
"Robatoy" *wrote

Yeah... the Clintons.. such slime balls. One thing I can't, for the
life of me, figure out, why Bill had to do wimmen like Flowers and
Lewinski.... I mean.. I 'get' WHY he was not doing broad-ass Hillary,
but, ****... could he not have found something a bit more do-able than
the ones he did?
************************************************** *******************

Was it Bill Mahr who did the comedy bit about poor slick willie being
unlucky in his extra marital affairs?

And the solution was to take up a collection so Uncle Bill could finally
have some "first class pussy".

I can't stand Bill Maher. He's not funny anymore... just like Dennis
Miller.. USED to be funny...

{Snip}
I can't stand Bill Maher. He's not funny anymore... just like Dennis
Miller.. USED to be funny...

Personal Opinion: Think back to the Writer's strike last spring. I
think Bill Maher was a lot funnier before the strike. Since he went on
air (HBO 'on-air'??) without his union writers for a few HBO shows,
something happened. Since the writer's strike, Bill's humor has turned
just nasty (or maybe petulant?)

HBO I think is trying to attract a specific demographic of young people
to a political humor / current events show. Bill Maher is showing his
age and his blatant his left coast bias to current events. Is he still
connecting with the demographics HBO is after? This I don't know. I
assure you, I am WAY too old for the target audience, even if I am a
political liberal.

Don't know about that.

I never got past the centerfold.
wrote in message ...
cm wrote:
: No I think it started a little earlier than Carter and I would say the
: republicans are just as much to blame. Assuming your talking about the
: latest financial situation and not marital infidelity. Well I guess both
: greed and extra marital affairs pre dated the Carter administration.



: cm


: "PDQ" wrote in message
: ...
: Clintons sure had a hand in this problem.

: Would you believe that it really started with Jimmy Carter??

: P D Q

Is this the lust comment from the playboy interview?

According to one source - in 1977 Jimmy signed into law the "Community Reinvestment Act" which was passed by his Democratic controlled Congress.

Apparently this act required depository institutions to help meet the needs of the communities in which they operate.

So began the sub-prime mortgage fiasco.

In 1995 Billy further loosened the purse strings.

What most will not believe - in 2003 the shrub tried to correct this and in 2005 so did McCain.
On both occasions the Democrats shot it down.

The politics of "Affirmative Action for Affordable Housing" sure cooked the books for Fannie and Freddie.

P D Q

"cm" wrote in message ...
No I think it started a little earlier than Carter and I would say the
republicans are just as much to blame. Assuming your talking about the
latest financial situation and not marital infidelity. Well I guess both
greed and extra marital affairs pre dated the Carter administration.



cm


"PDQ" wrote in message
...
Clintons sure had a hand in this problem.

Would you believe that it really started with Jimmy Carter??

P D Q

PDQ wrote:

According to one source - in 1977 Jimmy signed into law the "Community Reinvestment Act" which was passed by his Democratic controlled Congress.

Apparently this act required depository institutions to help meet the needs of the communities in which they operate.

So began the sub-prime mortgage fiasco.

In 1995 Billy further loosened the purse strings.

What most will not believe - in 2003 the shrub tried to correct this and in 2005 so did McCain.
On both occasions the Democrats shot it down.

The politics of "Affirmative Action for Affordable Housing" sure cooked the books for Fannie and Freddie.

P D Q


That's certainly part of the problem, but there's a bigger picture
here that is being ignored by the so-called conservatives (because
they were complicit in it) and denied by the liberals (because they
originally were the authors of this larger picture):

1a) Government spends too much money for 7 decades - overwhelmingly on
social programs.

1b) Government "guarantees" loans for crackwhores,
education, small business, farmers, auto manufacturers,
airlines, steel companies, etc.

2) 1a + 1b = Government gets into great big huge debt.

3) Government drives interest rates down hoping to stimulate
the economy and generate more tax revenues AND devalue the
dollar to pay off old loans with the resulting weaker currency.

4) The lowered interest rate environment encourages people to
take on more and more debt, at increasing levels of risk

5) 1b) + 4) causes the Wall Street banks to manufacture new
derivative instruments to spread the risk. By now, they've
figured out how stupid the public is, and how corrupt the
government is, so they lay off the worst risk to the sheeple
(via government bailouts) and keep the best paper for themselves.

6) The system implodes as Adam's Smith's "invisible hand" does
its job.

7) The liberals blame "free markets", the "conservatives" either
join in or refuse to refute this absurd allegation. Together
they unintentionally form a new movement: The Neo-Coms:

http://heracletus.wordpress.com/2008...-the-neo-coms/

NONE of this would have taken place if government, and thus the
general population had lived within its means. Personally, I'm
cheering for the Wall Street oligarchs. Thus far, anyway, I see
no evidence of fraud. They are geniuses at spotting the vast
stupidity of the sheeple and the congress critters and exploiting
it legally. I wish these money merchants the very best.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

I can only hope you guys put someone in the white house this next time who
has the guts to get it all sorted.

--
Stuart Winsor

For Barn dances and folk evenings in the Coventry and Warwickshire area
See: http://www.barndance.org.uk

Who?? Twiddle dumb or Twiddle dee??

Rick Samuel wrote:
I can only hope you guys put someone in the white house this next time who
has the guts to get it all sorted.

--
Stuart Winsor

For Barn dances and folk evenings in the Coventry and Warwickshire area
See: http://www.barndance.org.uk

Who?? Twiddle dumb or Twiddle dee??



Twiddle dumb and Twiddle dumber...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

There is ALWAYS at least one significant difference between presidential
candidates. Imagine if the paranoid Richard M. Nixon had not been
elected
and Hubert Humphry had become president. No Enemies List, no Watergate,
no Pat Buchanan Pit One Group Against Another Divisiivness, probably no
Peace With Honor - After Another Four Years - And How Many More Lives,
.. . .? Sound like Mr. Rove took a page out of THAT Play Book? The
Tweedle
Dee or Tweedle Dum view of presidential candidates is too simplistic.
The
world is changing fast and the issues in this election are too
significant
to just flip a coin, or worse yet, not vote.

The country is changing significantly - and will continue to change
regardless
of who is elected. A president that can keep up with those changes and
provide some constructive leadership will make a real difference in
where
this country goes in the next four or eight years. There are BIG issues
to deal with and a sharp mind and good political skills - and by that I
don't
mean Party Partisanship - is needed. We need to get beyond the legacy
of Nixon AND Bush/Cheney.

THINK FIRST - THEN - VOTE.

stepping off the Soap Box

charlie b

charlieb wrote:
[snip]

THINK FIRST - THEN - VOTE.

stepping off the Soap Box

charlie b

.... from the Amen Corner: Hallelujah!

Please give me an elite in the White House. Someone who can think with
imagination. Someone who has exquisite people skills. Someone who is
embarrassingly superior to me in intelligence and erudition. A person
who won't stumble trying to fit six words into a coherent sentence.

vote,
jo4hn

jo4hn wrote:
charlieb wrote:
[snip]

THINK FIRST - THEN - VOTE.

stepping off the Soap Box

charlie b

... from the Amen Corner: Hallelujah!

Please give me an elite in the White House. Someone who can think with
imagination. Someone who has exquisite people skills. Someone who is
embarrassingly superior to me in intelligence and erudition. A person
who won't stumble trying to fit six words into a coherent sentence.

vote,
jo4hn

Someone who has strong Marxist-Leninist tendencies.
Someone who has the worst possible friends and associates.
Someone who has actively supported groups engaged in voter fraud.
Someone who believes deeply in wealth redistribution.
Someone who has a grand total of 143 days of "service" (out of 4 years in the Senate).


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

jo4hn wrote:

charlieb wrote:
[snip]

THINK FIRST - THEN - VOTE.

stepping off the Soap Box

charlie b

... from the Amen Corner: Hallelujah!

Please give me an elite in the White House. Someone who can think with
imagination. Someone who has exquisite people skills. Someone who is
embarrassingly superior to me in intelligence and erudition. A person
who won't stumble trying to fit six words into a coherent sentence.

vote,
jo4hn

Come to Canada, we vote Tuesday, the whole electoral process takes six
weeks, but you have to see our choices this time around. Damn the two main
candidates are diametrically opposed, one you can't trust what he says, and
the other you can't understand what he says.

/me thumps head on workbench
--
Froz...

"jo4hn" wrote:

... from the Amen Corner: Hallelujah!

Please give me an elite in the White House. Someone who can think
with imagination. Someone who has exquisite people skills. Someone
who is embarrassingly superior to me in intelligence and erudition.
A person who won't stumble trying to fit six words into a coherent
sentence.

vote,
jo4hn

Careful or you will raise the bar too high.

Lew

jo4hn wrote:
charlieb wrote:
[snip]

THINK FIRST - THEN - VOTE.

stepping off the Soap Box

charlie b

... from the Amen Corner: Hallelujah!

Please give me an elite in the White House. Someone who can think
with imagination. Someone who has exquisite people skills. Someone
who is embarrassingly superior to me in intelligence and erudition.
A person who won't stumble trying to fit six words into a coherent
sentence.

But why would anyone like that _want_ the job?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Oct 10, 3:59*pm, Stuart wrote:
In article ,
* *PDQ wrote:

According to one source - in 1977 Jimmy signed into law the "Community
Reinvestment Act" which was passed by his Democratic controlled Congress.
Apparently this act required depository institutions to help meet the
needs of the communities in which they operate.
So began the sub-prime mortgage fiasco.
In 1995 Billy further loosened the purse strings.
What most will not believe - in 2003 the shrub tried to correct this and
in 2005 so did McCain. On both occasions the Democrats shot it down.
The politics of "Affirmative Action for Affordable Housing" sure cooked
the books for Fannie and Freddie.

As an observer in the UK, whose financial situation has also suffered as a
result of all this, I find this insight a revalation.

I can only hope you guys put someone in the white house this next time who
has the guts to get it all sorted.

--
Stuart Winsor

For Barn dances and folk evenings in the Coventry and Warwickshire area
See:http://www.barndance.org.uk

It's not so much a revelation as bull****. The problems with subprime
were not caused by the borrowers aimed at by Carter, but by lenders
who over-valued houses and allowed people who obviously didn't have
the means to buy immense houses. Almost wrote homes, but damned few of
those places are homes or ever will be. The original act was aimed at
allowing poorer borrowers a shot at the market. What happened was that
lenders saw far more money in letting better off, but not better off
enough, borrowers to grab mortgages beyond their means. Short term
profits were immense. Now, you and I get to pay for that.

It really has little to do with political parties. There is sufficient
shame and blame to go around.

On Oct 11, 6:09*pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
jo4hn wrote:
charlieb wrote:
[snip]

THINK FIRST - THEN - VOTE.

stepping off the Soap Box

charlie b

... from the Amen Corner: Hallelujah!

Please give me an elite in the White House. *Someone who can think
with imagination. *Someone who has exquisite people skills. *Someone
who is embarrassingly superior to me in intelligence and erudition.
A person who won't stumble trying to fit six words into a coherent
sentence.

But why would anyone like that _want_ the job?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

LOL. I cannot find a glimmer of understanding why ANY sane person
would want the job, period. Great for the ego at the start, with
continuing deterioration over four or eight years, to the point where
a total destruction of self esteem is possible...of course, the bucks
after aren't bad. Ol' Ronnie started the modern flow, selling himself
to the Japanese for five million bucks.

"Charlie Self" wrote in message ...
On Oct 10, 3:59 pm, Stuart wrote:
In article ,
PDQ wrote:

According to one source - in 1977 Jimmy signed into law the "Community
Reinvestment Act" which was passed by his Democratic controlled Congress.
Apparently this act required depository institutions to help meet the
needs of the communities in which they operate.
So began the sub-prime mortgage fiasco.
In 1995 Billy further loosened the purse strings.
What most will not believe - in 2003 the shrub tried to correct this and
in 2005 so did McCain. On both occasions the Democrats shot it down.
The politics of "Affirmative Action for Affordable Housing" sure cooked
the books for Fannie and Freddie.

As an observer in the UK, whose financial situation has also suffered as a
result of all this, I find this insight a revalation.

I can only hope you guys put someone in the white house this next time who
has the guts to get it all sorted.

--
Stuart Winsor

For Barn dances and folk evenings in the Coventry and Warwickshire area
See:http://www.barndance.org.uk

It's not so much a revelation as bull****.

One may think of this revelation as bull****, but it is "God's own truth". What we have here is probably an immutable law best paraphrased by Robbie Burns: The best laid plans of mice and men gang oft aglee.

What Carter signed and Clinton amended was never intended to come out the way it did (at least I hope they didn't).

The problems with subprime
were not caused by the borrowers aimed at by Carter, but by lenders
who over-valued houses and allowed people who obviously didn't have
the means to buy immense houses. Almost wrote homes, but damned few of
those places are homes or ever will be.

The original act was aimed at
allowing poorer borrowers a shot at the market.

I agree that the above statement defines what the acts were intended to address and I further agree that the following is exactly what happened. Just goes to show what immense greed can do for one. Those who could not afford one got a mansion they could not pay for and those who could jerrymandered the acts to gain unacceptable wealth to which I feel they were not due. Simple unadulterated GREED.

What happened was that
lenders saw far more money in letting better off, but not better off
enough, borrowers to grab mortgages beyond their means. Short term
profits were immense. Now, you and I get to pay for that.

It really has little to do with political parties. There is sufficient
shame and blame to go around.

While I agree that there is sufficient blame to go arround, it still stands that the congress was and is controlled by the democrats who seem to be staying as far away from any ownership thereof as is possible. Must be they are cognizant of the biblical entreaty to "Let he who is without blame .....".

To quote Arte Johnson: Verrrrrrry Interrrrresting. And very dumb.

P D Q

Charlie Self wrote:
On Oct 10, 3:59 pm, Stuart wrote:
In article ,
PDQ wrote:

According to one source - in 1977 Jimmy signed into law the "Community
Reinvestment Act" which was passed by his Democratic controlled Congress.
Apparently this act required depository institutions to help meet the
needs of the communities in which they operate.
So began the sub-prime mortgage fiasco.
In 1995 Billy further loosened the purse strings.
What most will not believe - in 2003 the shrub tried to correct this and
in 2005 so did McCain. On both occasions the Democrats shot it down.
The politics of "Affirmative Action for Affordable Housing" sure cooked
the books for Fannie and Freddie.
As an observer in the UK, whose financial situation has also suffered as a
result of all this, I find this insight a revalation.

I can only hope you guys put someone in the white house this next time who
has the guts to get it all sorted.

--
Stuart Winsor

For Barn dances and folk evenings in the Coventry and Warwickshire area
See:http://www.barndance.org.uk

It's not so much a revelation as bull****. The problems with subprime
were not caused by the borrowers aimed at by Carter, but by lenders

Wrong. Forcing banks to lend money to people whose source of
"income" is welfare is plainly insane. This contributed mightily
to the unhinging of Freddy & Fannie. That fact that it is not
the *only* reason we currently have a mess doesn't mean it wasn't
a huge part of the underlying problem - it was.

who over-valued houses and allowed people who obviously didn't have
the means to buy immense houses. Almost wrote homes, but damned few of

Wrong. People who borrow money are assumed to be grown ups. When
they are irresponsible, it is *their* fault. Only if someone can
demonstrate that there was fraud or force (or threat) would the
lender be morally/ethically on the hook. So far, no one has done
so. Another major underpinning of the current mess: The greed
and immense foolishness of borrowers.

those places are homes or ever will be. The original act was aimed at
allowing poorer borrowers a shot at the market. What happened was that

It was a moral travesty then, it still is today. They did not *earn*
the homes they got. Their "purchase" was built on stealing money
from their fellow citizens, however indirectly.

lenders saw far more money in letting better off, but not better off
enough, borrowers to grab mortgages beyond their means. Short term
profits were immense. Now, you and I get to pay for that.

Encouraged by a federal government with immense debts that was depressing
interest rates to irrational levels to try and make its debt problem
better. This cheap money made many people dive into highly risk
leverage positions in their personal lives. This mess that you and
I get to pay for starts and ends with government spending that is
out of control - well over 50% of which is for *social entitlements*
(like "helping" the poor buy homes they cannot afford by stealing the
money from people who have it).


It really has little to do with political parties. There is sufficient
shame and blame to go around.

That's right - it begins/ends with a greedy and stupid population
that wants what it has not earned, blames people of wealth and goes
after them to steal their money. The end game of all irrational
evil of this sort is ... evil results.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Oct 11, 8:53*pm, "PDQ" wrote:


It really has little to do with political parties. There is sufficient
shame and blame to go around.

While I agree that there is sufficient blame to go arround, it still stands that the congress was and is controlled by the democrats who seem to be staying as far away from any ownership thereof as is possible. *Must be they are cognizant of the biblical entreaty to "Let he who is without blame ......".


Congress was controlled by the Dems, with a very slim margin, for 18
months. Where the the Republicans in the 72 months preceding?

Making changes 18 months ago wouldn't have helped a lot, but maybe
some. Someone with insight (AKA half a ****ing brain) would have
looked seven or eight or nine years ago and seen where this was
headed. Hell, my wife and I recognized it over five years ago, and
we're both fiscal naifs, compared to the hotshots running all these
banks and financial institutions.

I got a glimpse of it when I bought a house in WV after going to work
for Woodcrap. The bank wanted us to get a more costly house, about
three to four times what we did go for, because we were "eligible." I
wanted a short term (15 year) mortgage at a rate not to exceed xxx
dollars at a rational solid interest. I got it.

When Woodcrap decided I wasn't a corporate fit, 15 months later, I had
to unload that place in a rush. Unloading would have been even more
expensive--I got a check for $1.39 after nearly 15 months of payments
and a small down payment--with a more costly house.

On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 17:08:45 -0700 (PDT), Charlie Self
wrote:

It's not so much a revelation as bull****. The problems with subprime
were not caused by the borrowers aimed at by Carter, but by lenders
who over-valued houses and allowed people who obviously didn't have
the means to buy immense houses. Almost wrote homes, but damned few of
those places are homes or ever will be. The original act was aimed at
allowing poorer borrowers a shot at the market. What happened was that
lenders saw far more money in letting better off, but not better off
enough, borrowers to grab mortgages beyond their means. Short term
profits were immense. Now, you and I get to pay for that.

It really has little to do with political parties. There is sufficient
shame and blame to go around.


Yes. The original intent of the Carter era legislation was an
honorable one. It was aimed directly at the process of "Redlining"
that was prevalent at the time and which excluded housing purchases in
depressed areas without regard to the borrower's qualifications.

According to the Federal Reserve website the lending institutions were
specifically precluded from making unsafe loans:

"The Community Reinvestment Act is intended to encourage depository
institutions to help meet the credit needs of the communities in which
they operate, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods,
consistent with safe and sound operations. It was enacted by the
Congress in 1977 (12 U.S.C. 2901) and is implemented by Regulation BB
(12 CFR 228). The regulation was substantially revised in May 1995,
and was most recently amended in August 2005.
Evaluation of CRA Performance
The CRA requires that each depository institution's record in helping
meet the credit needs of its entire community be evaluated
periodically. That record is taken into account in considering an
institution's application for deposit facilities.

Neither the CRA nor its implementing regulation gives specific
criteria for rating the performance of depository institutions.
Rather, the law indicates that the evaluation process should
accommodate an institution's individual circumstances. Nor does the
law require institutions to make high-risk loans that jeopardize their
safety. To the contrary, the law makes it clear that an institution's
CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner."

http://www.federalreserve.gov/dcca/cra/


It is typical of the current adversarial environment that reality is
not merely ignored but is vociferously denied.


tom watson

On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 14:29:59 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

Someone who has strong Marxist-Leninist tendencies.

You know, I had a seminar course in Marxism back in the seventies and
it took us an entire semester just to read the most elementary texts
involved. Am I to assume that you mean the term as defined by the
Stalinists, or are you more of a Trotskyite in your concept. Then
again, you might be an admirer of the Khrushchevian definition, or
perhaps the Maoist interpretation.

My point is that you are throwing around terminology that has more
weight than your use of it.


Someone who has the worst possible friends and associates.

You mean like "The Keating Five"? Perhaps you mean someone like Ken
Lay? Maybe Bebe Rebozo?


Someone who has actively supported groups engaged in voter fraud.

Please! In Chicago! "I'm shocked..."


Someone who believes deeply in wealth redistribution.

cf. "Whiskey Rebellion", c. 1790's.

yawn...



Someone who has a grand total of 143 days of "service" (out of 4 years in the Senate).


"MISSED VOTES:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/c.../votes/missed/
John McCain has missed 407 votes (63.8%) during the current Congress."

"NEW YORK (CNN) -- Russia invades Georgia and President Bush goes on
vacation. Our president has spent one-third of his entire two terms in
office either at Camp David, Maryland, or at Crawford, Texas, on
vacation.

His time away from the Oval Office included the month leading up to
9/11, when there were signs Osama bin Laden was planning to attack
America, and the time Hurricane Katrina destroyed the city of New
Orleans"



"George Bush Sr. took all or part of 543 vacation days at Camp David
and in Kennebunkport. Ronald Reagan spent 335 days at or en route to
his Santa Barbara, California, ranch during his eight years in office.
Of recent presidents, Jimmy Carter took the least days off -- only 79
days, which he usually spent at his home in Georgia. That's less than
three weeks a year, which is closer to the average American's paid
time off of 13 days per year."

"What about Clinton? As of December 1999, President Bill Clinton had
spent only 152 days on holiday during his two terms, according to CBS
News."



BTW - this might be of particular interest to you:

"How much does John McCain know about his campaign manager's lobbying
history and potential current business interests inside Ukraine -- and
when did he know it?

The stakes of the answer to that question are increasing, due both to
the continuing controversy over the role of lobbyists in McCain's
second presidential run, as well as the press inquiry into the
connections between McCain campaign manager Rick Davis and the global
business and political interests in Ukraine, a country represented by
the lobbying firm that bears his name -- Davis-Manafort.

The Davis lobbying firm offered political consulting services to the
pro-Russian "Party of Regions" inside Ukraine."


(Where not specifically cited, quotes are from various news sources
and you can look them up yourself.)



have a nice day.



tom watson

BTW - I forgot to include Obama's missed votes by way of comparison.

I submit the following for your edification:


John McCain has missed 407 votes (63.8%) during the current Congress."

Barack Obama has missed 303 votes (46.3%) during the current Congress.



thank you for playing.


tom watson.

You mean like "The Keating Five"? Perhaps you mean someone like Ken
Lay? Maybe Bebe Rebozo?

McCain's friends don't hate whites, the USA, nor have they been involved in
any bombings within the USA.

cm

"t" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 14:29:59 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

Someone who has strong Marxist-Leninist tendencies.

You know, I had a seminar course in Marxism back in the seventies and
it took us an entire semester just to read the most elementary texts
involved. Am I to assume that you mean the term as defined by the
Stalinists, or are you more of a Trotskyite in your concept. Then
again, you might be an admirer of the Khrushchevian definition, or
perhaps the Maoist interpretation.

My point is that you are throwing around terminology that has more
weight than your use of it.


Someone who has the worst possible friends and associates.

You mean like "The Keating Five"? Perhaps you mean someone like Ken
Lay? Maybe Bebe Rebozo?


Someone who has actively supported groups engaged in voter fraud.

Please! In Chicago! "I'm shocked..."


Someone who believes deeply in wealth redistribution.

cf. "Whiskey Rebellion", c. 1790's.

yawn...



Someone who has a grand total of 143 days of "service" (out of 4 years in
the Senate).


"MISSED VOTES:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/c.../votes/missed/
John McCain has missed 407 votes (63.8%) during the current Congress."

"NEW YORK (CNN) -- Russia invades Georgia and President Bush goes on
vacation. Our president has spent one-third of his entire two terms in
office either at Camp David, Maryland, or at Crawford, Texas, on
vacation.

His time away from the Oval Office included the month leading up to
9/11, when there were signs Osama bin Laden was planning to attack
America, and the time Hurricane Katrina destroyed the city of New
Orleans"



"George Bush Sr. took all or part of 543 vacation days at Camp David
and in Kennebunkport. Ronald Reagan spent 335 days at or en route to
his Santa Barbara, California, ranch during his eight years in office.
Of recent presidents, Jimmy Carter took the least days off -- only 79
days, which he usually spent at his home in Georgia. That's less than
three weeks a year, which is closer to the average American's paid
time off of 13 days per year."

"What about Clinton? As of December 1999, President Bill Clinton had
spent only 152 days on holiday during his two terms, according to CBS
News."



BTW - this might be of particular interest to you:

"How much does John McCain know about his campaign manager's lobbying
history and potential current business interests inside Ukraine -- and
when did he know it?

The stakes of the answer to that question are increasing, due both to
the continuing controversy over the role of lobbyists in McCain's
second presidential run, as well as the press inquiry into the
connections between McCain campaign manager Rick Davis and the global
business and political interests in Ukraine, a country represented by
the lobbying firm that bears his name -- Davis-Manafort.

The Davis lobbying firm offered political consulting services to the
pro-Russian "Party of Regions" inside Ukraine."


(Where not specifically cited, quotes are from various news sources
and you can look them up yourself.)



have a nice day.



tom watson

On Oct 12, 6:36*pm, "cm" wrote:
You mean like "The Keating Five"? *Perhaps you mean someone like Ken
Lay? *Maybe Bebe Rebozo?

McCain's friends don't hate whites, the USA, nor have they been involved in
any bombings within the USA.


Obama is not 'friends' with Ayers. He sat on a board with Ayers..a
board which was put together by a republican. Stop perpetuating the
lies. Get the facts. (Obama was 8 years old at the time of the
bombings...so what are you saying? )

McCain's friends may not hate whites, but there is some question how
they feel about blacks.
Again, do your homework.

I don't like either as a leader of my neighbouring country, but I'll
take the cool guy over the hothead any day. Besides, at 72, what does
McCain have to lose? Owning 7 houses, what does McCain have to lose?
Having no young children, what does McCain have to gain by supporting
a fair future for them? McCain is truly out of touch.

Both candidates come up short, as do the ones we have to vote for this
coming Tuesday. It is between:
One you can't believe
and
one you can't understand.

And now that all banks worldwide are officially in bed together, we're
all screwed anyway.

On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 15:36:32 -0700, "cm" wrote:

You mean like "The Keating Five"? Perhaps you mean someone like Ken
Lay? Maybe Bebe Rebozo?

McCain's friends don't hate whites, the USA, nor have they been involved in
any bombings within the USA.

cm


"Palin cited an article in Saturday's New York Times about Obama's
relationship with Ayers, now 63. But that article concluded that "the
two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever
expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers,
whom he has called 'somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years
ago, when I was 8.' Riot and bomb conspiracy charges against Ayers
were dropped in 1974, and he is now a professor of education at the
University of Illinois in Chicago."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/04/palin.obama/




"I hate the gooks," McCain said yesterday in response to a question
from reporters aboard his campaign bus. "I will hate them as long as I
live."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...18/MN32194.DTL



tom watson

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
On Oct 12, 6:36 pm, "cm" wrote:
You mean like "The Keating Five"? Perhaps you mean someone like Ken
Lay? Maybe Bebe Rebozo?

McCain's friends don't hate whites, the USA, nor have they been involved
in
any bombings within the USA.


Obama is not 'friends' with Ayers. He sat on a board with Ayers..a
board which was put together by a republican. Stop perpetuating the
lies. Get the facts. (Obama was 8 years old at the time of the
bombings...so what are you saying? )

He may not be freinds with Ayers but he does associate with him.

McCain's friends may not hate whites, but there is some question how
they feel about blacks.
Again, do your homework.

Hmmm, can't think of any that are on the pulpit preaching their hatred.


I don't like either as a leader of my neighbouring country, but I'll
take the cool guy over the hothead any day. Besides, at 72, what does
McCain have to lose? Owning 7 houses, what does McCain have to lose?
Having no young children, what does McCain have to gain by supporting
a fair future for them? McCain is truly out of touch.

I dislike both candidates. I'll be glad when this is over.

Both candidates come up short, as do the ones we have to vote for this
coming Tuesday. It is between:
One you can't believe
and
one you can't understand.

Good luck in your elections.

And now that all banks worldwide are officially in bed together, we're
all screwed anyway.

Scary ****..... How's business now? Mine has slowed enough I am considering
regular employment after 19 years of self employment.

cm

He may hate gooks but he keeps better company than Obama. McCain's church
welcomes all. you can stop by anytime.

cm


"t" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 15:36:32 -0700, "cm" wrote:

You mean like "The Keating Five"? Perhaps you mean someone like Ken
Lay? Maybe Bebe Rebozo?

McCain's friends don't hate whites, the USA, nor have they been involved
in
any bombings within the USA.

cm


"Palin cited an article in Saturday's New York Times about Obama's
relationship with Ayers, now 63. But that article concluded that "the
two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever
expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers,
whom he has called 'somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years
ago, when I was 8.' Riot and bomb conspiracy charges against Ayers
were dropped in 1974, and he is now a professor of education at the
University of Illinois in Chicago."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/04/palin.obama/




"I hate the gooks," McCain said yesterday in response to a question
from reporters aboard his campaign bus. "I will hate them as long as I
live."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...18/MN32194.DTL



tom watson

On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 16:26:12 -0700, "cm" wrote:

He may hate gooks but he keeps better company than Obama. McCain's church
welcomes all. you can stop by anytime.

cm


Do you have the slightest glimmering of a concept as to how deeply
stupid that comment is?


tom watson

On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 16:21:15 -0700, "cm" wrote:


Scary ****..... How's business now? Mine has slowed enough I am considering
regular employment after 19 years of self employment.

cm




you too? only problem with getting a regular job is FINDING ONE!
sounds like we are in the same boat. good luck! we gonna need it...

skeez

Tom,

I'm highly medicated right now. I did realize how absurd it was while I was
lying on the couch watching Andy Griffith. They are both politicians after
all.

If I felt better I'd be out in the shop working on my rescued cedar ceiling
instead of engaging in a ****ing match with two pretty good ****ers.

cm


"t" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 16:26:12 -0700, "cm" wrote:

He may hate gooks but he keeps better company than Obama. McCain's church
welcomes all. you can stop by anytime.

cm


Do you have the slightest glimmering of a concept as to how deeply
stupid that comment is?


tom watson