http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...e_big_takeover

"Swingman" wrote in message
...
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...e_big_takeover



Sounds like what you and I were talking about last night. The majority of
our population has become too stupid to know any better and one party is
dependent on that stupidity for it's voter base. The other party is headed
in the same direction. Let any one vote, especially those that simply
exist, don't contribute their share, no longer have or never have had any
thing to loose, and of course let's not leave out non-citizens. The type
of person that wants the government to provide more and more financial help
to their kind.

These type of people have finally become the majority in our government.
They are neither wise, ethical, or capable of following through with
commitment, they are simply influential with false hope and promises aimed
at the gullible.

On 2009-03-21, Swingman wrote:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...e_big_takeover

I ran across this from another source. It's a grim indictment of how low
our greedy system has sunk, the end result of how deregulation, started in
the sainted Reagan years, has corrupted our govt almost beyond salvation.
Our system is a two party system in name only, the corruption and greed no
longer recognizing any party boundries. It's been going on since the
savings and loan debacle and shows no signs of letting up. Will Obama do
anything? Apparently yes.... sell out our economic future even faster than
the last dirtbag. With any luck, I'll die of old age before the US becomes
the next UK, a sad forgotten footnote in history.

nb

notbob wrote in
:

On 2009-03-21, Swingman wrote:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...e_big_takeover

I ran across this from another source. It's a grim indictment of how
low our greedy system has sunk, the end result of how deregulation,
started in the sainted Reagan years, has corrupted our govt almost
beyond salvation. Our system is a two party system in name only, the
corruption and greed no longer recognizing any party boundries. It's
been going on since the savings and loan debacle and shows no signs of
letting up. Will Obama do anything? Apparently yes.... sell out our
economic future even faster than the last dirtbag. With any luck,
I'll die of old age before the US becomes the next UK, a sad forgotten
footnote in history.

nb

This is where the left and right could get together easily. Get rid of
nonsensical regulations, but really, really punish wrongdoers.

little beef:
My lab is near one nd of a corridor of maybe 100 feet. There are labs at
both ends of the corridor, but most at the end where I am. The building
dates from the early 50's. There is 1 (ONE) emergency shower on the
corridor. Yesterday 2 people came by to inquire about that (they knew or
should have known that there was only one). In the 30 odd years I have
been there the shower has never been used (thank god) or even tested.
Now there would have to be more showers? When we are not working with
flammable solvents anymore?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"notbob" wrote in message
...
With any luck, I'll die of old age before the US becomes
the next UK, a sad forgotten footnote in history.

nb

At 63, I was pretty sure I would. My guess was 30 to 50 years for China to
take over. Now, I think it can happen in the next few years if we are not
very careful.

On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 08:39:34 -0500, Swingman wrote:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...e_big_takeover

My opinion includes the fact that I believe those in Congress no longer
think of what is best for America. They are driven by who will contribute
the most to their campaigns to keep them in office. I believe that most,
if not all, who run for office, only do so because it will led to a
greater financial gain for themselves.

As far as the American people go, it is my belief that most have been so
brainwashed that they believe that they have to put up with anything that
the government throws at them. A good example is at the airports with the
security demands. I, myself, no longer fly, unless I am traveling
overseas. Here is the U.S. I drive or take a bus or train. I guess you
could say that is my method of stating my opposition to the airport
security. I do wish that the people would stand up and say "that is
enough". But, I know that is never going to happen.

Paul T.

--
The only dumb question, is the one not asked

On 2009-03-21, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

At 63, I was pretty sure I would. My guess was 30 to 50 years for China to
take over. Now, I think it can happen in the next few years if we are not
very careful.

Agreed, Ed. It's jes pathetic. I'm sitting here with mom watching another
red herring half century old tv rendition of the attack on Pearl Harbor
while our country devolves into chaos. HELLO!! The robber barons are back.
How long before we wake up? What's the adage?: those who forget history are
doomed to repeat it. The "babyboom" generation has the memory of a 60s drug
hippie.

nb

On 2009-03-21, PHT wrote:

My opinion includes the fact that I believe those in Congress no longer
think of what is best for America. They are driven by who will contribute
the most to their campaigns to keep them in office. I believe that most,
if not all, who run for office, only do so because it will led to a
greater financial gain for themselves.

I wanna say, "DUH", for your stating the obvious, but I guess I shouldn't
make dispariging comments about someone I agree with. Well said, PHT.


overseas. Here is the U.S. I drive or take a bus or train. I guess you
could say that is my method of stating my opposition to the airport
security. I do wish that the people would stand up and say "that is
enough". But, I know that is never going to happen.

Again, agreed. I'm a major rail fan. I took a plane about 3 yrs ago. What
a freak'n nightmare. Not the security, which was trivial, but the insane
accomadations! A one and a half hour flight of contemplating my kneecaps
was an unacceptable nightmare compared to the return 40 hr train trip back
to my org desto. Another example of deregulation.

nb

"Han" wrote in message
...


little beef:
My lab is near one nd of a corridor of maybe 100 feet. There are labs at
both ends of the corridor, but most at the end where I am. The building
dates from the early 50's. There is 1 (ONE) emergency shower on the
corridor. Yesterday 2 people came by to inquire about that (they knew or
should have known that there was only one). In the 30 odd years I have
been there the shower has never been used (thank god) or even tested.
Now there would have to be more showers? When we are not working with
flammable solvents anymore?

Unfortunately with the dumb down society that is coming on strong there
probably will be a need for more showers.

"Leon" wrote in message ...

"Swingman" wrote in message
...
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...e_big_takeover



Sounds like what you and I were talking about last night. The majority of
our population has become too stupid to know any better and one party is
dependent on that stupidity for it's voter base. The other party is headed
in the same direction. Let any one vote, especially those that simply
exist, don't contribute their share, no longer have or never have had any
thing to loose, and of course let's not leave out non-citizens. The type
of person that wants the government to provide more and more financial help
to their kind.

These type of people have finally become the majority in our government.
They are neither wise, ethical, or capable of following through with
commitment, they are simply influential with false hope and promises aimed
at the gullible.



A direct quote from the editorial is quite revealing as to the honour among the congress and/or senate:

"In 1997 and 1998, the years leading up to the passage of Phil Gramm's fateful act that gutted Glass-Steagall, the banking, brokerage and insurance industries spent $350 million on political contributions and lobbying. Gramm alone - then the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee - collected $2.6 million in only five years. The law passed 90-8 in the Senate, with the support of 38 Democrats, including some names that might surprise you: Joe Biden, John Kerry, Tom Daschle, Dick Durbin, even John Edwards."

Is it not amazing just how many of the NOT I crowd are included. Just note how much Gramm got for what he did. A serious look into the passage of this bill will result in noting the bill actually passed 54-44.

P D Q

Leon wrote:


"Swingman" wrote in message
...
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...e_big_takeover



Sounds like what you and I were talking about last night. The majority of
our population has become too stupid to know any better and one party is
dependent on that stupidity for it's voter base. The other party is
headed
in the same direction. Let any one vote, especially those that simply
exist,

Don't forget that one of the parties is big on letting those who don't
exist, or no longer exist vote as well.


don't contribute their share, no longer have or never have had any
thing to loose, and of course let's not leave out non-citizens. The type
of person that wants the government to provide more and more financial
help to their kind.

Early in the Republic, one had to be a landowner or businessman to vote.
That's not a bad idea when you look at where we have gone since the idea
that everyone over 18 who can fog a mirror (above mentioned Dem voters
exempted) can and should vote. If they can't get to the polls, a bus and a
pack of cigarettes will be provided


These type of people have finally become the majority in our government.
They are neither wise, ethical, or capable of following through with
commitment, they are simply influential with false hope and promises aimed
at the gullible.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

notbob wrote:

On 2009-03-21, Swingman wrote:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...e_big_takeover

I ran across this from another source. It's a grim indictment of how low
our greedy system has sunk, the end result of how deregulation, started in
the sainted Reagan years, has corrupted our govt almost beyond salvation.

Wow, past the "It's all Bush's fault" to "It's all Reagan's fault" now?
Unfortunately, the fact is that Reagan's comment about the government being
the problem and not the solution is even more true now than it was in his
day. Were it not for all the congresscritters and their minions in Fannie
Mae, Freddie Mac, and using the CRA to assert that "everybody deserves a
house", the present mess would not be what it is.


Our system is a two party system in name only, the corruption and greed no
longer recognizing any party boundries. It's been going on since the
savings and loan debacle and shows no signs of letting up. Will Obama do
anything? Apparently yes.... sell out our economic future even faster
than
the last dirtbag. With any luck, I'll die of old age before the US
becomes the next UK, a sad forgotten footnote in history.

nb




--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

notbob wrote:
On 2009-03-21, Swingman wrote:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...e_big_takeover

I ran across this from another source. It's a grim indictment of how
low our greedy system has sunk, the end result of how deregulation,
started in the sainted Reagan years, has corrupted our govt almost
beyond salvation. Our system is a two party system in name only, the
corruption and greed no longer recognizing any party boundries. It's
been going on since the savings and loan debacle and shows no signs
of letting up. Will Obama do anything? Apparently yes.... sell out
our economic future even faster than the last dirtbag. With any
luck, I'll die of old age before the US becomes the next UK, a sad
forgotten footnote in history.


Uh, sorry. The current mess was created, not by under-regulation - or even
over-regulation - but by the wrong regulations. The Community Development
Act of 1977 was tweaked by the Clinton administration in 1995 to REQUIRE
banks and lending institutions to serve "disadvantaged markets." The only
way to do that was to make loans that violated every sound lending
principle.

This worked as long as there was a strong housing market. When the five-year
balloon payment came due, people living in a $250,000 house and making
payments of $300/month simply re-financed their home that had almost doubled
in value in the intervening five years.

This Ponzi scheme collapsed when anybody who could take two consecutive
breaths had a house.

You think I jest about serving disadvantaged communities? Drive through the
worst part of your town. The only retail establishments you'll see are
hookers and a branch of Washinton Mutual or Wells Fargo. Do you think Bank
of America actually wants a branch where the only thing in the night
depository is urine?

On Mar 21, 9:32*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
notbob wrote:
On 2009-03-21, Swingman wrote:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...e_big_takeover

I ran across this from another source. *It's a grim indictment of how
low our greedy system has sunk, the end result of how deregulation,
started in the sainted Reagan years, has corrupted our govt almost
beyond salvation. Our system is a two party system in name only, the
corruption and greed no longer recognizing any party boundries. *It's
been going on since the savings and loan debacle and shows no signs
of letting up. *Will Obama do anything? *Apparently yes.... sell out
our economic future even faster than the last dirtbag. *With any
luck, I'll die of old age before the US becomes the next UK, a sad
forgotten footnote in history.

Uh, sorry. The current mess was created, not by under-regulation - or even
over-regulation - but by the wrong regulations. The Community Development
Act of 1977 was tweaked by the Clinton administration in 1995 to REQUIRE
banks and lending institutions to serve "disadvantaged markets." The only
way to do that was to make loans that violated every sound lending
principle.

This worked as long as there was a strong housing market. When the five-year
balloon payment came due, people living in a $250,000 house and making
payments of $300/month simply re-financed their home that had almost doubled
in value in the intervening five years.

This Ponzi scheme collapsed when anybody who could take two consecutive
breaths had a house.

You think I jest about serving disadvantaged communities? Drive through the
worst part of your town. The only retail establishments you'll see are
hookers and a branch of Washinton Mutual or Wells Fargo. Do you think Bank
of America actually wants a branch where the only thing in the night
depository is urine?

A 'pivotal moment' when all things still had a chance to be kept under
control happened he
(from the article)

"So the top five investment banks got together on April 28th of that
year and — with the helpful assistance of then-Goldman Sachs chief and
future Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson — made a pitch to George Bush's
SEC chief at the time, William Donaldson, himself a former investment
banker. The banks generously volunteered to submit to new rules
restricting them from engaging in excessively risky activity. In
exchange, they asked to be released from any lending restrictions."

The rest is history.

We had one in the middle of a wall that had Electronic machines -
e.g. like computers that would the array be larger than most homes.

High current power mains all over the place and a shower head and
eye wash right there.

The company put it there and not in the coffee room within 20 feet.

The rationale was if it was needed - who cares if someone had to clean up.

There were soldering stations and chemical use on the floor.

Sometimes it is the hair spray in the eyes that can cause someone
to fall down stairs....

Martin

Han wrote:
notbob wrote in
:

On 2009-03-21, Swingman wrote:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...e_big_takeover
I ran across this from another source. It's a grim indictment of how
low our greedy system has sunk, the end result of how deregulation,
started in the sainted Reagan years, has corrupted our govt almost
beyond salvation. Our system is a two party system in name only, the
corruption and greed no longer recognizing any party boundries. It's
been going on since the savings and loan debacle and shows no signs of
letting up. Will Obama do anything? Apparently yes.... sell out our
economic future even faster than the last dirtbag. With any luck,
I'll die of old age before the US becomes the next UK, a sad forgotten
footnote in history.

nb

This is where the left and right could get together easily. Get rid of
nonsensical regulations, but really, really punish wrongdoers.

little beef:
My lab is near one nd of a corridor of maybe 100 feet. There are labs at
both ends of the corridor, but most at the end where I am. The building
dates from the early 50's. There is 1 (ONE) emergency shower on the
corridor. Yesterday 2 people came by to inquire about that (they knew or
should have known that there was only one). In the 30 odd years I have
been there the shower has never been used (thank god) or even tested.
Now there would have to be more showers? When we are not working with
flammable solvents anymore?

On 2009-03-22, Mark & Juanita wrote:

I ran across this from another source. It's a grim indictment of how low
our greedy system has sunk, the end result of how deregulation, started in
the sainted Reagan years, has corrupted our govt almost beyond salvation.

Wow, past the "It's all Bush's fault" to "It's all Reagan's fault" now?
Unfortunately, the fact is that Reagan's comment about the government being
the problem and not the solution is even more true now than it was in his
day.

Comments are not the same as policy.

nb

On 2009-03-22, HeyBub wrote:

Uh, sorry. The current mess was created, not by under-regulation - or even
over-regulation - but by the wrong regulations. The Community Development
Act of 1977 was tweaked by the Clinton administration in 1995 to REQUIRE
banks and lending institutions to serve "disadvantaged markets." The only
way to do that was to make loans that violated every sound lending
principle.

Yer point being?


This Ponzi scheme collapsed when anybody who could take two consecutive
breaths had a house.

Yer point being?

nb

notbob wrote:

On 2009-03-22, HeyBub wrote:

Uh, sorry. The current mess was created, not by under-regulation - or
even over-regulation - but by the wrong regulations. The Community
Development Act of 1977 was tweaked by the Clinton administration in 1995
to REQUIRE banks and lending institutions to serve "disadvantaged
markets." The only way to do that was to make loans that violated every
sound lending principle.

Yer point being?


This Ponzi scheme collapsed when anybody who could take two consecutive
breaths had a house.

Yer point being?

nb

You seem to be a smart person. Perhaps you can extrapolate what happens
when many banks make many loans to large numbers of people who will not,
under any reasonable circumstances, be able to repay those loans. Now,
include the additional fact that the government has guaranteed those loans
through Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac. For extra credit, include the unintended
consequences of what happens to the whole housing market when that large
number of buyers starts buying limited numbers of homes. Finally, describe
the end state when that large number of people who were not going to be
able to afford those mortgages finally start defaulting.

This should be a relatively simple exercise since all of these actions
have occurred in very recent history.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Mark & Juanita wrote in
:

You seem to be a smart person.

And what happened after the collapse of the condo market during the crisis
of the early 80s? After a few years all was resolved, and the housing
market (and the savings and loans) were back on their feet. It was
executed at the detriment of the taxpayer (but only temporarily) and some
individual S&Ls and some individual condo owners. I fully expect that to
happen again, but it will take more than a couple of years, and much ore
(temporary?) sacrifice.

Requiring banks to reverse red-lining IMNSHO does not require maing bad
loans, and both banks and people entering into stupid loan agreements
should be punished. Unfortunately, it is defining those characteristics
that is open to interpretation, and humans are fickle. The current extreme
reluctance to spend is as bad as the extreme profligance of the earlier
years. But hey, boom and bust is a capitalist society's characteristic
(you didn't think I would hide, did you?). Again, individual
responsibility is required on both sides. And, as Madoff and other
schemers have again proven, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably
.....

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Swingman" writes:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...e_big_takeover

I always try to examine other sides. For instance, this is Phil Gramm's
comment about the current financial mess.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123509667125829243.html

"The 1992 Housing Bill set quotas or "targets" that Fannie and Freddie
were to achieve in meeting the housing needs of low- and
moderate-income Americans. In 1995 HUD raised the primary quota for
low- and moderate-income housing loans from the 30% set by Congress in
1992 to 40% in 1996 and to 42% in 1997."

"The results? In 1994, 4.5% of the mortgage market was subprime and
31% of those subprime loans were securitized. By 2006, 20.1% of the
entire mortgage market was subprime and 81% of those loans were
securitized."


"In reality the financial "deregulation" of the last two decades has
been greatly exaggerated. As the housing crisis mounted, financial
regulators had more power, larger budgets and more personnel than
ever. And yet, with the notable exception of Mr. Greenspan's warning
about the risk posed by the massive mortgage holdings of Fannie and
Freddie, regulators seemed unalarmed as the crisis grew. There is
absolutely no evidence that if financial regulators had had more
resources or more authority that anything would have been different."

Maxwell Lol wrote in :

There is
absolutely no evidence that if financial regulators had had more
resources or more authority that anything would have been different.

Points out that greed on all* sides, rather than prudent financial
calculations, was a primary cause. I.e., human failure.

*Borrowers, banks, legislators, investors, and maybe more sides.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 2009-03-22, Mark & Juanita wrote:

You seem to be a smart person. Perhaps you can extrapolate what happens
when many banks make many loans to large numbers of people who will not,
under any reasonable circumstances, be able to repay those loans.

Seems we've cut right to the crux of the problem. Why the Hell did these
banks make these loans in the first place?

include the additional fact that the government has guaranteed those loans
through Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac.

Again, what's your point? Seems obvious to me. The GOV subsidizes bad
loans. DUH!

the end state when that large number of people who were not going to be
able to afford those mortgages finally start defaulting.

.....and we end up in the seemingly foreseeable the pile of crap we are
currently in.

This should be a relatively simple exercise.......

Simple for me. What's your problem?

nb

"Mark & Juanita" wrote

Early in the Republic, one had to be a landowner or businessman to vote.

If it were up to me, the ONLY people who would be allowed to vote in a
republic would be those who own property, and those who have served their
country.

I have been of the opinion that going back to that principle, along with
prohibiting products of a law school curriculum (where the distinction
between morality and legality is blurred) from serving in the legislative
branch of government, is most likely be the only way the republic can ever
be saved.

Too bad it won't happen. Pandora's box, and all that ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Mar 22, 12:36*pm, "Swingman" wrote:
"Mark & Juanita" wrote

*Early in the Republic, one had to be a landowner or businessman to vote.

If it were up to me, the ONLY people who would be allowed to vote in a
republic would be those who own property, and those who have served their
country.

I have been of the opinion that going back to that principle, along with
prohibiting *products of a law school curriculum (where the distinction
between morality and legality is blurred) from serving in the legislative
branch of government, is most likely be the only way the republic can ever
be saved.


That's a nice start but does nothing to stop those who are motivated/
driven by the granddaddy of destructive power of all: greed.

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
On Mar 22, 12:36 pm, "Swingman" wrote:
"Mark & Juanita" wrote

Early in the Republic, one had to be a landowner or businessman to
vote.

If it were up to me, the ONLY people who would be allowed to vote in a
republic would be those who own property, and those who have served their
country.

I have been of the opinion that going back to that principle, along with
prohibiting products of a law school curriculum (where the distinction
between morality and legality is blurred) from serving in the legislative
branch of government, is most likely be the only way the republic can
ever
be saved.


That's a nice start but does nothing to stop those who are motivated/
driven by the granddaddy of destructive power of all: greed.

Well, you do what you can ... execute the rest.

Yep, I'm so fed up with the situation that henceforth I'm looking over
Attila the Hun's right shoulder ... and make no apologies for it.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Swingman" wrote in message
...

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
On Mar 22, 12:36 pm, "Swingman" wrote:
"Mark & Juanita" wrote

Early in the Republic, one had to be a landowner or businessman to
vote.

If it were up to me, the ONLY people who would be allowed to vote in a
republic would be those who own property, and those who have served
their
country.

I have been of the opinion that going back to that principle, along with
prohibiting products of a law school curriculum (where the distinction
between morality and legality is blurred) from serving in the
legislative
branch of government, is most likely be the only way the republic can
ever
be saved.


That's a nice start but does nothing to stop those who are motivated/
driven by the granddaddy of destructive power of all: greed.

Well, you do what you can ... execute the rest.

Yep, I'm so fed up with the situation that henceforth I'm looking over
Attila the Hun's right shoulder ... and make no apologies for it.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)


I myself want to thank Barney Fag, Chris Dodd, Maxine Waters, and Chucky
Schumer for all the heart ache and trouble they have caused our Country.
Oh, less we forget the chairman of the ways and means comittee from Harlem
too!
ALL YOU PEOPLE FROM CALIFORNIA, CONNETTICUT, NEW YORK, AND MASSACHUTES BE
SURE YOU ALL VOTE THEM BACK IN, YOU DESERVE THEM!!!!!!!!!



__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
signature database 3953 (20090321) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com





__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 3953 (20090321) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com

On Mar 22, 2:15*pm, "Dave" wrote:


I myself want to thank Barney Fag, [snipped boring, stale bull****]

You a homophobe, Dave?
NTTIAWWT


The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

Does that ESET program have a button for 'check for intellectual
content'? If it does...please ACTIVATE IT!

On Mar 22, 12:10*pm, "Swingman" wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote in message

...





On Mar 22, 12:36 pm, "Swingman" wrote:
"Mark & Juanita" wrote

*Early in the Republic, one had to be a landowner or businessman to
vote.

If it were up to me, the ONLY people who would be allowed to vote in a
republic would be those who own property, and those who have served their
country.

I have been of the opinion that going back to that principle, along with
prohibiting *products of a law school curriculum (where the distinction
between morality and legality is blurred) from serving in the legislative
branch of government, is most likely be the only way the republic can
ever
be saved.

That's a nice start but does nothing to stop those who are motivated/
driven by the granddaddy of destructive power of all: greed.

Well, you do what you can ... execute the rest.

Yep, I'm so fed up with the situation that henceforth I'm looking over
Attila the Hun's right shoulder ... and make no apologies for it.

--www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I usually stay out of these discussions (nobody changes anybody else's
mind in politics), but I've been looking lately at an alternative:
the GOOOH party. It's an acronym: Get Out Of Our House. Worth a
look for those (like me) who are just disgusted with the whole
friggin' system.

Phil

If it were up to me, the ONLY people who would be allowed to vote in a
republic would be those who own property, and those who have served their
country.

That would eliminate Bush and Cheney. Cheney had "other priorities" during
'Nam. Bush had...Daddy.

"Perry Aynum" wrote in message
...
If it were up to me, the ONLY people who would be allowed to vote in a
republic would be those who own property, and those who have served their
country.

That would eliminate Bush and Cheney. Cheney had "other priorities"
during 'Nam. Bush had...Daddy.

So, if you can't vote, you can't hold office ... Duh!

Problem solved ...

GW was in the Guard. But it would have disqualified Slick, and confirmed
Jimmy.

"Swingman" wrote in message
...

"Perry Aynum" wrote in message
...
If it were up to me, the ONLY people who would be allowed to vote in a
republic would be those who own property, and those who have served
their country.

That would eliminate Bush and Cheney. Cheney had "other priorities"
during 'Nam. Bush had...Daddy.

So, if you can't vote, you can't hold office ... Duh!

Problem solved ...

SnA Higgins wrote:
GW was in the Guard. But it would have disqualified Slick, and confirmed
Jimmy.

"Swingman" wrote in message
...
"Perry Aynum" wrote in message
...
If it were up to me, the ONLY people who would be allowed to vote in a
republic would be those who own property, and those who have served
their country.

That would eliminate Bush and Cheney. Cheney had "other priorities"
during 'Nam. Bush had...Daddy.
So, if you can't vote, you can't hold office ... Duh!

Problem solved ...








If you are talking about Carter, he got out of the Navy as soon as
possible.