| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
We must elect Kerry!
Or we'll spend the 8 years after Bush is gone trying to sail under Hillary's
rule! |
In article ,
Recobee wrote: Or we'll spend the 8 years after Bush is gone trying to sail under Hillary's rule! This logic almost makes me want to vote for Bush... almost. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message In article , Recobee wrote: Or we'll spend the 8 years after Bush is gone trying to sail under Hillary's rule! This logic almost makes me want to vote for Bush... almost. You'd be banished for life from the Bay Area, Jon. Max |
In article . net,
Maxprop wrote: "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message In article , Recobee wrote: Or we'll spend the 8 years after Bush is gone trying to sail under Hillary's rule! This logic almost makes me want to vote for Bush... almost. You'd be banished for life from the Bay Area, Jon. Not if Hillary got elected. g -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message Maxprop wrote: You'd be banished for life from the Bay Area, Jon. Not if Hillary got elected. g My brother and his circle of friends--all Bay Area liberals, plus a moderate or two--like Kerry but are still somewhat afraid of Hillary as a candidate. They seem to believe that she is still unelectable. Strange that you favor her over Kerry, because Kerry tends more toward the left wing than even she. Kerry has a Senate voting record that couldn't be construed as a moderate one by any measure. Hillary, OTOH, would be far more believable as a moderate than Kerry. I disagree with my brother and his cronies--she'll be electable in four years. Max |
In article . net,
Maxprop wrote: "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message Maxprop wrote: You'd be banished for life from the Bay Area, Jon. Not if Hillary got elected. g My brother and his circle of friends--all Bay Area liberals, plus a moderate or two--like Kerry but are still somewhat afraid of Hillary as a candidate. They seem to believe that she is still unelectable. Strange that you favor her over Kerry, because Kerry tends more toward the left wing than even she. Kerry has a Senate voting record that couldn't be construed as a moderate one by any measure. Hillary, OTOH, would be far more believable as a moderate than Kerry. I disagree with my brother and his cronies--she'll be electable in four years. Not that strange. We get Bill again for free. g -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message Not that strange. We get Bill again for free. g Bwahahahahahaha. What you mean is that you get Hillary AGAIN. Max |
Nothing wrong with Hillary it's win-win for the Democrats. At the very
least and probably very best they would finally have a man in charge and as bonus they get to shed fifty plus years of anti-military stance. After all is said and done or until the women of the country are made truly equal military service does NOT count for a woman candidate. Now if they can just keep Wrangell from running his mouth about starting up the draft. . .. . Hillary should be home free. "Maxprop" wrote in message nk.net... "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message Not that strange. We get Bill again for free. g Bwahahahahahaha. What you mean is that you get Hillary AGAIN. Max |
Yep. Bill was a great president because he had a great wife.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Maxprop" wrote in message nk.net... "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message Not that strange. We get Bill again for free. g Bwahahahahahaha. What you mean is that you get Hillary AGAIN. Max |
Micheal,
Don't think so! GOP has McCain just waiting to go against Hillary. I don't think the Dems have any one to beat him! Ole Thom |
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message Yep. Bill was a great president because he had a domineering wife. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Well I didn't mean to imply Hillary was a shoo in. ...just that she's the
only man the Democrats have left. Come to think of it ...since JFK. M. "Thom Stewart" wrote in message ... Micheal, Don't think so! GOP has McCain just waiting to go against Hillary. I don't think the Dems have any one to beat him! Ole Thom |
Apparently not so domineering that Bill couldn't get a blow job on demand.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net... "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message Yep. Bill was a great president because he had a domineering wife. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
"Michael" wrote in message Well I didn't mean to imply Hillary was a shoo in. ...just that she's the only man the Democrats have left. Come to think of it ...since JFK. Yup. Hillary will put up one hell of a fight. More balls than her husband, Gore, Kerry, and Edwards combined. Max |
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message Apparently not so domineering that Bill couldn't get a blow job on demand. I'd love to have been a fly on the wall during their first meeting after the truth about Monicagate was outted. WJC: "Hillary, I'm really sorry about all this. I know how this must make you feel and . . ." HRC: "Shut up, you simpering, pathetic wimp. You wouldn't have had the opportunity to get a blow job from a chubby, homely little slut in the oval orifice if it hadn't been for me. You'd still be reminiscing about your days in the governor's mansion in Little Rock, whining over your beer. Now you listen up and listen good, you flatulent suppository. Here's the way things are going to go from here on out . . ." Max |
yes........but most likely not from her.
what the hell is she doing in my home state of NY anyway? oh yeah that's right......part of her campaign platform was ......she's "for children" now there's a classicly brilliant piece of rhetoric. she has not done a thing of value for NY as senator except ride on the coat tails of the governer and others in albany, and of course take advantage of every possible photo op. her and Bubba Bill share one thing: they both have the ability to speak volumes........about nothing. nothing at all. ganz, don't you have room for her at your place out in CA? westchester is already overcrowded and bill won't mind. he's busy in Harlem. (at least she doesn't sail: there's enough pollution on LIS already) gf. "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message ... Apparently not so domineering that Bill couldn't get a blow job on demand. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net... "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message Yep. Bill was a great president because he had a domineering wife. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Read Bill's book. He deals with it fairly openly, including his conversation
with Hillary and daughter. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Maxprop" wrote in message nk.net... "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message Apparently not so domineering that Bill couldn't get a blow job on demand. I'd love to have been a fly on the wall during their first meeting after the truth about Monicagate was outted. WJC: "Hillary, I'm really sorry about all this. I know how this must make you feel and . . ." HRC: "Shut up, you simpering, pathetic wimp. You wouldn't have had the opportunity to get a blow job from a chubby, homely little slut in the oval orifice if it hadn't been for me. You'd still be reminiscing about your days in the governor's mansion in Little Rock, whining over your beer. Now you listen up and listen good, you flatulent suppository. Here's the way things are going to go from here on out . . ." Max |
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 07:19:36 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote this crap: Read Bill's book. He deals with it fairly openly, including his conversation with Hillary and daughter. And you believe him? Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha ! Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
Since you can't read, I suppose the only thing you believe is what you hear
on Rush's show. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Horvath" wrote in message ... On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 07:19:36 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz" wrote this crap: Read Bill's book. He deals with it fairly openly, including his conversation with Hillary and daughter. And you believe him? Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha ! Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
Fishboy, it would really be helpful if you learn some basic grammar. You
look pretty foolish. Also, apparently, you don't listen too well. That's too bad. As far as not sailing, neither does Bu****. He's a stinkpotter. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "gonefishiing" wrote in message ... yes........but most likely not from her. what the hell is she doing in my home state of NY anyway? oh yeah that's right......part of her campaign platform was ......she's "for children" now there's a classicly brilliant piece of rhetoric. she has not done a thing of value for NY as senator except ride on the coat tails of the governer and others in albany, and of course take advantage of every possible photo op. her and Bubba Bill share one thing: they both have the ability to speak volumes........about nothing. nothing at all. ganz, don't you have room for her at your place out in CA? westchester is already overcrowded and bill won't mind. he's busy in Harlem. (at least she doesn't sail: there's enough pollution on LIS already) gf. "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message ... Apparently not so domineering that Bill couldn't get a blow job on demand. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net... "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message Yep. Bill was a great president because he had a domineering wife. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message Read Bill's book. He deals with it fairly openly, including his conversation with Hillary and daughter. No doubt the whitewashed version for the unwashed masses. I'd love to know what *really* was said. Max |
You haven't read the book, but you're willing to assume that he must have
lied. Seems to me that's pretty typical for someone with a closed mind. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net... "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message Read Bill's book. He deals with it fairly openly, including his conversation with Hillary and daughter. No doubt the whitewashed version for the unwashed masses. I'd love to know what *really* was said. Max |
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message You haven't read the book, but you're willing to assume that he must have lied. Seems to me that's pretty typical for someone with a closed mind. Hardly. It is probably pretty typical, however, of someone who knows Clinton. The old joke about knowing when Clinton is lying (when his lips are moving) probably has more veracity than humor. He did very little during his eight years to bolster his credibility. I won't buy or read his book. Fiction generally should be fun to read, not a chore. Max |
You won't because your mind is closed. I suggest you vote for Bush.
If and when he's elected and all of a sudden you don't have your civil liberties, don't blame anyone but yourself. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Maxprop" wrote in message k.net... "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message You haven't read the book, but you're willing to assume that he must have lied. Seems to me that's pretty typical for someone with a closed mind. Hardly. It is probably pretty typical, however, of someone who knows Clinton. The old joke about knowing when Clinton is lying (when his lips are moving) probably has more veracity than humor. He did very little during his eight years to bolster his credibility. I won't buy or read his book. Fiction generally should be fun to read, not a chore. Max |
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message You won't because your mind is closed. My mind is closed because I believe Clinton to be a redundant liar? Good God, Jon, it's not even up for debate. He demonstrated that fact repeatedly during his eight years in office. I suggest you vote for Bush. Thank you, I probably will, having no other reasonable alternative. If and when he's elected and all of a sudden you don't have your civil liberties, don't blame anyone but yourself. Gore told me my mother would be thrown out of the nursing home and into the street if Bush were elected. And he also said my kids would starve at school. Is this more of the same scary rhetoric? If it's all the same to you, I suspect my civil liberties will be intact despite whomever wins the election. Max "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Maxprop" wrote in message k.net... "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message You haven't read the book, but you're willing to assume that he must have lied. Seems to me that's pretty typical for someone with a closed mind. Hardly. It is probably pretty typical, however, of someone who knows Clinton. The old joke about knowing when Clinton is lying (when his lips are moving) probably has more veracity than humor. He did very little during his eight years to bolster his credibility. I won't buy or read his book. Fiction generally should be fun to read, not a chore. Max |
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message Clinton lied about a blow job, which in your little mind equates to lying about everything for 8 years. That must have been one heck of a blow job or you have limited experience. Hell, I wasn't even including that one. Too obvious. Gore told me my mother would be thrown out of the nursing home and into the street if Bush were elected. And he also said my kids would starve at school. Is this more of the same scary rhetoric? If it's all the same to you, I suspect my civil liberties will be intact despite whomever wins the election. Gore never said that and you know it. That was indeed the spin coming from the Gore camp during his bid for the presidency. Bush would trash Social Security, Medicare, and every other entitlement program. Frankly I wish we'd never seen such entitlements, but that's just me. Bush, OTOH, hasn't hurt any of the above. Bush told us, however, that he would be a compassionate conservative. He isn't. Sorry, but changing the subject from Kerry to Bush doesn't make your point. I'll ask again--is Kerry simply using scare tactics to pull his campaign out of the toilet? If so, it likely won't help. Max |
In article et,
Maxprop wrote: "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message Clinton lied about a blow job, which in your little mind equates to lying about everything for 8 years. That must have been one heck of a blow job or you have limited experience. Hell, I wasn't even including that one. Too obvious. The only one that is important for right-wing, sexually repressed assholes such as Hyde and Bar. Gore never said that and you know it. That was indeed the spin coming from the Gore camp during his bid for the presidency. Bush would trash Social Security, Medicare, and every other entitlement program. Frankly I wish we'd never seen such entitlements, but that's just me. Bush, OTOH, hasn't hurt any of the above. No, Gore never said that. It's a right wing lie. Nothing unusual there. Bush told us, however, that he would be a compassionate conservative. He isn't. Sorry, but changing the subject from Kerry to Bush doesn't make your point. I'll ask again--is Kerry simply using scare tactics to pull his campaign out of the toilet? If so, it likely won't help. From Kerry??? Bush now is claiming that Kerry is talking about fear-based politics. Bush has been fear-based since the beginning. Bush is flip-flopping like a beached salmon. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message From Kerry??? Bush now is claiming that Kerry is talking about fear-based politics. Bush has been fear-based since the beginning. Bush is flip-flopping like a beached salmon. LOL. Kerry is claiming that Bush will re-institute the draft, which Bush has flatly denied. He's claiming that Bush is going to destroy Social Security with his "January Surprise" ( a direct quote from Kerry, incidentally). Kerry is claiming that there will be a disaster this year due to Bush's failure to secure enough flu vaccine. All bull****, of course, but out of the horse's mouth. The democrats are falling back on scare tactics, primarily because they have nothing else to stand upon. Max |
"Maxprop" wrote
.... It's time that Americans can manage their own funds for retirement. It's not a matter of right and wrong, it's a matter of arithmetic. I pay both side of SS because I'm self-employed. If I could have self-invested even one-half of the money I've ****ed into SS, I'd have been able to retire five years ago. I would have agreed four years ago when the Dow was pushing 15K and we were planning to use a growing surplus to pay down the debt. The value of my private investments were growing so fast I expected to have retired by now. It never occurred to me that Republicans - and I'd voted GOP all my life - could bungle BOTH the economy and foreign relations so badly. Now, with the Dow under 10, the surplus gone and deficite skyrocketing, our country in another Vietnam quagmire and the world facing a war of terrorism .... |
"Maxprop" wrote .... It's time that Americans can manage their own funds for retirement. Huh? Is somebody preventing you from saving your own money and investing it as you see fit? It's not a matter of right and wrong, it's a matter of arithmetic. I pay both side of SS because I'm self-employed. If I could have self-invested even one-half of the money I've ****ed into SS, I'd have been able to retire five years ago. Well, there's where you make your mistake. You haven't "****ed" any money into Social Security and it's not an investment plan. Your SS payments have already been handed out to beneficiaries. Vito wrote: I would have agreed four years ago when the Dow was pushing 15K and we were planning to use a growing surplus to pay down the debt. The value of my private investments were growing so fast I expected to have retired by now. Yep... and that's when it would have been most disastrous to take everything out of Social Security and put into private investment trusts. Let's see now, take a few tens of billions and hand it over to investment managers carefully selected by Bush & Cheney, at a time when the stock market has ballooned tremendously and anybody with half a lick of sense can see it's headed for a big fall. The question is when... then comes not only the crash but the discovery that the selected investment trust managers have pulled a Kenny-boy Lay type kleptocorporate maneuver. It never occurred to me that Republicans - and I'd voted GOP all my life - could bungle BOTH the economy and foreign relations so badly. You don't remember Nixon, do you? ... Now, with the Dow under 10, the surplus gone and deficite skyrocketing, our country in another Vietnam quagmire and the world facing a war of terrorism .... Yep the house is on fire and the kids are still sitting there playing with matches. DSK |
Vito wrote:
Now, with the Dow under 10, the surplus gone and deficite skyrocketing, our country in another Vietnam quagmire and the world facing a war of terrorism .... Best be voting Dem then, the Dow usually does better under the Dems than the GOP. Cheers Marty |
Is somebody preventing you from saving your own money and investing it
as you see fit? Dave wrote: Well, the guvmint takes a big chunk out of it so the amount available is only what's left over. Sounds like a lame excuse to me. Besides, President Bush gave a huge tax cut to the wealthiest families... $150 billion per year to families with $1 million per year income... aren't you one of them? .... How about we make savings and investment deductible when deposited or invested, and taxable at a lower rate when withdrawn, or not at all after some age? Already done, several ways. How about a plan where if you save $1, you not only get to deduct it but your employer matches it? Oh wait, we got that too. In a country where obesity is one of the biggest health threats, and people buy SUVs when gas prices are headed through the roof (and these are just two of the most obvious examples of how profligate consumerism has replaced old fashioned common sense), it is hard to explain why the savings rate is so low. ... (I can hear the screams now from the folks who want to take from them as has and give it to them as don't have.) You hear voices from your computer? I knew you were a whacko but I didn't realize you were psychotic... too much LSD back in the '60s, maybe? DSK |
In article . net,
Maxprop wrote: "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message Maxprop wrote: Who knows. But Bush didn't have a damn thing to do with it. Actually the French company that makes the vaccine in Britain is at fault. Yes he did. He could have done something 3 year ago when he was presented with the facts. He did nothing. It's not a French company. It's US owned. That's news to me. The company is Aventis, or something like that, and it's French-owned, to my knowledge. Yup... my mistake. They do have a subsidiary in the US. They make Allegra and a couple of other well-known drugs. http://www.aventis.com/main/page.asp...541833&lang=en He's already got a backdoor draft going. It's just a small step. That's an imaginative leap of illogic. He's said, "no draft" and I believe him. That's a fact. Heard of stop-loss? That's what's going on. You obviously aren't old enough to recall how conscription altered lives, even in peacetime. If a volunteer army is getting the job done, and it is, then a draft is simply not necessary. Undoubtedly you are over the maximum age, or you wouldn't be holding this position. The volunteer army isn't getting the job done. Everything community-based changes lives. That's the point. It allows you to give back to the community and it changes your life. I'm over the age, but I would volunteer if I knew everyone was expected to serve. You wouldn't have to serve in the military exclusively to contriube. We could start by cutting needless government expenditure, which is completely out of control. And we could quit robbing that mythical entity called the SS trust fund. Hell, if a business owner even borrows from his Mythical? It's not mythical to millions of seniors. employee pension fund, he goes to jail. The gummint wigs have done it for years. Next, there could be an interim program of partial investment and partial FICA payment. But it HAS to be done, because like it or not, SS won't last forever at the current rate of increasing ranks in the retirement years (mostly the Boomers). SS was a bad idea for the general population from the get-go, and someone, someday must address the problem. To simply allow it to continue until it breaks down and fails is a head-in-the-sand approach, and will spell disaster down the road. Oh, now I see. Your argument is with FDR. Ok. Thanks anyway. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
In article ,
Dave wrote: Besides, President Bush gave a huge tax cut to the wealthiest families... $150 billion per year to families with $1 million per year income... aren't you one of them? Nice populist rhetoric, but it has nothing to do with the subject at hand. (Wish I were one of them, but I'm not.) Except that this populist rhetoric is accurate. Agreed. But it is. One of the things that makes it worse is that in the past it was common for children to care for their parents at home when the parent got too old and infirm to live on his own. Now the custom seems to be to dump them in a nursing home, making sure that they get rid of all their assets three years in advance, so the guvmint will pay the bill. Sounds to me like you have no idea what this means for children who have to have two jobs just to get by. It's probably one of the hardest choices they have to make. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 09:29:54 -0400, "Vito" wrote
this crap: I would have agreed four years ago when the Dow was pushing 15K and we were planning to use a growing surplus to pay down the debt. The value of my private investments were growing so fast I expected to have retired by now. It never occurred to me that Republicans - and I'd voted GOP all my life - could bungle BOTH the economy and foreign relations so badly. Now, with the Dow under 10, the surplus gone and deficite skyrocketing, our country in another Vietnam quagmire and the world facing a war of terrorism .... I guess you don't realize that this is the time to buy. Buy now, while the market is low, and soon, when Jeb Bush is elected four years from now, after George W. Bush finishes his second term, you can retire in style. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
In article ,
Dave wrote: On 21 Oct 2004 17:10:24 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz) said: SS was a bad idea for the general population from the get-go, and someone, someday must address the problem. To simply allow it to continue until it breaks down and fails is a head-in-the-sand approach, and will spell disaster down the road. Oh, now I see. Your argument is with FDR. Ok. Thanks anyway. Invoking the name FDR is a poor substitute for reasoned argument. Max is right on this one. SS is, and always has been, a Ponzi scheme. And like all Ponzi schemes it inevitably will come crashing down when the number of "investors" isn't enough to continue making payouts. So, another FDR hater. Wow, that's a shocker. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
In article ,
Horvath wrote: On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 09:29:54 -0400, "Vito" wrote this crap: I guess you don't realize that this is the time to buy. Buy now, while the market is low, and soon, when Jeb Bush is elected four years from now, after George W. Bush finishes his second term, you can retire in style. You would vote for a fairy like Jeb. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
Besides, President Bush gave a huge tax cut to the wealthiest
families... $150 billion per year to families with $1 million per year income... aren't you one of them? Dave wrote: Nice populist rhetoric Is "rhetoric" a fancy word for "plain fact that I wish weren't true because it makes my favorite candidate look bad?" ... but it has nothing to do with the subject at hand. ??? You were griping about taxes. I pointed out that your favorite candidate has already cut taxes so much the budget is busted and likely to stay that way. Didn't you get yours? .... How about we make savings and investment deductible when deposited or invested, and taxable at a lower rate when withdrawn, or not at all after some age? Already done, several ways. How about a plan where if you save $1, you not only get to deduct it but your employer matches it? Oh wait, we got that too. All of the present arrangements are hedged about with rules designed to be sure that those in a position to save the most don't get any tax break if they do. ??? AFAIK everybody can save the same amount, $2500 (or did it go up again already?). ... I'm thinking of a much simpler system where you don't have to have a ton of actuaries calculating the "annual deferral percentage" of the highest X% of a company's workforce each year, and a ton of lawyers jiggling the plan and going hat in hand to the IRS for a ruling every time the plan is changed. (Been there. Done that.) ??? Been there done that... in fact I am still doing it... sort of (I hate committees). We don't have any actuaries and we darn sure don't have any lawyers. I'd be very much in favor of simplifying the rules for funding company retirement benefits, and also in favor of simplifying private accounts. But I don't see it happening any time soon. In a country where obesity is one of the biggest health threats, and people buy SUVs when gas prices are headed through the roof (and these are just two of the most obvious examples of how profligate consumerism has replaced old fashioned common sense), it is hard to explain why the savings rate is so low. Agreed. But it is. One of the things that makes it worse is that in the past it was common for children to care for their parents at home when the parent got too old and infirm to live on his own. Now the custom seems to be to dump them in a nursing home, making sure that they get rid of all their assets three years in advance, so the guvmint will pay the bill. Ah yes, those darn families refusing to take responsibilities... what do you expect, we have a Responsibility-Dodger-In-Chief who should set a better moral example... but I digress. If only those darn old people didn't get Alzheimer's and need professional care... or any of those other geriatric conditions requiring care that the average person cannot provide. If only people didn't live so darn long... that'd help the Social Security problem too. How dare poor and middle-class people live past 65! What gall! Too bad there isn't a centralized area or state where poor old people live, we could invade and end this threat! DSK |
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message That's a fact. Heard of stop-loss? That's what's going on. That's not the same as conscription. Kerry is making false charges. Mythical? It's not mythical to millions of seniors. There is no SS trust fund. It was robbed by Congress long ago. Now SS is simply an annual expense paid from the general fund. THAT is the gist of the problem. Oh, now I see. Your argument is with FDR. Ok. Thanks anyway. Oh yeah, my argument is indeed with FDR. Max |
In article . net,
Maxprop wrote: "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message That's a fact. Heard of stop-loss? That's what's going on. That's not the same as conscription. Kerry is making false charges. That's right. It's just the first step. Mythical? It's not mythical to millions of seniors. There is no SS trust fund. It was robbed by Congress long ago. Now SS is simply an annual expense paid from the general fund. THAT is the gist of the problem. It was not funded by Bush. Instead we all got $300. Oh, now I see. Your argument is with FDR. Ok. Thanks anyway. Oh yeah, my argument is indeed with FDR. I like being right. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:52 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com