|
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 19:48:01 -0500, John H
wrote: He's all yours, Dave. I can't put up with his deluge of ridiculous assertions. Some people can't see the forest for the trees. But I keep hoping that Doug either sees the light and learns something, or finally acknowledges that he has more in common with liberals and stops referring to himself as a conservative. He's giving the rest of us a bad name. Dave |
You are in favor of socialism when you find it convenient for yourself,
and condemn socialism harshly at all other times. Dave Hall wrote: I am not in favor of socialism at any time. I am in favor of making people independent of the need for government handouts at the expense of other people (Which IS socialism). Social security in its present form is basically socialism. Putting that same money into individual accounts is not. Really? Having the gov't take money away from you on the assumption that you are too dumb or too frivolous to save for your own future sound like socialism to me. The one saving grace of this "plan" is that so far, people saving & investing on their own is not outlawed... yet. If you find this fact about your beliefs and principles uncomfortable, maybe you should do some thinking. Maybe you should follow your own advice. Dave, I can explain & justify my beliefs and principles. You seem to consistently fall short, and you frequently get angry about it. The government already takes that money from us in the form of SS (Which is more akin to socialism). By placing that money instead, in an individual private account, that money belongs to the individual, not to the government Hardly. It doesn't "belong" to the individual until that individual reaches retirement age. Until then, it belongs to the gov't or in this particular case to the investment professionals the gov'thas handed it to. .... and will be available for them to tap when they retire, or to leave to their dependents when they die. Now there's a big plus. Of course, dependents get SS benefits already... oops better not mention that... ... The biggest benefit is that this money is outside of the governmental till No, it isn't. It is being handed over monthly by the gov't to gov't chosen investment managers. the need for people to tap the government for aid, will lessen, Really? Will people learn to manage their own money wisely? meaning less socialism, as people are depending on their own income. Meaning that the gov't will quit taking so much money away from them in the first place? Now tell me again, which political party is in favor of not intruding on people's lives and maintaining Constitutional freedoms? The republicans of course. We'd rather make people independent from the need for government handouts. But you want the gov't to intrude into people's savings & investments, of course. You seem to think that people should be dependent on the gov't to help them save money for their own future. You seem to think that nobody can make intelligent investments without gov't help. And of course, selected private businesses will profit from this intrusion... that's the Republican way... DSK |
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:50:52 -0500, DSK wrote:
You are in favor of socialism when you find it convenient for yourself, and condemn socialism harshly at all other times. Dave Hall wrote: I am not in favor of socialism at any time. I am in favor of making people independent of the need for government handouts at the expense of other people (Which IS socialism). Social security in its present form is basically socialism. Putting that same money into individual accounts is not. Really? Having the gov't take money away from you on the assumption that you are too dumb or too frivolous to save for your own future sound like socialism to me. It sounds like it to you, because you don't fully understand the concepts of socialism. Socialism is based on the concept "From those according to means to those according to need", IOW a government mandated redistribution of wealth. On the other hand, when you mandate that an individual save HIS OWN MONEY to use for retirement, you are not redistributing someone else's wealth. You are only "encouraging" an individual to provide for their own retirement by using their OWN money. The one saving grace of this "plan" is that so far, people saving & investing on their own is not outlawed... yet. Why should it be? If you find this fact about your beliefs and principles uncomfortable, maybe you should do some thinking. Maybe you should follow your own advice. Dave, I can explain & justify my beliefs and principles. You seem to consistently fall short, and you frequently get angry about it. Your explanations are little more than the regurgitation of someone else's biased opinions (The quip about Bush feeding wall street for example). I have no need to get angry in order to point out what's so glaringly obvious. The government already takes that money from us in the form of SS (Which is more akin to socialism). By placing that money instead, in an individual private account, that money belongs to the individual, not to the government Hardly. It doesn't "belong" to the individual until that individual reaches retirement age. Until then, it belongs to the gov't or in this particular case to the investment professionals the gov'thas handed it to. No, it belongs (in trust) to the individual. Because it is a retirement account, you can't legally touch it before retirement age. But the government cannot "raid" it to fund other programs either. .... and will be available for them to tap when they retire, or to leave to their dependents when they die. Now there's a big plus. Of course, dependents get SS benefits already... oops better not mention that... Yea, someone else's benefits. That's part of the reason why SS is slowly failing. ... The biggest benefit is that this money is outside of the governmental till No, it isn't. It is being handed over monthly by the gov't to gov't chosen investment managers. But it's not money that the government can "appropriate" for other projects. That money is to be held in trust for the investor. the need for people to tap the government for aid, will lessen, Really? Will people learn to manage their own money wisely? Possibly. Possibly not. But it's time that we lessen the burden of those who don't on the rest of society. If they **** away their own retirement money, then that's on them. meaning less socialism, as people are depending on their own income. Meaning that the gov't will quit taking so much money away from them in the first place? Meaning that what the government takes in the name of investment, the investor gets to keep. Now tell me again, which political party is in favor of not intruding on people's lives and maintaining Constitutional freedoms? The republicans of course. We'd rather make people independent from the need for government handouts. But you want the gov't to intrude into people's savings & investments, of course. It's better for the government to force people to save their own money than to force the rest of us to pay for those who don't. You seem to think that people should be dependent on the gov't to help them save money for their own future. As long as there are people who simply cannot be responsible, then I guess that's the way it is. But by making them save their own money, they are not a drain on the rest of us. You seem to think that nobody can make intelligent investments without gov't help. My, my, talk about binary extremism. When did I ever state that "nobody" can make intelligent investments? Or are you just getting "angry"? And of course, selected private businesses will profit from this intrusion... that's the Republican way... Those same select private businesses already profit from everyone who has stocks, bonds, a 401K, or any other investment portfolio. They provide a service. They are entitled to receive compensation for that. Why is that such a bitter pill for you to swallow? Dave |
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 06:50:21 -0500, Dave Hall wrote: On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:50:52 -0500, DSK wrote: And of course, selected private businesses will profit from this intrusion... that's the Republican way... Those same select private businesses already profit from everyone who has stocks, bonds, a 401K, or any other investment portfolio. They provide a service. They are entitled to receive compensation for that. Why is that such a bitter pill for you to swallow? Dave Do you reckon Doug puts his investment money under the mattress so the bankers and Wall Street brokers don't get any of it? -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 07:42:29 -0500, John H
wrote: On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 06:50:21 -0500, Dave Hall wrote: On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:50:52 -0500, DSK wrote: And of course, selected private businesses will profit from this intrusion... that's the Republican way... Those same select private businesses already profit from everyone who has stocks, bonds, a 401K, or any other investment portfolio. They provide a service. They are entitled to receive compensation for that. Why is that such a bitter pill for you to swallow? Dave Do you reckon Doug puts his investment money under the mattress so the bankers and Wall Street brokers don't get any of it? Maybe. He sure can't seem to grasp the concept of managed portfolios and how they work. I guess he thinks that interest accumulates by magic, and that no one has to administrate these accounts. So there is a fee involved. As long as the fee is much less than interest earned, where's the problem? Dave |
Dave Hall wrote:
So there is a fee involved. As long as the fee is much less than interest earned, where's the problem? The problem is that the gov't not the individual decides who gets the profit. But I gues that's "choice" in your book. DSK |
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:42:42 -0500, DSK wrote:
Dave Hall wrote: So there is a fee involved. As long as the fee is much less than interest earned, where's the problem? The problem is that the gov't not the individual decides who gets the profit. But I gues that's "choice" in your book. As long as they pick the funds and firms who represent the best return for investment, I have no problem. Dave |
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:42:42 -0500, DSK wrote: Dave Hall wrote: So there is a fee involved. As long as the fee is much less than interest earned, where's the problem? The problem is that the gov't not the individual decides who gets the profit. But I gues that's "choice" in your book. As long as they pick the funds and firms who represent the best return for investment, I have no problem. Dave It seems that everyone is overlooking an obvious solution that seems to me to have many advantages. The whole (supposed) motivation for partially privatizing SS is the higher returns that the market will provide. The why not have the SSA start redeeming the billions in treasury notes it holds and use the cash, as well as part of current income, to invest broadly across then entire stock market? This would in effect be a huge index fund and would be vwey cheap and efficient to manage. The higher returns would go into the general SS pot and be available to pay benefits in the future. Advantages: - Innumerable studies have shown that index investing gets a better return than the majority of individually managed accounts, even those funds that are managed by so-called pros. Thus most SS participants would be better off than if they had individual accounts that they managed themselves. - Untold billions of dollars that would otherwise be paid to financial firms for managing the individual accounts will stay within the SS system, further enhancing returns. - No individual will be faced with an impoverished retirement because of bad investment decisions or just plain bad luck. - By redeeming some of the SS treasury bonds and not buying new ones it will pressure the government (the non-SS part of it) to be more responsible financially, to pay more attention to the budget deficit, and restrain unfair tax cuts and unneeded spending. But of course the Bush administration does not really want to "save" SS (hence my "supposed") above. They want to do away with it altogether. This (partial privatization) is the first step, just like the medicare prescription benefit was the first step in getting rid of that government program (by incewasing the program cost wile shifting more of the tax burden to the middle class they hope to eventually built a lot of ppular opposition). Bush himself is probably not smart enough to see what's happening, nor are 99.9% of his supporters, but his neocon handlers know exactly what they are doing. -- Peter Aitken Remove the crap from my email address before using. |
"Peter Aitken" wrote in message om... "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:42:42 -0500, DSK wrote: Dave Hall wrote: So there is a fee involved. As long as the fee is much less than interest earned, where's the problem? The problem is that the gov't not the individual decides who gets the profit. But I gues that's "choice" in your book. As long as they pick the funds and firms who represent the best return for investment, I have no problem. Dave It seems that everyone is overlooking an obvious solution that seems to me to have many advantages. The whole (supposed) motivation for partially privatizing SS is the higher returns that the market will provide. No, that is a partial reason. The other is returning the money to those that earned it, not keeping it and doling it out as a welfare entitlement. The why not have the SSA start redeeming the billions in treasury notes it holds and use the cash, as well as part of current income, to invest broadly across then entire stock market? This would in effect be a huge index fund and would be vwey cheap and efficient to manage. The higher returns would go into the general SS pot and be available to pay benefits in the future. Until the pols inside the beltway decide that company 'x' is not being PC enough, and sell all the guvmint holding in said company. Advantages: - Innumerable studies have shown that index investing gets a better return than the majority of individually managed accounts, even those funds that are managed by so-called pros. Thus most SS participants would be better off than if they had individual accounts that they managed themselves. Horse****. Most people would be better off if the were allowed to maintain pocession of the money they earn, rather than allowing the guvmint to redistribute it through a SS system. - Untold billions of dollars that would otherwise be paid to financial firms for managing the individual accounts will stay within the SS system, further enhancing returns. Are you that clueless. - No individual will be faced with an impoverished retirement because of bad investment decisions or just plain bad luck. Big daddy guvmint is the solution to all your problems? - By redeeming some of the SS treasury bonds and not buying new ones it will pressure the government (the non-SS part of it) to be more responsible financially, to pay more attention to the budget deficit, and restrain unfair tax cuts and unneeded spending. Free hint for the clueless......the only way to 'redeem' those bonds is by raising other taxes, running a larger deficit, or priting more money. But of course the Bush administration does not really want to "save" SS (hence my "supposed") above. They want to do away with it altogether. Which is a good thing. This (partial privatization) is the first step, just like the medicare prescription benefit was the first step in getting rid of that government program (by incewasing the program cost wile shifting more of the tax burden to the middle class they hope to eventually built a lot of ppular opposition). Bush himself is probably not smart enough to see what's happening, nor are 99.9% of his supporters, but his neocon handlers know exactly what they are doing. You are obviously not smart enough to do anything except swallow the liebrals talking points, hook line and sinker. -- Peter Aitken Remove the crap from my email address before using. |
The problem is that the gov't not the individual decides who gets the
profit. Dave Hall wrote: As long as they pick the funds and firms who represent the best return for investment, I have no problem. So you think that it might be a teensy bit undesirable to have the gov't steering the profit from your retirement funds to firms they choose? What if they define "best return for the investment" differently that you would? For example, 'best return donated from corporation into certain campaign funds' which is exactly what Vice President Cheney was talking about when this whole "Social Security reform plan" got started. DSK |
"P.Fritz" wrote in message
... "Peter Aitken" wrote in message om... "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:42:42 -0500, DSK wrote: Dave Hall wrote: So there is a fee involved. As long as the fee is much less than interest earned, where's the problem? The problem is that the gov't not the individual decides who gets the profit. But I gues that's "choice" in your book. As long as they pick the funds and firms who represent the best return for investment, I have no problem. Dave It seems that everyone is overlooking an obvious solution that seems to me to have many advantages. The whole (supposed) motivation for partially privatizing SS is the higher returns that the market will provide. No, that is a partial reason. The other is returning the money to those that earned it, not keeping it and doling it out as a welfare entitlement. SS retirement benefits are not an entitlement, it is something you earn by paying into the system while you are working. Strike 1. The why not have the SSA start redeeming the billions in treasury notes it holds and use the cash, as well as part of current income, to invest broadly across then entire stock market? This would in effect be a huge index fund and would be vwey cheap and efficient to manage. The higher returns would go into the general SS pot and be available to pay benefits in the future. Until the pols inside the beltway decide that company 'x' is not being PC enough, and sell all the guvmint holding in said company. That's easily prevented - it's a really silly argument. Strike 2. Advantages: - Innumerable studies have shown that index investing gets a better return than the majority of individually managed accounts, even those funds that are managed by so-called pros. Thus most SS participants would be better off than if they had individual accounts that they managed themselves. Horse****. Most people would be better off if the were allowed to maintain pocession of the money they earn, rather than allowing the guvmint to redistribute it through a SS system. Most evidence suggests otherwise. Do you have any evidence to back up your claim? I didn;t think so. Strike 3. - Untold billions of dollars that would otherwise be paid to financial firms for managing the individual accounts will stay within the SS system, further enhancing returns. Are you that clueless. If you do not understand a perfectly valid argument, it is *you* who are clueless, not me. Strike 4. - No individual will be faced with an impoverished retirement because of bad investment decisions or just plain bad luck. Big daddy guvmint is the solution to all your problems? No, I never claimed that, so why do you bring it up? Straw man, of course. Strike 5. - By redeeming some of the SS treasury bonds and not buying new ones it will pressure the government (the non-SS part of it) to be more responsible financially, to pay more attention to the budget deficit, and restrain unfair tax cuts and unneeded spending. Free hint for the clueless......the only way to 'redeem' those bonds is by raising other taxes, running a larger deficit, or priting more money. That is exactly my point, which you did not seem to understand. Strike 6. But of course the Bush administration does not really want to "save" SS (hence my "supposed") above. They want to do away with it altogether. Which is a good thing. Why? It has been one of the most popular and successful federal programs ever. Strike 7. This (partial privatization) is the first step, just like the medicare prescription benefit was the first step in getting rid of that government program (by incewasing the program cost wile shifting more of the tax burden to the middle class they hope to eventually built a lot of ppular opposition). Bush himself is probably not smart enough to see what's happening, nor are 99.9% of his supporters, but his neocon handlers know exactly what they are doing. You are obviously not smart enough to do anything except swallow the liebrals talking points, hook line and sinker. Lacking facts and logic you pull out the "liberal" epithet. How clever. You managed to object to 8 separate points I made without a single fact or logical argument to back up your opinion. Wow, 8 strikes out of 8. -- Peter Aitken Remove the crap from my email address before using. |
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 12:44:31 -0500, DSK wrote:
The problem is that the gov't not the individual decides who gets the profit. Dave Hall wrote: As long as they pick the funds and firms who represent the best return for investment, I have no problem. So you think that it might be a teensy bit undesirable to have the gov't steering the profit from your retirement funds to firms they choose? Accountability and statements of fund performance would make this a tough thing to play around with What if they define "best return for the investment" differently that you would? This would have to be something that people in the financial departments would have to be a part of. For example, 'best return donated from corporation into certain campaign funds' which is exactly what Vice President Cheney was talking about when this whole "Social Security reform plan" got started. Says you. You're talking utter paranoid rubbish. Dave |
For example, 'best return donated from corporation into
certain campaign funds' which is exactly what Vice President Cheney was talking about when this whole "Social Security reform plan" got started. Dave Hall wrote: Says you. You're talking utter paranoid rubbish. Not at all. In one of his early statements on the subject, Vice President Cheney said publicly that they were "shopping the idea around" various Wall St firms to see who would "be the most responsive." His exact words. He also said that he was not specifically talking about a quid pro quo but that the arranement would be mutually beneficial to the chosen Wall St firms and to the Republican Party. Since then, they've backed way off on this line. Funny thing, you always accuse me of either quoting "Democratic Party propaganda" which is something I've never seen or heard, or inventing fiction, but somehow I have the documentation & references to back up what I say as fact. You never do. I wonder why that is? DSK |
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 15:06:54 -0500, DSK wrote:
For example, 'best return donated from corporation into certain campaign funds' which is exactly what Vice President Cheney was talking about when this whole "Social Security reform plan" got started. Dave Hall wrote: Says you. You're talking utter paranoid rubbish. Not at all. In one of his early statements on the subject, Vice President Cheney said publicly that they were "shopping the idea around" various Wall St firms to see who would "be the most responsive." His exact words. But of course you've spun those words to imply something nefarious. It could be that he meant that he was eliciting the opinions of those who are in the business of investing as to how to best go about creating a private account system. He also said that he was not specifically talking about a quid pro quo but that the arranement would be mutually beneficial to the chosen Wall St firms and to the Republican Party. Since then, they've backed way off on this line. I would be quite interested to see a link to where he made such a claim. Funny thing, you always accuse me of either quoting "Democratic Party propaganda" which is something I've never seen or heard Yet you can recite almost word for word. Birds of a feather? , or inventing fiction, but somehow I have the documentation & references to back up what I say as fact. Then how come you never provide proof when asked? You never do. I wonder why that is? You claim to base your subjective opinion on some elusive "fact". I don't make the same claim. I argue based on principle and common sense. When there is something factual (Like Galveston Texas opting out of SS and gaining a considerable advantage by it) to support my argument, I will post it. But in the case of SS reform, there really aren't many facts yet as the program is hardly past the proposal stage. So far you have failed to prove that the Bush administration is doing anything other than what they are openly claiming. Claims of "lining the pockets of Wall Street" is just paranoia run amuck and regurgitated by liberals, democrats, and Bush bashers alike. Especially considering that the plan has never been finalized to the point that such observations could definitively be made. Dave |
In one of his early statements on the subject, Vice President Cheney
said publicly that they were "shopping the idea around" various Wall St firms to see who would "be the most responsive." His exact words. Dave Hall wrote: But of course you've spun those words to imply something nefarious. It could be that he meant that he was eliciting the opinions of those who are in the business of investing as to how to best go about creating a private account system. Uh huh. Just like he sees nothing wrong with using his office as Vice President to steer U.S. foreign policy in ways that result in tremendous profits for Halliburton, which he *still* has not given up his $100 million+ stake in. And I guess you see nothing wrong with it, either. So far you have failed to prove that the Bush administration is doing anything other than what they are openly claiming. Really? You think the Bush Administration (it's proper to capitalize here BTW) is "openly claiming" that they are using private interest groups to promote Bush's plan, spending $30 million+ to promote the plan which Bush says "ought to stand on it's own"? Get the facts, Dave. DSK |
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 13:44:20 -0400, DSK wrote:
In one of his early statements on the subject, Vice President Cheney said publicly that they were "shopping the idea around" various Wall St firms to see who would "be the most responsive." His exact words. Dave Hall wrote: But of course you've spun those words to imply something nefarious. It could be that he meant that he was eliciting the opinions of those who are in the business of investing as to how to best go about creating a private account system. Uh huh. Just like he sees nothing wrong with using his office as Vice President to steer U.S. foreign policy in ways that result in tremendous profits for Halliburton, which he *still* has not given up his $100 million+ stake in. Can you credibly prove that? And I guess you see nothing wrong with it, either. It's hard to see anything wrong when it's pure propaganda. So far you have failed to prove that the Bush administration is doing anything other than what they are openly claiming. Really? You think the Bush Administration (it's proper to capitalize here BTW) is "openly claiming" that they are using private interest groups to promote Bush's plan, spending $30 million+ to promote the plan which Bush says "ought to stand on it's own"? Considering the sheer amount of negative propaganda the opposition has unleashed to try to scare people into opposing the plan, I'd say that countering that groundless propaganda is a natural move. Get the facts, Dave. I have them. Where are yours? Dave |
Just like he sees nothing wrong with using his office as Vice President
to steer U.S. foreign policy in ways that result in tremendous profits for Halliburton, which he *still* has not given up his $100 million+ stake in. Dave Hall wrote: Can you credibly prove that? Open your eyes, Dave. Why do you think Vice President Cheney had a hissy fit and cussed out Senator Leahy? He's been censured for his conflict of interest, and with this Congress that's really doing something. He's said that he "will" give his profits from his Halliburton interest (but not the stock itself) to charity, but so far that hasn't happened. And I guess you see nothing wrong with it, either. It's hard to see anything wrong when it's pure propaganda. Yep, just like the sun rising in the east and water flowing down hill. It happens in the real world, therefor it must be DNC propaganda. DSK |
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 10:06:51 -0400, DSK wrote:
Just like he sees nothing wrong with using his office as Vice President to steer U.S. foreign policy in ways that result in tremendous profits for Halliburton, which he *still* has not given up his $100 million+ stake in. Dave Hall wrote: Can you credibly prove that? Open your eyes, Dave. Why do you think Vice President Cheney had a hissy fit and cussed out Senator Leahy? I don't know. But unlike you, I'm not about to speculate as to the reasons why and then try to pass them off as fact. He's been censured for his conflict of interest When was that? , and with this Congress that's really doing something. He's said that he "will" give his profits from his Halliburton interest (but not the stock itself) to charity, but so far that hasn't happened. When did he say that? And I guess you see nothing wrong with it, either. It's hard to see anything wrong when it's pure propaganda. Yep, just like the sun rising in the east and water flowing down hill. It happens in the real world, therefor it must be DNC propaganda. Non sequitur. The fact that water flows downhill is not a testament to any of the political propaganda that you spout. Dave |
... Why do you think Vice President Cheney had a hissy
fit and cussed out Senator Leahy? Dave Hall wrote: I don't know. But unlike you, I'm not about to speculate as to the reasons why and then try to pass them off as fact. I'm not speculating. It's pretty well documented, even on Fox News (the Super Bush-n-Cheney Booster Channel). However, it's interesting to see that you have zero knowledge of the facts and yet you're still convinced that somehow I *must* be wrong. What rational, balanced, approach. He's been censured for his conflict of interest When was that? Wake up, Dave. , and with this Congress that's really doing something. He's said that he "will" give his profits from his Halliburton interest (but not the stock itself) to charity, but so far that hasn't happened. When did he say that? You're really very good at playing dumb, Dave. But you make your whole "team" look bad trying to deny such obvious facts. A very quick glance at Google will reveal the truth to anybody who isn't a mindless pro-Bush cheeleader. Shove you head deeper, Dave, the sunlight is getting in! The truth is sneaking up on you no matter how hard you deny it!! DSK |
|
"Red CloudŽ" wrote in message ... On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 17:33:07 -0400, "JimH" wrote: "Red CloudŽ" wrote in message . .. On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 16:50:47 -0400, DSK wrote: ... Why do you think Vice President Cheney had a hissy fit and cussed out Senator Leahy? Dave Hall wrote: I don't know. But unlike you, I'm not about to speculate as to the reasons why and then try to pass them off as fact. I'm not speculating. It's pretty well documented, even on Fox News (the Super Bush-n-Cheney Booster Channel). However, it's interesting to see that you have zero knowledge of the facts and yet you're still convinced that somehow I *must* be wrong. What rational, balanced, approach. He's been censured for his conflict of interest When was that? Wake up, Dave. Doug, Dave is in a self-imposed persistive vegetative condition. You will never improve his condition no matter how hard you try. He cannot learn. His mind, what there is of it, is closed tight to ward off anything that might wake him. He's a frightened little toad. Find someone who is worth engaging. Dave ain't it. Pull the plug and let him go. rusty redcloud So what sort of boating do you plan to do this year rusty? We are presently without a boat (sold our 32 footer last year because of some medical problems with my wife) but have many friends with boats and plan to do a great deal of fishing and cruising. We also plan to vacation on the water again this year to enjoy some fishing and swimming. What kind of boat do you own and where do you boat? C&C 27-5. Plus an assortment of quirky smaller boats. We mostly sail in LIS, but occasionally go further. In the past I've gone MUCH further. We sail in the evenings to unwind and have dinner on the water. I'm not very interested in racing, other than as a photographer. We also stay on the boat most weekends, and do a few week or longer cruises each summer in addition to frequent 3 day weekends. In a few more years, we'll be adding another, much larger boat, and spending at least half the year on it. That boat may be kept in a warm place that we can fly to. I'll keep the C&C for summer fun here. rusty redcloud Is it similar to this 1972 C&C? http://www.sailingtexas.com/scc27a.html If so it looks like a very nice boat. We would spend most every weekend on our boat and a full two weeks on it during my vacation, traveling to Canada, the Islands and Michigan. It was all done as a family and the kids grew up boating. Boating is indeed a very nice family activity. |
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 16:50:47 -0400, DSK wrote:
... Why do you think Vice President Cheney had a hissy fit and cussed out Senator Leahy? Dave Hall wrote: I don't know. But unlike you, I'm not about to speculate as to the reasons why and then try to pass them off as fact. I'm not speculating. It's pretty well documented, even on Fox News (the Super Bush-n-Cheney Booster Channel). The reason WHY Cheney cussed out Leahy was on Fox and other news services? Gee, that's funny, I never saw that. I did see that Cheney did cuss him out, but nowhere was there a reason given for it. However, it's interesting to see that you have zero knowledge of the facts and yet you're still convinced that somehow I *must* be wrong. What rational, balanced, approach. I have a quite a bit of knowledge of the event. But I've never seen an actual factual reason given for it. I have heard speculation as to why. You do know the difference right? He's been censured for his conflict of interest When was that? Wake up, Dave. That doesn't answer the question. When was Cheney censured for a conflict of interest? , and with this Congress that's really doing something. He's said that he "will" give his profits from his Halliburton interest (but not the stock itself) to charity, but so far that hasn't happened. When did he say that? You're really very good at playing dumb, Dave. But you make your whole "team" look bad trying to deny such obvious facts. A very quick glance at Google will reveal the truth to anybody who isn't a mindless pro-Bush cheeleader. You made the claim, it's up to you to provide the factual evidence. Speculation by leftist spinmeisters doesn't count. Dave |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:40 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Š2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com