Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:37:58 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

Just what everybody is demanding.
A Wall Street Multi-Billionaire President.

He's a self made man, starting off as a computer programmer working
with an old friend of mine at Merrill Lynch. He devised an electronic
system for trading and quoting bonds which was vastly superior to
anything else at the time. Merrill gave him the right to sell the
system to others and he turned that into a financial empire.

Sounds like intelligence and leadership ability to me.


And now he wants to tell everybody how to wipe their own asses. Just
because your are good in business doesn't mean that you will be good in
politics. Bloomberg has proved this to be true.

On Jan 11, 1:22*pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Jan 11, 8:20 am, BAR wrote:





HK wrote:
DownTime wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 00:39:03 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 02:10:13 GMT, Apu Nahasapeemapetilon
wrote:

"In a fierce counterattack, Ms. Clinton has tried to prick the
ballooning support for Mr. Obama, conceding he is "a truly
inspirational speaker" but adding he has "not done the kind of spade
work" to back up the promises."

Spade work?
I still say the "N" word will be out there soon if Obama keeps
beating
her.

Nah - but if I were Obama, I'd make a wooden stake and buy a truckload
of garlic. Also if I were Obama, I'd check the bus brakes every time I
got on, not eat anything from sources I couldn't vouch for, avoid
balconies and buy a bomb sniffing dog.
I would also watch the movie "The Omen" for other ways that I might
come to grief.

That's what I would do if I were Obama. :)

I find it truly unfortunate and a sad commentary on our society that
he'd have to be concerned with that scenario. Not that I don't agree
with you to a degree, but haven't we evolved any?

I had noticed and then thought during his very first election speech,
"hey, this guy is different than the rest". The color of his skin
means nothing to his qualifications, but I'm thinking the majority of
the USA is not quite ready for him. I am more concerned with what I
had been reading relating to his Muslim background than the color of
his skin.

Obama's rather loose "connection" to his Muslim background is a hell of
a lot less scary than Huckleberry's connections to fundie Christianity..

Why?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Because a hell of a lot of fundimental Christians try to shove their
beliefs down other people's thoats.

And Muslim's aren't?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I never said whether Muslims were or not. How many Muslims knock on
your door wanting to spread the word as opposed to Christians?

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:23:53 -0500, wrote:

Sounds like Ross Perot to me.

BTW Ross "fired" me once. (facial hair problem) The only problem, I
didn't work for EDS (Rockville) at the time, I worked for IBM.
I got a pretty good giggle out of it when I heard I had been fired.

Bloomberg is much less abrasive and opinionated than Perot. I met
Ross once at a fancy sailing party in Bermuda. He has a really nice
spread there, with the ocean on one side and a very scenic lagoon on
the other.

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:20:58 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:37:58 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

Just what everybody is demanding.
A Wall Street Multi-Billionaire President.

He's a self made man, starting off as a computer programmer working
with an old friend of mine at Merrill Lynch. He devised an electronic
system for trading and quoting bonds which was vastly superior to
anything else at the time. Merrill gave him the right to sell the
system to others and he turned that into a financial empire.

Sounds like intelligence and leadership ability to me.

I agree. And to tell the truth, that's a positive. I'd like to see a
pure business man take over for a while.

However, based on his nanny type personality, I'm not sure he's any
different from anybody else running.

Oddly, you know who I think would make a great President but he'd
never in a hundred years get elected.

Barney Frank.

Seriously.

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 21:56:16 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:20:58 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:37:58 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

Just what everybody is demanding.
A Wall Street Multi-Billionaire President.

He's a self made man, starting off as a computer programmer working
with an old friend of mine at Merrill Lynch. He devised an electronic
system for trading and quoting bonds which was vastly superior to
anything else at the time. Merrill gave him the right to sell the
system to others and he turned that into a financial empire.

Sounds like intelligence and leadership ability to me.

I agree. And to tell the truth, that's a positive. I'd like to see a
pure business man take over for a while.

However, based on his nanny type personality, I'm not sure he's any
different from anybody else running.

Are you talking about banning smoking in bars and restaurants? That's
a good thing. No one should have to tolerate smoking in a public
place. It's offensive and the risks are well documented.

Trans fats in restaurants? That might be a little over the top but if
it encourages healthier food with no decrease in perceived quality
that might be OK also.

What else?

Of course we have to remember that his NYC constituency leans a tad to
the left on average, and he has to play to what sells.

Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 21:56:16 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:20:58 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:37:58 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

Just what everybody is demanding.
A Wall Street Multi-Billionaire President.
He's a self made man, starting off as a computer programmer working
with an old friend of mine at Merrill Lynch. He devised an electronic
system for trading and quoting bonds which was vastly superior to
anything else at the time. Merrill gave him the right to sell the
system to others and he turned that into a financial empire.

Sounds like intelligence and leadership ability to me.
I agree. And to tell the truth, that's a positive. I'd like to see a
pure business man take over for a while.

However, based on his nanny type personality, I'm not sure he's any
different from anybody else running.

Are you talking about banning smoking in bars and restaurants? That's
a good thing. No one should have to tolerate smoking in a public
place. It's offensive and the risks are well documented.

You have a choice to either patronize on not patronize the
establishment. Your decision can be based upon service, food, smoking
policy, friendliness of the staff.

Trans fats in restaurants? That might be a little over the top but if
it encourages healthier food with no decrease in perceived quality
that might be OK also.

A little over the top? How about way over the top and down the other side.

What else?

Of course we have to remember that his NYC constituency leans a tad to
the left on average, and he has to play to what sells.

A tad?

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 18:19:02 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 21:56:16 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:20:58 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:37:58 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

Just what everybody is demanding.
A Wall Street Multi-Billionaire President.

He's a self made man, starting off as a computer programmer working
with an old friend of mine at Merrill Lynch. He devised an electronic
system for trading and quoting bonds which was vastly superior to
anything else at the time. Merrill gave him the right to sell the
system to others and he turned that into a financial empire.

Sounds like intelligence and leadership ability to me.

I agree. And to tell the truth, that's a positive. I'd like to see a
pure business man take over for a while.

However, based on his nanny type personality, I'm not sure he's any
different from anybody else running.

Are you talking about banning smoking in bars and restaurants? That's
a good thing. No one should have to tolerate smoking in a public
place. It's offensive and the risks are well documented.

You know, believe it or not being a cigar smoker, I agree with you on
that one.

However, banning smoking in bars that are smoking bars goes a little
too far. Private clubs should be allowed to make their own rules or
areas for smokers. You don't want to breathe the smoke, don't go
there.

Pretty simple to me.

Trans fats in restaurants? That might be a little over the top but if
it encourages healthier food with no decrease in perceived quality
that might be OK also.

What else?

Of course we have to remember that his NYC constituency leans a tad to
the left on average, and he has to play to what sells.

It's the do as I say, not as I do thing that makes me nervous.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/ne...,5002672.story

I've seen other reports from news sources about his various
proclivities including cigar smoking in public.

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 18:19:02 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:


Are you talking about banning smoking in bars and restaurants? That's a
good thing. No one should have to tolerate smoking in a public place.
It's offensive and the risks are well documented.

It's also hard to blame that one on Bloomberg. Whole countries, many
states, etc. have already banned smoking. It's been an ongoing process
for years.

Trans fats in restaurants? That might be a little over the top but if
it encourages healthier food with no decrease in perceived quality that
might be OK also.

That might also be a wave of the future. The FDA has required labeling
trans fats, and other cities are considering banning trans fats, Chicago
included.

What else?

Of course we have to remember that his NYC constituency leans a tad to
the left on average, and he has to play to what sells.

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 18:26:43 -0500, BAR wrote:


Are you talking about banning smoking in bars and restaurants? That's
a good thing. No one should have to tolerate smoking in a public
place. It's offensive and the risks are well documented.

You have a choice to either patronize on not patronize the
establishment. Your decision can be based upon service, food, smoking
policy, friendliness of the staff.

If it's public accommodation, regulation has been part of doing business
for years. As smoking is the number one preventable cause of death, I
can see the state's reasoning. Personally, open air bans seem a little
silly, but enclosed spaces? You're battling an incoming tide.

wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 18:26:43 -0500, BAR wrote:


Are you talking about banning smoking in bars and restaurants? That's
a good thing. No one should have to tolerate smoking in a public
place. It's offensive and the risks are well documented.
You have a choice to either patronize on not patronize the
establishment. Your decision can be based upon service, food, smoking
policy, friendliness of the staff.

If it's public accommodation, regulation has been part of doing business
for years. As smoking is the number one preventable cause of death, I
can see the state's reasoning. Personally, open air bans seem a little
silly, but enclosed spaces? You're battling an incoming tide.

Why does a cigar store get an exemption?