Goddamm, Cheney's got his head up his ass



On 2/13/06 9:14 PM, in article [email protected], "Raptor"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> ST wrote:
>> On 2/12/06 8:40 PM, in article [email protected], "Raptor"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> ST wrote:
>>>> For you guys to think that there are things going on in our government that
>>>> never happened before Bush 41 is pure unadulterated ignorance and
>>>> stupidity.
>>> You Republicans should fight hard, REALLY hard, to win this November. If
>>> you don't, your boy's going down.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
>>> "You American workers haven't seen an increase in real wages since the
>>> 1970s... But are you rioting? No. You're voting for Republican
>>> candidates who give people like me tax cuts. You know what? I think
>>> that's your way of saying 'Thank you.'" - Stephen Colbert

>>
>> Dude! You and your lame sig. lines are idiots! FACE IT! Remember? You guys
>> and your Global Economy lines? Things are getting done in other countries
>> because unions paying idiots $28.50hr for what a trained monkey can do are
>> OVER!

>
>> The exact same philosophy calling for change in the 50's was..........
>> Communist philosophy.

>
> Wanting a bigger tax cut before someone else making a lot more than I do
> gets a tax cut is Communist?


Want? Who cares what you want!
READ and learn dummy!!!

Tax Cut Story

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day,
ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid
their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this.

The first four men -- the poorest -- would pay nothing; The fifth would pay
$1: the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; The eighth $12; The ninth $18.
The tenth man ­ the richest -- would pay $59.

That's what they decided to do.

The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy
with the arrangement -- until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the
cost of your daily meal by $20."

So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.

So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But
what about the other six -- the paying customers? How could they divvy up
the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33.

But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and
the sixth man would end up being *paid* to eat their meal.

So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's
bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts
each should pay.

And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid
$5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a
bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59.

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to
eat for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to
the tenth. "But he got $7!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man.
"I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than
me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I
got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the
first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system
exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate
without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered
something important. They were $52 short!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the
tax system works.

The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax
reduction.

Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show
up at the table anymore.
 
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 03:06:30 GMT, ST <[email protected]> wrote:


>
>You are getting just as bad as the rest of these wankers Bill!!
>We do NOT know all the details. BUT it is real easy to just want to fire off
>on the VP because you hate them anyway..
>
>This 20/20 hindsight stuff is real easy to do after the fact for anything
>isn't it.......


Given the efforts of Cheney and his staff to keep this quiet, it's
very appropriate to speculate that there is something they are hiding.
At a minimum terrible hunting protocol by Cheney. Possibly more --
drinking and shooting is my guess.

This whole story isn't just about a hunting accident. It's about
excessive secrecy and deception by our elected leaders. In this case
we don't know for sure if there is deception involved, but given the
secrecy and Cheney's past, it seems likely to have been.

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
In article <C017DAB4.190F5E%[email protected]>, ST <[email protected]> wrote:

> This 20/20 hindsight stuff is real easy to do after the fact for anything
> isn't it.......


About the only time to have hindsight (20/20 or otherwise) is after the fact.

--
tanx,
Howard

The poodle bites, the poodle chews it.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
ST wrote:
> On 2/13/06 9:14 PM, in article [email protected], "Raptor"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> ST wrote:
>>> On 2/12/06 8:40 PM, in article [email protected], "Raptor"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> ST wrote:
>>>>> For you guys to think that there are things going on in our government that
>>>>> never happened before Bush 41 is pure unadulterated ignorance and
>>>>> stupidity.
>>>> You Republicans should fight hard, REALLY hard, to win this November. If
>>>> you don't, your boy's going down.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
>>>> "You American workers haven't seen an increase in real wages since the
>>>> 1970s... But are you rioting? No. You're voting for Republican
>>>> candidates who give people like me tax cuts. You know what? I think
>>>> that's your way of saying 'Thank you.'" - Stephen Colbert
>>> Dude! You and your lame sig. lines are idiots! FACE IT! Remember? You guys
>>> and your Global Economy lines? Things are getting done in other countries
>>> because unions paying idiots $28.50hr for what a trained monkey can do are
>>> OVER!
>>> The exact same philosophy calling for change in the 50's was..........
>>> Communist philosophy.

>> Wanting a bigger tax cut before someone else making a lot more than I do
>> gets a tax cut is Communist?

>
> Want? Who cares what you want!
> READ and learn dummy!!!
>
> Tax Cut Story
>

....

> Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show
> up at the table anymore.


Dumbass,

I can do arithmetic.

The rich have all the breaks. 1$ turned into 1$ million is hard work and
luck. 1$ million turned into 10$ million is virtually inevitable.

The rich have already "not shown up." They have the lobbyists,
contribute the campaign funds, and get the cushy tax shelters and
breaks, all in the name of "creating jobs." NOT, you are reminded, in
the name of "creating high paying jobs."

Beyond that, however, paying taxes is not voluntary. They'll show up.

--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
"You American workers haven't seen an increase in real wages since the
1970s... But are you rioting? No. You're voting for Republican
candidates who give people like me tax cuts. You know what? I think
that's your way of saying 'Thank you.'" - Stephen Colbert
 
ST wrote:

> You are getting just as bad as the rest of these wankers Bill!!
> We do NOT know all the details. BUT it is real easy to just want to fire off
> on the VP because you hate them anyway..


Dude, he shot another human being. Everyone who knows anything knows it
was HIS responsibility to control HIS gun.

It's called personal responsibility.
 
"ST" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
C017DEB9.190F61%[email protected]...
> On 2/13/06 9:14 PM, in article [email protected], "Raptor"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> ST wrote:
>>> On 2/12/06 8:40 PM, in article [email protected], "Raptor"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> ST wrote:
>>>>> For you guys to think that there are things going on in our government
>>>>> that
>>>>> never happened before Bush 41 is pure unadulterated ignorance and
>>>>> stupidity.
>>>> You Republicans should fight hard, REALLY hard, to win this November.
>>>> If
>>>> you don't, your boy's going down.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
>>>> "You American workers haven't seen an increase in real wages since the
>>>> 1970s... But are you rioting? No. You're voting for Republican
>>>> candidates who give people like me tax cuts. You know what? I think
>>>> that's your way of saying 'Thank you.'" - Stephen Colbert
>>>
>>> Dude! You and your lame sig. lines are idiots! FACE IT! Remember? You
>>> guys
>>> and your Global Economy lines? Things are getting done in other
>>> countries
>>> because unions paying idiots $28.50hr for what a trained monkey can do
>>> are
>>> OVER!

>>
>>> The exact same philosophy calling for change in the 50's was..........
>>> Communist philosophy.

>>
>> Wanting a bigger tax cut before someone else making a lot more than I do
>> gets a tax cut is Communist?

>
> Want? Who cares what you want!
> READ and learn dummy!!!
>
> Tax Cut Story
> ...

I suggest that they spend the $20 to pay the HUGE tab they've run up at the
bar across the street. They've got to get their drinking under control.

Here's another Tax Cut Story

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose 2 people are in
an accident on the freeway. They are taken to the hospital. The first
sprained his wrist, the second has internal bleeding. The first man donates
blood several times a year. The second never does. The doctors give the
first guy 3 units of blood, cause after all, it's his blood, and if they
take too much without giving any back, the first guy might decide to stop
showing up. They don't give the second guy any blood, because he didn't
contribute any.
 
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 14:55:18 -0800, Tim Lines <[email protected]> wrote:

>mac wrote:
>> I would rather hunt with Cheney then ride across a bridge with that
>> drunken **** sucker ted Kennedy .

>
>I hope that most of the choices in your life are not as limited as this.



Another big difference -- what happened with Cheney was an accident.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Jack Hollis <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 14:55:18 -0800, Tim Lines <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >mac wrote:
> >> I would rather hunt with Cheney then ride across a bridge with that
> >> drunken **** sucker ted Kennedy .

> >
> >I hope that most of the choices in your life are not as limited as this.

>
>
> Another big difference -- what happened with Cheney was an accident.


Ahh, so Kennedy did it on purpose. Yeah...

--
tanx,
Howard

The poodle bites, the poodle chews it.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:06:23 -0500, Curtis L. Russell
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> I think you're right on the money. I know I've decided that there's no
>>way in hell I'm voting Republican in the next election, maybe
>>Libertarian as usual, but probably Democrat this time. He's lost a huge
>>chunk of the military vote over all the BS that's being done to them
>>and the VA.

>
>Didn't you say something similar, before the last election? My five
>dollars says that the numbers leave control of the Senate and the
>House in the hands of the Republicans in 2006, and George II isn't
>running in 2008.


Yes, the Democrats have been talking about how they are going to take
back control of the Congress every election since 1996. What else are
they going to say?

Conventional wisdom says that the party in the White House lose seats
in the off year election in the sixth year of a President's term. It
might be possible for the Dems to take control of the House (but I
wouldn't bet on it) but with a 55/45 split in the Senate, there's 0%
probability they will take back the Senate.

2008 also looks bad for the Democrats. Hillary will surely be the
nominee and she's going to have a very difficult time getting elected.
Polls have shown that anywhere between 44% and 51% of voters would
never vote for her and this includes some Democrats. That's a tough
hill to climb. Obviously, nothings a lock, but odds are against the
Dems taking back the White House in 2008 unless they can come up with
someone better than Hillary and I don't see anyone else that fits the
bill.

I'm afraid that the Democrats will have to get used to being the
minority party, something they haven't adjusted to as yet. What's
really killed them is that they've lost the white working class vote.
The Dems have allowed themselves to become associated with too many
issues that are out of the mainstream. Issues like affirmative
action, gay marriage, anti-war cut and run strategies are not going to
go down well. The big issue these days is national security and the
Republicans have that one locked up. The more the Dems harp on the
wiretap issue the more it hurts them. Then the Dems are strapped with
people like Michael Moore and the rest of the Hollywood crowd that
most Americans don't like. With friends like that the Dems don't need
enemies.
 
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 03:06:30 GMT, ST <[email protected]> wrote:

>You are getting just as bad as the rest of these wankers Bill!!
>We do NOT know all the details. BUT it is real easy to just want to fire off
>on the VP because you hate them anyway..
>
>This 20/20 hindsight stuff is real easy to do after the fact for anything
>isn't it.......



This is another example of the media and the Democrats harping on an
issue that doesn't really matter. The only good side for the
Democrats is that it has gotten them off the issue of the wiretaps,
which is an issue that hurts them with the voters.
 
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 03:23:38 GMT, ST <[email protected]> wrote:

>The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax
>reduction.
>
>Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show
>up at the table anymore.


Or they will just eat dinner in a developing nation's restaurant where
the bill is a lot lower.
 
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 21:02:08 -0800, Tim Lines <[email protected]> wrote:

>Dude, he shot another human being. Everyone who knows anything knows it
>was HIS responsibility to control HIS gun.



This makes no sense. It's the same as saying that every time a
pedestrian is hit by a car it's the drivers fault.
 
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 06:14:46 -0800, Howard Kveck
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> Another big difference -- what happened with Cheney was an accident.

>
> Ahh, so Kennedy did it on purpose. Yeah...


The wonder of it all was that Mary Jo was buried without an autopsy.
Truly amazing.
 
Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> On 14 Feb 2006 05:23:55 -0800, "Bill C" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > I think you're right on the money. I know I've decided that there's no
> >way in hell I'm voting Republican in the next election, maybe
> >Libertarian as usual, but probably Democrat this time. He's lost a huge
> >chunk of the military vote over all the BS that's being done to them
> >and the VA.

>
> Didn't you say something similar, before the last election? My five
> dollars says that the numbers leave control of the Senate and the
> House in the hands of the Republicans in 2006, and George II isn't
> running in 2008.
>
> The probable Republican nominees are taking positions contrary to
> George now: they'll be given more credit for that than the Democrats
> and one of those IMO will probably take the POTUS position again.
> They'll be running without the weight of George, **** and most of the
> current administration while the Demos keep swinging at George. The
> elephant party simply is not very nimble - they'll be fighting George
> when he is no longer relevant and will look vindictive.
>
> Unless the Republicans nominate Frist or Cheney, the Democrats will be
> fighting and losing the last war... Again...
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels..

..
Yeah, I did and the numbers keep dropping, but I think they have
chosen not to vote rather than vote for the Democrat so it hurts, but
it's not a double effect, and the majority of the military is coming
from States that are pretty firmly Republican anyway so it has about as
much effect as my voting does here in Mass. I was just reading where
the national Democratic party put the screws to one of the Iraq war
vets they had been pushing hard to run once one of the Good Ol' Boy
networks pols decided he'd like to run for that seat. They cut his
funding off by calling everyone and telling them NOT to give him money,
apparently Schumer was leading the way on this but his office wouldn't
return calls on the subject.
They really keep shooting themselves in the foot and just can't seem
to focus on the things that would sway swing voters. They just keep
pounding away at their base, arguing that all they need to do is get
the base "energized". If that hasn't worked yet, after all this, then
it's hopeless, but as you pointed out, they are hidebound in how they
do things. I think the Republicans have been smart enough to, at least
publicly, marginalize their nutcases while the Dem's feature them and
play them up. Just doesn't sell to middle America and the swing states.
You're probably right about both the upcoming elections. I'm really
afraid that they are going to nominate Hillary whose negative rating
rivals Bush's even at this point. Obama is gaining crediblity, but is
still too young and green to stick, especially against Guilliani.
Billc
 
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 20:48:40 +1300, Stu Fleming <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>Apparently George Washington and Abraham Lincoln also engaged in
>widespread wiretapping...


Is wire tapping like phone sex? Someone has to ask, sooner or later.
Sounds painful to me.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 03:23:38 GMT, ST <[email protected]> wrote:


> >The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax
> >reduction.


Well, yeah, if they're the ones the tax reduction is written for-- like
ending taxes on capital gains, and stock dividends, for instance (duh).

(ST continues):
> >Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show
> >up at the table anymore.


(JH replied):
> Or they will just eat dinner in a developing nation's restaurant where
> the bill is a lot lower.


After they use sanctions, and Economic Shock and Awe to ruin the
original owner so one of their buddies can buy the restaurant for cheap
(with a 40-year contract), and hire the employees back at starvation
wages since there are very, very few jobs available in the purposefully
ruined (ES&A) local economies. Water to the restaurant? Talk to
Haliburton.

Hey, if Cheney's shooting victim (Whittington, just talking USA here)
dies, isn't that like, manslaughter or something? I notice we're trying
to blame the victim, and right from the get-go, too-- Karl Rove have a
hand in this, too?

Excuse the rant, please, Mr. Hollis. --D-y
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Jack Hollis wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 03:23:38 GMT, ST <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>> >The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax
>> >reduction.

>
> Well, yeah, if they're the ones the tax reduction is written for-- like
> ending taxes on capital gains, and stock dividends, for instance (duh).
>
> (ST continues):
>> >Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not
>> >show
>> >up at the table anymore.

>
> (JH replied):
>> Or they will just eat dinner in a developing nation's restaurant where
>> the bill is a lot lower.

>
> After they use sanctions, and Economic Shock and Awe to ruin the
> original owner so one of their buddies can buy the restaurant for cheap
> (with a 40-year contract), and hire the employees back at starvation
> wages since there are very, very few jobs available in the purposefully
> ruined (ES&A) local economies. Water to the restaurant? Talk to
> Haliburton.
>
> Hey, if Cheney's shooting victim (Whittington, just talking USA here)
> dies, isn't that like, manslaughter or something? I notice we're trying
> to blame the victim, and right from the get-go, too-- Karl Rove have a
> hand in this, too?
>
> Excuse the rant, please, Mr. Hollis. --D-y


Maureen Dowd has a wonderful piece on the shooting in today's NY Times that
goes through the four steps of shifting blame. If Jack does die as a result
of the shooting, there will probably be a grand jury investigation after the
medical examiner is done with the body.

If Cheney is charged and takes a plea resulting in a suspended sentence and
probation, will Iraq be a probation violation?
 
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 06:14:46 -0800, Howard Kveck
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>>Another big difference -- what happened with Cheney was an accident.

>>
>> Ahh, so Kennedy did it on purpose. Yeah...

>
>
> The wonder of it all was that Mary Jo was buried without an autopsy.
> Truly amazing.



How many drowning victims get autopsied?

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
 
Stu Fleming wrote:
>>Apparently George Washington and Abraham Lincoln also engaged in
>>widespread wiretapping...


Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> Is wire tapping like phone sex?


Ask Tyler.