Why do my hard earned tax dollars support a bike team?



K

kaiser

Guest
Ronde,

If you're a domestic pro bike racer like you say you are, then in all
likelihood, you get to write the word "EXEMPT" on your W4 forms. So
you probably pay no taxes anyhow.

Nice try though.

[email protected] (Ronde Champ) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Hey,
>
> Why does the US federal Government support a bike team in France? I
> work hard for my money, and think the taxes I pay could be better
> used. What a Boondoggle!
>
> Thanks,
> Ronde Champ
 
R

Richard Adams

Guest
Mike <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
[gnip]
>
> Also, I think the USPS is privatized and therefore not supported by the
> US government. Complain instead about how the US government does support
> the US automakers, US highways, and the US petrolium industry. Talk about
> a boondoggle. Since when is it the responsibility of any government
> to 'bail out' a corporation (Chrysler) or a city (New York)?
>
> Mike


They showed their mettle to the struggling airlines, however, after
the 9/11 attacks. Thanks to that I think we'll have more foreign
ownership of air carriers.

I tell ya, though, if you don't live in a frozen wasteland, those
hybrid cars are the thing. My sister's Prius would work wonderfully
for me where I live. Lots of big 4x4's for sale out here (huge
surprise.)
 
T

Tim McNamara

Guest
Luigi de Guzman <[email protected]> writes:

> On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 12:46:05 -0400, David Kerber
> <[email protected]_ids.net> wrote:
>
>>I don't even know if there are any French in the race; the top
>>competition is Spanish, Italian, German and American, with a few
>>Aussies, Dutch, and Russians thrown into the mix.

>
> There are lots. Today's Maillot Jaune is the French National
> Champion.
>
> The French are in an awful Tour de France slump, though.


Although they've had a winner of the polka-dot jersey several times in
the last decade, thanks to Virenque and Jalabert. And this year
there's already a French stage winner and Maillot Jaune. So the slump
is not as bad as it could be, although the French have seemed
seriously outgunned since instituting the most stringent anti-doping
policies in the sport. Could be a coincidence, might not be.

Of course, for the entire field to have to compete against Miguel
Indurain and then Lance Armstrong is also an issue, these guys have
been unusually dominant. I think in part that's due to having been
very specialized to compete in the Tour primarily, as the Tour
continues to outweigh the entire rest of the racing calendar in
importance. From 1986 to 2003, there were, what, 13 Tours won by
three racers (Lemond, Indurain, Armstrong) and a scattering of tours
won by Roche, Delgado, Pantani, Ullrich, Riis. If we start from
1990, there's been only 5 winners of the Tour.
 
L

Luigi de Guzman

Guest
On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 17:07:45 -0500, Tim McNamara
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>
>> The French are in an awful Tour de France slump, though.

>
>Although they've had a winner of the polka-dot jersey several times in
>the last decade, thanks to Virenque and Jalabert.


It'll be stiff competition for the polka-dot jersey this year. I
wonder if Mayo is starting to think that maybe he should gun for
polka-dots this year, instead of Yellow, considering his position in
the GC...

>And this year
>there's already a French stage winner and Maillot Jaune. So the slump
>is not as bad as it could be, although the French have seemed
>seriously outgunned since instituting the most stringent anti-doping
>policies in the sport. Could be a coincidence, might not be.


Hadn't thought of it like that....

>Of course, for the entire field to have to compete against Miguel
>Indurain and then Lance Armstrong is also an issue, these guys have
>been unusually dominant. I think in part that's due to having been
>very specialized to compete in the Tour primarily, as the Tour
>continues to outweigh the entire rest of the racing calendar in
>importance. From 1986 to 2003, there were, what, 13 Tours won by
>three racers (Lemond, Indurain, Armstrong) and a scattering of tours
>won by Roche, Delgado, Pantani, Ullrich, Riis. If we start from
>1990, there's been only 5 winners of the Tour.


True...but didn't Lemond used to race more of the classics back in the
day than Armstrong does now?

Ah, Lemond! I was just talking to a friend of mine. We were both
little kids when Lemond was winning those Tours de France--he was like
"wow. I remember when Lemond won against that dude with the ponytail!
[Fignon]" He's not a cycling fan, usually, but it was a neat thing to
have remembered.

-Luigi
 
S

Sam

Guest
"Marty Wallace" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "Sam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> >
> > "Alex Rodriguez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]
> > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > > [email protected] says...
> > > >Hey,
> > > > Why does the US federal Government support a bike team in France? I
> > > >work hard for my money, and think the taxes I pay could be better
> > > >used. What a Boondoggle!
> > >
> > > Like any other company, you have to advertise to get more business.

> USPS
> > > wanted to get more customers in Europe to use their service, so they

> > sponser
> > > a bicycle racing team. For the money they spend, they get an

excellent
> > > return on investment. So they continued to do so until ignorant folks
> > > started to complain.
> > > -------------
> > > Alex
> > >

> >
> > I would like to see some proof that they are getting bang for their buck

> in
> > terms of promotion and advertising. I doubt they are.
> >
> >

>
> My God you're an idiot.
> The fastest rider and the fastest team in the biggest race in the world!
> And you want proof?
> If you don't think thats good promotion and advertising then you tell us
> what is.
>
> Marty
>
>


Let me make this more clear: Is the promotion paying off in terms of
increased market share?
 
S

Sam

Guest
Chrysler received a guarantee on the loan, not direct money. Also, Chrysler
was building tank parts at the time. That said, I think it was not a good
idea and neither was bailing out the airlines following 9/11 or paying death
benefits to people killed in those attacks. Of course, I find about 3/4 of
federal spending to be wrong.


"Appkiller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> ( :< )
>
> > Talk about
> > a boondoggle. Since when is it the responsibility of any government
> > to 'bail out' a corporation (Chrysler) or a city (New York)?
> >
> > Mike

>
> ( :< )
>
> Consider this Mike:
>
> What would happen if the NYC gov't or Chrysler collapsed? Certainly
> more economically painful (short term)than propping them up. Whether
> or not we are interfering with governmental and corporate "natural
> selection", that is another discussion. Look at the short-term
> political consequences for those who chose to let the natural course
> of things occur. In the case of NYC, you are talking the shutdown of
> the world's largest financial center. Not good at all for anyone
> making THAT decision, in addition to a global shift in economic power.
> In the case of Chrysler, tens, if not hundreds of thousands of
> workers suddenly and painfully glutting the job market. They will
> drive down wages, eat up resources (unemployment insurance payments)
> without contributing and the cost of re-education/re-training that
> many workers? Yikes!
>
> Not necessarily advocating corporate and municipal welfare, but if
> changes can be enforced as a condition of assistance, is that not
> better than the alternative?
>
> App, who believes in the social benefit of paying his property taxes
> that fund schools despite his lack of children.
 
B

Benjamin Weiner

Guest
David Reuteler <[email protected]> wrote:
> In rec.bicycles.misc Leo Lichtman <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "DRS" wrote:
> > Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
> > THIS REMARK: How could anyone be impressed by beating a bunch of
> > cheese-eating surrender monkeys?

>
> ohh, i dunno, i kinda like wisconsin. they've got some beautiful rural
> riding behind the cheddar curtain, they're mostly nice folk & their 2am
> bar close & sunday sales kept us minnesotans in after hours liquor for
> years until we finally came to our senses (so to speak).


> On Wisconsin say i.


If they weren't such a bunch of cheese eating surrenderers
they never would have had to hand over the UP to Michigan
after the Great Michigan-Wisconsin War of 1928.

Hmm, on second thought, maybe the Wisconsinners knew what
they were up to.
 
B

Bob Schwartz

Guest
In rec.bicycles.racing Benjamin Weiner <[email protected]> wrote:
> If they weren't such a bunch of cheese eating surrenderers
> they never would have had to hand over the UP to Michigan
> after the Great Michigan-Wisconsin War of 1928.


> Hmm, on second thought, maybe the Wisconsinners knew what
> they were up to.


The original plan for Wisconsin included both the UP of
Michigan and northern Illinois north of the southern tip
of Lake Michigan. Chicago and northern Illinios is a
grim place to ride a bike so we've never complained
about the boundary moving north.

The UP was a swap for Toledo. Michigan was in a dispute
with Ohio for the western tip of Lake Erie. Ohio got
to keep Toledo and in return Michigan got the UP. Since
Wisconsin was not yet a state we were screwed by the
Feds. Ain't that always how it works.

Bob Schwartz
[email protected]
 
S

Steven L. Sheffield

Guest
On 07/08/2004 06:11 AM, in article
[email protected], "Sam"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> But USPS does not pay taxes on the building or land it owns as does FedEx
> and UPS which is a big business advantage. Even with the monopoly it has,
> it cannot make money. Some people should be fired and the postal carriers
> union is part of the blame.
>
> Can anyone show proof that sponsoring a bike team increased their market
> share?




I'm living proof.

Before 1996, I did almost all of my shipping via UPS, either from work or at
a Mailboxes, Etc. type place.

Since USPS started sponsoring a team, I do the vast majority of my shipping
via USPS Priority Mail ... The only exceptions have been large-size packages
(like frames and/or wheels), for which I use Fed-Ex Ground.

I also drive a Saturn, and my next car is likely to be a Suburu. I use a
Verizon Wireless cell phone (Verizon sponsors a women's team). I buy
Colavita olive oil. I retiled my bathroom with Mapei adhesives.

In other words, I support the companies that support my sport.


--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
veloworks at worldnet dot ay tea tee dot net
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea aye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [four word] slash
 
M

MrBob

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
"Joseph Hurley" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Other point -- the US Postal Service receives NOT ONE RED CENT of tax
> dollars. It fully supports itself via the sale of postage stamps and other
> shipping services. It is a corporation, albeit one owned by the US
> Government, but does not receive tax money to support its operations --
> those are purely financed by its revenues from the sale of stamps and other
> delivery fees.


Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarf.

While it's been a while since the federal govt. has had to bail out the
USPS, USPS also PAYS NO TAXES. No corporate tax. No property tax. Etc...
In addition to being granted a monopoly on mail delivery in the US, USPS
receives an implicit subsidy of billions of dollars per year.

While there are a number of wonderful and dedicated individuals who work
for the USPS, as an organization it is a bastion of inefficiency.

UPS (United Parcel Service) paid more in taxes last year alone than the
sum total of all 'profits' ever 'earned' by the USPS.

As far as return on investment for sponsoring the Postal team, the USPS
European profits increased by less than the amount spent on their
sponsorship. On the surface appears to be a poor investment, but as with
most all advertising, it's almost always impossible to determine the net
benefit. It may very well be the case that over time they'll recoup
their investment.

MrBob

_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
 
M

MrBob

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
"Joseph Hurley" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Other point -- the US Postal Service receives NOT ONE RED CENT of tax
> dollars. It fully supports itself via the sale of postage stamps and other
> shipping services. It is a corporation, albeit one owned by the US
> Government, but does not receive tax money to support its operations --
> those are purely financed by its revenues from the sale of stamps and other
> delivery fees.


Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarf.

While it's been a while since the federal govt. has had to bail out the
USPS, USPS also PAYS NO TAXES. No corporate tax. No property tax. Etc...
In addition to being granted a monopoly on mail delivery in the US, USPS
receives an implicit subsidy of billions of dollars per year.

While there are a number of wonderful and dedicated individuals who work
for the USPS, as an organization it is a bastion of inefficiency.

UPS (United Parcel Service) paid more in taxes last year alone than the
sum total of all 'profits' ever 'earned' by the USPS.

As far as return on investment for sponsoring the Postal team, the USPS
European profits increased by less than the amount spent on their
sponsorship. On the surface appears to be a poor investment, but as with
most all advertising, it's almost always impossible to determine the net
benefit. It may very well be the case that over time they'll recoup
their investment.

MrBob

_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
 
R

Richard Adams

Guest
Steven L. Sheffield wrote:

> On 07/08/2004 06:11 AM, in article
> [email protected], "Sam"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>But USPS does not pay taxes on the building or land it owns as does FedEx
>>and UPS which is a big business advantage. Even with the monopoly it has,
>>it cannot make money. Some people should be fired and the postal carriers
>>union is part of the blame.
>>
>>Can anyone show proof that sponsoring a bike team increased their market
>>share?

>
>
>
>
> I'm living proof.
>
> Before 1996, I did almost all of my shipping via UPS, either from work or at
> a Mailboxes, Etc. type place.
>
> Since USPS started sponsoring a team, I do the vast majority of my shipping
> via USPS Priority Mail ... The only exceptions have been large-size packages
> (like frames and/or wheels), for which I use Fed-Ex Ground.
>
> I also drive a Saturn, and my next car is likely to be a Suburu. I use a
> Verizon Wireless cell phone (Verizon sponsors a women's team). I buy
> Colavita olive oil. I retiled my bathroom with Mapei adhesives.
>
> In other words, I support the companies that support my sport.
>
>


I prefer shipping by USPS. UPS means finding a place nearby to send
from and if I'm receiving it's a major pain to get stuff. I had two
bikes sent UPS and had to take off time from work to pick them up a the
UPS distribution center. How'd you like a $$$$ bike sitting in a box on
your doorstep when you get home?
 
D

DRS

Guest
"garmonboezia" <[email protected]'lyeh.arg> wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s53
> "DRS" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> How could anyone be impressed by beating a bunch of cheese-eating
>> surrender monkeys? :)

>
> http://www.exile.ru/175/175052003.html


The author of that page is very nearly as ignorant as those he pillories,
but that's an argument I'm not going to get into in this forum. In any
case, my comment was not about the French, it was about certain "less
intellectual Americans".

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
 
D

DRS

Guest
"David Kerber" <[email protected]_ids.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]

[...]

> I don't even know if there are any French in the race; the top
> competition is Spanish, Italian, German and American, with a few
> Aussies, Dutch, and Russians thrown into the mix.


Today's tour leader: Thomas Voeckler (Fra).

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
 
D

David Kerber

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> "David Kerber" <[email protected]_ids.net> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>
> [...]
>
> > I don't even know if there are any French in the race; the top
> > competition is Spanish, Italian, German and American, with a few
> > Aussies, Dutch, and Russians thrown into the mix.

>
> Today's tour leader: Thomas Voeckler (Fra).


Yeah, I discovered that soon after I posted the above message. I was
hoping nobody would notice that I'm an idiot, but my hopes were quickly
dashed <GRIN>.


--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).
 
T

Tim McNamara

Guest
Luigi de Guzman <[email protected]> writes:

> On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 17:07:45 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Of course, for the entire field to have to compete against Miguel
>>Indurain and then Lance Armstrong is also an issue, these guys have
>>been unusually dominant. I think in part that's due to having been
>>very specialized to compete in the Tour primarily, as the Tour
>>continues to outweigh the entire rest of the racing calendar in
>>importance. From 1986 to 2003, there were, what, 13 Tours won by
>>three racers (Lemond, Indurain, Armstrong) and a scattering of tours
>>won by Roche, Delgado, Pantani, Ullrich, Riis. If we start from
>>1990, there's been only 5 winners of the Tour.

>
> True...but didn't Lemond used to race more of the classics back in
> the day than Armstrong does now?


He did up until the gun shot wound and then after that had to narrow
his focus. He also did more races than Armstrong does; Armstrong
tends to do highly focused training rides rather than races, and
pretty much stops racing after the Tour. Lemond raced both the Spring
and Fall Classics campaigns, even when he wasn't in shape to be
competitive.

From the beginning of his career, though, Lemond excelled in stage
races- 3rd overall in the Tour de Tarn and 4th overall in the
Dauphine-Libere as a neo-pro in 1981, for example. He won the Tour de
l'Avenir in 1982 with 3 stage wins, 2nd overall in the Tour de
Mediteraneen, 3rd overall in Tirreno-Adriatico. 1983 was his
breakthrough year with the World Road Championship, overall in the
Dauphine-Libere, 4th overall in Tour de Suisse, 2nd in Grand Prix des
Nations, 4th in Blois-Chauville (Paris-Tours in reverse, IIRC) and 2nd
inthe Tour of Lombardy. At that point it looked like he could be at
the top in just about any type of race.

After he was shot on April 20th, 1987, Lemond's career changed. He
was out almost all of 1987 and much of 1988. 1989 was a good year-
winning the Tour de France and 3 stages, the World Road Champs- but
there is a drop-off in the quality of his other placings in major
races. He did manage a couple of top-10 placings in Paris-Roubaix (I
think taking 4th the first year that Duclos-LaSalle won), but in
general he was not at the top except in the Tour in 1990 and the
World's that year (4th). This trend continued, with his last victory
being in 1992 at the Tour DuPont. He retired in 1994 after spending
much of the year as a back marker when he did race. ISTR that he
dropped out of the Tour and did not in fact race again after that.

Armstrong, of course, was seen as a Classics rider in his early career
pre-cancer. He won several one-day races, the Worlds in 1993, Flech
Wallone in 1996 (?) and a couple of TdF stages- one dramatic one in
the wake of the death of Fabio Casartelli in 1995 (IIRC). Lance was a
hothead and a very emotional rider, but inconsistent. Armstrong's
body was too massive from his years of swimming and triathlon to be
competitive in the high mountains, though. He lost much of that mass
(something like 10 kg) during his episode with metastatic cancer, and
on his return to racing seemed to have lost something of his sprint
but gained in climbing, time trialling and perhaps most importantly in
emotional control and maturity.

Personally, I think Armstrong is a little too calculating. His
single-minded focus on the Tour de France is detrimental to the sport,
in my opinion, and he is not alone in that focus. The importance of
the Tour is highly over-rated (also IMHO) and this too is detrimental
to the sport as a whole. It creates two classes of riders, the Tour
contenders and everyone else. But perhaps the days of a Merckx, a
Hinault- riders able to win any race anywhere- are gone for reasons
beyond simply the racers. (Of course, this is all written as an
American; in the mainstream media, there is no coverage of
professional bicycle racing other than the Tour de France. And
without Lance Armstrong or some other charismatic American, there
wouldn't even be that).
 
K

K. J. Papai

Guest
(Bottom Posted)

Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Luigi de Guzman <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 17:07:45 -0500, Tim McNamara
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>Of course, for the entire field to have to compete against Miguel
> >>Indurain and then Lance Armstrong is also an issue, these guys have
> >>been unusually dominant. I think in part that's due to having been
> >>very specialized to compete in the Tour primarily, as the Tour
> >>continues to outweigh the entire rest of the racing calendar in
> >>importance. From 1986 to 2003, there were, what, 13 Tours won by
> >>three racers (Lemond, Indurain, Armstrong) and a scattering of tours
> >>won by Roche, Delgado, Pantani, Ullrich, Riis. If we start from
> >>1990, there's been only 5 winners of the Tour.

> >
> > True...but didn't Lemond used to race more of the classics back in
> > the day than Armstrong does now?

>
> He did up until the gun shot wound and then after that had to narrow
> his focus. He also did more races than Armstrong does; Armstrong
> tends to do highly focused training rides rather than races, and
> pretty much stops racing after the Tour. Lemond raced both the Spring
> and Fall Classics campaigns, even when he wasn't in shape to be
> competitive.
>
> From the beginning of his career, though, Lemond excelled in stage
> races- 3rd overall in the Tour de Tarn and 4th overall in the
> Dauphine-Libere as a neo-pro in 1981, for example. He won the Tour de
> l'Avenir in 1982 with 3 stage wins, 2nd overall in the Tour de
> Mediteraneen, 3rd overall in Tirreno-Adriatico. 1983 was his
> breakthrough year with the World Road Championship, overall in the
> Dauphine-Libere, 4th overall in Tour de Suisse, 2nd in Grand Prix des
> Nations, 4th in Blois-Chauville (Paris-Tours in reverse, IIRC) and 2nd
> inthe Tour of Lombardy. At that point it looked like he could be at
> the top in just about any type of race.
>
> After he was shot on April 20th, 1987, Lemond's career changed. He
> was out almost all of 1987 and much of 1988. 1989 was a good year-
> winning the Tour de France and 3 stages, the World Road Champs- but
> there is a drop-off in the quality of his other placings in major
> races. He did manage a couple of top-10 placings in Paris-Roubaix (I
> think taking 4th the first year that Duclos-LaSalle won), but in
> general he was not at the top except in the Tour in 1990 and the
> World's that year (4th). This trend continued, with his last victory
> being in 1992 at the Tour DuPont. He retired in 1994 after spending
> much of the year as a back marker when he did race. ISTR that he
> dropped out of the Tour and did not in fact race again after that.
>
> Armstrong, of course, was seen as a Classics rider in his early career
> pre-cancer. He won several one-day races, the Worlds in 1993, Flech
> Wallone in 1996 (?) and a couple of TdF stages- one dramatic one in
> the wake of the death of Fabio Casartelli in 1995 (IIRC). Lance was a
> hothead and a very emotional rider, but inconsistent. Armstrong's
> body was too massive from his years of swimming and triathlon to be
> competitive in the high mountains, though. He lost much of that mass
> (something like 10 kg) during his episode with metastatic cancer, and
> on his return to racing seemed to have lost something of his sprint
> but gained in climbing, time trialling and perhaps most importantly in
> emotional control and maturity.
>
> Personally, I think Armstrong is a little too calculating. His
> single-minded focus on the Tour de France is detrimental to the sport,
> in my opinion, and he is not alone in that focus. The importance of
> the Tour is highly over-rated (also IMHO) and this too is detrimental
> to the sport as a whole. It creates two classes of riders, the Tour
> contenders and everyone else. But perhaps the days of a Merckx, a
> Hinault- riders able to win any race anywhere- are gone for reasons
> beyond simply the racers. (Of course, this is all written as an
> American; in the mainstream media, there is no coverage of
> professional bicycle racing other than the Tour de France. And
> without Lance Armstrong or some other charismatic American, there
> wouldn't even be that).


Well written Tim but I have to add my own cheap two cents.

Pro Racing in 2004 is not Pro Racing in 1994 or 1984.

Money influences so many decisions. Not Lance as you say.
Money sways top talent and GOOD for them who get it.
Sponsors want certain results and find the guys who can
deliver them.

2004 is more competitive thann 1994 and WAY MORE than 1984.

There are more Classics Specialists than there are Tour Specialists
these days.

The top 300 Pro Racers in the world is a Deep Pool of talent,
far deeper than the top 300 of ten or twenty years ago.

Of course my racing opinions are usually ****!
But I do believe them.

-Ken
 
Z

Zippy the Pinhead

Guest
On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 17:07:45 -0500, Tim McNamara
<[email protected]> wrote:

>there's already a French stage winner and Maillot Jaune.


I loved the expression on the interviewer's face when someone
pronounced that "Mellow Johnny".

Almost as funny as Bob Roll's "Two-er DAY Fraaaaance".
 
Z

Zippy the Pinhead

Guest
On 8 Jul 2004 17:57:47 -0700, Benjamin Weiner <[email protected]>
wrote:

>If they weren't such a bunch of cheese eating surrenderers
>they never would have had to hand over the UP to Michigan
>after the Great Michigan-Wisconsin War of 1928.
>
>Hmm, on second thought, maybe the Wisconsinners knew what
>they were up to.


Yaah, hey?
 

Similar threads