Results of a poll about Trump....
Gunner Asch
Just Me
critical thinking ability of the US.
On Apr 11, 2:37 am, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.newsmax.com/surveys/results/id/11?PROMO_CODE=BEEE-1
deepdudu
wrote:
>http://www.newsmax.com/surveys/results/id/11?PROMO_CODE=BEEE-1
>
>
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!
shit, must be nice be totally out of touch with reality like you
nutters...
by all means, nominate Trump/Palin 2012!
oh, yea, one more thing:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!
Gunner Asch
<mutantm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Just goes to show you the appalling decline in intelligence and
>critical thinking ability of the US.
Actually...we realized that when they elected Obama into office.
Shrug
Gunner
deepdudu
wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 07:29:36 -0700 (PDT), Just Me
><mutantm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Just goes to show you the appalling decline in intelligence and
>>critical thinking ability of the US.
>
>Actually...we realized that when they elected Obama into office.
And ever since then you've been exploiting a public health care system
you are obsessed about denying to others.
go figure....
dav19...@is.invalid
wrote:
>http://www.newsmax.com/surveys/results/id/11?PROMO_CODE=BEEE-1
>
I noticed Ron Paul was NOT included in the question about who one
would vote for in a Repub primary for Prez.
Ron Paul: THE guy that is gunning to audit the Fed and get rid of it.
The only hope left for this nation is getting rid of the Fed.
Dave
Randy333
wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:42:49 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 07:29:36 -0700 (PDT), Just Me
>><mutantm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Just goes to show you the appalling decline in intelligence and
>>>critical thinking ability of the US.
>>
>>Actually...we realized that when they elected Obama into office.
>>
>>Shrug
>>
>>Gunner
>
>Is that why you are complaining about gas prices when they haven't yet
>reached their highest levels that were attained when Bush was
>president? Back then, you said that gas wasn't that expensive in
>California. Yet, it has not yet passed its previous high.
>
I'm just glad Obama has the whole gas price thing totally under
control. It's good thing he cracked down on those wall street
speculators that drive up the price of oil at the slightest thing.
Frank
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:42:49 -0700, Gunner Asch<gunne...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> <mutantm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Just goes to show you the appalling decline in intelligence and
>>> critical thinking ability of the US.
>>
>> Actually...we realized that when they elected Obama into office.
>>
>> Shrug
>>
>> Gunner
>
> reached their highest levels that were attained when Bush was
> president? Back then, you said that gas wasn't that expensive in
> California. Yet, it has not yet passed its previous high.
>
> posting all night and then getting up early to waste some more time on
> the Net. Get a job gunner. Get a job.
Bush halved the price of gas by opening offshore drilling.
Do you seriously think Obama will do something similar?
The whole thing is speculation and devalued currency.
Has nothing to do with current supply.
Unfortunately you have an administration that does not understand
economics.
ATP
"Gunner Asch" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ssi5q6lj5ctbk80ps...@4ax.com...
> http://www.newsmax.com/surveys/results/id/11?PROMO_CODE=BEEE-1
>
>
>
Trump is a bit of a clown, he may be delighting birthers with his recent
remarks, but he's really not a conservative. Also google his company's
bankruptcies and decide if that's the management style we need more of in
Washington.
Ed Huntress
"ATP" <walter...@unforgiven.com> wrote in message
news:4da47bd9$0$23206$607e...@cv.net...
To those of us who live in the NYC area, he's our favorite con man and
self-promoter. You can tell when he's trying to con you -- his lips are
moving.
He's been such a joke around here for so long that it's really funny to see
people in other parts of the country appear to take him seriously.
--
Ed Huntress
Too_Many_Tools
> http://www.newsmax.com/surveys/results/id/11?PROMO_CODE=BEEE-1
Once again we see Gummer busy posting instead of working to pay off
his numerous creditors.
Pity him if you want, I know that he is just a useless parasitical
eater.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
>
> - Show quoted text -
As shown by who posted it...Gummer..
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 07:29:36 -0700 (PDT), Just Me
>
> >Just goes to show you the appalling decline in intelligence and
> >critical thinking ability of the US.
>
>
> Shrug, puke, FART!!
>
> - Show quoted text -
The spokesman for the Conservative Right has spoken.
Has Trump chosen you for your political smarts or did he need another
person to fire?
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:42:49 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 07:29:36 -0700 (PDT), Just Me
> ><mutantmachin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>Just goes to show you the appalling decline in intelligence and
> >>critical thinking ability of the US.
>
> >Actually...we realized that when they elected Obama into office.
>
> >Shrug
>
> >Gunner
>
> reached their highest levels that were attained when Bush was
> president? Back then, you said that gas wasn't that expensive in
> California. Yet, it has not yet passed its previous high.
>
> Yeah, that's a sure sign of your mental stability. Along with you
> posting all night and then getting up early to waste some more time on
> the Net. Get a job gunner. Get a job.
Pay your creditors Gummer Pay your creditors.
It will reduce the national debt...a conservative goal right?
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:42:49 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 07:29:36 -0700 (PDT), Just Me
> ><mutantmachin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>Just goes to show you the appalling decline in intelligence and
> >>critical thinking ability of the US.
>
> >Actually...we realized that when they elected Obama into office.
>
> And ever since then you've been exploiting a public health care system
> you are obsessed about denying to others.
>
> go figure....
A conservative parasite does that...and we have a number of them
posting here on Usenet.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 02:37:20 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >http://www.newsmax.com/surveys/results/id/11?PROMO_CODE=BEEE-1
>
> I noticed Ron Paul was NOT included in the question about who one
> would vote for in a Repub primary for Prez.
>
> Ron Paul: THE guy that is gunning to audit the Fed and get rid of it.
> The only hope left for this nation is getting rid of the Fed.
> Dave
LOL...that is called preweighting the poll before you hold it.
And of course you only poll registered Republicans.
Of course you need to show they how to draw an X but one must earn the
money.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 12:01:12 -0400, Deucalion <some...@nowhere.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:42:49 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >>On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 07:29:36 -0700 (PDT), Just Me
> >><mutantmachin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Just goes to show you the appalling decline in intelligence and
> >>>critical thinking ability of the US.
>
> >>Actually...we realized that when they elected Obama into office.
>
> >>Shrug
>
> >>Gunner
>
> >Is that why you are complaining about gas prices when they haven't yet
> >reached their highest levels that were attained when Bush was
> >president? Back then, you said that gas wasn't that expensive in
> >California. Yet, it has not yet passed its previous high.
>
> I'm just glad Obama has the whole gas price thing totally under
> control. It's good thing he cracked down on those wall street
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why do you think the Obama owes you cheap gas?
You can eat at the local Republican owned McDonalds and get that.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> On 4/11/2011 12:01 PM, Deucalion wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 07:29:36 -0700 (PDT), Just Me
>
> >>> Just goes to show you the appalling decline in intelligence and
> >>> critical thinking ability of the US.
>
> >> Actually...we realized that when they elected Obama into office.
>
> >> Shrug
>
> >> Gunner
>
> > Is that why you are complaining about gas prices when they haven't yet
> > reached their highest levels that were attained when Bush was
> > president? Back then, you said that gas wasn't that expensive in
> > California. Yet, it has not yet passed its previous high.
>
> > Yeah, that's a sure sign of your mental stability. Along with you
> > posting all night and then getting up early to waste some more time on
> > the Net. Get a job gunner. Get a job.
>
> Bush halved the price of gas by opening offshore drilling.
> Do you seriously think Obama will do something similar?
> The whole thing is speculation and devalued currency.
> Has nothing to do with current supply.
> Unfortunately you have an administration that does not understand
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mind providing a credible cite for that?
Anything with Faux News doesn't qualify?
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 08:41:27 -0400, Randy333 <rbraun...@enter.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 12:01:12 -0400, Deucalion <some...@nowhere.net>
> >wrote:
>
> >>On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:42:49 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com>
> >>wrote:
>
> >>>On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 07:29:36 -0700 (PDT), Just Me
> >>><mutantmachin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>Just goes to show you the appalling decline in intelligence and
> >>>>critical thinking ability of the US.
>
> >>>Actually...we realized that when they elected Obama into office.
>
> >>>Shrug
>
> >>>Gunner
>
> >>Is that why you are complaining about gas prices when they haven't yet
> >>reached their highest levels that were attained when Bush was
> >>president? Back then, you said that gas wasn't that expensive in
> >>California. Yet, it has not yet passed its previous high.
>
> >I'm just glad Obama has the whole gas price thing totally under
> >control. It's good thing he cracked down on those wall street
> >speculators that drive up the price of oil at the slightest thing.
>
> you?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
LOL...conservatives only believe in it when the invisible hand is
putting money in their wallet.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> "Gunner Asch" <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Trump is pumping his ratings up on his shows.
And he is playing to the same low IQ audience that watches his
circuses.
TMT
Gunner Asch
wrote:
Oh hell yes. Indeed.
When Bush was president, gas once went up to $4.25 a Gallon!
Now under the blessed Obamassiah..he has managed to keep it below $5 a
gallon in most places!!!!
Isnt he great!!
Gunner
Gunner Asch
wrote:
But..some of his investments went tits up..but not all. He is a VERY
good busnessman. And manages to recover each and every time.
Frankly..I dont care if he is a conservative or not. What the nation
needs..badly..very badly..is a good businessman and survivor.
Gunner
--
"If I say two plus two is four and a Democrat says two plus two is eight,
it's not a partial victory for me when we agree that two plus two is
six. " Jonah Goldberg (modified)
CaveLamb
Take Trump seriously?
LOL!
Good one, Ed!
--
Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~capri26
Ed Huntress
"CaveLamb" <cave...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:gJqdnRQnt-3sLTnQ...@earthlink.com...
Take a look at today's CNN poll. He's tied with Huckabee for first place,
for the Republican nomination.
Democrats are cheering. <g>
--
Ed Huntress
John R. Carroll
The London Bookies have The Donald as a 25:1 long shot, Ed.
--
John R. Carroll
jim
Gunner Asch wrote:
>
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 12:20:26 -0400, "ATP" <walter...@unforgiven.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Gunner Asch" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:ssi5q6lj5ctbk80ps...@4ax.com...
> >> http://www.newsmax.com/surveys/results/id/11?PROMO_CODE=BEEE-1
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >Trump is a bit of a clown, he may be delighting birthers with his recent
> >remarks, but he's really not a conservative. Also google his company's
> >bankruptcies and decide if that's the management style we need more of in
> >Washington.
> >
> But..some of his investments went tits up..but not all. He is a VERY
> good busnessman. And manages to recover each and every time.
>
> Frankly..I dont care if he is a conservative or not. What the nation
> needs..badly..very badly..is a good businessman and survivor.
There is pretty good money in comedy. Satire is especially big nowadays.
But nobody is going to pay for it if you give it away for free.
Ed Huntress
"John R. Carroll" <nunyab...@dev.null> wrote in message
news:m-6dncjBTtldXjnQ...@giganews.com...
For the nomination, or the presidency?
--
Ed Huntress
John R. Carroll
The nomination.
Palin is 8:1
Romney is 11:6
Pawlenty 10:4
That's from memory.
--
John R. Carroll
Ed Huntress
"John R. Carroll" <nunyab...@dev.null> wrote in message
I figure that The Donald has about two more months to go, promoting his
books and his TV shows, and his brand in general.
--
Ed Huntress
John R. Carroll
> his books and his TV shows, and his brand in general.
The actual candidates benefit from all of the kooks.
They get some breathing room.
I see the Palin birther thing is about to go another round.
That ought to be good for a couple of months.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/52841266/Prof-Brad-Scharlott-Palin-the-Press-and-the-Fake-Pregnancy-Rumor
--
John R. Carroll
Wes
>The nomination.
>Palin is 8:1
>Romney is 11:6
>Pawlenty 10:4
Was Haley Barbour anywhere in the running?
Wes
Too_Many_Tools
> "ATP" <walter_mun...@unforgiven.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4da47bd9$0$23206$607e...@cv.net...
>
>
>
> > "Gunner Asch" <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:ssi5q6lj5ctbk80ps...@4ax.com...
> >>http://www.newsmax.com/surveys/results/id/11?PROMO_CODE=BEEE-1
>
> > Trump is a bit of a clown, he may be delighting birthers with his recent
> > remarks, but he's really not a conservative. Also google his company's
> > bankruptcies and decide if that's the management style we need more of in
> > Washington.
>
> To those of us who live in the NYC area, he's our favorite con man and
> self-promoter. You can tell when he's trying to con you -- his lips are
> moving.
>
> He's been such a joke around here for so long that it's really funny to see
> people in other parts of the country appear to take him seriously.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
Remember that a sucker is born every minute...
TMT
John R. Carroll
Not that I recall.
In any event, he isn't electable, knows it, and won't be running.
He's said as much.
--
John R. Carroll
Larry Jaques
Crap, I don't see anyone there worth my vote.
I may write in Fred Thompson.
--
The United States of America is the greatest, the
noblest and, in its original founding principles,
the only moral country in the history of the world.
-- Ayn Rand
PrecisionmachinisT
"Frank" <frankperi...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:io1ihl$1e1$1...@dont-email.me...
> On 4/11/2011 12:01 PM, Deucalion wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:42:49 -0700, Gunner Asch<gunne...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 07:29:36 -0700 (PDT), Just Me
>>> <mutantm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just goes to show you the appalling decline in intelligence and
>>>> critical thinking ability of the US.
>>>
>>> Actually...we realized that when they elected Obama into office.
>>>
>>> Shrug
>>>
>>> Gunner
>>
>> Is that why you are complaining about gas prices when they haven't yet
>> reached their highest levels that were attained when Bush was
>> president? Back then, you said that gas wasn't that expensive in
>> California. Yet, it has not yet passed its previous high.
>>
>> posting all night and then getting up early to waste some more time on
>> the Net. Get a job gunner. Get a job.
>
> Bush halved the price of gas
Ummm ..
No, he did not.
Rather, during the Bush administration, the price of gasoline actually
doubled...
http://www.randomuseless.info/gasprice/gasprice.html
before finally taking a huge nosedive and leveling off at near to where it
had been at the start of his term...
> by opening offshore drilling.
Except, since the oil that is produced from US offshore sources is marketed
globally, what really happens here is it gets sold to the highest bidder,
just like the oil that's produced any other place in the world, and since
gulf sources only amount to appx 3% of total global supply--the reality is
that even if the US were to quadruple current extraction rates it would
hardly make a dent.
> Do you seriously think
Why, yes...
Do you ?
> Obama will do something similar?
Hopefully not.
> The whole thing is speculation and devalued currency.
Mostly speculation.
> Has nothing to do with current supply.
Then why in the fuck is it you seem to be advocating increasing the crude
oil supply via expanded offshore drilling ?
(Sorry, my dear--but you can't have it both ways)....
> Unfortunately you have an administration that does not understand
> economics.
I guess then that explains perfectly why the Dow has risen ~50% since the
Obama administration took over
And why the Dow was lower when Bush left office than it was 8 years earlier
when Clinton left.
--
Ed Huntress
"PrecisionmachinisT" <123mac...@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:PcCdnZbupvHuZDnQ...@scnresearch.com...
Please don't teach our resident finance and economics expert how to do
arithmetic, or how to check his facts. And PLEASE don't teach him to sing.
It's trying enough as it is.
--
Ed Huntress
PrecisionmachinisT
"Deucalion" <som...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:btn8q61kfbkjhmmcd...@4ax.com...
> Gas
> is following the economic recovery. Don't worry though, chances are
> good that the price of gas will go back down shortly.
>
At least one of the major brokerages appears to be in agreement..
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/goldmans-bearish-call-on-crude-2011-04-12?link=MW_story_firsttake
"This is the same firm that in 2008 said oil prices were headed for $200.
That was the year of the great commodities spike. Though the barrel never
reached $200, it cleared $147 that June. By then, you can bet a lot of the
big funds were laughing all the way to the bank, leaving latecomers with
long positions that quickly turned sour."
IMO
Don't walk away..
RUN if you've been speculating for ever higher oil prices because when the
bottom drops most likely it's going to be another freefall and those left
holding the bag will again be toast.
PrecisionmachinisT
> the world economic engine. Any recovery will produce a need for more
> energy making the price go up. The higher price will cause the
> budding economy to dwindle.
>
Perhaps right now, but the huge spike and subsequent fall that occured near
the end of Bush's term was caused purely by unbridled speculation and
greed..
--imagine if you will, a high stakes poker game where every player is acting
as though he has four aces and there's billions on the table but nobody
wants to call because the reality here is they are all bluffing because each
and every one of them actually has an exceptionally crappy hand.
http://awesomegamz.webs.com/dogs_playing.jpg
--
Tom Gardner
>>
> But..some of his investments went tits up..but not all. He is a
> VERY
> good busnessman. And manages to recover each and every time.
>
> Frankly..I dont care if he is a conservative or not. What the
> nation
> needs..badly..very badly..is a good businessman and survivor.
>
> Gunner
>
As goes American business, thus goes America. The current
administration is anti-business and some would say "Anti-American".
Or, is it that they just don't have a clue how business works?
Tom Gardner
"Larry Jaques" <lja...@invalid.diversify.com> wrote in message
news:60u9q6lhug41u46bj...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 19:29:28 -0400, Wes
> <ClutchAtL...@Gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"John R. Carroll" <nunyab...@dev.null> wrote:
>>
>>>The nomination.
>>>Palin is 8:1
>>>Romney is 11:6
>>>Pawlenty 10:4
>>
>>Was Haley Barbour anywhere in the running?
>
> Crap, I don't see anyone there worth my vote.
> I may write in Fred Thompson.
>
Or, his hot wife!
Too_Many_Tools
> "Gunner Asch" <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote in message
The stock market disagrees with you.
TMT
Groksplynk
carried on like an moronic 8 year old little bitch and bashed out this
crap on its keyboard:
> I want to fly like Superman!
...
--
A good raghead, is a dead raghead.
Groksplynk
carried on like an moronic 8 year old little bitch and bashed out this
crap on its keyboard:
> I have a sneaky suspicion everyone thinks I'm stupid.
No need to be sneaky about it, be outright loud and you'll be
absolutely correct.
Too_Many_Tools
moronic 8 year old little bitch and bashed out this crap on its
keyboard:
>
>
>
> --
> "Whoa...Why is it so dark when I have my head up my butt?"
LOL...shitted another nym I see.
Why do conservatives change their nyms so often?
Answer : Because when you don't know who your daddy is, you think
every dog that passes by is your father.
TMT
Hawke
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 08:41:27 -0400, Randy333<rbra...@enter.net>
>>
>>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:42:49 -0700, Gunner Asch<gunne...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 07:29:36 -0700 (PDT), Just Me
>>>> <mutantm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Just goes to show you the appalling decline in intelligence and
>>>>> critical thinking ability of the US.
>>>>
>>>> Actually...we realized that when they elected Obama into office.
>>>>
>>>> Shrug
>>>>
>>>> Gunner
>>>
>>> Is that why you are complaining about gas prices when they haven't yet
>>> reached their highest levels that were attained when Bush was
>>> president? Back then, you said that gas wasn't that expensive in
>>> California. Yet, it has not yet passed its previous high.
>>>
>>
>> control. It's good thing he cracked down on those wall street
>> speculators that drive up the price of oil at the slightest thing.
>
> you?
He must know that the guys on Wall Street have been applying pressure
through their henchmen, the republicans, to make sure that Obama can't
get the regulations put in place on speculators that he wants. The rich
guys are not allowing the new rules on reckless speculation to go into
effect. Maybe that's what they mean today by the invisible hand.
Hawke
Hawke
> On 4/11/2011 12:01 PM, Deucalion wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:42:49 -0700, Gunner Asch<gunne...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 07:29:36 -0700 (PDT), Just Me
>>> <mutantm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just goes to show you the appalling decline in intelligence and
>>>> critical thinking ability of the US.
>>>
>>> Actually...we realized that when they elected Obama into office.
>>>
>>> Shrug
>>>
>>> Gunner
>>
>> Is that why you are complaining about gas prices when they haven't yet
>> reached their highest levels that were attained when Bush was
>> president? Back then, you said that gas wasn't that expensive in
>> California. Yet, it has not yet passed its previous high.
>>
>> posting all night and then getting up early to waste some more time on
>> the Net. Get a job gunner. Get a job.
>
> Do you seriously think Obama will do something similar?
> The whole thing is speculation and devalued currency.
> economics.
Apparently you know nothing about the oil market. What happens when more
oil drilling is done in the gulf coast? The Saudis reduce production.
This causes prices to remain the same. Oil is oil no matter where you
drill it. It's all part of the world supply. Which happens to be in
excess right now. Oil is stockpiled in Oklahoma and is sitting there in
vast quantities. Drill offshore and get more supply and what happens?
Nothing. The prices are determined by the oil futures market not supply
or demand. Demand is down yet prices are up. All of this really should
tell you one thing. More drilling in the U.S. or offshore won't do a
damn thing to affect gasoline prices. But you would know that if you
understood the oil market. So why would you be criticizing others when
you're even more lacking in knowledge than those you criticized.
Hawke
Hawke
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:42:49 -0700, Gunner Asch<gunne...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 07:29:36 -0700 (PDT), Just Me
>> <mutantm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Just goes to show you the appalling decline in intelligence and
>>> critical thinking ability of the US.
>>
>> Actually...we realized that when they elected Obama into office.
>
> you are obsessed about denying to others.
>
> go figure....
>
Shit, that's an easy one. He's a conservative, which means they say one
thing and do the opposite. They're all for family values and morality
until they don't feel like paying attention to them. Goober was all for
everyone paying their own way. Right up until he couldn't do that for
himself. You'll notice that he still thinks that. It's just that his
principles don't really mean anything.
Hawke
Hawke
All the republican candidates might as well say the same thing. None of
them has a chance of being elected. Presidential elections all come down
to popularity contests and this group of republican contenders is the
worst I've ever seen in my life. Not a one of them has anything to
recommend them. This election is already over. It's Obama for four more
years. The country breathes a sigh of relief.
Hawke
Hawke
And as usual you are seeing that business does better when Democrats are
in power. Just look how lousy business did under Bush's handling. It's
doing great now. Profits have been soaring for more than a year. By the
way, jobs have been growing for 14 straight months too. That's the good
news. The bad news; pay for workers has gone up 2% in the last year, but
it's gone up 27% for CEOs. That's just the way republicans want it.
Hawke
John R. Carroll
> On 4/12/2011 5:08 PM, John R. Carroll wrote:
>> Wes wrote:
>>> "John R. Carroll"<nunyab...@dev.null> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The nomination.
>>>> Palin is 8:1
>>>> Romney is 11:6
>>>> Pawlenty 10:4
>>>
>>> Was Haley Barbour anywhere in the running?
>>
>> Not that I recall.
>> In any event, he isn't electable, knows it, and won't be running.
>> He's said as much.
>>
>
>
> All the republican candidates might as well say the same thing.
It's Mitt's turn.
That's all there is to it. That's the way the Republican Party works.
Mushmouth Barber is too well set to want to do more than make money. He'll
only get into the primary contest if there is money on the other side.
He doesn't want to be the President of the United States.
Pawlenty might or might not have what it takes but he's a wet noodle and
from the State that brought America Michelle Bachmann.
Michelle Bachmann is just a dumbass attorney with a career at the IRS to get
hit over the head with.
Sarah Palin's "Mean Girl" schtick is dead. She's also just dim but the buzz
is she's interested in taking Beck's slot.
She and Jesus Junior Huckabee are going to wrastle for it.
Daniel's lacks the necessary fire in the belly.
Huntsman is a real cpossible ontender but I think he'll decide that
Presidential politics is muddier that he can stomach.
Mike Huckabee is just a goof. He couldn't get the nomination let alone win
in the general.
God Botherer's United won't field a candidate this time around. Voters will
be sick of having Jesus in politics by November of 2012.
Alan Keyes is always in the race for something.
--
John R. Carroll
Hawke
Going through that bunch is really something, isn't it? Every one of
them is no good. I've never seen the pickings this slim before. They all
suck. That ought to make it interesting. Holding an election where one
side has no candidate. They may as well just hold an effigy of Reagan
and say he's their candidate. After all, a puppet for the top 1% is all
the republicans stand for anyway so they might as well use one to carry
their class war banner.
Hawke
John R. Carroll
That's essentially what happened in 2008.
>They may as well just hold an effigy
> of Reagan and say he's their candidate. After all, a puppet for the
> top 1% is all the republicans stand for anyway so they might as well
> use one to carry their class war banner.
Well, there is always Newt but I don't think he really wants to be
President.
He and Mitt would be entertaining as they cut each other to pieces, however.
You'd want to have a rapid infusor handy all the time<G>
The press would have fun trying to figure out who the future ex Mrs. Newt
was going to be.
He always seems to have had his next wife in waiting. Test driving her as he
prepares to dump whoever has the Gingerich name tag on at the time.
--
John R. Carroll
Too_Many_Tools
> On 4/12/2011 7:23 AM, Deucalion wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 12:01:12 -0400, Deucalion<some...@nowhere.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:42:49 -0700, Gunner Asch<gunnera...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 07:29:36 -0700 (PDT), Just Me
>
> >>>>> Just goes to show you the appalling decline in intelligence and
> >>>>> critical thinking ability of the US.
>
> >>>> Actually...we realized that when they elected Obama into office.
>
> >>>> Shrug
>
> >>>> Gunner
>
> >>> Is that why you are complaining about gas prices when they haven't yet
> >>> reached their highest levels that were attained when Bush was
> >>> president? Back then, you said that gas wasn't that expensive in
> >>> California. Yet, it has not yet passed its previous high.
>
> >> I'm just glad Obama has the whole gas price thing totally under
> >> control. It's good thing he cracked down on those wall street
> >> speculators that drive up the price of oil at the slightest thing.
>
> > Not much of a believer in the invisible hand of the free market are
> > you?
>
> He must know that the guys on Wall Street have been applying pressure
> through their henchmen, the republicans, to make sure that Obama can't
> get the regulations put in place on speculators that he wants. The rich
> guys are not allowing the new rules on reckless speculation to go into
> effect. Maybe that's what they mean today by the invisible hand.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I would agree.
I expect the push for new regs in his second term.
The first term has been administering life support to the economy and
putting out the biggest spending threat...health care.
TMT.
Too_Many_Tools
> On 4/13/2011 1:38 PM, John R. Carroll wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hawke wrote:
> >> On 4/12/2011 5:08 PM, John R. Carroll wrote:
> >>> Wes wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Be careful what you say...I would not put it pass the Republicans to
go dig up Reagan and run him for President.
TMT
rangerssuck
> On 4/12/2011 6:02 AM, Frank wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 4/11/2011 12:01 PM, Deucalion wrote:
A month or so ago, when things were heating up in the mideast and oil
was rapidly climbing in price, Obama contemplated (out loud) opening
the Strategic Petrolem Reserve. The NEXT DAY, OPEC announced that it
was raising its production level, and the price more-or-less
stabilized.
This supply and demand myth is complete bullshit.
.
> On Apr 13, 3:53 pm, Hawke<davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>> On 4/12/2011 6:02 AM, Frank wrote:
snip
>
> A month or so ago, when things were heating up in the mideast and oil
> was rapidly climbing in price, Obama contemplated (out loud) opening
> the Strategic Petrolem Reserve. The NEXT DAY, OPEC announced that it
> was raising its production level, and the price more-or-less
> stabilized.
>
> This supply and demand myth is complete bullshit.
Oh really? did you also notice that the consumption of gasoline has
dropped dramatically since the price has risen? Is that also a myth?
CaveLamb
Hasn't happened here.
It just costs a lot more now...
--
Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~capri26
Ed Huntress
"." <zo...@sarag89.org> wrote in message news:io8995$vqg$1...@dont-email.me...
It's dropped around 1.9% for the year, according to MasterCard Advisors,
which is the gold standard for weekly price and consumption levels. That's
not exactly "dramatic."
However, there is some consumption sensitivity to price. The other way
around, though, doesn't work. Price is not very sensitive to consumption.
It's the result of political situations, the OPEC cartel, financial
speculation, and other supply manipulations.
If price was truly sensitive to consumption, price would be dropping right
now. So the standard supply and demand model, for gasoline, is about 1/2
myth.
--
Ed Huntress
.
actually, I think you would call it price inelasticity
CaveLamb
>
>> Oh really? did you also notice that the consumption of gasoline has
>> dropped dramatically since the price has risen? Is that also a myth?
>
> It's dropped around 1.9% for the year, according to MasterCard Advisors,
> which is the gold standard for weekly price and consumption levels. That's
> not exactly "dramatic."
>
> However, there is some consumption sensitivity to price. The other way
> around, though, doesn't work. Price is not very sensitive to consumption.
> It's the result of political situations, the OPEC cartel, financial
> speculation, and other supply manipulations.
>
> If price was truly sensitive to consumption, price would be dropping right
> now. So the standard supply and demand model, for gasoline, is about 1/2
> myth.
>
My micro-economics prof said gas prices were inelastic up to $1.65/gal (1996?)
and turned elastic above that.
But I suspect that was then, not now?
Too_Many_Tools
>
> - Show quoted text -
Agreed.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> "." <z...@sarag89.org> wrote in messagenews:io8995$vqg$1...@dont-email.me...
Gunner Asch
<123mac...@notmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Bush halved the price of gas
>
>Ummm ..
>
>No, he did not.
>
>Rather, during the Bush administration, the price of gasoline actually
>doubled...
>
>http://www.randomuseless.info/gasprice/gasprice.html
>
>before finally taking a huge nosedive and leveling off at near to where it
>had been at the start of his term...
So when is the Obamassiah going to send it into a huge nosedive and
level it off where it had been at the start of his term?
Hummmmm???
Or are you forgetting he is on record saying he would be happy as a
clam with gas at $5 a gallon?
>
>> by opening offshore drilling.
Gunner Asch
wrote:
>. wrote:
>> On 4/14/2011 7:50 AM, rangerssuck wrote:
>>> On Apr 13, 3:53 pm, Hawke<davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>>>> On 4/12/2011 6:02 AM, Frank wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>>
>>> A month or so ago, when things were heating up in the mideast and oil
>>> was rapidly climbing in price, Obama contemplated (out loud) opening
>>> the Strategic Petrolem Reserve. The NEXT DAY, OPEC announced that it
>>> was raising its production level, and the price more-or-less
>>> stabilized.
>>>
>>> This supply and demand myth is complete bullshit.
>>
>>
>> Oh really? did you also notice that the consumption of gasoline has
>> dropped dramatically since the price has risen? Is that also a myth?
>
>
>Hasn't happened here.
>It just costs a lot more now...
Its happened just about everywhere.
And notice the uemployment rate just went back Up again?
Gunner
CaveLamb
hasn't happened here!
Gunner Asch
wrote:
You live in Texas. There are 49 other states.
Just a heads up,,,,,,
Gunner
rangerssuck
The point I was making is that OPEC announced their intention to
increase production the day after Obama spoke about opening the
reserve. What that says to me is that there is not, nor has there ever
been, any shortage, other than one caused by OPEC manipulating the
market.
How that affects price is a matter that I'll leave to the rest of you.
Spehro Pefhany
IOW, a coordinated effort by the puppets (Arab despots) and
puppetmaster to 'talk down' the price. It never lasts for long if the
fundamentals are moving the other way.
>
>How that affects price is a matter that I'll leave to the rest of you.
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
sp...@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
CaveLamb
There may be, but...
Texas is like a whole 'nother place...
PrecisionmachinisT
"CaveLamb" <cave...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1bWdnfzr37z1YzrQ...@earthlink.com...
Gunners bungling has caused another So Cal sweat shop to go tits up.
Too_Many_Tools
<precisionmachin...@notmail.com> wrote:
> "CaveLamb" <cavel...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1bWdnfzr37z1YzrQ...@earthlink.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Gunner Asch wrote:
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> . wrote:
> >>>> On 4/14/2011 7:50 AM, rangerssuck wrote:
> >>>>> On Apr 13, 3:53 pm, Hawke<davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/12/2011 6:02 AM, Frank wrote:
> >>>> snip
> >>>>> A month or so ago, when things were heating up in the mideast and oil
> >>>>> was rapidly climbing in price, Obama contemplated (out loud) opening
> >>>>> the Strategic Petrolem Reserve. The NEXT DAY, OPEC announced that it
> >>>>> was raising its production level, and the price more-or-less
> >>>>> stabilized.
>
> >>>>> This supply and demand myth is complete bullshit.
>
> >>>> Oh really? did you also notice that the consumption of gasoline has
> >>>> dropped dramatically since the price has risen? Is that also a myth?
>
> >>> Hasn't happened here.
> >>> It just costs a lot more now...
>
> >> Its happened just about everywhere.
>
> >> And notice the uemployment rate just went back Up again?
>
> >> Gunner
>
> > hasn't happened here!
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
So instead of driving 60K miles a year, will Gummer need to drive 80K
miles a year..still without a job?
TMT
Ed Huntress
I don't completely follow that statement. Did he mean that *demand* was
elastic up to $1.65/gal? Because, if he meant price, then what was
controlling price when it went above $1.65/gal? Supply alone?
He may have been saying, indirectly, that price and demand operate
classically and elastically when there is plenty of supply, but that
variations in supply unhitch the connection and drive prices above what
would be normal, if demand was exerting its normal market force.
The thing is, supply is controlled partly by puppet masters and partly by
non-market forces -- or by financial market forces that overwhelm true
supply/demand forces. And demand is only moderately sensitive to price, but
it is more sensitive to the state of a given economy. Demand will fall off a
lot more when an economy is in trouble than when prices rise.
The puppet masters manipulate something that *looks* like market forces at
work. But it's mostly manipulative, and based on the strategic goals of the
country, company, or other institution that has the power and the interest.
The history of oil prices tells a very complex tale. If you try to explain
it all with market forces, you wind up with something that looks like the
Ptolemaic model of the universe.
I heard a dose of this stuff when I worked for _Platt's Oilgram_ at
McGraw-Hill, but, like high finance and commodities trading, the thing I
learned is that it takes years of exposure to really understand what's
happening. I don't claim to be able to analyze it. All I can remark about is
how much it departs from basic, standard economics models. It's a long reach
from them to the way the oil market works.
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
"Gunner Asch" <gunne...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
news:bjqfq6l9dn3ejseuc...@4ax.com...
(Having just had his numbers rammed down his throat, once again, Gunner does
a quick two-step and steers the conversation in another direction, hoping
that everyone will forget...)
The only way we could steer gas prices into a "nosedive" is to knock off
about 20% of our consumption. What's your plan for doing that, Gunner?
--
Ed Huntress
CaveLamb
> "CaveLamb" <cave...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:VdednT4GpI8jVzrQ...@earthlink.com...
>> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>> Oh really? did you also notice that the consumption of gasoline has
>>>> dropped dramatically since the price has risen? Is that also a myth?
>>> It's dropped around 1.9% for the year, according to MasterCard Advisors,
>>> which is the gold standard for weekly price and consumption levels.
>>> That's not exactly "dramatic."
>>>
>>> However, there is some consumption sensitivity to price. The other way
>>> around, though, doesn't work. Price is not very sensitive to consumption.
>>> It's the result of political situations, the OPEC cartel, financial
>>> speculation, and other supply manipulations.
>>>
>>> If price was truly sensitive to consumption, price would be dropping
>>> right now. So the standard supply and demand model, for gasoline, is
>>> about 1/2 myth.
>>>
>>
>> My micro-economics prof said gas prices were inelastic up to $1.65/gal
>> (1996?)
>> and turned elastic above that.
>>
>> But I suspect that was then, not now?
>
> I don't completely follow that statement. Did he mean that *demand* was
> elastic up to $1.65/gal? Because, if he meant price, then what was
> controlling price when it went above $1.65/gal? Supply alone?
I'd have to check my notes from way back, but I think he was talking demand.
Of course, at that time we didn't see so much blatant market manipulation.
>
> He may have been saying, indirectly, that price and demand operate
> classically and elastically when there is plenty of supply, but that
> variations in supply unhitch the connection and drive prices above what
> would be normal, if demand was exerting its normal market force.
>
> The thing is, supply is controlled partly by puppet masters and partly by
> non-market forces -- or by financial market forces that overwhelm true
> supply/demand forces. And demand is only moderately sensitive to price, but
> it is more sensitive to the state of a given economy. Demand will fall off a
> lot more when an economy is in trouble than when prices rise.
>
> The puppet masters manipulate something that *looks* like market forces at
> work. But it's mostly manipulative, and based on the strategic goals of the
> country, company, or other institution that has the power and the interest.
> The history of oil prices tells a very complex tale. If you try to explain
> it all with market forces, you wind up with something that looks like the
> Ptolemaic model of the universe.
>
> I heard a dose of this stuff when I worked for _Platt's Oilgram_ at
> McGraw-Hill, but, like high finance and commodities trading, the thing I
> learned is that it takes years of exposure to really understand what's
> happening. I don't claim to be able to analyze it. All I can remark about is
> how much it departs from basic, standard economics models. It's a long reach
> from them to the way the oil market works.
>
--
Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~capri26
Randy333
<davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>On 4/12/2011 7:23 AM, Deucalion wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 08:41:27 -0400, Randy333<rbra...@enter.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 12:01:12 -0400, Deucalion<som...@nowhere.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:42:49 -0700, Gunner Asch<gunne...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 07:29:36 -0700 (PDT), Just Me
>>>>> <mutantm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Just goes to show you the appalling decline in intelligence and
>>>>>> critical thinking ability of the US.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually...we realized that when they elected Obama into office.
>>>>>
>>>>> Shrug
>>>>>
>>>>> Gunner
>>>>
>>>> Is that why you are complaining about gas prices when they haven't yet
>>>> reached their highest levels that were attained when Bush was
>>>> president? Back then, you said that gas wasn't that expensive in
>>>> California. Yet, it has not yet passed its previous high.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm just glad Obama has the whole gas price thing totally under
>>> control. It's good thing he cracked down on those wall street
>>> speculators that drive up the price of oil at the slightest thing.
>>
>> Not much of a believer in the invisible hand of the free market are
>> you?
>
>
>He must know that the guys on Wall Street have been applying pressure
>through their henchmen, the republicans, to make sure that Obama can't
>get the regulations put in place on speculators that he wants. The rich
>guys are not allowing the new rules on reckless speculation to go into
>effect. Maybe that's what they mean today by the invisible hand.
>
>Hawke
He must know that the guys on Wall Street have been applying pressure
>through their henchmen, the POLITICIANS, to make sure that Obama can't
>get the regulations put in place on speculators that he wants. The rich
>guys are not allowing the new rules on reckless speculation to go into
>effect. Maybe that's what they mean today by the invisible hand.
There I corrected it for you. Unlike some people on this forum I do
not hold one party to blame, and let the other off scott free, they
are BOTH to blame. Neither party has put together an engery policy
in the last 30 years. Carter created the Dept. of Energy and what
did that get us?
Ed Huntress
"Randy333" <rbra...@enter.net> wrote in message
news:ne2hq6lgjuquq5m1o...@4ax.com...
What kind of energy policy would you like to see?
--
Ed Huntress
Too_Many_Tools
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:46:30 -0700, Hawke
>
>
>
>
>
> <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
> >On 4/12/2011 7:23 AM, Deucalion wrote:
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 12:01:12 -0400, Deucalion<some...@nowhere.net>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:42:49 -0700, Gunner Asch<gunnera...@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 07:29:36 -0700 (PDT), Just Me
>
> - Show quoted text -
Reagan...who then dismantled any chance of energy
independance...killing all energy research that Carter had put into
place.
Republicans do not want an energy policy that allows America to be
free.
An recent example..the Republicans had ZEROED OUT the research money
for alternate energy like solar and wind...and then gave the nuclear
industry BILLIONS of tax payer guaranteed loans...
That is until the Japanese reactors disaster unfolded...
Similar handouts to the oil industry occur..all pushed by Republicans.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> "Gunner Asch" <gunnera...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Gummer is doing his part...unemployment reduces the need and ability
to fill the gas tank...
Now if he would not drive 60K miles a year....
Maybe we should all pitch in and buy him a pony to commute with....
TMT
Rich Grise
>
> There I corrected it for you. Unlike some people on this forum I do
> not hold one party to blame, and let the other off scott free, they
> are BOTH to blame. Neither party has put together an engery policy
> in the last 30 years. Carter created the Dept. of Energy and what
> did that get us?
Power plants that are obsolete, on the brink of melting down for lack
of replacement/refurbishment because of the red tape caused by the
raving NIMBYs in power.
Hope This Helps!
Rich
i-SEENSEE
>> There I corrected it for you. Unlike some people on this forum I do
>> not hold one party to blame, and let the other off scott free, they
>> are BOTH to blame. Neither party has put together an engery policy
>> in the last 30 years. Carter created the Dept. of Energy and what
>> did that get us?
>
> What kind of energy policy would you like to see?
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
>
thorium reactors generators would be nice . i have been reading of
these and ha ha funny thing this is the direction that Nuke power
should have gone 50 years ago .
another funny thing , the period sci-fi i have read / like to read were
talking of this as a fuel as if it were the best thing to come around.
i can only surmise that "they" wanted reaction mass for bombs. so
to hell with my anti-grav car that i should have been driveling .
but I'm intruding into this thread my apologies.
Too_Many_Tools
Stop and consider the idiots that you meet on the road every day..now
do you really want to be meeting these idiots in mid air?
I have enough trouble dealing with the weekend "I own a plane so I are
a pilot"s much less an entire of cell phone texting fools in their
antigrav cars. ;<)
TMT
Gunner Asch
Gunner Asch
wrote:
>Ed Huntress wrote:
>> "ATP" <walter...@unforgiven.com> wrote in message
>> news:4da47bd9$0$23206$607e...@cv.net...
>>> "Gunner Asch" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ssi5q6lj5ctbk80ps...@4ax.com...
>>>> http://www.newsmax.com/surveys/results/id/11?PROMO_CODE=BEEE-1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Trump is a bit of a clown, he may be delighting birthers with his recent
>>> remarks, but he's really not a conservative. Also google his company's
>>> bankruptcies and decide if that's the management style we need more of in
>>> Washington.
>>
>> To those of us who live in the NYC area, he's our favorite con man and
>> self-promoter. You can tell when he's trying to con you -- his lips are
>> moving.
>>
>> He's been such a joke around here for so long that it's really funny to see
>> people in other parts of the country appear to take him seriously.
>>
>
>
>Take Trump seriously?
>LOL!
>Good one, Ed!
Whats Trumps net worth these days?
Yours?
Eds?
And we are supposed to take either of you seriously?
<VBG>
Gunner
--
"If I say two plus two is four and a Democrat says two plus two is eight,
it's not a partial victory for me when we agree that two plus two is
six. " Jonah Goldberg (modified)
Gunner Asch
<nunyab...@dev.null> wrote:
>Hawke wrote:
>> On 4/12/2011 5:08 PM, John R. Carroll wrote:
>>> Wes wrote:
>>>> "John R. Carroll"<nunyab...@dev.null> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The nomination.
>>>>> Palin is 8:1
>>>>> Romney is 11:6
>>>>> Pawlenty 10:4
>>>>
>>>> Was Haley Barbour anywhere in the running?
>>>
>>> Not that I recall.
>>> In any event, he isn't electable, knows it, and won't be running.
>>> He's said as much.
>>>
>>
>>
>> All the republican candidates might as well say the same thing.
>
>It's Mitt's turn.
>That's all there is to it. That's the way the Republican Party works.
>
>Mushmouth Barber is too well set to want to do more than make money. He'll
>only get into the primary contest if there is money on the other side.
>He doesn't want to be the President of the United States.
>
>Pawlenty might or might not have what it takes but he's a wet noodle and
>from the State that brought America Michelle Bachmann.
>
>Michelle Bachmann is just a dumbass attorney with a career at the IRS to get
>hit over the head with.
>
>Sarah Palin's "Mean Girl" schtick is dead. She's also just dim but the buzz
>is she's interested in taking Beck's slot.
>She and Jesus Junior Huckabee are going to wrastle for it.
>
>Daniel's lacks the necessary fire in the belly.
>
>Huntsman is a real cpossible ontender but I think he'll decide that
>Presidential politics is muddier that he can stomach.
>
>Mike Huckabee is just a goof. He couldn't get the nomination let alone win
>in the general.
>God Botherer's United won't field a candidate this time around. Voters will
>be sick of having Jesus in politics by November of 2012.
>
>Alan Keyes is always in the race for something.
And who is the Demonrats going to run?
http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/2011/01/third-hawaiian-official-denies.html
Just wondering who they will offer up as presidntial candidate.
Gunner Asch
>
>"Gunner Asch" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:v539q6d6fd1edocsq...@4ax.com...
>>>
>> But..some of his investments went tits up..but not all. He is a
>> VERY
>> good busnessman. And manages to recover each and every time.
>>
>> Frankly..I dont care if he is a conservative or not. What the
>> nation
>> needs..badly..very badly..is a good businessman and survivor.
>>
>> Gunner
>>
>
>As goes American business, thus goes America. The current
>administration is anti-business and some would say "Anti-American".
>Or, is it that they just don't have a clue how business works?
>
Limbaugh was talking about that the other day...he had come to the
conclusion that the Left is both evil..and incompetent.
All they are going to do is crash the nation.
(then they will be killed enmass)
Ed Huntress
If that's your criterion, Gunner, then you must think that Britney Spears is
a great artist, and that you're a circus clown. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
ATP
"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4da99e03$0$9190$607e...@cv.net...
net toxic effect on popular culture similar to the Donald, I don't think she
has bankrupted any investors or defaulted on bond payments:-)
Trump is good at promoting himself and hustling. He's never invented
anything or created anything of value, IMHO. His specialty is highly
leveraged deals that pander to the worst aspects of our society. When they
go belly up, he seems to walk away unscathed. Warren Buffett has created
value and also made many of his investors rich. I respect the latter.
Ed Huntress
As I said, in the NYC area, The Donald is our favorite con man. He was
entertaining while he was exchanging wives and filling the scandal pages,
but he wore kind of thin, like his hair.
--
Ed Huntress
ATP
looks like he can make a credible claim as a good businessman.
Gunner Asch
wrote:
Notice how Ed once again avoids the hard questions?
<VBG>
Typical of him.
Speaking of those that pander to the worst aspects of our society..how
are the Clintons doing these days?
Ed Huntress
What was the "hard question," Gunner? Are you asking if making a lot of
money is evidence of political seriousness? Again, there's Britney on your
side of the issue, and Mike Tyson, and Bernie Madoff, and Donald Trump.
--
Ed Huntress
ATP
I don't think it was an appropriate question and its premise was flawed. Do
we all have to post our net worth to express an opinion or state a fact?
>
> Speaking of those that pander to the worst aspects of our society..how
> are the Clintons doing these days?
>
>
> Gunner
>
Bill has been doing some good work in Harlem and for Haiti. Hilary is pretty
much upholding the same foreign policy that we had under G.W. Bush. Why do
you feel they pander to the worst aspects of our society?
Hawke
The oil market? Let's see, first we have a cartel. A cartel that
controls a huge segment of the oil produced in the world. Then you have
a whole bunch of countries where the state operates and manages it's oil
resources. Last, you have private companies that are transnational but
are somewhat under the regulation or control by governments. That's a
free market? No way, Jose'. Not even close.
Hawke
Hawke
If you're saying that net worth is what should determine if someone is
taken seriously you have to understand what that means to you. If it's
net worth you're using as your standard then someone like you, with a
negative net worth, wouldn't ever be listened to. That's never.
Sure you want to base what someone says by what they're worth?
Hawke
Gunner Asch
wrote:
>> As I said, in the NYC area, The Donald is our favorite con man. He was
>> entertaining while he was exchanging wives and filling the scandal pages,
>> but he wore kind of thin, like his hair.
>>
>> --
>> Ed Huntress
Oh...like that 2 term Democrat President Bill Clinton?
Gunner Asch
wrote:
Your opinion is noted with some boredom.
>>
>> Speaking of those that pander to the worst aspects of our society..how
>> are the Clintons doing these days?
>>
>>
>> Gunner
>>
>Bill has been doing some good work in Harlem and for Haiti. Hilary is pretty
>much upholding the same foreign policy that we had under G.W. Bush. Why do
>you feel they pander to the worst aspects of our society?
>
Oh yes, both are eligible for sainthood.
Indeed.
Oh fuck yes.
You forget the 2 terms of the Clinton presidency didnt you?