OT: I think Jerry Brown is going to win
popinjay999
that Jerry Brown is going to be the next governor of California. Even
with the enormous momentum that the republicans have in light of the
horrible job Obama and Company are doing, I still have this feeling he
is going to win. It's just a hunch.
Are there any betting men, or women, on this newsgroup who have a
strong opinion for Meg Whitman? Strong enough to put a few sheckles
on it?
K9way
you are most definitely "due"
do you have a telephone number or a social security number or an address
or a ....
Alim's answer: None of those track my every move
____________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
Irish Mike
Well if Brown does win it's horrible news for California. The state is
already broke, over run with illegal immigrants and more flooding in every
day, crime is rampant and businesses are packing up and leaving the state.
Meg Whitman is a successful CEO, has earned a fortune and has forgotten
more about running a business in the real world than Brown will ever know.
If the people in California are stupid enough to vote Brown in to office
- again, they deserve every thing they get.
Irish Mike
Very, very proud to be one of the 60,000,000 Americans who did not vote
for Obama.
_____________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
Dave the Clueless
> Ha! Stupid Irish Mike.....I Guess you missed the whole scandal about
> Meg having a mexican housekeeper. When are you going to get it through
> your head that Rethugs like cheap labour and like illegals as much as
> Demorats. Only difference is Demo's want to let them vote and Rethugs
> just want them as slave labour.
Hey dimfuck, didn't Whitman pay her housekeeper $25 an hour? On what
planet is THAT cheap, you drooling leftwit moron?
____________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
Dave the Clueless
> If the people in California are stupid enough to vote Brown in to office
> - again, they deserve every thing they get.
>
No they won't. The American taxpayer will bail the union thugs and state
employees as long as Dems control the government. Cali doesn't deserve
dime one, but they'll get it. Like the Germans got punished for sound
fiscal policy by having to bail out the dumbass Greeks.
---
Bob T.
> On Oct 11 2010 5:13 AM, Mr Bungle 34 wrote:
>
> > Ha! Stupid Irish Mike.....I Guess you missed the whole scandal about
> > Meg having a mexican housekeeper. When are you going to get it through
> > your head that Rethugs like cheap labour and like illegals as much as
> > Demorats. Only difference is Demo's want to let them vote and Rethugs
> > just want them as slave labour.
>
> Hey dimfuck, didn't Whitman pay her housekeeper $25 an hour? On what
> planet is THAT cheap, you drooling leftwit moron?
Jealous, Dave? If you go back to high school and study really hard,
maybe you, too, can make $25 an hour someday.
- Bob T
Jerry Sturdivant
"Mr Bungle 34" <michael...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fca487a6-355e-4bdc...@t7g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
> Ha! Stupid Irish Mike.....I Guess you missed the whole scandal about
> Meg having a mexican housekeeper. When are you going to get it through
> your head that Rethugs like cheap labour and like illegals as much as
> Demorats. Only difference is Demo's want to let them vote and Rethugs
> just want them as slave labour.
And she's sold out to labor. Jerry was going to cut benefits for the state
cops and she's made a deal with the unions.
Oh, wait, we're replying to Irish Mick and he never knows what we're talking
about because he simply Cut's & Pastes & Runs from any discussion and can't
possibly answer.
Jerry 'n Vegas
Jerry Sturdivant
"Dave the Clueless" <frac...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:cjbbo7x...@recgroups.com...
> On Oct 11 2010 5:13 AM, Mr Bungle 34 wrote:
>
>> Ha! Stupid Irish Mike.....I Guess you missed the whole scandal about
>> Meg having a mexican housekeeper. When are you going to get it through
>> your head that Rethugs like cheap labour and like illegals as much as
>> Demorats. Only difference is Demo's want to let them vote and Rethugs
>> just want them as slave labour.
> Hey dimfuck, didn't Whitman pay her housekeeper $25 an hour? On what
> planet is THAT cheap, you drooling leftwit moron?
I believe it's about her legal status. Was her income reported? Were state
and federal taxes withheld?
Jerry 'n Vegas
Jerry Sturdivant
"Dave the Clueless" <frac...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:knbbo7x...@recgroups.com...
> On Oct 11 2010 4:36 AM, Irish Mike wrote:
>
>> If the people in California are stupid enough to vote Brown in to office
>> - again, they deserve every thing they get.
>>
>
>
> No they won't. The American taxpayer will bail the union thugs and state
> employees as long as Dems control the government.
WHA! Ha ha. Clueless Dave. Jerry Brown is at odds with the police unions
because he's stated he'll cut their benefits. His (Republican) opponent's in
bed with the cop's union.
Care to backtrack, or will you pull a Beldim?
Jerry 'n Vegas
Irish Mike
> Ha! Stupid Irish Mike.....I Guess you missed the whole scandal about
> Meg having a mexican housekeeper. When are you going to get it through
> your head that Rethugs like cheap labour and like illegals as much as
> Demorats. Only difference is Demo's want to let them vote and Rethugs
> just want them as slave labour.
Whitman went to a reputable employment agency t hire this woman.
Woman produced a drivers license and social security number.
Under the law Whitman is not allowed to do further investigation and if
she had tried, the left wingers would have been screaming "racist" and
"racial profiling".
Whitman paid the woman more than $23.00 an hour and paid all appropriate
employer taxes
The woman lied about her status and used a phony social security number.
Gloria Allred, left wing attorney who supports and contributes to Brown,
brought this bullshit lawsuit.
The whole thing was a political smear orchestrated by the Brown political
machine.
The reason is that Brown knows the state is bankrupt and he can not run on
Obama or the Democrats record. So this is a desperate political smear
attempt to divert voter's attention away from the shitty state of the
California economy.
Irish Mike
"The Obama administration grows more arrogant, cavalier and fundamentally
dishonest every day." David Limbaugh"
Bob T.
> The reason is that Brown knows the state is bankrupt and he can not run on
> Obama or the Democrats record.
What does Obama have to do with it? Brown is running for governor of
California. Who's governor of California now? A millionaire
Republican with no previous political experience. Who should we hire
to fix the problems? A millionaire Republican with no previous
political experience?
- Bob T
Travel A
all of the other states in the country, where the independent vote is
heavily weighted toward the Republican, the California independent vote
is spilt about 50/50.
This means that, in a tight race, an election day surge for the
Republican candidate isn't anywhere near as likely in California as most
other states.
The "voter turnout" aspect is sill favorable for the Republican
canidate, but whether it'll be enough of an edge is still questionable
in moonbat country.
If Whitman and Carly go into election day, exactly even or down by a
couple of points, it doesn't look good for them.
Against Democrat incumbents (call Jerry Brown an "incumbent" for all
practical purposes; i.e., he represents the Democrat status quo) in most
of the country's close races, the Republican is a clear favorite to win,
but not in California.
popinjay999
>
> you are most definitely "due"
>
I guess so, because it doesn't look like any of these folks want to
bet with me. Several have chimed in with their 'expert' political
analysis, but did I ask for any friggin political analysis? No, I did
not. I asked if anyone wanted to bet. I don't give a fuck what
Travel or Bob T. thinks about the candidates, they're both too stupid
to appreciate how similar the two candidates really are anyway,
especially Bob, the moron is so blindly and lockstep partisan. Does
anyone want to bet? That's what I care about. This is a gambling
forum, not the fucking McLaughlin Group, wtf.
BillB
"popinjay999" <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:425bd14e-1cf3-420b...@n41g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> They're saying it is a deadheat right now, but I have this feeling
> that Jerry Brown is going to be the next governor of California.
Who's saying it's a dead heat? All the recent polls I see on rcp have Brown
up 4-9 points.
I heard on TV (from some woman in a red dress named Gloria) that Whitman
kept an illegal immigrant servant locked in her basement for 10 years. What
a whore!
Travel A
"Mrs Meg didn't even tweet me likea hoooomin beeeean."
(whaaaa! whaaaa! (sob, sob)
Fuck off, wetback, you alligator tearing document-forging, scamming
retard. You should be kissing the American ground you waddle on.
And learn English, bitch. Maybe you can teach first grade, bad English
after you're deported back to that joke, shit hole of a "country" that
peaked with the conquistadors.
popinjay999
>
> Who's saying it's a dead heat? All the recent polls I see on rcp have Brown
> up 4-9 points.
>
I think I know what you're doing, you're trying to get me to lay
odds. Always shooting the angles, eh Bill? Well, I have heard on the
television and radio that they are in a dead heat. If anyone is on
the fence about betting with me and you are waiting for odds, then
start the negotiation process. I have never been a tightass.
johnny_t
Actually, I would be in, just to be in. But Pokerstars won't let me in
anymore. (Washington State Person).
I suppose I could paypal you some money.
Here is my bad bet of the day. Five bucks straight up on the race.
I'll take Meg. Not because I have a strong feeling, I have no feeling.
But throwing a shekel at the wall is all good fun.
--
Obama: 'We gather here to remember on hollow ground'
MSNBC Front Page
9/11/2010
risky biz
Gee, we all want to vote for who you're voting for, Travel. Let's turn
this country around.
______________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
Paul Popinjay
>
>
> Actually, I would be in, just to be in. But Pokerstars won't let me in
> anymore. (Washington State Person).
>
> I suppose I could paypal you some money.
>
> Here is my bad bet of the day. Five bucks straight up on the race. I'll
> take Meg. Not because I have a strong feeling, I have no feeling.
> But throwing a shekel at the wall is all good fun.
Ok, Johnny, I'm down if you're down. And Paypal is ok with me. And just
to be fair, BillB says that Brown is the favorite, so I will lay you my
$7 to your $5. I'm down. Are we down?
By the way, despite my bet, I am voting for neither candidate. I will be
voting for Chelene Nightingale.
Dave the Clueless
Well that is fine, then zipperhead there can shut his brainless yap about
cheap labor.
------
Dave the Clueless
> On Oct 11, 5:13 am, "Dave the Clueless" <fract...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Oct 11 2010 5:13 AM, Mr Bungle 34 wrote:
> >
> > > Ha! Stupid Irish Mike.....I Guess you missed the whole scandal about
> > > Meg having a mexican housekeeper. When are you going to get it through
> > > your head that Rethugs like cheap labour and like illegals as much as
> > > Demorats. Only difference is Demo's want to let them vote and Rethugs
> > > just want them as slave labour.
> >
> > Hey dimfuck, didn't Whitman pay her housekeeper $25 an hour? On what
> > planet is THAT cheap, you drooling leftwit moron?
>
> Jealous, Dave? If you go back to high school and study really hard,
> maybe you, too, can make $25 an hour someday.
>
> - Bob T
>
> >
What the fuck are you on about, you fucking dimwit? Are you seriously
suggesting that a $25 an hour housekeeper is cheap labor? Is that it? Or
are you just a drooling leftwit fucking retard who doesn't belong in my
thread?
Dave the Clueless
I will not backtrack, I will not have to. The Fed will bail out the Cali
union thugs with working taxpayer's money. Done deal.
bub
<frac...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Was her income reported? Were state
>> and federal taxes withheld?
since she gave a fake ss number ,sounds to me like there were
withholdings made
BillB
>I think I know what you're doing, you're trying to get me to lay
>odds. Always shooting the angles, eh Bill?
I am not going to bet on a someone who beat or otherwise abused an illegal
servant kept locked in her basement.
What's the line on Prop 19?
popinjay999
>
> I am not going to bet on a someone who beat or otherwise abused an illegal
> servant kept locked in her basement.
>
> What's the line on Prop 19?
That's a very good question, one that I cannot answer right now. Does
any other RGPer have a clue? I would like to know, so I can bet a few
sheckles on it. Personally, I cannot imagine it winning, even though
there are a lot of potheads in California.
johnny_t
We are down. Straight up. 5 for 5, no odds, but thank you (see, men
can do this. Regardless of what BillB might say).
Whoo hoo. Good luck to you.
Irish Mike
> On Oct 11, 7:31 am, "Irish Mike" <ad7c...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> > The reason is that Brown knows the state is bankrupt and he can not run on
> > Obama or the Democrats record.
>
> What does Obama have to do with it? Brown is running for governor of
> California.
This mid-term election is a referendum on Obama's whole "spend your way
out of recession with borrowed tax payer money while running up the
biggest deficits in this country's history while growing the size of the
federal government by 25%". And the American people are rejecting Obama's
failed policies and his irresponsible spending. The Democrats know this
which is why they are scared to death about the November mid-term
elections and are running away from Obama, Pelosi and Reid as fast as they
can. Why do you think not a single Democrat, running in a tight election
race, has mentioned Obama's failed $814 billion dollar pork barrel
spending bill? Because they know damn well that it didn't work. But not
to worry bucko. The American people and the Taxed Enough Already grass
roots movement are going to show you left wingers some real "change" in
November.
Irish Mike
Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton warned us that Obama was inexperienced,
unqualified and unprepared to lead this country. Now we know they were
right.
Bob T.
> On Oct 11 2010 10:12 AM, Bob T. wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 11, 5:13 am, "Dave the Clueless" <fract...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > On Oct 11 2010 5:13 AM, Mr Bungle 34 wrote:
>
> > > > Ha! Stupid Irish Mike.....I Guess you missed the whole scandal about
> > > > Meg having a mexican housekeeper. When are you going to get it through
> > > > your head that Rethugs like cheap labour and like illegals as much as
> > > > Demorats. Only difference is Demo's want to let them vote and Rethugs
> > > > just want them as slave labour.
>
> > > Hey dimfuck, didn't Whitman pay her housekeeper $25 an hour? On what
> > > planet is THAT cheap, you drooling leftwit moron?
>
> > Jealous, Dave? If you go back to high school and study really hard,
> > maybe you, too, can make $25 an hour someday.
>
> > - Bob T
>
> What the fuck are you on about, you fucking dimwit?
I'm insulting you - apparently it went right over your head.
> Are you seriously suggesting that a $25 an hour housekeeper is cheap labor? Is that it? Or
> are you just a drooling leftwit fucking retard who doesn't belong in my thread?
No, I'm suggesting that $25 an hour looks like a lot of money to you
personally because you've never made that much money in your life. It
wasn't a very subtle joke, Dave. Please cross "humorist" off the list
of high-paying jobs you hope to have someday.
- Bob T
>
> ------
> looking for a better newsgroup-reader? -www.recgroups.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bob T.
> On Oct 11 2010 11:00 AM, Bob T. wrote:
>
> > On Oct 11, 7:31 am, "Irish Mike" <ad7c...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > The reason is that Brown knows the state is bankrupt and he can not run on
> > > Obama or the Democrats record.
>
> > What does Obama have to do with it? Brown is running for governor of
> > California.
>
> This mid-term election is a referendum on Obama's whole "spend your way
> out of recession with borrowed tax payer money while running up the
> biggest deficits in this country's history while growing the size of the
> federal government by 25%".
Oh, so _all_ elections are about Obama no matter what! Thanks for
explaining that. Now I just have to figure out which candidate for
mayor wll get us out of Afghanistan.
- Bob T
da pickle
>>> Actually, I would be in, just to be in. But Pokerstars won't let me in
>>> anymore. (Washington State Person).
>>>
>>> I suppose I could paypal you some money.
>>>
>>> Here is my bad bet of the day. Five bucks straight up on the race. I'll
>>> take Meg. Not because I have a strong feeling, I have no feeling.
>>> But throwing a shekel at the wall is all good fun.
>>
>>
>> Ok, Johnny, I'm down if you're down. And Paypal is ok with me. And just
>> to be fair, BillB says that Brown is the favorite, so I will lay you my
>> $7 to your $5. I'm down. Are we down?
>>
>> By the way, despite my bet, I am voting for neither candidate. I will be
>> voting for Chelene Nightingale.
>
> We are down. Straight up. 5 for 5, no odds, but thank you (see, men can
> do this. Regardless of what BillB might say).
>
> Whoo hoo. Good luck to you.
You are not down yet ... Paul changed it to a bet that is MORE favorable to
you and you only accepted your original offer of a bet. Is the bet 5 to 5
as you say or is it 7 to 5 as Paul said. I do not want a repeat of the
previous difficulties in case both of you forget that you do not have a bet
and then decide that you do have a bet but then everyone will point out that
you never went through all the hoops to "get down" on the same bet.
So, what is the bet and are you both down?
Paul's bet is 7/5 ... Johnny's bet is 5/5 ... you two need to decide on the
bet. Don't let this go unsettled or you will have to go with the "spirit"
of the bet and you know that can change with the wind.
risky biz
Seeing as you couldn't understand the illegitimacy of Morphy's scam it
isn't surprising that you can't undrstand that there is a bet here with
just a mere 3 posts.
____________________________________________________________________
Travel A
I wrote:
(sob, sob, blubber)
"Mrs Meg didn't even tweet me likea hoooomin beeeean."
(whaaaa! whaaaa! (sob, sob)
Fuck off, wetback, you alligator tearing document-forging, scamming
retard. You should be kissing the American ground you waddle on.
And learn English, bitch. Maybe you can teach first grade, bad English
after you're deported back to that joke, shit hole of a "country" that
peaked with the conquistadors.
Risky Biz (who's the fake Pickel) blithered:
"Gee, we all want to vote for who you're voting for, Travel. Let's turn
this country around."
I wrote:
According to the polls, most people ARE voting for who I'm voting for.
You remember the polls, right? (chortle)
What do you suppose the polls would say about whether Allred's (who put
a client in a position to be deported, btw) scam-client should be
deported?
Iceman
I think a lot of people are questioning the drug war. Does the
government really need to lock people up for pot, which is less
harmful than alcohol? And is the drug war really working, or is it
just leading to massive violence in Mexico and in the US inner cities,
while doing little to change the rates of drug use?
BillB
>That's a very good question, one that I cannot answer right now. Does
>any other RGPer have a clue? I would like to know, so I can bet a few
>sheckles on it.
The YES side had a substantial lead in the polls, but it has been closing.
Most of the polls I've seen still have YES ahead, but I read the other day
that someone polled them even, or NO slightly ahead. Part of the problem for
the YES people is that there are a lot of holes in the proposed law which
are being highlighted by the NO side ("let's wait and do it right." In
other words, let's wait forever), there have been some high profile
grow-rips lately which scare some people into thinking this could lead to
more violence, Shwartzenburger lowered the penalties from possession to an
offence, and there's still federal law to worry about.
Prop 19 might bring more liberals out to the polls, which of course would
not be a good thing for Whitman.
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/destinations/2010-10-07-mendocino-marijuana-tourism_N.htm
BillB
"BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message
news:TFZso.2483$hb....@newsfe12.iad...
> The YES side had a substantial lead in the polls, but it has been closing.
> Most of the polls I've seen still have YES ahead, but I read the other day
> that someone polled them even, or NO slightly ahead.
It's the hicks in the Central Valley that are against it, for some reason,
and they're really dragging down the YES vote. Don't they know how much
money you can make growing weed?
If it was just the enlightened coastal people voting, it would pass by a
landslide.
johnny_t
> Prop 19 might bring more liberals out to the polls, which of course would
> not be a good thing for Whitman.
This is a bit of the tail wagging the dog. It may be true. But I think
that we have yet to see the anti-brown campaign started. It will happen
very late (so as to not desensitize the electorate, nor provide a ton of
time for Brown to respond). Negative campaigning works, and Mr. Brown
has a pretty checkered past/career.
Nov 1st will be the start of the war.
Dave the Clueless
> - Show quoted text -
You might consider making your 'jokes' funny, or at least amusing. They
will be easier to recognize. And your income insult cuts me to the quick.
It really does. Especially coming from a drooling moron such as yourself,
that just salts the wound.
______________________________________________________________________
da pickle
What is the bet ... 7/5 or 5/5?
johnny_t
I am glad that it matters so much to you. Since I am the one in the
bet, and you are not.
Maybe you're a math guy. Try running a Venn diagram, and see if there
is any conflict in the bet. You are offering a difference without
distinction.
Bob T.
It's not supposed to be amusing to you, Dave - you are the butt of the
joke.
> They will be easier to recognize. And your income insult cuts me to the quick.
> It really does. Especially coming from a drooling moron such as yourself,
> that just salts the wound.
Let me give you some insulting advice: don't mix styles in the same
insult. "Cuts me to the quick" and "salts the wound" share a certain
old-fashioned pomposity, but "drooling moron" is more of a 4th Grade
playground schtick. Maybe you should just stick to the latter - it's
what you do best.
- Bob T
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader :www.recgroups.com- Hide quoted text -
da pickle
>> What is the bet ... 7/5 or 5/5?
>>
>>
>
> I am glad that it matters so much to you. Since I am the one in the bet,
> and you are not.
>
> Maybe you're a math guy. Try running a Venn diagram, and see if there is
> any conflict in the bet. You are offering a difference without
> distinction.
Me being all lawyer-like, let me ask a couple of questions.
Paul responded to your 5/5 straight up bet with this:
"I will lay you my $7 to your $5. I'm down. Are we down?"
You win the bet. If you win the bet, do you feel you can demand Paul pay
you 7?
[Not that you would, but could you.]
If Paul responds to your 7 demand by correctly quoting that you said:
"We are down. Straight up. 5 for 5, no odds, but thank you (see, men
can do this. Regardless of what BillB might say)."
And then says that he owes you 5 ... do you agree that the bet is only 5?
[Not that he would not pay you the 7, but could he say that he only owes 6.]
Why or why not
johnny_t
I think that when I said that we were down, for *at least* the same
exact bet, money wise, or odd wise no more need be said.
The bet was offered, I agreed and set a line, he said good here's an
even better line if your down lets go, I agreed to the original line and
its booked.
So first answer, no. Second part, moot.
risky biz
Exceedingly obvious, pickel.
________________________________________________________________________
Pepe Papon
wrote:
>On Oct 11, 10:17 pm, popinjay999 <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On Oct 11, 8:10 pm, "BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > I am not going to bet on a someone who beat or otherwise abused an illegal
>> > servant kept locked in her basement.
>>
>> > What's the line on Prop 19?
>>
>> That's a very good question, one that I cannot answer right now. Does
>> any other RGPer have a clue? I would like to know, so I can bet a few
>> sheckles on it. Personally, I cannot imagine it winning, even though
>> there are a lot of potheads in California.
>
>
>I think a lot of people are questioning the drug war. Does the
>government really need to lock people up for pot, which is less
>harmful than alcohol?
And that's not even the issue. The issue is whether it's the
government's business to decide what we can and can't do with our
bodies.
> And is the drug war really working, or is it
>just leading to massive violence in Mexico and in the US inner cities,
>while doing little to change the rates of drug use?
It's working in the sense that it provides job security for law
enforcement. In all other respects, epic fail.
Pepe Papon
>
>Prop 19 might bring more liberals out to the polls, which of course would
>not be a good thing for Whitman.
Someone please help me understand why big-government liberals favor
legalization while "get-the-government-off-my-back" conservatives
favor prohibition?
da pickle
>> So first answer, no. Second part, moot.
>
> Exceedingly obvious, pickel.
And yet, neither of you are correct. This is why "good" lawyers try and
clarify contracts before they get into a disagreement at a later date.
Offer, counter offer (kills the original offer), attempted agreement on
"expired" offer = no offer/no acceptance = no agreement = no contract/bet.
They may "believe" they have an offer and acceptance of the same terms but
they are not "down" on any agreed bet.
It, of course, does not matter whether they do or do not have a "real"
contract/bet ... they can still later "settle up" based on their own
personal spirit and ethics, but there is no contract/bet. All the obvious
talk to the contrary will not make it so.
Johnny offered 5/5 and Paul did NOT accept. Paul counteroffered 7/5 and
Johnny did NOT accept. Johnny reoffered 5/5 using "down" language, but Paul
never accepted ... either the first time or the second time. No
contract/bet has been agreed upon.
da pickle
> The bet was offered, I agreed and set a line, he said good here's an even
> better line if your down lets go, I agreed to the original line and its
> booked.
Paul never agreed to the original line. It is not "down." You never agreed
to Paul's offer ... that is not "down" either. It is neither 5/5 nor 7/5
because you never agreed to 7/5 and Paul never agreed to 5/5.
> So first answer, no. Second part, moot.
You are correct that it does not matter, but you two still have not agreed
upon the terms. It is surprising that an "obvious" real bet (the previous
discussion about this subject) was denied by the same people that do not
seem to understand that this time there is no bet ... yet ... (Paul still
has a reasonable amount of time to accept your last offer of a 5/5 bet ...
he has not yet responded). That is amazing. That is why lawyers exist in
the first place. People "assume" too much is "obvious" and yet later it
turns out not to be so obvious after all.
popinjay999
Alright already! Me and Johnny are down! Even-money, $5 to $5. I
pick Jerry Brown the rat fink commie, and Johnny picks the corporate
slut and immigrant-abuser Meg Whitman. And what d'ya wanna bet this
is the REAL Pickle? It is a sure thing, I guarantee it.
Vote for Chelene Nightingale for Governor! The Tea Party candidate.
http://www.nightingaleforgovernor.com/
risky biz
It's pretty obvious that some lawyers are clueless. You can't even read
simple English.
------�
Iceman
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 06:37:03 -0700 (PDT), Iceman <oneofc...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Oct 11, 10:17 pm, popinjay999 <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> On Oct 11, 8:10 pm, "BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:
>
> >> > I am not going to bet on a someone who beat or otherwise abused an illegal
> >> > servant kept locked in her basement.
>
> >> > What's the line on Prop 19?
>
> >> That's a very good question, one that I cannot answer right now. Does
> >> any other RGPer have a clue? I would like to know, so I can bet a few
> >> sheckles on it. Personally, I cannot imagine it winning, even though
> >> there are a lot of potheads in California.
>
> >I think a lot of people are questioning the drug war. Does the
> >government really need to lock people up for pot, which is less
> >harmful than alcohol?
>
> And that's not even the issue. The issue is whether it's the
> government's business to decide what we can and can't do with our
> bodies.
That's my personal point of view. But I mean that even many
conservatives and law and order types are questioning the drug war now
for more practical reasons.
> > And is the drug war really working, or is it
> >just leading to massive violence in Mexico and in the US inner cities,
> >while doing little to change the rates of drug use?
>
> It's working in the sense that it provides job security for law
> enforcement. In all other respects, epic fail.
Imagine if you disbanded a city's police department's vice squad, and
reassigned the officers to fighting real crime.
da pickle
Alright already! Me and Johnny are down! Even-money, $5 to $5. I
pick Jerry Brown the rat fink commie, and Johnny picks the corporate
slut and immigrant-abuser Meg Whitman. And what d'ya wanna bet this
is the REAL Pickle? It is a sure thing, I guarantee it.
========================
NOW there is a bet.
[Why the strange newsclient?]
FL Turbo
<paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>On Oct 13, 7:42嚙窮m, "da pickle" <jcpickels@(nospam)hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "johnny_t"
>>
>> > The bet was offered, I agreed and set a line, he said good here's an even
>> > better line if your down lets go, I agreed to the original line and its
>> > booked.
>>
>> Paul never agreed to the original line. 嚙瘢t is not "down." 嚙磐ou never agreed
>> to Paul's offer ... that is not "down" either. 嚙瘢t is neither 5/5 nor 7/5
>> because you never agreed to 7/5 and Paul never agreed to 5/5.
>>
>> > So first answer, no. 嚙磅econd part, moot.
>>
>> You are correct that it does not matter, but you two still have not agreed
>> upon the terms. 嚙瘢t is surprising that an "obvious" real bet (the previous
>> discussion about this subject) was denied by the same people that do not
>> seem to understand that this time there is no bet ... yet ... (Paul still
>> has a reasonable amount of time to accept your last offer of a 5/5 bet ...
>> he has not yet responded). 嚙確hat is amazing. 嚙確hat is why lawyers exist in
>> the first place. 嚙瞑eople "assume" too much is "obvious" and yet later it
>> turns out not to be so obvious after all.
>
>
>Alright already! Me and Johnny are down! Even-money, $5 to $5. I
>pick Jerry Brown the rat fink commie, and Johnny picks the corporate
>slut and immigrant-abuser Meg Whitman. And what d'ya wanna bet this
>is the REAL Pickle? It is a sure thing, I guarantee it.
>
>Vote for Chelene Nightingale for Governor! The Tea Party candidate.
>http://www.nightingaleforgovernor.com/
That name sounds familiar.
I wonder, did she have an older sister named Florence?
I used to know a Florence Nightingale back in the Day.