|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> The Cafe >> Christine O'Donnell /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1284942340 Message started by mick on 09/19/10 at 17:25:39 |
|
Title: Christine O'Donnell Post by mick on 09/19/10 at 17:25:39 Last Friday on "Real Time with Bill Maher" he jockingly said to the TV audience I have been trying to get Chistine O'Donnell to come on the show,but so far no luck,he went on to say he will show a clip from his show from way back when she was a regular on the show (the one that was censerd off the air) So this week the clip showed O'Donnell ,saying that she dabbled in witchcraft' quite often, by the way she is a friend of Palin. Bill Maher is on every friday evening on HBO ,check your local listing for times ,a great show better than those stupid reality shows |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Midnightrider on 09/19/10 at 17:52:52 Mick you and Bill Maher are my favorite atheist ;) Bill tells it like it is. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Wake51 on 09/19/10 at 21:41:49 Huge fan or Maher here and his non-theistic ways. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Starlifter on 09/19/10 at 22:03:44 Bill Maher, tells it like it is, and is always 100% spot on on his commentaries. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Serowbot on 09/19/10 at 23:36:54 Christine O'Donnell was a Catholic schoolgirl that dabbled in satanic witchcraft in high school,... that became a drunken, theater major, ho' in college,... that found Jesus, and proclaimed masturbation as a sin, and said she would not lie to Nazi's hunting Jews,... and now has questionable finances, but isn't so anti-masturbation anymore ... I like her!,... but, she should wear more leather... ;D... Bill Maher's funny too,... but, I don't know if he can top that... :-?... |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by mpescatori on 09/19/10 at 23:48:48 I had never heard of the lady before, so I googled her. Here's an excerpt that made me smile. "O'Donnell wrote in "The Case for Chastity" that she knows many "physical" virgins who are not "sexually pure." That's because these women look at porn, O'Donnell wrote. O'Donnell and her supporters believe that sexuality is "a gift from God," that should be saved for marriage for the purpose of procreation. " Be happy, rejoice ! Christine O'Donnel is a ... Muslim Christian ??? Christian with Muslim tendencies ? Radical wotsit ? :-? http://muslimmatters.org/?s=masturbation :-X (relax, guys, it's Monday morning, I'm just trying to prop my face into a smile... ;) |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/19/10 at 23:52:05 Yea, the more I hear about her the less Im liking it. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by mick on 09/20/10 at 11:39:06 4E584F524A5F52493D0 wrote:
be sure and watch next Friday ,he said "You aint seen nothin yet" |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by buttgoat1 on 09/20/10 at 12:06:02 I'd love to see obama's college transcripts and papers he wrote, nobody has seen them..... did he really go to college? |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Serowbot on 09/20/10 at 12:38:03 Cum'on Buttgoat,... we know you don't like him, but don't deny the obvious... He was President of the Harvard Law Review,.... I think you have to be a student for that... ... and yes,... he is a American too... |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by bill67 on 09/20/10 at 12:58:29 How could Christine O'Donnell or Sarah Palin be any worse than what we have had for the last 10 years,You guys just don't like a women being boss.We got gay men in congress,crooks,and lairs running the country now. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by buttgoat1 on 09/20/10 at 13:26:42 I never said he wasn't an american nor I am not disputing that he was president of the law review. I am merely pointing out that tearing apart something one college student did and turning a blind eye to another is hypocritcal. everyone did stupid stuff in college, Wouldn't you want to see barrys papers and records? Compare them to McDonnell's? know what he was thinking back then? don't we want to know about all of our elected officials? maybe not. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/20/10 at 14:09:41 5345524F57424F54200 wrote:
Doest bother you that "Mr Transparent" has gone to such lengths to keep his background secret? |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by mick on 09/20/10 at 14:49:44 524556434542455649240 wrote:
Did you tell your wife every little secret about yourself before you married her ? And I bet she told you all hers. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/20/10 at 15:20:10 What someones school papers have in them shouldnt be a secret IF they want to become a public official. We need to know if he was writing about the wonders & the greatness of communism. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by bill67 on 09/20/10 at 15:31:26 JOG were you writing about the wonders and greatness of the USA when you were in school. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Starlifter on 09/20/10 at 17:45:31 Oh com'on Jog, I know that all polititions are crooks, but BO is a dam site better than the murderers who looted the treasury and pissed on the constitution. :P As for you goat, again, too stupid to reply to. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by buttgoat1 on 09/20/10 at 18:44:12 be real people, everyone has good and bad points. even the won and Christine McDonnel, don't be so blinded by partisanship that you can't objectively see both the good and bad even in your own candidate. Lifter, are you serious? thanks for the logical debate. geez! |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by WebsterMark on 09/20/10 at 19:44:13 Too bad there's not a video of Christie showing herself dabbling in Islamic Terrorism and issuing a fatwa against her mean high school gym teacher or something. President Hopey-Change could have told everyone to just remain calm that real Americans are tolerant of that sort of thing. But hey, if there were a video like that Mr. Politically Correct wouldn't have put it on the air. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by JohnBoy on 09/20/10 at 20:02:06 I don't care if she is a witch, or if she eats babes. What I have a problem with is the hypocracy that the conservatives show in claiming to be the party of family values and then supporting someone who admits to picnicking on a Satanic alter...”There was only a little blood”. If Obama had said this they would be marching on the White House calling for his head on a pike. These are the same people that went out of their way to trash John McCain who endured torture every day for five years rather than sign a 'confession' and take a free ride home. The sad part of this story is that the Republicans had a good man with a proven track record, and they through him away, insuring one party rule for another two years. I hope it was worth it JB |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Starlifter on 09/20/10 at 20:26:02 Obama To Tea Party: 'Identify, Specifically, What Would You Do?' <snip> "If there is anger over the economic or political landscape, he added, it is being misdirected in his direction." "The problem that I've seen in the debate that's been taking place and in some of these Tea Party events is, I think they're misidentifying sort of who the culprits are here," said Obama. "As I said before, we had to take some emergency steps last year. But the majority of economists will tell you that the emergency steps we take are not the problem long-term. The problems long-term are the problems that I talked about earlier. We had two tax cuts that weren't paid for, two wars that weren't paid for. We've got a population that's getting older. We're all demanding services, but our taxes have actually substantially gone down." "So the challenge, I think, for the Tea Party movement is to identify, specifically, what would you do?" he added. "It's not enough just to say get control of spending. I think it's important for you to say, I'm willing to cut veterans' benefits or I'm willing to cut Medicare or Social Security benefits or I'm willing to see these taxes go up. What you can't do, which is what I've been hearing a lot from the other side, is we're going to control government spending, we're going to propose $4 trillion of additional tax cuts, and that magically somehow things are going to work. Now, some of these are very difficult choices." ****************************************************** Many teabaggers and other right-wing morons get SS and Medicare, but for some reason they don't seem to understand that the idiots they are voting for want to do away with those two programs along with every other program that helps American citizens keep their heads above water! You can talk till you are blue in the face, and most of these morons can't get it through their heads that they are voting to get rid of programs they use and live on! Only when the lose these benefits, their home, their savings, and are living on the street will the finally come to their senses and see the facts, and then again maybe they still won't see the facts! We should push for a 3 month hiatus of SS and Medicare benefits for teabaggers and other right wingers. They'd never go for it, but it would shut them the f*ck up pretty fast once reality slapped them across the face. People fall for generalized B.S. and they end up paying a price for not paying attention. All these people know is how to act pissed and repeat moldy buzzwords for the TV camera like "freedom" "socialism" "tyranny" "taxes" etc. They are so stupid that they actually want the US to borrow more money from China and give it to the 1% of the super rich in the form of continued ultra tax cuts, while it is them, their children, and their grandchildren who will be paying for this boondoggle while the super rich will be laughing at these suckers all the way to the bank. This is what Goat and Webster cannot get through their thick heads. I have a few suggestions. You want to cut government spending and lower taxes? Pull every last soldier out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Cut the general staff at the Pentagon by half. Close the School of the Americas. Forget the Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier. Close Guantanamo and give it back to the Cubans. Close half of the other 700+ bases not on American soil. That's for starters. The goal would be to get the defense budget down to where it is only twice the size of the next largest. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by mick on 09/20/10 at 23:14:09 + 1 |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by WebsterMark on 09/21/10 at 05:57:00 We're all demanding services, but our taxes have actually substantially gone down." No Star, we are not all demanding services. In fact, if some people like you would stop either mouching from Uncle Sam or encouraging others to mouch, we might actually find a way out of this liberal mess we’re in. Fine, cut SS and I’m not banking on it. Star; you’re nothing but a whimpering crybaby. Always crying somebody’s got something you don’t or ‘it’s not fair’…..wah…wah….wah…. It’s embarrassing. Have some respect for yourself. You’re like many of the poor in New Orleans who just stood there waiting to be rescued, to inept to care for themselves since they’d grown up in your world with handouts shoved at them over and over. Always being told that ‘the man’ was the reason for their plight, not themselves. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by bill67 on 09/21/10 at 06:04:38 I'm drawing SS is that mouching from Uncle Sam,Or is that money I've payed in to for 50 years. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Starlifter on 09/21/10 at 06:25:04 WM, you wear your ignorance like a badge of honor. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by bill67 on 09/21/10 at 06:47:44 I read a couple weeks ago that when President Carter was in he worked on and had the amount you pay in for SS. doubled,I'm sure glad he did or all the retired people would be getting about half what we get now. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by WebsterMark on 09/21/10 at 07:22:59 Here's an idea.... put money away yourselves and you'll have 5 times as much available. It will be you're own money, not someone elses. What happens to the money someone has paid into SS all their lives and they die early?....Oh yea,... their survivors get a little bit and the rest goes into that big old pot which really goes to pay for the federal operating budget. There's a difference between a safety net and a road. You crybabies want a golden road handed to you instead of a net for those tragic, and rare, situations where people do need long term help. Star; look around at this problems in the country and most, not all, are the fault of people like you. Pathetic. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by LostArtist on 09/21/10 at 07:25:45 Bill, I'm not against SS, but the money you are receiving now is not the money you paid in, they didn't hold it for you and are now returning it. They didn't invest it and save it for you. the money you paid in was spent on people receiving SS at the time you were paying in, so the money you are getting now is money from working Americans now, you are getting an amount based on how much you worked though, the more you worked and are/were paid the more you get back Webster, it'd be nice if you didn't talk about things you didn't understand, like Katrina victims so I'm going to let that comment slide out of your pure ignorance. or do you have some experience with having very very little and then losing everything in a hurricane and having absolutely no way of leaving, no buses, no one else to help you out, would you have rather they all went and begged at the empty churches?? that wasn't a normal situation at all so don't use it, it just shows your ignorance. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by bill67 on 09/21/10 at 07:52:13 6E5C5B4A4D5C4B74584B52390 wrote:
Web you can save your own money,What happens if you lose your job and can't get work for a couple years,Then you would use your saving and then wouldn't have it when you retire.Because I know you wouldn't go on welfare. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by bill67 on 09/21/10 at 07:54:15 0E2D31360330362B3136420 wrote:
Lost glad you clued me in on SS. I had no Idea how it worked ::) |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by bill67 on 09/21/10 at 07:56:50 I really don't no what to do with you young ones here |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by LostArtist on 09/21/10 at 09:05:59 sorry bill, sometimes your short answers leave out that you know anything . . . ^ | see what I'm sayin' |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by buttgoat1 on 09/21/10 at 09:15:54 wow Lifter, no need to call me stupid and thick, we are all adults and can respectfully disagree but it seems that is all you want to offer other than whatever talking points you copy and paste. dude, go ride your bike, you really need the R&R. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Serowbot on 09/21/10 at 10:00:21 053730212637201F332039520 wrote:
I know a guy that did that,... He's living on SS now... Didn't you notice that while GW was in office, stocks brought a negative return over 8 years?... GW's dad,... invented the term, "negative growth"... ... or did he steal that one from Orwell?... :-?... |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by WebsterMark on 09/21/10 at 10:21:41 Lost; yes, everyone knows SS works the way you described (pat yourself on the back for a quick tour of wikipedia) which is why it's doomed and yet another reason why you shouldn't rely on government when you are able (or should be able) to do it yourself. No way of helping themselves?! I'll give you that. why? Because they never helped themselves most of their lives. Sorry, i don't buy your crybaby view of the world. I saw the videos, I listened to the interviews and what I heard was mostly Africian America women with multiple children, no father and left to fend for themselves when they were ill-equipped having been fed at the bird feeder all their lives. You're liberal ideology over the years have turned the inner city poor into slaves to the latest anti-poverty program. year after year, black americans line up like sheep to vote for the latest democrat only to receive more handouts locking them into slavery more and more. One day, someone will lead them out of the mess you've put them in. Shamful. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by LostArtist on 09/21/10 at 10:42:09 eh, nevermind, it's a waste of space talking to webstermark, is there an ignore button on this forum???? |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by WebsterMark on 09/21/10 at 10:54:51 yea there is, it's called LostArtist.... You, as most liberals, confuse handouts with compassion. Like spoiling a child, it makes you sleep better at night, but does lasting damage. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by WebsterMark on 09/21/10 at 10:59:25 Sew;....I know a guy that did that,... He's living on SS now... no, you don't. You know a guy who did that for a short time or was stupid or perhaps greedy with his money. Anyone investing money over the past 30 - 40 years on their own is way, way ahead. SS is a terrible idea now and needs to be done away with slowly. but hey, look at it this way, I just read a little bit of Ahmedinejad's speech today and it looks like half the people on here have found their kindred spirit.... |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Serowbot on 09/21/10 at 11:23:06 Sometimes I think Webster has a pull-string on his back that spews right-wing cliche's every time you pull it... I with you Lost,... where's my button?... :-?... |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by WebsterMark on 09/21/10 at 12:01:20 I notice you guys never actually refute anything, just quick little one line pot shots. so Sew, tell me about the investor who is on SS only because his investments did not support him. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by bill67 on 09/21/10 at 12:07:34 web are you saving money for your retirement. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by WebsterMark on 09/21/10 at 12:28:56 no bill, i'm going to cut out the middleman and just walk around asking rich people for money when i get older. Yes. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Serowbot on 09/21/10 at 12:35:08 506265747362754A66756C070 wrote:
I take it that you don't believe me.... What do want,... his phone and address,... ...or proof of citizenship, and his college transcripts... :-?... You'll get neither... |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by bill67 on 09/21/10 at 12:46:06 162423323524330C20332A410 wrote:
If you become disable tomorrow and can't work, will you have enough money to last you 40 years,With SS you would get full disability,And it normally keeps going up ever year. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by WebsterMark on 09/21/10 at 12:48:08 again, proving my point..... You guys never cough up the details, always a story about somebody who knew somebody... (at least Oldfeller puts specific details down when he goes off on his GM rants) how could someone who saved responsibility all his life, now find himself on SS only? I suspect there's more to the story. You're doing that thing liberals always do which is to take individual ilresponsibility and put the resulting cost on everyone elses back, mostly without their permission. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by WebsterMark on 09/21/10 at 12:52:37 no bill I don't have enough. I have some disability insurance, but certainly not enough to remain with the same income as now. but that's not my argument. I have no problem with someone in a circumstance like that. I'm not sure any conservative would argue that. I have a problem with millions using SS as their primary means of retirement and therefore becoming further entrenched in the "Uncle Sam will take care of us cradle to grave" ideology. We should have long ago begun the process of moving away from SS as we know it and slowly begin a process to privitazation. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by buttgoat1 on 09/21/10 at 15:27:42 ah the tolerance for opposing views! |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by LostArtist on 09/21/10 at 16:44:25 47504356505750435C310 wrote:
I tried. . . . I really did . . . :-[ |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Midnightrider on 09/21/10 at 18:10:27 Webster I'll tell you a story about someone I know personally, me. Back in 1986 the corporation I worked for was offering disability insurance. I was building my house and I decided to take out a policy in case something happened so I wouldnt lose my home. Paid premiums on it since 1986. Almost 2 years ago I woke up one morning extremely sick and to make a long story short that most of you already know I have Lupus. Had 3 different Doctors fill out my insurance disabilty forms and the disability insurance company worried the immortal hell out of me calling the house all the time and continuously sending more forms. Here's the neat little fine print I didnt know about. After I was out of work 6 mos the insurance company had their team of lawyers file for Social Security Disability Benefits for me. Three months later I was drawing Social Security Disability. There was a little fine print in my policy that said if I was drawing Social Security Disabilty the insurance company owed me nothing. I paid all those premiums for 20+ years and for what? I could have put a few thousand back for my own lawyer and the first 6 mos and come out way ahead. Webster you want privatazation, be careful what you wish for. Webster I use to be a lot like you, hell I even voted for W his first term. The last several years of my life I've been screwed royally by private health care and insurance corporations and the corporation I worked for for 37 years. Has the goverment ever screwed me, not really. I can accuse the goverment of wasting my money on wars and ideas I dont agree with but I pay my taxes and in return I recieve valuable services. I thought I was paying insurance premiums all these years so if something happened to me I wouldnt be a burden on the taxpayers. Little did I know the private insurance company was screwing me and the goverment. Thats privitazation at its finest. Webster I wouldnt wish what happened to me on anybody, I hope you never have to get sick to find out what I found out. Your private insurance and health care corporations thet you rally around will SCREW YOUR LITTLE TINY ASS INTO THE GROUND if they ever get a chance. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by mick on 09/21/10 at 19:03:13 Webster you must live in a republican never never land, I tried to live the American dream once ,I owned three homes ,Lived in one rented the other two,one house was payed for. We wanted to take a vacation of a lifetime before we got to old,so we sold one house and came away with 90 thousand to play with, we did the Europe thing after taking the queen Elizibeth 11 ,there and back. (my wife wouldn't fly) We had a great time ,but our marraige fell apart ,and after the devorse, I came out smelling like road kill, my ex got everything ,So there I was with 5 working years left and not a penny in the bank. So here I am living on my SS and nothing else . I did save enough to build a small appartment on my sisters farm,but that will revert to my sisters estate when I die. There are millions of stories just like mine,but most are caused by lack of medical funds, Last September I had a tripple A performed on me,The cost was about a half a million. I'm happy knowing that you must have at least that much saved because you don't want the government messing with your medical problems. And the SS that you refuse to take will just go back in the pot. We need more retirees like you. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by buttgoat1 on 09/21/10 at 19:56:34 yep, lots of people lose a lot in a divorce, thats too bad, guess your ex was a republican, eh? at least you got the trip of a lifetime out of the deal, course you coulda paid a lot more capital gains taxes on the sale of your house and not had the trip. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by circletree on 09/21/10 at 20:02:08 I've read thru this thread and I can comment on one constant that links it all together.....your life is all about choices. some people make good choices, some make bad choices. most people have the same opportunities for education, employment etc. some folks choose to live their life as if they were much more better off than the reality of their salary. Myself, I let my pocket be my guide. If I can't get it in 40 hrs. of pay, I don't need it. there is your choice...wants vs needs. what irks me is the notion from the left that I should be expected to work more to pull the weight of those that bought the 300K dollar house, the five bikes, the huge SUV and the latest blackberry phone on a 30,000 per year salary. They knew they couldn't afford it yet the banks were forced to loan them money anyway. Now, some that are under water in their mortgage may be "pardoned", and I am going to be taxes even more to compensate. That is where the problem is with our society....we have become so materialistic that no one wants to take the blame for their bad financial situation....everyone feels as though they are "entitled" to so much more. As far as Christine O'Donnell, why is the MSM focusing on HER past? don't you learn from your mistakes? If you want to pillory her for her past, then how about Eliot Spitzer (Client #9)? How about the Late Sen. Robert Byrd (Grand Kleagle KKK)? Bill Clinton (lying under oath, unfaithful to wife...but can you blame him?)..Obama (snorted cocaine, friend of Bill Ayers, hides past)? Can you not see the double standard? |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by WebsterMark on 09/21/10 at 20:23:27 Midnightrider; i'm sorry for the spot you're in. I know someone with Lupus and its a difficult thing to live with and I honestly wish you the best of luck and hope you get as much out of those days when you're feeling good as you can. One point I would offer is do you honestly think a healthcare systems run by the Fed would have treated you any differently? What, the IRS doesn't sue anyone? Private companies forgive more debt than the IRS so what makes you think the Feds aren't going to screw you into the groundthe same way? In fact, worse since they have the ultimate hammer. The IRS is first in line in a Chapter 11 or 7. A government run healthcare system will be your worse nightmare. Why do most people on Medicare have Medicare supplement insurance? Because it doesn't cover as much. The same thing will happen if general health insurance is handled the same way. I'm not saying private healthcare is perfect and I'm not saying cases don't happen like yours. I'm saying disaster awaits if we turn this whole thing over to Unlce Sam. Don't do it. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by mick on 09/21/10 at 23:36:13 6F786B7E787F786B74190 wrote:
she was a staunch democrat, we had to pay cap gains because it was not our residence, we came out of it close to a hundred grand,and we spent it all, New York,Paris, Rome ,London.Tons of great memories. And guess what ? a week before we left I got laid off. I got a kick on the QE11 at dinner the old conversation came up on what we do for a living, my wife told me to lie. in this case it was more fun telling the truth,I just said "I'm unemployed at the moment,do you know anyone looking for a bartender"? |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 09/22/10 at 08:49:49 This ole conservative doesn't rail on about SS, because I believe in it, and plan to use every legal maneuver I can think of to enhance my benefits. We have to remember that SS was, when enacted in the early 1930s, intended only as a supplement to one's retirement. But that was a different cultural time. It was an era when families lived together, and the elderly were cared for by their children and grandchildren. Yes, The Waltons show was more realistic than it was fiction. Generations either lived together, or next door to each other. But that was then, and now is now. Generations are spread all over the continent and regardless of the morals, or the "I want to care for ole Dad" factor, for most families, it's physically impossible. My only real beef with SS is in how is was conceived in a day of stable population replacement, when current taxes into the fund paid for those receiving benefits. What upset the financial apple cart was my generation, the Baby Boomers. We are such a bulge in the population curve that just wasn't even thought of in the 1930s. And, we didn't replace ourselves. In fact, the whole system worked nicely when all of my generation was working and contributing money to the SS fund, since there were so many of us putting $$ in for the far fewer of our parents who were retired. But now, it's reversed - fewer workers paying in, and the huge numbers of Baby Boomers about to start receiving benefits. That's the problem - I wish the fix were as easy as describing the cause of the coming real problem with the solvency of SS. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by buttgoat1 on 09/22/10 at 09:13:30 don't forget the eligibility age. We are living much longer healthier lives. Course the gubmint workers that retire at 55 got it really made, just leave us suckers to pay for it. http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/09/04/v-print/2445012/fort-worth-pension-bubble-will.html no social security in this case but taxpayer still end up footing the bill. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by mick on 09/22/10 at 09:23:40 I read just recently that SS does in fact pay for it's self,the problem is some one keeps borrowing it,whe fever that is they need to pay it back. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 09/22/10 at 10:19:47 BG - You are right about the retirement age and longer life expectancy now. In fact, when SS was devised in the 1930s, it was a scam - the required retirment age of 65 actually EXCEEDED the life expectancy in those days, 80 years ago. Then at some point a long time ago, the ability to take reduced benefits at age 62 came into being. That ought to be totally eliminated now, except for SS disability, of course. If the retirement age were simply raised to about 67 or 68, with no ability to take reduced benefits at any earlier age, the problem is solved, but few politicians can vote for that out of fear of voter rebellion. If we really went back to the original concept, the retirement age would be in the late 70s or early 80s, about a year of two beyond normal life expectancy. Think of trying to get that one past the voters today. Personally, I think all forms of pensions - SS, civilian gov't, military, corporate, school teachers, etc. ought to kick in no earlier than age 65, and probably later. We should encourage people to stay gainfully employed throughout most of their 60s, as that was like telling someone 80 years ago who was just 50 to keep working. I think retirement, on any pension, in one's 50s is silly. Again, true disability is a totally different matter - I'm talking here about normal retirement for a healthy person. Even for a person who has done manual labor, the mid 50s retirement is about what age 70+ was like in the 1930s. As I grew up in the construction industry, I saw the changes from true digging of ditches by a crew of workers to digging them with backhoes. I sit here and sometimes wonder what it would be like to be retired with no job to occupy my mind or time - a horrible thought to me. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by mick on 09/22/10 at 11:29:14 I agree with most of what you say Jerry,But you must use the old noggin to find some thing rewarding to do when you retire,.At the moment I look around at all my prodjects and wonder how I found time for work. Helping my brother in law build hot rods, Making my little Miata the best looking 93 on the planet. Painting in the winter etc; I retired when I was 62 but kept on working,because I worked for minimum wage I could draw SS for 7 months of the year, I was a chauffeur and lived on tips,so when I quit work at 65 , because I kept on working my SS went up just like I had worked until 65,but the great thing was I knew about that ,so after I had fully retired for about a year I got a check in the mail for $6,000 from SS and my monthly pay when up $200 a month. Before you get much older Jerry,request an interview with a SS agent, he or she will give you nothing but good advice,they really do care,they are well mannered and generally nice people. But do request an interview,so much better than just walking in. Oh Jerry you remember we talked about my private insurance ? it had gone up to $219 a month, well it just went down to $108 a month because I quit smoking,and I had lung x rays to prove it. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 09/22/10 at 11:47:52 Yo, Mick - Thanks for the good advice - I'll heed it. But you have to remember, I have no craftsmanship skills like you do. If I built a doghouse and put my dog in it, I'd get arrested for cruelty to animals. I admire guys like you who have talents with you hands - I have none. So my time has to be occupied with the only thing I know, and can do reasonably well, and that's business. I'm glad your private insurance went down - I've saved your message from over a year ago about your insurance, to call them when I hit 65 and have to go on Medicare. Take care, my Friend. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Serowbot on 09/22/10 at 12:16:06 79767A707B767D717661747661130 wrote:
When you retire,.. there's time to learn... Nothing more rewarding than learning... and nothing keeps you young, like a new challenge... Ol' dogs can learn new tricks... ;)... |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by mick on 09/22/10 at 23:16:17 Very true Serowbot,my Dad gave me a wood lathe about 15 years ago ,you can make all kinds of things with one of those,practical and whimsical ,buy a half dozen clock motors and then just use you imagination, using exotic woods you can make highly polished round boxes much to the delight of your wife. how about RC flying ,you can buy model planes "Almost ready to fly" or as we say in the early days almost ready to crash. Jerry you can fly one and crash without bodily harm,unless you crash it on your own noggin. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/23/10 at 04:59:51 5C4A5D40584D405B2F0 wrote:
When you retire,.. there's time to learn... Nothing more rewarding than learning... and nothing keeps you young, like a new challenge... Ol' dogs can learn new tricks... ;)... [/quote] Ol' dogs can learn new tricks... ;)... Like diggin out of a doghouse that falls in on him? |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 09/23/10 at 07:20:44 Mick - I remember using a wood lathe in junior high school, in the 8th grade. I had a paper route, and there were 2 really nasty dogs who used to try to bite me. Their owners let them run loose. So, I made a billy club in wood shop on the lathe (try doing that today). I gave each of those critters a tap on the nose with my club and both left me alone after that. I still have the club at home in a dresser drawer. I played a little with model airplanes as a kid, but never got into it - I'd rather fly the ones I can sit in. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Midnightrider on 09/23/10 at 07:39:07 "I played a little with model airplanes as a kid, but never got into it - I'd rather fly the ones I can sit in." Jerry you can almost. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOPGaFbFQSI&feature=related I just bought the video camera. I'll post a video soon as I can. Havent bought the goggles yet, the price keeps dropping. Pretty soon I'll be setting in my lawn chair flying all over the neighborhood LOL. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 09/23/10 at 07:52:03 Looks like fun, but not the same as the actual thing, being in the airplane. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Midnightrider on 09/23/10 at 08:03:27 656A666C676A616D6A7D686A7D0F0 wrote:
Its a lot safer if I'm on the sticks ;D About 3 weeks ago I thermaled my sailplane to where it was a dot, lost orientation for a minute or two. Had to be up a couple of thousand feet. I wish I had my video camera mounted then, I'll be lucky to ever do that again. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 09/23/10 at 08:18:02 From 1994 thru 2004 I was a very active glider pilot, My personal record was somewhere about 9,000 above the ground. Because I flew in a glider club, we had one hour time limits on each flight, so I never had any real long flights beyond the allowed one hour. On weekends there were always other members waiting to fly. I got bored with just circling around the area near the airport. The next step would have been cross-country flights, but that's a real production. In case you have to land out, away from the club's airfield, you have to have a pre-arranged crew with trailer and truck to come get you. Gliders are all built to dis-assemble easily just for this event; the wings come off in 5 minutes with virtually no tools needed, and then you just put everything on the trailer and head home. But I never got into all of that. Of course, if you want to spend the big bucks, you buy a motor glider that has the ability to self launch, then you shut off the engine, tuck it into the fuselage, and you are a glider. But you can re-start the engine if needed to fly you home. Those types of gliders begin about $50,000. You can buy a plain glider for around $10K. Our club owned the gliders, and each flight cost $4 for the glider, and about $12 for the towplane to tow you up to 2,000 before you released from the tow. Pretty cheap flying - $16 an hour. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Midnightrider on 09/23/10 at 09:49:41 Jerry back in 1976 I started flying hang gliders. Flew for 13 years and logged over 200 hrs. My longest flight was almost 3 hrs and I've been up to cloud base several times. I would do it again, virtually all the land owners on the east coast have shut the flying sites down because of fear of lawsuits. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 09/23/10 at 11:31:33 I know very little about hang gliders. I've never flown one - the thought of no structure around me is pretty scary. But I bet it is fun. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by JohnBoy on 09/23/10 at 11:36:32 http://lh3.ggpht.com/_TCSH6bqjHEM/TJudFcxq5NI/AAAAAAAAA1A/-EzVD8nCyRE/s512/Delaware%20family%20values.jpg Oh the hypocrisy! |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/24/10 at 03:41:45 Thats a bit of a stretch, innitt? She dabbled with some stuff in High School. So what? While Bammy wont let us see what he wrote in college, well just hang this gal out to dry for being a kid.. genius. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 09/24/10 at 05:22:40 JOG - You're exactly right on this one. If we all had to defend everything silly thing we did in high school, and our college years, no one would pass muster. I look at what a politician stands for when he/she is running, not wether they had an affair 20 years ealier, smoked some pot in college, ran with the wrong crowd for awhile, or whatever. Sure, there are exceptions to that general rule, like murderers, child molesters, etc. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by JohnBoy on 09/24/10 at 08:31:01 242B272D262B202C2B3C292B3C4E0 wrote:
My point exactly..."I smoked , but I never inhaled!" When are we (the voters) going to stop focusing on crap like this and look at who is pulling the strings? As Deep Throat said so many years ago, "Follow the money!!!" I repeat...Oh the hypocrisy! |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by bill67 on 09/24/10 at 08:35:43 GWB ran though the back of his garage when he was drunk and he got to be president,Then he ran though our money. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by tcreeley on 09/24/10 at 09:11:17 ...and didn't GW fly jets too, like his father for the national guard, but skipped out early...somehow! ;D |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 09/24/10 at 10:39:23 Here's the deal on GWB's early out from the Air Guard: First, his father was a Naval Aviator in WWII; he was not in the Guard. GWB was a fighter pilot for the Texas Air Nat'l Guard. He was in a unit flying F-102 fighters. The F-102 was being taken out of service, as it was an old plane even back then. Like is very common in Guard units even today, pilots with less than about 1.5 years to go in their service committment are usually offered an early out when the unit changes airplanes. It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to train a pilot for a new airplane. It's far less expensive to let a "short termer" get out early than to train him/her for a new airplane that they will then only fly in the unit for a short time until they get out at te end of their normal committment. The same thing happened in our Guard unit, when we switched from A-7 fighters, when they were taken out of srevice, and the unit bacame a tanker unit flying KC-135s. Many of the piltos were offered an early out, and most took it, rather than have the gov't spend the money to re-train fighter pilots to fly heavy, multi-engine tankers. Nothing at all unusual took place regarding GWB's early out. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Serowbot on 09/24/10 at 10:59:47 29262A202B262D212631242631430 wrote:
Except that he got in,... instead of going to Nam... |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/24/10 at 11:08:47 7365726F77626F74000 wrote:
Except that he got in,... instead of going to Nam...[/quote] STOPPITT! My legs sore from slappin it.. Yep, aint that something? Got in the Guard, flying an obsolete plane, while the contract for the replacement was most likely signed, so, whoever assigned him to that unit may well have done so to make his tour short enough to keep him happy. Just a thot, not that thers ever any hanky panky in dc |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 09/24/10 at 11:28:13 Serowbot - Your comment is insulting to Guard members. Tens of thousands of people honorably served in the Guard and the Air Guard during the Vietnam era, as well as in the Reserves. You diminish their service with remarks like that. JOG - Again, a conspiracy afloat, right? If you knew much about Air Force hardware in the late 1960s and early 1970s, you'd know that this process was going on throughout the Army Guard and Air Guard. Guard units historically got obsolete, or nearly so, equipment in those days (not today, but then). It was an era when the Guard finally started getting equipped with more modern airplanes, as the Korean War era stuff was finally phased out of service. While the F-102 wasn't a Korean War airplane, it was a 1950s vintage airplane that had long before reached the end of its useful service life. Many of the pilots in that unit got the same early out. Our Guard unit actually flew P-51 Mustang fighters, piston engine, prop driven airplanes until the late 1950s, long after all of the active Air Force has switched over to F-100 jets, and other Century Series jet fighters. I remember an Army Guard unit in 1968 still flying Korean War Hiller helicopters. I got my initial training with that unit in a helo with WOODEN rotor blades in 1968. Before you float these silly theories, find out the facts. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by bill67 on 09/24/10 at 11:52:09 GWB didn't show up for a lot of his reserve meeting,You know like no show George. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 09/24/10 at 11:59:05 Bill - Yep, he missed a few drills, like most Guard members have of all ranks and jobs. Again, when you know the facts, no big deal. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by bill67 on 09/24/10 at 12:08:47 Its according to who your daddy is if its a big deal or not. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Serowbot on 09/24/10 at 12:19:07 Not intended to insult those that served, but... that particular assignment was very cushy and virtually guaranteed an in-country stint... a privileged group of senators sons landed those positions... I intended to insult those select few.... |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 09/24/10 at 12:23:36 How about the rest of the Guard pilots of that time? Better yet, how about those who refused to join anything, certainly guaranteed to remain in the USA, like a certain guy from Arkansas who later became POTUS? |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by WebsterMark on 09/24/10 at 12:26:49 Save your breath Jerry..... |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Serowbot on 09/24/10 at 12:35:52 "In May 1968, American soldiers were dying in combat in Southeast Asia at a rate of about 350 per week. George W. Bush was twelve days away from losing his student draft deferment (meaning that he?d be eligible for draft into the Vietnam War) when he abruptly decided that he should join the 147th Fighter Group of the Texas Air National Guard. In spite of the very long waiting list and having only scored the lowest acceptable grade on the pilot aptitude qualification test, this son of a Houston-based congressman managed to enlist on the same day that he applied, and a special ceremony was staged so he could be photographed swearing in for duty (a second special photo opportunity was arranged when Bush was commissioned a second lieutenant as Bush?s father the congressman [a supporter of the Vietnam War] stood proudly in the background). According to Shrub?s former commanding officer, Bush ?said he wanted to fly just like his daddy.? Other members of the Texas Air National Guard at the time included the aide to the speaker of the Texas House and at least seven members of the Dallas Cowboys professional football team; Bush?s 147th Fighter Group was known as the "Champagne Unit" because it also included the sons of future Senator Lloyd Bentsen and Texas Governor John Connally. " The Champagne Unit, for the very special with family influence... :-?... |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 09/24/10 at 12:58:46 Interesting - along with sons of those famous Dems, Bentson and Connally. Seems like those three still did more than the gentleman from Arkansas. As for apptitude tests, I seem to recall that Gen. Grant was at or near the bottom of his West Point class - he did fairly well in the real thing. Regardless of what anyone thought of the publicity stunt that GWB pulled in flying out to that carrier, he went in a dual control airplane, obviously flown by a current Naval aviator whose name I can't recall. The guy said in a later interview, some years after he got out of the Navy, that he let GWB fly the airplane during most of the time it took to get out to the carrier, and he flew like he was still on active flight status. Again, what was Mr. Clinton doing during this time? |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by buttgoat1 on 09/24/10 at 13:20:20 03080D0D5756610 wrote:
I think he voted "present" for all of those........ |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Serowbot on 09/24/10 at 13:42:14 2D222E242F2229252235202235470 wrote:
I was hoping you'd let that one go... ...but,... he was at Oxford on a Rhodes Scholarship... ...and he achieved it without a millionaire family dynasty, or politician fathers influence... ...you don't earn one of those 12 days before you're eligible for draft... ... and you don't earn it by scoring the minimum requirement... Hardly comparable... Quote:
There, you have a point... but I didn't vote their sons president either... |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by bill67 on 09/24/10 at 13:48:06 Bill Clinton a fine smart man almost had our country out of debt,A self made man. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 09/24/10 at 13:54:06 No, but each of the fathers wanted to be pres. And, I'm not the son of a millionaire or poltician either, nor have I run for POTUS. Who is his right mind would? Seriously, to change the subject slightly, it's just this kind of nit picking into one's younger years that has driven off some mighty good people, of all political persuasions, from running for office. Before long, we'll want to know how long it took a candidate to get potty trained when he was a toddler, or how many playground fights he got into while in 1st grade. Right now, my son-in-law is the county recorder in our county - hardly an office full of politcal intrigue or controversy. Ohio has 88 counties, and his office is the most efficient of all of them, measured by the number of documents recorded per staff person. Yet, two years ago when he ran for re-election, his opponent criticized him for not being in his office during his 3 week honeymoon. That's how silly even local politics has become. About 15 years ago, I was offered a judgeship. It took me a nano second to decide to say no; and about 2 minutes to figure out how to do so politely. No way did I want this kind of scrutiny into everything I ever said, did, or didn't do. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by JohnBoy on 09/24/10 at 13:56:36 555E5B5B0100370 wrote:
If he could only keep his Klotz in his pants! |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by bill67 on 09/24/10 at 14:02:04 Now you know thats not always a easy thing to do. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by mick on 09/24/10 at 14:34:31 49464A404B464D414651444651230 wrote:
Dang it Jerry ! you through away a judgeship,think of the money you could make ,in a very short time ,you could have retired in a few years with millions,in cash. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 09/24/10 at 14:47:43 Sorry, Mick, but judge pay isn't all that high in the state court system. Federal judges do quite well as their pay is the same as a senator's is. Currently in the neighborhood of $160K per year. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Yonuh Adisi on 09/24/10 at 14:50:50 First of all real Witchcraft/Wicca has nothing to do with satan. In fact true Witchcraft/Wicca does not even recognize satan as real so how can they worship something they do not even believe in? Second, what ever happened to freedom of religion? This always irritated me when people automatically assume that Witchcraft/Wicca is devil worship when the devil is not even recognized. Satanism is the worship of the devil and has nothing to do with Witchcraft/Wicca. People really need to educate themselves about stuff before the spout off about things they obviously no nothing about. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Trippah on 09/24/10 at 21:01:53 Our country is getting exactly what it voted for. The most evil man since himmler elected VP.routed in haliburton, what a surprise we were permanently at war, with the expense no carried in the budget nor the extra needed soldiers counted in employment/unemployed figures..not planned for by the VA...duh. Many people do not like the present incumbent's style of governing, he goes thru a study and consensus building, then makes a plan..not autocratic enough. Well, it is the more "feminen" style if management so if your crying that we are afraid of Palin cause she is a women, wrong. That she is a slick imbecile..right. ;) Oh and physically attractive also. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by mick on 09/24/10 at 22:32:07 Serowbot , Are you saying that bill Clinton is smarter than GWB ? So, given the smarts of both guys ,who made the best POTUS. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by mick on 09/24/10 at 23:12:01 On Bill Maher tonight showed another clip of Christine O'Donell,remember he will post a clip from his early shows politcal corect, until she agrees to come on his show. She said that her and a girl friend killed a mexican. I wonder how this one pans out ? |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by WD on 09/26/10 at 11:47:53 I got a call last night from a "survey service" about one of our state initiatives on the November ballot. About how supporting it will turn us into another California... The little girl got mad at me for answering honestly, that anything the steal and squander sector wants, I'm against. Apparently, supporting an initiatve to force the state to be fiscally responsible is a bad thing? My wife is on Social Security, way ahead of the normal age, due to disability. Her check almost covers the mortgage on a 30 year old single wide (with 2 stick built add on rooms) and an acre of basically useless ground. For our house, Social Security IS the crutch it was intended to be. Sure can't live on it. I received a year of benefits and a lump sum pre-payment for the 3 years I spent off work injured. It amounted to 1 1/2 years of pay, better than a kick in the butt, but it still took years to pay off the bills. I do get a good laugh over the typical American response to common European lifestyle choices, i.e. paganism, social and familial nudity, open homosexuality, living within your means, etc. Your average career politician doesn't care about you, me or the corporate purse strings he's sold his soul to. Look good for the camera, steal as much from the public and private sector as you can, and get out of the limelight before you get caught. Play to the country's xenophobia while holding the backdoor open in order to get more kickbacks off the backs of illegals. You want to really trip your mind out? Read the publication Nazi-Soci by Dr. Joseph Goebbels. There is an awful lot of the bilge spouted by both major US political ideologies in there... |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by mick on 09/27/10 at 23:51:16 Wd, the book you mentioned in your last post was the title "Nazi-Soci" by Goebbels,or did you abreviate ?. I would like to read the book so I need the correct title, thanks mate, Mick |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Starlifter on 09/30/10 at 14:10:17 "Sorry, Mick, but judge pay isn't all that high in the state court system. Federal judges do quite well as their pay is the same as a senator's is. Currently in the neighborhood of $160K per year." Low pay eh? maybe that explains the almost universal corruption of local judges. ...and Jerry, you should stop defending GWB. It is unbecoming of someone of your intellect. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by tcreeley on 09/30/10 at 14:25:27 Why do GOP pols care about sex so much? This one had a campaign against masturbation when she was younger. Gingrich had three wives and criticized Clinton for his messing around. Some of the biggest critics of gay sex are conservatives who are secretly gay. Pols frequently are into pay for sex, both sides. One republican governor had a girlfriend in South America despite being "happily married." Unless it is harmful to someone, it is no one's business. But let's stop the hypocrisy. :) |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 09/30/10 at 14:26:53 Lifter - That remark about state court judge is insulting. Read my post on the Tall Table - in 35 years of constant trial work and appearances before judges in several states, I've NEVER encountered one on the take. Some may not be the brightest bulbs on the Christmas tree, but that's a whole different issue from being corrupt. And I will defend most of GWB's presidency, except for invading Iraq when we should have gone into Iran. Has Hopey Changey done any better in your view? I see that his trusted ally, Emanuel, is jumping ship tomorrow, along with Sommers, who already left. No senior economic adisor, no chief of staff has chosen to remain with him - says a lot, doesn't it? |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 09/30/10 at 14:44:31 Tcreeley - I mostly agree, but a guy who got divorced twice and kept his sex life in his own home is quite different from a POTUS getting a b... job in the Oval Office, sitting behind the most powerful desk in the world, and on the phone to a Congressman at the same time. During Reagan's presidency, he would not even enter the Oval Office, even at night or on a weekend, unless he was attired in suit and tie, out of his deep respect for the place itself, the power it represents, and the line of great men who had gone before him. I guess that kind of respect has vanished, as Clinton got his head job there, and Hopey Changey has been photographed sitting in the oval office in casual clothes. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by LostArtist on 09/30/10 at 14:45:16 3639353F3439323E392E3B392E5C0 wrote:
we shoulda gone to Saudi Arabia |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Starlifter on 09/30/10 at 15:07:14 Jerry, don't even bring up that cheap fraud Ronny ray-gun. That asswipe fired the Professional Air traffic controllers to bust their union. Two of my family members were fired in that vindictive and stupid action. Millions of air travelers were put in harms way as overworked supervisors and rookie controllers hired overnight were put in charge of airports and enroute centers across the nation. Ronald Reagan represents all of the worst elements of the American political experience of the last 50 years. All of them. He was, and always will be, nothing but a fool. Intellectually, Reagan gave chimpy a run for his money. He was vacuous. He was shallow. He was incurious. He was a puppet and a door stop for a group of sick ideologues who really ran the country. He was a broken down cowboy actor and foolish tool. Ideologically, he was a hater and an imperialist and far-right loony-tune. He hated the poor. He hated gays. He hated leftists. He hated unions. He hated America itself. He hated and he hated and he hated. Just ask his own kids. He hated them and himself and his ex-wife. Ronald Reagan was a twisted unrepentant closed-minded dope. In the end, the only way he could live with himself was to forget everything. ...so pardon me if I don't get all full of love and pride because he wore a suit in his own house. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by drharveys on 09/30/10 at 15:38:38 103722312F2A25372631430 wrote:
C'mon Starlifter, don't hold back -- let us know how you really feel about the guy! ;D |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by mick on 09/30/10 at 15:55:02 [quote author=202F2329222F24282F382D2F384A0 link=1284942340/90#104 date=1285882013]Lifter - That remark about state court judge is insulting. Read my post on the Tall Table - in 35 years of constant trial work and appearances before judges in several states, I've NEVER encountered one on the take. Jerry if a judge was crooked or on the take ,you would be the last person to know agout it,he does not broadcast his crimes. Personally I would guess 30% are crooked. Maybe not literaly taking money,but favors count as well. Look at all the celebs of late getting off with a slap on the wrist,had it been me ,I would rot in jail until he was in the mood to hear my case. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by tcreeley on 09/30/10 at 16:17:26 Heard today Bush administration indemnified from financial obligation and court fees, a contractor BKR?, prior connection to Halliburton. They were a contractor in Iraq winning a no bid contract for supplying US troops- ie showers that electrocuted our soldiers, poisoned them, bad water, rape, etc. This indemnity was renewed every year. If soldiers and families sue, the federal government picks up the fees. While this is/was legal, was this right? Morality and the law do not coincide very often, but it is still wrong. >:( |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Starlifter on 09/30/10 at 19:49:27 +1 |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by LostArtist on 09/30/10 at 21:11:06 32363C342B373A3336323A265F0 wrote:
I know a judge back in PA that was friends with my boss there, my boss had some influence over the judge, my boss was also a pretty wealthy guy in that area. . . and a pretty good, I hate to say it, but, liar. not a terrible guy though, just, everything was a sale to him. he's why I left that job. Sometimes his intentions were good, but his methods just didn't add up for me. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 10/01/10 at 06:00:11 Liftre - I know it's you who hate Reagan. Too bad. As for the air traffic controller situation, the strike was ILLEGAL under the Federal laws of 1981. What should he have done, turned his head and let an illegal strike continue? Not in my mind. I too had a friend personally affected. My best buddy from college was a controller who got canned - I told him not to go out, but he got brainwashed by the union and violated Federal law. Should the controllers have been able to choose which Federal laws to obey or violate with impunity? As for hating unions - Reagan was the only president who himself had been the president of an AFL-CIO union; the Screen Actors Guild. Before you think that SAG is only a fraternal organization of millionaire stars, the exact opposite is true. SAG mainly represents the bottom rung of actors - those whose names appear at the end of screen credits for every movie - the little guys who need a union. The stars don't need a union to protect their interests - the stars have a huge bargaining power themselves. It's SAG who protects the stunt men from crazy crap that is outright dangerous. SAG protects the working conditions and wages paid to those people who struggle daily to make a meager living doing bit parts in B or C grade movies and on TV. Yeah, Reagan wasn't particularly sympathetic to gay causes, nor am I. I don't hate anyone, but I do have my opinions of right and wrong, and I just don't see gay life as an acceptable "alternative life style". Again, I don't hate them, but I sure don't work to advance any of their causes, either, with the sole exception of being wholeheartedly in favor of AIDS research and treatment. And of course, I'd bet that you see no good in Reagan's push to dismember the Soviet empire and in the process, end the Cold War. I do see good in that. Yeah, it cost us a lot of money, buy far less than a world wide conflagration from a nuclear war would have cost. Like most things political, we'll never agree on most of these points. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Starlifter on 10/01/10 at 11:58:12 Jerry, RR had absolutely NO part or influence in the downfall of the Soviet Union. I'll bet he couldn't even find Russia on a world map. He thoroughly repudiated his involvement in the actors union and said he was young, foolish, and brain-washed to have ever supported a union. What should he have done with PATCO? Ordered them back to work under federal law, got the two sides together in a forced negation, and used an arbitrator to negotiate a fare settlement. Duh! But no, he ruined careers, deprived people of their earned pentions, endangered air travelers, and black-balled the controlers so they could never again obtain a government job. There is a great new book out called "Conversations with Cronkite" and Walter makes some judgements on some presidents he has known: Ronald Reagan: "Oh, my evaluation of Reagan is that he was a lightweight,totally unfit to be president of teh United States, and he performed accordingly." (pg. 329 "I never knew anything above Cs." --President Reagan, in a moment of truthfulness, describes his academic record to Barbara Walters, November 27, 1981 "They told stories about how inattentive and inept the President was.... They said he wouldn't come to work--all he wanted to do was to watch movies and television at the residence." "an amiable dunce" --Clark Clifford (former Defense Secretary) "Poor dear, there's nothing between his ears." --British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher "Because Vietnam was not a declared war, the veterans are not even eligible for the G. I. Bill of Rights with respect to education or anything." --Ronald Reagan, in Newsweek, April 21, 1980. "We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry every night. Well, that was probably true. They were all on a diet." --Ronald Reagan, TV speech, October 27, 1964 First Reagan, and then Bush. And now Palin is next up on the hot seat for the Repugs. I cant help but feel that their is some organisation that goes looking for the dumbest candidate that looks the part for the head of the republican party. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 10/01/10 at 12:27:22 Lifter - You see, my friend, the danger of quotes taken out of context: For one, the supposed remark about Vietnam Vets' not being eligible for GI benefits was his ruing that thought; not supporting it. A simple sentence taken out of the context of the whole is meaningless, as are most of the quotes you offer. I admit it's a popular political tactic used by both sides, but it's unfair, intellectually dishonest, and wrong nonetheless. Anything being offered by Clark Clifford borders on stupidity. As for the 1964 TV speech, it was an intentional joke - again, a remark taken out of the context of the whole. As for PATCO, he gave them either a 48 or 72 hour long window ( I can't recall which ) in which to return to work and receive amnesty. As for negotiating during an illegal strike - sorry, no way. He did order them back to work and they refused, carrying on the illegal strike. He had no choice but to can them. You don't negotiate with people who are breaking the law intentionally. And aviation safety wasn't compromised one bit - I know - I flew almost everyday thru those times (not in the back seats, but in the front left seat). The system simply contracted some, fewer clearances were immediately issued, and a bit of convenience was compromised - that's all. The most I was ever delayed in those few months was about 30 minutes. Safety was never compromised. Few "rookies" were put into controlling positions - most vacancies were filled by fully qualified military controllers temporarily assigned to civilian ATC facilities. The rookies were used in clearance delivery positions, the guy who talks on the radio and reads a pilot the clearance - they weren't used to actually control traffic. Don't forget, nearly 30 years ago there was a lot less air traffic than there is now. Now I do fault Reagan for two things: 1. The repeal of the investment tax credit in 1986, first instituted by a Dem, JFK, which I think should immediately be restored to spur manufacturing today, and 2. Airline deregulation which spurred the ruination of a fine industry and made it into the "Greyhound buses of the sky" which airline travel is today. Those of us fortunate enough to remember when an airline trip was a very nice experience are lucky. It probably won't ever be again. One of my good buddies, a retired captain at United, said it best when he said that deregulation only accomplished two things: It brought the Greyhound bus crowd to the airport, along with their expectations of service and classiness". Once more, we don't agree, but what else is new? And if you think U.S. policies had nothing to do with bankrupting the Soviet Union which in turn led to its downfall, you need to revisit your history. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by bill67 on 10/01/10 at 12:33:04 Russia fighting in Afghan is what broke the Russians,We should have learned a lesson from that. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Serowbot on 10/01/10 at 12:49:45 You have to wonder whether the world is better off with the fall of the USSR... There are now, in all probability, uncounted and unaccountable nukes and WMD's, loose in various fledgling countries, maintained and controlled by god only knows... An accident,... or on purpose,... just waiting to happen... |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by LostArtist on 10/01/10 at 13:13:50 deregulation, the republican mythical road to prosperity . . . really a hand out to the businesses that are being deregulated |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 10/01/10 at 14:26:29 LA - Airline deregualtion certainly did not work to the benefit of the airlines. Look at the fact that all of the major carriers except American have had to file for bankruptcy at least once in the last decade or so - Delta, United, Continental, all reorganized. TWA, Eastern and Braniff are just plain gone. Under the old regulation scheme, carriers were guaranteed a profit and in return, had to fly many unprofitable routes, primary to smaller cities. What happened, in essence, is thattravelers between major cities subisduzed those going to places like, for instance, Youngstown, Ohio or Columbus, GA where the routes didn't have enough business to support them in their own right. Today, Youngstown has only 3 flights per week, primarily to Florida in the winter months. Otherwise, those folks drive about 70 miles to either Pittsburgh or Cleveland to get an airline flight. What deregulation did do was lower fares, as airlines were freed up to drop the places like Youngstown and only fly profitable routes. So if you live in a mjor city, you saw a benefit in lower fares. If you live in a marginal city, you lost airline service. So don't believe for a minute that airline deregulation benefitted the airlines - it killed several of them outright, and made bankrupts out of te others, all except American, and American is now losing money. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by LostArtist on 10/01/10 at 14:37:00 thanks for the education Jerry |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 10/01/10 at 15:20:41 LA - Wow, I made enough typos in that last post. Glad I don't have to earn a living as a secretary - I'd starve. I am a little harsh about airline deregulation. I could go on for pages about it, as aviation is dear to my heart and soul, as I've been in the industry since college. Dereg did lower fares, but so did a lot of other factors too. Historically, jet engines are real fuel guzzlers compared to piston engines. In the 1970s and early 80s, most airliners burned fuel by the buckets. The old DC-9, Boeing 727, L-1011, early 747and DC-8 airplanes that made up the lion's share of the fleet were very inefficient. When the first Arab oil embargo hit in the early 1970s, and fuel prices went thru the roof, the airline industry was caught flat footed. Operational costs of those old airplanes tripled overnight. So fares were allowed, by the Civil Aeronautics Board, the old regulatory agency, to go sky high to compensate. Airline travel became very expensive. Dereg was seen as a way to end the subsidy I mentioned where travelers on profitable routes were carrying the costs of those very unprofitable routes to small cities. I recall 100 seat 727s in those days with 20 people on board going to small cities. As a new generation of airliners were designed and built to be far more fuel efficient, costs came down some. So the political winds demanded that these regulated, high fares be able to float in the world of dereg. That worked. Suddenly you saw the emergence of carriers like Southwest, Air Tran, Muse, Peoples Express, and others who cherry picked profitable routes away from the old majors like United and TWA, and set fares as they pleased, under cutting the old majors. The only way the old carriers could compete was to eliminate the frills we used to have - hot meals in coach class, flight attendants who really cared if you were comfortable, etc. And, to eliminate flying those unprofitable routes to smaller markets. So now we have a system where all people want is transportation at the lowest possible cost. Not bad for the economy and for passengers in general - grandma can now afford to fly across the country to see her kids and grandkids at Christmas, when she could not afford such a trip before dereg. The casualties were the employees of the old major airlines, as baggage handlers, flight attendants, mechanics and especially pilots had to give up their very cushy pay scales to enable their companies to compete with the new upstarts who were paying far less for labor. At this point in history, there was a pilot glut, as most of the large numbers of Vietnam era military pilots were getting out of the service and looking for airline jobs. Also, all of the old airplanes I mentioned earlier had 3 person flight crews - a captain, a first officer, and a flight engineer. The new generation of modern airplanes cut that down to just 2 pilots; eliminating the FE position. Even a brand new 747, carrying nearly 500 passengers, has only 2 people up front. What else happened was the emergence of a whole new class of airline - the regional commuter. I won't begin to take your time going into that now, except to say - look at their abysmal safety record. Literally, 25 year old pilots with 1500 hours total time are sitting in the front seat. Of course, when I was 25, I was the hottest pilot in my squadron <g>. But I was in the airplane with just a back seater, so I could only kill the two of us, not 100 passengers. Thankfully, in 45 years of flying, I've never put a scratch on an airplane. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by JohnBoy on 10/01/10 at 17:03:31 242B272D262B202C2B3C292B3C4E0 wrote:
Hey Dad was civil service for 35 years and I know about the NO strike previsions... but those people were not striking for higher wages, they were striking for more help and a new Air Traffic Control system. They were fired because they were whistle blowers. Oh!...by the way, Harris Corp. in Melbourne FL rolled out the "new" air traffic control system thee years later. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Starlifter on 10/02/10 at 09:08:00 That is correct. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/03/10 at 05:52:17 but those people were not striking for higher wages, they were striking for more help and a new Air Traffic Control system. They were fired because they were whistle blowers. I remember the big hoopla, but what I dont remember is what we were Told the strike was about. I sure didnt remember it being over safety. But, I know I miss a few. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Starlifter on 10/05/10 at 17:32:37 And too, the controllers were saddled with way too much mandatory overtime. It was unsafe. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by bill67 on 10/13/10 at 18:32:38 I watch the debate to night I thought she was pretty good,She wasn't born rich like Coon was,that what we need some common people to the run the country. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Serowbot on 10/13/10 at 19:11:17 ... I'd vote for ya' Bill... ;)... |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Starlifter on 10/18/10 at 18:36:30 Well, getting back to Christine O'Donnell, what a fool she made of herself in that so called debate. One example of her stupidity was her statement: "Evolution should be decided on the local community." ...ha ha, I think she has a point - we should also allow local communities to decide how much 2 + 2 is, and each community can also decide at which temperature water boils and freezes. ...sheesh. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by bill67 on 10/19/10 at 03:17:56 I new a guy who didn't know how many states were in the union,And he became president of the USA. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/19/10 at 08:44:45 082F3A2937323D2F3E295B0 wrote:
Somehow, Im thinking she wasnt saying that whether or not evolution is actually real or not should be determioned locally, but whether or not to teach that should be a local decision, like all other curricula, should be determined by the locals, not the feds.. sheesh,, |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by mick on 10/19/10 at 09:30:37 3F293E233B2E23384C0 wrote:
I would too,but Bill is just not common enough. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Starlifter on 10/19/10 at 17:59:14 "Somehow, Im thinking she wasnt saying that whether or not evolution is actually real or not should be determioned locally, but whether or not to teach that should be a local decision, like all other curricula, should be determined by the locals, not the feds.." Umm, well okay then, so we should allow local communities to TEACH how much 2 + 2 is, and each local community can also TEACH at which temperature water boils and freezes. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/19/10 at 18:17:01 Excuse me? You just cant handle being wrong, can you? Youre gonna try to turn it into something else to try to pretend you were right all along, well, You WERENT, so go pout & get over it. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by mick on 10/20/10 at 12:47:32 Evolution should be taught by every school,in every State, never mind what the local hicks say,teach it because it's better to teach facts than myths. And as for you Jog,stop calling the kettle black,you are very rarely right ,and you pout like a child when you are wrong, and that is very often. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/20/10 at 14:21:55 56716477696C63716077050 wrote:
No one is arguing whether or not a woman must get a thingy shoved in her before she has a baby, BUT, BUT BUT, the decision whether or not to TEACH that to Chjildren In SCHOOL ( as opposed to at HOME, where religious, existential, type ideas Should be taught) must be kleft up to local communities. NOW can ya see it? |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Starlifter on 10/20/10 at 16:46:00 ???...we wern't talking about teaching sex education, we were talking about teaching science. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/20/10 at 17:21:49 No, yuore talking about a THEORY. Science is provable. Youre talking about Existential things. Those should be taught at home. Let the schools teach what can be proven in a lab. No one has proven Darwins THEORY,, |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Serowbot on 10/20/10 at 17:29:39 Gravity is just a theory too... :-?... A theory, in science, is a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. A theory, in common use, is a contemplation or speculation. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by mick on 10/20/10 at 17:51:04 And all biblical people rode around on dinosaur's, just a little over 2000 years ago,when the world began by some dude sitting on a cloud giving harp lessons to newbees. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/20/10 at 18:15:41 584E59445C49445F2B0 wrote:
doesnt mean we otta be teaching that to kids as a "This is where we came from" thing. Teach about gravity, but leave sex & the origin of mankind to the parents/ Or, at least allow the locals to decide, instead of Big Bro just steppin up & Tellin people what theyere gonna teach their kids about thnigs like this. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by bill67 on 10/20/10 at 18:33:05 I think that sex matters should be taught by the parents the way they want to teach their kids,When I was in school we didn't have sex classes but some how people have been making babies for a very very long time.They want to teach them about gays and lesbians,We new about that they were called queers.Did you here about the queer bear that sucked is paw. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by mick on 10/20/10 at 19:18:14 3A252324393E0F3F0F37252962500 wrote:
doesnt mean we otta be teaching that to kids as a "This is where we came from" thing. Teach about gravity, but leave sex & the origin of mankind to the parents/ Or, at least allow the locals to decide, instead of Big Bro just steppin up & Tellin people what theyere gonna teach their kids about thnigs like this.[/quote] problem with parents teaching kids stuff ,in this country they will teach nothing but religion ,and that is like teaching them nothing. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Serowbot on 10/20/10 at 19:20:14 627D7B7C61665767576F7D713A080 wrote:
doesnt mean we otta be teaching that to kids as a "This is where we came from" thing. Teach about gravity, but leave sex & the origin of mankind to the parents/ Or, at least allow the locals to decide, instead of Big Bro just steppin up & Tellin people what they're gonna teach their kids about thnigs like this.[/quote] So,.. rather than look to scientists and educators for which scientific theories to teach,... they should ask you, and maybe a panel of teabaggers?... Seriously,.. leaving it up to local communities will let children in overly religious, conservative communities fall behind in science and make them stupid,... lower SAT's and less college guaranteed... Will god make them content with sweeping floors?... They better hope so... ... and,.. did anybody's parents really teach them about sex?... I learned from other kids (mostly wrong), and fumbled around learning for myself... ....(fun though)... :-?... |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by mick on 10/20/10 at 19:31:38 It is a curious thing that most of us ardently believe that we solved the ultimate question of the universe before we even learned to tie our shoelaces.If philosophers,theologians,and scientists have struggled with the concept of existence for millennia without arriving at a definite solution,our naive assessment from childhood that a divine entity simply wished it were so certainly requires a reevaluation.It is nothing short of an incomprehensible tragedy that anyone in this age of reason would have to write a book debunking a collection of rediculious fantasies from an era of rampant superstition. the above was written by a former Preacher,Jason Long PhD. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by Trippah on 10/20/10 at 20:12:13 Actually, given IVF, children can be created without dad's equiment; just the "juice." thank you very much. (and an arduous and expensive process). (Except of course for that immaculate conception thing the Jews had goning on a couple thousand years ago (talk about cost control)). :-? Heck, we still quarrell over Creationism vs Darwinism. How about the curriculum for the US legal system, did OJ get away with murder..you know you get two distinct points of view on that one, depending on race. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by tcreeley on 10/21/10 at 16:33:24 who teaches birth control??? -just dumb to ignore it -local girl 15 lives in a camper, mom invited 20yr old in, who is now the girl's boyfriend. After a lot of pushing we persuaded the girl to see the school nurse. (wasn't on birth control) - her sister had her kid the month after she turned 16 with her 19 yr old boyfriend. - thanks mom's of the world for teaching your daughters!! -the only thing this mom said was don't be a very *friendly* person after she invited in the 20 year old to stay. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by tcreeley on 10/21/10 at 16:36:36 "friendly" - I like that - instant censorship for bad words. "friendly" is a word rhyming with "_lut" |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by bill67 on 10/21/10 at 16:58:51 Friendly is a word rhyming with Casanova this is 2010. |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by mick on 10/21/10 at 17:07:40 Boy Im happy someone explained this one to me, Seems Christians were concerned about the dinosaur thing,finding bones millions of year old ,upset the bible crown who think the world is only 4000 years old, They explained (thank god) that god placed the bones all over the world and then made them look millions of years old, just to test our faith ,he sure is a sneaky bugger.,but I'm content now,arent you ? ;) |
|
Title: Re: Christine O'Donnell Post by mick on 10/22/10 at 06:32:06 Sorry Jerry when I find these little jewels I have to post em.Can you believe the above ? |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |