"Pan" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 18:01:46 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>>>> Paul that is Dem rhetoric. With out unanimous votes, ect, he agrees
>>>>> with Bush about 45% of the time. Or the same amount of time as Obama
>>>>> if you count the number of time he voted within the unanimous vote.
>
>
>>Plemty out ther to Google. Here is a quote from a cite referring to
>>Congressional Quarterly
>>
>>""It's not change when John McCain decided to stand with George Bush 95
>>percent of the time, as he did in the Senate last year," says Barack
>>Obama.
>>
>>The claim is true. According to Congressional Quarterly's Voting Studies,
>>in
>>2007 McCain voted in line with the president's position 95 percent of the
>>time - the highest percentage rate for McCain since Bush took office - and
>>voted in line with his party 90 percent of the time. However, McCain's
>>support of President Bush's position has been as low as 77 percent (in
>>2005), and his support for his party's position has been as low as 67
>>percent (2001)."
>>
>>95% of the time in 07 he voted with Bush
>>90% with the GOP in 06 - as if the GOP ever really was anything but a
>>rubber
>>stamp for Bush
>>
>>That's your maverick for you.
>>
>>Paul
>>
> O.K. now read my statement again, then take the unanimous vote out.
> The unanimous were about half of the votes, so that is about 45% of
> the time McCain voted with bush (90% divided by 2=45%) , and 45% of
> the time BHO voted with Bush.

What do you mean unanimous votes? There have been unanimous votes exactly
when? What legislation received 100% support? You are claiming that of all
the Bush sponsored legislation that it received 100% support 50% of the
time?

Paul

"Giusi" > wrote
> That goes way beyond Botox. I know what can be done with Botox, and that
> is multiple facelifts, probably beginning in her forties. And I don't
> care one whit. Ageism is so rampant, who wouldn't if they had the nerve
> and the money?
>

I wouldn't.

Paul M. Cook wrote:

> "Omelet" > wrote in message
> news
> > In article >,
> > "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
> >
> >> > We need fixes NOW. Not in 20 years.
> >>
> >> Conservation is immediate. You can do a lot to cut down your energy
> >> bill.
> >
> > I have thyroid issues. I need to keep my thermostat at 72. ;-)
> >
> > But, I do have a low flow toilet and both dad and I put the TP in the
> > trash if we only pee and don't flush. (TMI I know but it saves on water
> > and wastewater charges!). Short showers too.
> >
> >> It all adds up. I just swapped out my fridge. My old clunker was
> >> wasting a
> >> huge amount of electricity.
> >
> > I'm careful about refrigeration... There are other ways to cut power
> > too.
> >
> >> I check my tires every week and keep them at
> >> optimal, that is saving money.
> >
> > I'm already careful about that. I can't afford car payments right now
> > or I'd replace my Chevy S-10. It gets 21 to 23 mpg. <sigh> Car
> > payments would far outweigh the cost of replacing it as it's paid for.
> >
> >> I line dry clothes and that saves money.
> >
> > I've never owned a clothes dryer, nor a dish washer.
> >
> >> their is a lot that can be done and it really adds up fast. It is not
1
> >> big
> >> thing it is a lot of little things.
> >>
> >> Paul
> >
> > I know.
> >
> > But your point is??? <g>
> >
> > For those of us that already conserve, the price is still too high!
> > --
>
> People pay 4 bucks for a cup of coffee at Starbucks and complain about 4
> dollar a gallon gas? Yes it hurts a whole lot. I drive 600 miles a week.
> I know. But the rest of the world pays a lot more. They are not
> sympathetic. We enjoyed relatively low gas prics due to the high value fo
> he dollar and the "petro dollar recycling." With the crash of the dollar
> now the petro dollar recycling is working in reverse.


The days of ultra - cheap food and petro for the US are at an end, it was
great while it lasted. Those low commodity prices enabled us to be at the
top of the heap, especially during the post WWII era, which was really the
apex of "The American Century"...

This current re - adjustment upward is long overdue and is causing some
pain, but in the end it's a diet we had to go on and we will be much better
off for it in the end...


--
Best
Greg

"Paul M. Cook" > wrote in message
> I would not say churning out. They basically have been given special
> permission to get rich. They are usually very well connected people
> politically. It is by no means without the help of the governments
> either.
>
> Paul
>

Moscow has more billionaires than any other city in the world according to
National Geographic.

Bob Terwilliger wrote:
> Ed wrote:
>
>>> We already spend more on out military than thenext 60 countries
>>> combined.
>>
>> Places like Luxemburg, Andorra, San Martino are hard pressed to keep
>> up with us.
>
>
> "How many tanks does the Pope have?" --Stalin
>
>
> Bob, who's *been* to San Marino, and knows how it's spelled

Actually the quote is"


The Pope! How many divisions has he got?

On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 15:00:21 -0400, cybercat wrote:

> "Giusi" > wrote
>> That goes way beyond Botox. I know what can be done with Botox, and that
>> is multiple facelifts, probably beginning in her forties. And I don't
>> care one whit. Ageism is so rampant, who wouldn't if they had the nerve
>> and the money?
>>
>
> I wouldn't.

certainly not if you end up looking like your face would shatter if someone
took a hammer to it.

your pal,
blake

"blake murphy" > ha scritto nel messaggio
...
> On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 15:00:21 -0400, cybercat wrote:
>
>> "Giusi" > wrote
>>> That goes way beyond Botox. I know what can be done with Botox, and
>>> that
>>> is multiple facelifts, probably beginning in her forties. And I don't
>>> care one whit. Ageism is so rampant, who wouldn't if they had the nerve
>>> and the money?
>>>
>>
>> I wouldn't.
>
> certainly not if you end up looking like your face would shatter if
> someone
> took a hammer to it.
>
> your pal,
> blake

I have had nothing done and still my face would shatter if someone took a
hammer to it. It's a very bad move.

"Giusi" > wrote in message
...
> "blake murphy" > ha scritto nel messaggio
> ...
>> On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 15:00:21 -0400, cybercat wrote:
>>
>>> "Giusi" > wrote
>>>> That goes way beyond Botox. I know what can be done with Botox, and
>>>> that
>>>> is multiple facelifts, probably beginning in her forties. And I don't
>>>> care one whit. Ageism is so rampant, who wouldn't if they had the
>>>> nerve
>>>> and the money?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I wouldn't.
>>
>> certainly not if you end up looking like your face would shatter if
>> someone
>> took a hammer to it.
>>

Sigh.

blake murphy wrote:

> On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 15:00:21 -0400, cybercat wrote:
>
>
>>"Giusi" > wrote
>>
>>>That goes way beyond Botox. I know what can be done with Botox, and that
>>>is multiple facelifts, probably beginning in her forties. And I don't
>>>care one whit. Ageism is so rampant, who wouldn't if they had the nerve
>>>and the money?
>>>
>>
>>I wouldn't.
>
>
> certainly not if you end up looking like your face would shatter if someone
> took a hammer to it.


"There is not an actress in Hollywood over the age of 25 capable of
looking authentically angry."

I wish I remember who said this so I could give proper credit.

Kathleen, 46 and entirely capable of looking genuinely ****ed off

"Kathleen" > wrote
> "There is not an actress in Hollywood over the age of 25 capable of
> looking authentically angry."
>
> I wish I remember who said this so I could give proper credit.

hahahaha!!

>
> Kathleen, 46 and entirely capable of looking genuinely ****ed off
>

Me too, and frequently with a smile on my face.

On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 17:12:18 GMT, blake murphy
> wrote:


>>
>> Yes Michelle worked for her money. And she got a promotion and a 160%
>> raise, when Obama, became a U.S. senator. And her company just happen
>> to get an earmark the next year.
>>
>> He is the standard Chicago politician.
>
>and cindy had a rich father. worked her ass off for that.
>
>blake

You don't see a difference?
Her daddy worked his ass off earning, and he left it to Cindy.
Michelle gets a 160% raise from health corporation, when her husband
became senator.
And the health corporation, get a government grant the next year.

One is hard work, the other is tax money, and Chicago politics.

enigma wrote:

> what we need is someone with an alternate energy vision akin
> to JFK's space race vision. developing technology doesn't
> occur in a vacuum

If it's SPACE technology, it's in a vacuum! :-)

Bob

"Bob Terwilliger" > wrote in
:

> enigma wrote:
>
>> what we need is someone with an alternate energy vision
>> akin to JFK's space race vision. developing technology
>> doesn't occur in a vacuum
>
> If it's SPACE technology, it's in a vacuum! :-)

eh, true.
just think, *we* could have had the first particle
accellerator, but the funding got yanked after several
billion & partial completion... because despite the whinging
about the lack of teaching it, science is a red-headed
stepchild in the US. the Fundies don't really *want* science
taught, because critical thinking is eeeeeeevul.

lee

--
Last night while sitting in my chair
I pinged a host that wasn't there
It wasn't there again today
The host resolved to NSA.

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:50:36 -0700, Pan wrote:

> On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 17:12:18 GMT, blake murphy
> > wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> Yes Michelle worked for her money. And she got a promotion and a 160%
>>> raise, when Obama, became a U.S. senator. And her company just happen
>>> to get an earmark the next year.
>>>
>>> He is the standard Chicago politician.
>>
>>and cindy had a rich father. worked her ass off for that.
>>
>>blake
>
> You don't see a difference?
> Her daddy worked his ass off earning, and he left it to Cindy.
> Michelle gets a 160% raise from health corporation, when her husband
> became senator.
> And the health corporation, get a government grant the next year.
>
> One is hard work, the other is tax money, and Chicago politics.

yes i see a difference, you imbecile. michelle *worked at a job*, and
apparently was damned good at it. cindy did jack shit.

blake

Paul M. Cook wrote:
> "Giusi" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Omelet" > ha scritto nel messaggio> "Giusi"
>> > wrote:
>>>> "Omelet" > ha scritto nel messaggio
>>>>> And that needs to be changed! It's f-ing BS that American oil gets
>>>>> sold
>>>>> on the commodities market! We need to use American oil in AMERICA and
>>>>> only sell off the excess.
>>>>>
>>>>> We SHOULD have nationalized oil companies!
>>>> that's not only a Socialist take it's like incredibly naive and lacks
>>>> understanding of a free market. US oil IS a commodity. It is bought
>>>> and
>>>> sold on the world market to who will pay. If you make it unavailable on
>>>> the
>>>> free market, then the rest of the world may decide to keep their oil
>>>> from
>>>> the US market. Since the US market is the most wasteful and greedy of
>>>> all,
>>>> that would leave the US with only Alaskan and Texan and Gulf of Mexico
>>>> oil,
>>>> pretty much.
>>>> Better turn everything off, Om, because your solution could flip the
>>>> switch
>>>> for the entire country. You think "What's mine is mine and what's yours
>>>> is
>>>> mine also."
>>> Babe, all I know is that right now, the cost of energy is hurting and
>>> even killing a lot of people.
>> We live in Europe with much higher energy costs. We try hard not to waste
>> energy because it costs too much. There's still a lot to do, but believe
>> me when I say that paying over $4800 a year for heat and lights and
>> minimal car use for a single person is hardly getting a bargain.
>
> In the Northeast, where I grew up, people still have hugely inefficient oil
> burning heaters. It takes a thousand gallons to get through the winter.
> They haven't even switched to natural gas or propane. They still haven't
> insulated a lot of homes. They could replace their water heaters with super
> efficient on demand heaters but they haven't yet. There is much they can do
> and with energy costs as high as they are maybe they finally will.
>
> Paul
>
>
Hmm, pretty tough to switch to NG when you don;t have gas line nearby.

George wrote:
> Paul M. Cook wrote:
>> "Omelet" > wrote in message
>> news
>>> In article >,
>>> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> A better question is just how are we going to pay for 9 trillion
>>>> dollars in
>>>> republican debt?
>>> Drill for oil in Alaska.
>>> --
>>
>> They already do. Lots of it. Millions of barrels per year. They
>> sell it all to Japan. If we want to use it, we have to buy it back
>> from Japan or the commodities market. They being those oil companies
>> who have extraction rights that include no strings attached as to who
>> gets it. Alaska gasoline is very expensive easily double what we pay
>> now. Why do you suppose that is? More drilling makes Exxon richer
>> but does nothing to lower our national debt. You seem to think we
>> have nationalized oil companies when in fact they are multi-national
>> corporations. They are not even American companies, they just
>> incorporate here.
>>
>> Paul
>>
> It is a lot more complicated than that. Consider how far Alaska's oil
> fields are away from the lower 48 states and how you would transport the
> oil here. Consider where Japan is relative to Alaska. Then consider that
> the Alaskan oil is high sulfur and no refineries here can process it
> with Japan being one of the few places that can. Consider that NIMBYs
> won't even allow windfarms to be built within 100 miles of their
> McMansions never mind a new oil refinery.

Ah actually, I think it is the US is one of the few countries that
process high sulfer crude. This the main reason that Venezuela, for all
of its rhetoric still sells mainly to the US. Other countries can;t
process their oil.

George Cebulka wrote:
> George wrote:
>> Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>> "Omelet" > wrote in message
>>> news >>>> In article >,
>>>> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> A better question is just how are we going to pay for 9 trillion
>>>>> dollars in
>>>>> republican debt?
>>>> Drill for oil in Alaska.
>>>> --
>>>
>>> They already do. Lots of it. Millions of barrels per year. They
>>> sell it all to Japan. If we want to use it, we have to buy it back
>>> from Japan or the commodities market. They being those oil companies
>>> who have extraction rights that include no strings attached as to who
>>> gets it. Alaska gasoline is very expensive easily double what we pay
>>> now. Why do you suppose that is? More drilling makes Exxon richer
>>> but does nothing to lower our national debt. You seem to think we
>>> have nationalized oil companies when in fact they are multi-national
>>> corporations. They are not even American companies, they just
>>> incorporate here.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>> It is a lot more complicated than that. Consider how far Alaska's oil
>> fields are away from the lower 48 states and how you would transport
>> the oil here. Consider where Japan is relative to Alaska. Then
>> consider that the Alaskan oil is high sulfur and no refineries here
>> can process it with Japan being one of the few places that can.
>> Consider that NIMBYs won't even allow windfarms to be built within 100
>> miles of their McMansions never mind a new oil refinery.
>
> Ah actually, I think it is the US is one of the few countries that
> process high sulfer crude. This the main reason that Venezuela, for all
> of its rhetoric still sells mainly to the US. Other countries can;t
> process their oil.
Exactly, US refineries have been processing high sulfur oils for at
least fifty years. The ones that didn't want to put in a high sulfur
unit are now closed. I can name at least two companies like that that I
worked for at one time. Not all US crude is Texas sweet crude, a lot of
it is high sulfur content and we've been pumping it for years and years.

Realize that a new oil refinery has not been built in 33 odd years and
our refineries are getting older all the time. Eventually they get to
the point where it is cheaper to tear them down and scrap them out than
to keep rebuilding them.

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 16:28:41 GMT, blake murphy
> wrote:

>> You don't see a difference?
>> Her daddy worked his ass off earning, and he left it to Cindy.
>> Michelle gets a 160% raise from health corporation, when her husband
>> became senator.
>> And the health corporation, get a government grant the next year.
>>
>> One is hard work, the other is tax money, and Chicago politics.
>
>yes i see a difference, you imbecile. michelle *worked at a job*, and
>apparently was damned good at it. cindy did jack shit.
>
>blake

O.K. I'm an imbecile, because I see corruption, and you see a standard
160% raise, due to her husband becoming senator, and then just a
unconnected grant, of taxpayers money.
If you can't see anything wrong in this scenario,there is no reason to
continue this discussion.

Pan wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 16:28:41 GMT, blake murphy
> > wrote:
>
> >> You don't see a difference?
> >> Her daddy worked his ass off earning, and he left it to Cindy.
> >> Michelle gets a 160% raise from health corporation, when her husband
> >> became senator.
> >> And the health corporation, get a government grant the next year.
> >>
> >> One is hard work, the other is tax money, and Chicago politics.
> >
> >yes i see a difference, you imbecile. michelle *worked at a job*, and
> >apparently was damned good at it. cindy did jack shit.
> >
> >blake
>
> O.K. I'm an imbecile, because I see corruption, and you see a standard
> 160% raise, due to her husband becoming senator, and then just a
> unconnected grant, of taxpayers money.
> If you can't see anything wrong in this scenario,there is no reason to
> continue this discussion.


blake doesn't know any better, he hasn't seen the sheer corruption of
Illannoy and Chicago politics *up close*...and Obama is a *direct* product
of that brand of politics, one could call him the "Rosemary's Baby" of that
particular brand of corruption.

Obama didn't start out as an agent for "change" on the local Illinois level,
and he's no different now. Peeps that think otherwise is jus' naive...


--
Best
Greg

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 23:42:48 -0700, "Bob Terwilliger"
> wrote:

>enigma wrote:
>
>> what we need is someone with an alternate energy vision akin
>> to JFK's space race vision. developing technology doesn't
>> occur in a vacuum
>
>If it's SPACE technology, it's in a vacuum! :-)
>
Good one! Most people don't know how/what to think of "space",
especially when presented as a vacuum. Maybe that subject will come
up on Naked Science sometime. I can barely understand the theory of
relativity - even when it's presented in layman's terms.



--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

"Pan" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 16:28:41 GMT, blake murphy
> > wrote:
>
>>> You don't see a difference?
>>> Her daddy worked his ass off earning, and he left it to Cindy.
>>> Michelle gets a 160% raise from health corporation, when her husband
>>> became senator.
>>> And the health corporation, get a government grant the next year.
>>>
>>> One is hard work, the other is tax money, and Chicago politics.
>>
>>yes i see a difference, you imbecile. michelle *worked at a job*, and
>>apparently was damned good at it. cindy did jack shit.
>>
>>blake
>
> O.K. I'm an imbecile, because I see corruption, and you see a standard
> 160% raise, due to her husband becoming senator, and then just a
> unconnected grant, of taxpayers money.
> If you can't see anything wrong in this scenario,there is no reason to
> continue this discussion.

FFS, give it up, nitwit. Vote for McCain and eat it for the next 8 years
while Obama turns this country around. Move on with your life, as those of
us who hate the **** out of W have for these past 8 years. Grin and ****ing
bear it. But please stop whining.

cyber**** peered into its toilet bowl and prognosticated:

> Vote for McCain and eat it for the next 8 years while Obama turns this
> country around.

It might be good for the country if Obama got elected, since the world
community seems to view him more favorably than it views McCain. But I
believe that there are too many "closet racists" out there for Obama's
candidacy to succeed. For that reason, I don't believe that Obama --
charismatic as he is, EXCEPTIONAL speaker that he is -- will be elected, and
it's childish and stupid to voice your wishful thinking as if it were fact.
*If* Obama wins, then you can crow about his having made history -- but
don't take it for granted that he'll have a particularly successful
presidency.

I don't see *either* candidate "turning this country around." The corruption
and venality are far too entrenched. McCain just doesn't have it in him to
go after the establishment, and Obama is too weak and favor-indebted to
impose his will on the legions of special interests with their deep pockets
and armies of litigators.

Bob

"Bob Terwilliger" > wrote in message
...
> cyber**** peered into its toilet bowl and prognosticated:
>
>> Vote for McCain and eat it for the next 8 years while Obama turns this
>> country around.
>
> It might be good for the country if Obama got elected, since the world
> community seems to view him more favorably than it views McCain. But I
> believe that there are too many "closet racists" out there for Obama's
> candidacy to succeed. For that reason, I don't believe that Obama --
> charismatic as he is, EXCEPTIONAL speaker that he is -- will be elected,
> and it's childish and stupid to voice your wishful thinking as if it were
> fact.

You're ugly, fat, agressive and vulgar. And I am saving this post to toss in
your florid face when Obama is elected.

cyber**** got all vindictive:

>> cyber**** peered into its toilet bowl and prognosticated:
>>
>>> Vote for McCain and eat it for the next 8 years while Obama turns this
>>> country around.
>>
>> It might be good for the country if Obama got elected, since the world
>> community seems to view him more favorably than it views McCain. But I
>> believe that there are too many "closet racists" out there for Obama's
>> candidacy to succeed. For that reason, I don't believe that Obama --
>> charismatic as he is, EXCEPTIONAL speaker that he is -- will be elected,
>> and it's childish and stupid to voice your wishful thinking as if it were
>> fact.
>
> You're ugly, fat, agressive and vulgar. And I am saving this post to toss
> in your florid face when Obama is elected.

You're stupid, vile, ugly, shit-headed, syphilitic, chancre-ridden, cheap,
flabby-assed, and whorish. Save the post or not; I have no great emotional
stake in either candidate. My personal life will still be happy and my
professional life will still be successful regardless of who wins the
election.

But if Obama loses, you'll be CRUSHED, won't you? Isn't he your Great
Half-Black Hope for the future, with just this ONE SHOT at the Presidency?
Just imagine, ANOTHER four years of Republicans! Talk about "eating it,"
hell, you'll be on your THIRD SERVING!

Bob, enjoying the spectacle of cybercat melting down again

Omelet wrote:
> In article >,
> blake murphy > wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 09:16:34 -0500, Omelet wrote:
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Did you know McCain begged to be Kerry's running mate? Did you know in 01
>>>> he was poised to switch to the democrat party but then Jim Jeffords went
>>>> Independent and McCain got ****ed and pulled out of the deal? He's not
>>>> what
>>>> he would like you to think he is.
>>> Many of us already know McCain is a RINO.
>>>
>>> I don't hold it against him...
>> how 'centrist' of you.
>>
>> blake
>
> Thank you.
>
> Frankly, I'm sick of partisanship.
> Let's work for AMERICANS, not the f-ing "parties".
>
> I never have been a partisan voter.

Thank you. That much I can agree with.

blake murphy wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 15:21:25 -0700, Pan wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 20:43:41 GMT, blake murphy
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Letsee... Michelle O'bama made something like $400,000.00 one recent
>>>> year. They live in a house that cost over a million dollars.
>>>> And you think they are closer to the average "commoner"?????
>>> and they worked for their money, unlike mccain, who married it.
>>>
>>> your pal,
>>> blake
>> Yes Michelle worked for her money. And she got a promotion and a 160%
>> raise, when Obama, became a U.S. senator. And her company just happen
>> to get an earmark the next year.
>>
>> He is the standard Chicago politician.
>
> and cindy had a rich father. worked her ass off for that.
>
> blake

No, actually Cindy's mother did....