Weirder election than Battlestar Galactica's

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 09:49:41 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
wrote:

LBJ escalated the Vietnam War for only one reason - to ship as many
blacks into combat in order to reduce their number back home. Of
course, they were expected to die and not come back.

An assertion with no supporting evidence to back it up. Produce
documentation from a reliable source.

Texans knew what he was up to.

If LBJ had intended our forces to be a means of genocide he would have
sent in millyuns and millyuns, not a mere half million.

He sent in as many as he could at the time.

In any case it was a bad idea. The survivors brought their weapons and
knowhow back home.

No one claims he was going to succeed at what he was attempting.

As with all attempts at genocide, the groups becomes stronger. That is
the last thing LBJ wanted to happen.


--
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant:
It's just that they know so much that isn't so."
--Ronald Reagan

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 09:50:43 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
wrote:

SS won't go bust.

Too many seniors vote.

There are two ways for the system to go belly up. One way is run out of
money.

Never happen.

The other way is to inflate the money.

COLA.

Either way is a failure
and the sitting administration will bear the blame.

The failure was not to invest the trust fund in the S&P 500. Retirees
would all be millionaires if they had done that.

Take the maximum "contribution" of the employee and employer for each
year going back to the typical starting date for employment, which
would be after graduation from college. Compound the principal at
11.5% which is the annual rate of increase of the S&P 500 over a 15
year timeframe. Then take that lump sum accumulation at retirement and
buy an annuity in the S&P 500, one that will pay out a monthly income
for the remainder of your life.

I guarantee that the amount you get by doing that calculation will far
exceed the actual amount you get now. The crooked *******s used our
money to buy votes and then they threw bones to us.

And people wonder why I advocate tyrannicide. Actually, that's damn
humane of me - if I really had my way I would chain every last one of
the *******s to the back of a pickup and drag them one at a time
across Texas.

--
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant:
It's just that they know so much that isn't so."
--Ronald Reagan

"Bob" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 09:50:43 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
wrote:

SS won't go bust.

Too many seniors vote.

There are two ways for the system to go belly up. One way is run out of
money.

Never happen.

The other way is to inflate the money.

COLA.

Either way is a failure
and the sitting administration will bear the blame.

The failure was not to invest the trust fund in the S&P 500. Retirees
would all be millionaires if they had done that.

No. I understand what you're suggesting, but the passage of the money
through the governmental collection and distribution process would vastly
offset the real gains you accurately note.

Take the maximum "contribution" of the employee and employer for each
year going back to the typical starting date for employment, which
would be after graduation from college. Compound the principal at
11.5% which is the annual rate of increase of the S&P 500 over a 15
year timeframe. Then take that lump sum accumulation at retirement and
buy an annuity in the S&P 500, one that will pay out a monthly income
for the remainder of your life.

Old news. New - and incomprehensible - only to leftist queers.

I guarantee that the amount you get by doing that calculation will far
exceed the actual amount you get now. The crooked *******s used our
money to buy votes and then they threw bones to us.

You don't have to guarantee squat, that calculation has been indisputably
demonstrated by a host of economists. But the phenomenon that I call
"friction," i.e., the process whereby the government gets their hands on it
and causes vast sums to be stolen and/or wasted, is near-axiomatic.

Remember that wild bit where John Stossel interviewed the Interior
Department head? Stossel noted that 8 BILLION dollars had simply
disappeared on his watch. The guy walked out of the interview.

And people wonder why I advocate tyrannicide. Actually, that's damn
humane of me - if I really had my way I would chain every last one of
the *******s to the back of a pickup and drag them one at a time
across Texas.

LOL, great choice of metaphors, still working on bringing you out of your
shell...

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant:
It's just that they know so much that isn't so."
--Ronald Reagan

And one of those "not so's" is the idea that friction isn't devastating
beyond any and every imaginable "benefit."

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 17:39:38 GMT, in a place far, far away, Monte
Davis made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

(Rand Simberg) wrote:

The transcontinental railroads were built largely with private money.

And the Cumberland Road, Erie Canal, Panama Canal and interstate
highway system with public money. No one-ideology-fits-all
prescription covers all cases.

Didn't say it did. I was just correcting the poster who said that the
government paid for the transcontinentals.

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 13:47:52 -0500, "Atlas Bugged"
wrote:

And one of those "not so's" is the idea that friction isn't devastating
beyond any and every imaginable "benefit."

Ayn Rand was half right when she said the only way the govt profits is
to make everybody a criminal. What she left out is that the only way
the individual profits is to become a criminal.

There's no profit in being a good citizen for either the govt or the
individual.


--
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant:
It's just that they know so much that isn't so."
--Ronald Reagan

"Bob" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 02:40:42 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
wrote:

Which doesn't in the least explain how *Morton Thiokol* "let Challanger
fly". Again, please provide the legal authority for *Morton Thiokol* to
have
done anything.

If the team at Morton Thiokol had courage ( it didn't) they should have
spilled the whole thing to the press.

No one would have listened.

Note that he *still* cannot show where *Morton Thiokol* could have stopped
the launch. Talking to an interested press *may* have caused enough pressure
that *someone with authority* *might* have stopped it, but that's not the
same thing as *Morton Thiokol* having any authority in the matter. *Morton
Thiokol* had no more authority to stop the launch than the supplier of paint
for the MLP. I await Mr. Kolker's provision of legal authority for Morton
Thiokol to stop the launch, or otherwise show how *Morton Thiokol* itself
could have stopped it. Talking to the press is meaningless- citing a Federal
statute or even a contract provision giving Morton Thiokol authority is
needed. Otherwise, Kolker's talking out of his ass.

"Andy" wrote in message
...
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
That is probably true, but Nixon had little to do with the success of
Apollo.


He let the *******s chop it short, if not being outright involved in the
budget axe.

*Nixon* had no authority to stop "the *******s", since *Congress* funds the
program. If *Congress* had decided to keep going, then *Nixon* would have no
authority to stop it. No bucks, no buck rogers. Besides, Nixon wasn't in
power when the first Apollo budget cuts arrived.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
...

By the instrument of Kennedy's speech, of course, later supported by
enabling legislation. Duh.


No, the instrument would be the legislation.

Which is what I said, and you quoted. Of course, without Kennedy driving it
with his speech, there would be no legislation. Duh.

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 09:49:41 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
An assertion with no supporting evidence to back it up. Produce
documentation from a reliable source.

Let's see you produce *documentation* the Morton Thiokol had any authority
to stop the launch of Challenger. "They could've gone to the press" is not a
legal authority.

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
...

Which is what I said, and you quoted.

No, you said the instrument was Kennedy's speech. Apparently you believe
the president has dictatorial power.