It is currently Wed Aug 20, 2014 7:25 pm

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: here it comes
PostPosted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 11:57 am 
Offline
Draught Guru
Draught Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 4926
A while back, I explained that private pensions, 401k, and tax shelters would be targeted to 'help the poor common man' that did not set up these systems.

read this article:

http://www.carolinajournal.com/articles ... ml?id=5081

"The testimony of Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, in hearings Oct. 7 drew the most attention and criticism. Testifying for the House Committee on Education and Labor, Ghilarducci proposed that the government eliminate tax breaks for 401(k) and similar retirement accounts, such as IRAs, and confiscate workers’ retirement plan accounts and convert them to universal Guaranteed Retirement Accounts (GRAs) managed by the Social Security Administration."

Now, let's say you do the right thing, and set aside $$ for your own retirement, instead of counting on SS to take care of that. As an incentive to setting aside $$, the govt has made it tax sheltered. So, we will see a real push to end this practice, and it will be done in the name of 'spreading the wealth'.

It's coming folks. :|

_________________
"what if there were no hypothetical situations?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: here it comes
PostPosted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 1:19 am 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2102
Location: Deepinthehearta
fun gus wrote:
A while back, I explained that private pensions, 401k, and tax shelters would be targeted to 'help the poor common man' that did not set up these systems.

read this article:

http://www.carolinajournal.com/articles ... ml?id=5081

"The testimony of Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, in hearings Oct. 7 drew the most attention and criticism. Testifying for the House Committee on Education and Labor, Ghilarducci proposed that the government eliminate tax breaks for 401(k) and similar retirement accounts, such as IRAs, and confiscate workers’ retirement plan accounts and convert them to universal Guaranteed Retirement Accounts (GRAs) managed by the Social Security Administration."

Now, let's say you do the right thing, and set aside $$ for your own retirement, instead of counting on SS to take care of that. As an incentive to setting aside $$, the govt has made it tax sheltered. So, we will see a real push to end this practice, and it will be done in the name of 'spreading the wealth'.

It's coming folks. :|


Holster the paranoia there Hoss. Just becasue someone testifies at a house committee thsays that is what we should do does not make it high government policy. Learn how Congress works and just see how many nut jobs get to testify at committes before you hit the panic button.

Turn off Limbaugh and Hannity and check back in with the mainstream, The election is over and people no longer have to fear the scary democrats. :D

W

_________________
Fantasy League Champion 2010
Pick Em Co-Champion 2011

We are building a fighting force of extraordinary magnitude. We forge our tradition in the spirit of our ancestors. You have our gratitude.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: here it comes
PostPosted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 3:56 pm 
Offline
Draught Guru
Draught Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 4926
Wease wrote:
fun gus wrote:
A while back, I explained that private pensions, 401k, and tax shelters would be targeted to 'help the poor common man' that did not set up these systems.

read this article:

http://www.carolinajournal.com/articles ... ml?id=5081

"The testimony of Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, in hearings Oct. 7 drew the most attention and criticism. Testifying for the House Committee on Education and Labor, Ghilarducci proposed that the government eliminate tax breaks for 401(k) and similar retirement accounts, such as IRAs, and confiscate workers’ retirement plan accounts and convert them to universal Guaranteed Retirement Accounts (GRAs) managed by the Social Security Administration."

Now, let's say you do the right thing, and set aside $$ for your own retirement, instead of counting on SS to take care of that. As an incentive to setting aside $$, the govt has made it tax sheltered. So, we will see a real push to end this practice, and it will be done in the name of 'spreading the wealth'.

It's coming folks. :|


Holster the paranoia there Hoss. Just becasue someone testifies at a house committee thsays that is what we should do does not make it high government policy. Learn how Congress works and just see how many nut jobs get to testify at committes before you hit the panic button.

Turn off Limbaugh and Hannity and check back in with the mainstream, The election is over and people no longer have to fear the scary democrats. :D

W


Wease, I'll say this. you are predictable.

Always the ad hominem when your politics are challenged. What's wrong? Couldn't you just toss out the 'freeper' moniker? VERY telling!
:lol:

Last time I checked, the CJ was a member of the AP and the author of this article has a masters in Journalism, which the 2 'entertainers' you mentioned lack. Unlike, say Bill O Reilly who has a Master's in Broadcast Journalism from Boston University and another Master's Degree in Public Administration from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, who also reviewed this information.

But, hey why bother with those clowns, when we can get it straight from the metephorical horse's mouth? Here is an interview, unedited with Teresa Ghilarducci, who lobbies Congress as well as testifies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcKezvLK ... re=related

oh yeah then there's this neat little link: go ahead, Wease! RIF!

http://teresaghilarducci.org/research/testimony/


hmm..just some 'nutjob' you say? irrelevant?

this woman says it plain as day: going forward we will not offer the tax shelter, and she would be content growing another beauracracy that would be governed and directed by the SSA ( GRA's).

Now, you can ridicule me all you want about my 'ignorance' of how Congress works, that does not deserve a response. However, if you think this is just 'hot air' go ahead.... :roll:

Thanks for playing! 8-)

_________________
"what if there were no hypothetical situations?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: here it comes
PostPosted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 9:05 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2102
Location: Deepinthehearta
If telling someone that they need to learn how congress functions is ad hominem then we really have become America the touchie. :lol: :lol: :lol:

People are still charged up with election hyperpartisanship.

401ks are probably part of the dreaded 3d rail of politics. I would expect an expansion of 401ks rather than the Hannity/Limbaugh crazed view of the scary democrats.

_________________
Fantasy League Champion 2010
Pick Em Co-Champion 2011

We are building a fighting force of extraordinary magnitude. We forge our tradition in the spirit of our ancestors. You have our gratitude.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: here it comes
PostPosted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 12:57 am 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 7:02 pm
Posts: 6536
Location: Indianapolis IN
I saw the same thing on Rush Limbaugh's site. Hmm, this is all coming from the Republican party what a coincidence. I suppose Glenn Beck said the same thing. DOOMSDAY IS HERE ACCORDING TO THE REPUBLICANS. Guess I'll wait for the fire and brimestone when I step out of the house tomorrow. :lol: :lol:

_________________
Sometimes running the Mularkey offense makes me feel like I'm in a prison.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: here it comes
PostPosted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 7:57 am 
Offline
Draught Guru
Draught Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 4926
Wease wrote:
If telling someone that they need to learn how congress functions is ad hominem then we really have become America the touchie. :lol: :lol: :lol:

People are still charged up with election hyperpartisanship.

401ks are probably part of the dreaded 3d rail of politics. I would expect an expansion of 401ks rather than the Hannity/Limbaugh crazed view of the scary democrats.



If you dont stop hurting my feewings, I am going to put you on ignore 8-)

I realize many here may not travel outside the continent often, but next time you are in Argentina ( where I have family) perhaps you would be wise to look around a little. Or, you could just ask my cousin who just lost his pension plan there. Or, you could dig up my grandfather that worked for Anaconda Steel, and discuss the possibility of a government 'nationalization' of the ore industry he helped to build...

A brief perusal of the ol' history books may be in order as well.

If you asked someone 10 years ago if the Fed Govt could seize a failing bank, or offer millions in 'bailing out' an auto manufacturer, you would be called paranoid. :lol:

Where do you genuises see the money coming from? Please explain how 95% get tax cuts when 40% do not even pay taxes.

'It cant happen here'. Really? Do a little research on Teddy Roosevelt and pensioniers. And banks.

Now Scout, you seem young enough not to have vested a great amount in 401k. I could be wrong, but if not, a little advice. Dont count on Social Security.

Wease probably is all for gutting the 401k since he is a Govt employee, and currently is covered under thier policy, right? :lol:

Well see!

_________________
"what if there were no hypothetical situations?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: here it comes
PostPosted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 8:59 am 
Offline
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 7:12 pm
Posts: 6153
Location: Planet Claire
fun gus wrote:
Wease wrote:
If telling someone that they need to learn how congress functions is ad hominem then we really have become America the touchie. :lol: :lol: :lol:

People are still charged up with election hyperpartisanship.

401ks are probably part of the dreaded 3d rail of politics. I would expect an expansion of 401ks rather than the Hannity/Limbaugh crazed view of the scary democrats.



If you dont stop hurting my feewings, I am going to put you on ignore 8-)

I realize many here may not travel outside the continent often, but next time you are in Argentina ( where I have family) perhaps you would be wise to look around a little. Or, you could just ask my cousin who just lost his pension plan there. Or, you could dig up my grandfather that worked for Anaconda Steel, and discuss the possibility of a government 'nationalization' of the ore industry he helped to build...

A brief perusal of the ol' history books may be in order as well.

If you asked someone 10 years ago if the Fed Govt could seize a failing bank, or offer millions in 'bailing out' an auto manufacturer, you would be called paranoid. :lol:

Where do you genuises see the money coming from? Please explain how 95% get tax cuts when 40% do not even pay taxes.

'It cant happen here'. Really? Do a little research on Teddy Roosevelt and pensioniers. And banks.

Now Scout, you seem young enough not to have vested a great amount in 401k. I could be wrong, but if not, a little advice. Dont count on Social Security.

Wease probably is all for gutting the 401k since he is a Govt employee, and currently is covered under thier policy, right? :lol:

Well see!

Didn't the US gov't bail out Chrysler in the Carter administration?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: here it comes
PostPosted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 12:30 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2102
Location: Deepinthehearta
Yes, and the the Reagan administration seized Savings and Loans in the 80s. :shock: Ten years ago, not one would have called that paranoid. :wink:

Scout- you are wise to see this as the paranoid hyperpartisanship of the rightwing talk radio. As they become more and more irrelevant, expect their shreiking to be come more shrill.

Much like the democrats needed Reagan/Bush to bring their thinking out of the New Deal Liberalism, the Republicans will need this time to see if they will stay on the current path of being an evangelical, anti-science, and, strangely enough trying to posit themselves as the chmpion of the common man while catering, economically to he top 5%. If Obama is only competent as president, the current Republican party will remain a regional party for a generation and that is not a winning strategy in national politics - just ask the democrats. :lol:

_________________
Fantasy League Champion 2010
Pick Em Co-Champion 2011

We are building a fighting force of extraordinary magnitude. We forge our tradition in the spirit of our ancestors. You have our gratitude.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: here it comes
PostPosted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 3:30 pm 
Offline
Draught Guru
Draught Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 4926
Wease wrote:
Yes, and the the Reagan administration seized Savings and Loans in the 80s. :shock: Ten years ago, not one would have called that paranoid. :wink:

Scout- you are wise to see this as the paranoid hyperpartisanship of the rightwing talk radio. As they become more and more irrelevant, expect their shreiking to be come more shrill.

Much like the democrats needed Reagan/Bush to bring their thinking out of the New Deal Liberalism, the Republicans will need this time to see if they will stay on the current path of being an evangelical, anti-science, and, strangely enough trying to posit themselves as the chmpion of the common man while catering, economically to he top 5%. If Obama is only competent as president, the current Republican party will remain a regional party for a generation and that is not a winning strategy in national politics - just ask the democrats. :lol:


thank you for proving my point!

The SNL bailout was the first domino to fall.

Sleep well, little children!~ I will leave you to look up that quote for your own well being.

Of course, Wease, we would not expect a return of such outdated entities as the......Fairness Doctrine. No?

Cake eaters!~ One and all! :lol:

_________________
"what if there were no hypothetical situations?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: here it comes
PostPosted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 3:39 pm 
Offline
Draught Guru
Draught Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 4926
...anti-science....

'progressive figures brought upon eugenics, the income tax, the inheritance tax and prohibition'...

all which were proven insolvent by popular opinion.

Eugenics: anti science
prohibition: anti human nature

IT and death taxes: anti prosperity

perhaps a little walk through the ol history books would be appropriate.


:lol:

Or. i will put you on 'ignore' and end all debate, like


Al Gore~ :mrgreen:

_________________
"what if there were no hypothetical situations?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: here it comes
PostPosted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:00 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2102
Location: Deepinthehearta
fun gus wrote:
...anti-science....

'progressive figures brought upon eugenics, the income tax, the inheritance tax and prohibition'...

all which were proven insolvent by popular opinion.

Eugenics: anti science
prohibition: anti human nature

IT and death taxes: anti prosperity

perhaps a little walk through the ol history books would be appropriate.


:lol:

Or. i will put you on 'ignore' and end all debate, like


Al Gore~ :mrgreen:


Inheretence tax is a good thing - and it is in the spirit of the American system (being against a ensconced royalty) and the Income tax is a response to the Robber Barrons. See History is a good thing. :wink:

The modern republican party is based on gays, guns, and girly parts (couldn't figure out a better G for abortion). The ship sailed long ago on the republicans being for any part fiscal conservatism. It is a sad day when Barry Goldwater (a great man BTW) would not be welcome in the Republican party. Teddy Roosevelt? HAH!

The republicans are being overrun by the Know Nothings. When was the last really smart Republican Presidential candidate? Bush the greater and then, umm, Goldwater? I like Jerry Ford, but he was not a deep thinker. Nixon? Please. Reagan? Umm yeah, right. Dole was solid, but not a giant. Bush the lesser, well that speaks for itself. The republicans cry out against the elite (aka educated). The democrats (generally) pick really smart guys that run terrible campaigns. Just wait and see if Bible Spice wins the nomination in 12 or 16. :lol: :lol: :lol:

What an odd day it is when the democrats are seen as the party of fiscal responsibility.

BONUS history fact: The republicans have not had a person not named Bush or Nixon in the White House since 1929. :shock:

I will be glad in 3 months when the hyperpartisanship will be reserved for the hard core types that inhabit talk radio, Fox News and MSNBC and the rest of us can get back to ignoring the made up contraversies for a while.

_________________
Fantasy League Champion 2010
Pick Em Co-Champion 2011

We are building a fighting force of extraordinary magnitude. We forge our tradition in the spirit of our ancestors. You have our gratitude.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: here it comes
PostPosted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 7:30 pm 
Offline
All-Pro
All-Pro
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 7:54 pm
Posts: 707
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Wease wrote:
BONUS history fact: The republicans have not had a person not named Bush or Nixon in the White House since 1929. :shock:


uh...
Date from to Date
Dwight David Eisenhower 20 Jan 1953 20 Jan 1961
Gerald Rudolph Ford 09 Aug 1974 20 Jan 1977
Ronald Wilson Reagan 20 Jan 1981 20 Jan 1989

_________________
Brian Westbrook taking a knee cost me the Fantasy Football championship!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: here it comes
PostPosted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 8:24 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2102
Location: Deepinthehearta
ridethemattrain wrote:
Wease wrote:
BONUS history fact: The republicans have not had a person not named Bush or Nixon in the White House since 1929. :shock:


uh...
Date from to Date
Dwight David Eisenhower 20 Jan 1953 20 Jan 1961
Gerald Rudolph Ford 09 Aug 1974 20 Jan 1977
Ronald Wilson Reagan 20 Jan 1981 20 Jan 1989


Who was Eisenhower's VP? :wink: Who was Reagan's VP? :wink:

Your point is taken as to Ford and the bonus tidbit should be amended to "elected" to the White House since 1929. Still an interesting factoid.

_________________
Fantasy League Champion 2010
Pick Em Co-Champion 2011

We are building a fighting force of extraordinary magnitude. We forge our tradition in the spirit of our ancestors. You have our gratitude.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: here it comes
PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:58 pm 
Offline
Draught Guru
Draught Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 4926
Wease wrote:
ridethemattrain wrote:
Wease wrote:
BONUS history fact: The republicans have not had a person not named Bush or Nixon in the White House since 1929. :shock:


uh...
Date from to Date
Dwight David Eisenhower 20 Jan 1953 20 Jan 1961
Gerald Rudolph Ford 09 Aug 1974 20 Jan 1977
Ronald Wilson Reagan 20 Jan 1981 20 Jan 1989


Who was Eisenhower's VP? :wink: Who was Reagan's VP? :wink:

Your point is taken as to Ford and the bonus tidbit should be amended to "elected" to the White House since 1929. Still an interesting factoid.


Ouch. Pwned. :lol:

_________________
"what if there were no hypothetical situations?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: here it comes
PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 5:15 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2102
Location: Deepinthehearta
Hardly owned (what is up with the internet lingo thing of "pwend," anyway? You know you are getting old when you find the kiddie lingo annoying :lol: ) I did not specify President or Vice President - just White House. I just missed the elected part on my buddy's e-mail. Unless you are referring to Matt's missing the VP thing, then nevermind. :D

_________________
Fantasy League Champion 2010
Pick Em Co-Champion 2011

We are building a fighting force of extraordinary magnitude. We forge our tradition in the spirit of our ancestors. You have our gratitude.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: here it comes
PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 6:10 pm 
Offline
Draught Guru
Draught Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 4926
Wease wrote:
Hardly owned (what is up with the internet lingo thing of "pwend," anyway? You know you are getting old when you find the kiddie lingo annoying :lol: ) I did not specify President or Vice President - just White House. I just missed the elected part on my buddy's e-mail. Unless you are referring to Matt's missing the VP thing, then nevermind. :D



please, enlightened one....'splain this.

where was the 'White House' connection from Hoover to Nixon? Or Bush ( and let's not go all 'Prescott' here ) :roll:

And it better be a cabinet position...But I can't find it, but I'm not really searching.

Please splain how there was a Bush or Nixon in Hooverville.

_________________
"what if there were no hypothetical situations?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: here it comes
PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 6:51 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2102
Location: Deepinthehearta
Let me put it bluntly:

1928 was the last time a winning Republican Ticket did not include a Bush or Nixon.

1933-1953 Democratic Admins

1953 -1961 Eisenhower (P) NIXON (VP)

1961-1969 Democratic Admins

1969-74(term end 76) NIXON (P) Agnew (VP) [Ford not elected]

1977-1981 Democratic Admin

1981-1989 Reagan (P) BUSH (VP)

1989-1993 BUSH(P) Quayle (VP)

1993-2001 Democratic Admin

2001-2009 BUSH (P) Cheney (VP)

Thus, no Republican has been elected President since 1928 without a Bush or Nixon on the ticket.

Q.E.D.

_________________
Fantasy League Champion 2010
Pick Em Co-Champion 2011

We are building a fighting force of extraordinary magnitude. We forge our tradition in the spirit of our ancestors. You have our gratitude.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: here it comes
PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:08 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 5:41 pm
Posts: 2362
Location: Albany NY
Fun Gus you seem to be a well thought out individual. While I don't agree with your conservative economic ideals I respect and understand them. Unfortunatly in this situation I can't say that I respect your opinion in your opening post. You seem to have fallen into line with extreme right wing propoganda the likes of Hannity or Rush. The democrats will never ever remove the tax benefits from our 401k's. First off I believe most people on the left believe that these are good tax breaks that help out the middle and upper classes. In addition to this it would be political suicide as the overwhelming majority of the electorate would disagree with this. Finally I have not heard anyone of real importance on the left talking about anything like this, and no I don't find your example to be convincing evidence of your prediction. Everything your saying here is pure propoganda and not based on sound reasoning or facts. Gus you are normally better than this. There is currently a good balance between private and public financing of people's retirements, we should stick with what have got. :idea:

_________________
When life gives you lemons, find some salt and tequila then invite me!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: here it comes
PostPosted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 9:16 am 
Offline
All-Pro
All-Pro
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 7:54 pm
Posts: 707
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Wease wrote:
ridethemattrain wrote:
Wease wrote:
BONUS history fact: The republicans have not had a person not named Bush or Nixon in the White House since 1929. :shock:


uh...
Date from to Date
Dwight David Eisenhower 20 Jan 1953 20 Jan 1961
Gerald Rudolph Ford 09 Aug 1974 20 Jan 1977
Ronald Wilson Reagan 20 Jan 1981 20 Jan 1989


Who was Eisenhower's VP? :wink: Who was Reagan's VP? :wink:

Your point is taken as to Ford and the bonus tidbit should be amended to "elected" to the White House since 1929. Still an interesting factoid.


"elected" is the key word. VPs don't stay in the White House...they live at the Naval Observatory.

_________________
Brian Westbrook taking a knee cost me the Fantasy Football championship!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: here it comes
PostPosted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:44 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2102
Location: Deepinthehearta
ridethemattrain wrote:
Wease wrote:
ridethemattrain wrote:
Wease wrote:
BONUS history fact: The republicans have not had a person not named Bush or Nixon in the White House since 1929. :shock:


uh...
Date from to Date
Dwight David Eisenhower 20 Jan 1953 20 Jan 1961
Gerald Rudolph Ford 09 Aug 1974 20 Jan 1977
Ronald Wilson Reagan 20 Jan 1981 20 Jan 1989


Who was Eisenhower's VP? :wink: Who was Reagan's VP? :wink:

Your point is taken as to Ford and the bonus tidbit should be amended to "elected" to the White House since 1929. Still an interesting factoid.


"elected" is the key word. VPs don't stay in the White House...they live at the Naval Observatory.


That is where they work. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: I never said "stay" and by "stay" you apparently mean "live" and that really is irrelevant to the point.

Jumpin Jesus on a pogo stick you are grasping now. Admit that you missed it and be done with it. Besides, they don't live at the Naval Observatory, the live on a house on the grounds of the Naval Observatory (Number One Observatory Circle) and then only since 1974. Game. Set. Match. :twisted:

W

_________________
Fantasy League Champion 2010
Pick Em Co-Champion 2011

We are building a fighting force of extraordinary magnitude. We forge our tradition in the spirit of our ancestors. You have our gratitude.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: here it comes
PostPosted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 1:07 pm 
Offline
All-Pro
All-Pro
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 7:54 pm
Posts: 707
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Wease wrote:
ridethemattrain wrote:
Wease wrote:
ridethemattrain wrote:
Wease wrote:
BONUS history fact: The republicans have not had a person not named Bush or Nixon in the White House since 1929. :shock:


uh...
Date from to Date
Dwight David Eisenhower 20 Jan 1953 20 Jan 1961
Gerald Rudolph Ford 09 Aug 1974 20 Jan 1977
Ronald Wilson Reagan 20 Jan 1981 20 Jan 1989


Who was Eisenhower's VP? :wink: Who was Reagan's VP? :wink:

Your point is taken as to Ford and the bonus tidbit should be amended to "elected" to the White House since 1929. Still an interesting factoid.


"elected" is the key word. VPs don't stay in the White House...they live at the Naval Observatory.


That is where they work. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: I never said "stay" and by "stay" you apparently mean "live" and that really is irrelevant to the point.

Jumpin Jesus on a pogo stick you are grasping now. Admit that you missed it and be done with it. Besides, they don't live at the Naval Observatory, the live on a house on the grounds of the Naval Observatory (Number One Observatory Circle) and then only since 1974. Game. Set. Match. :twisted:

W


f*** off...you are the one grasping now. you said "in the White House", and i read that as them being "in the White House", not serving as VP for the person "in the White House".

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/life/vpresidence.html

Quote:
Before 1974, Vice Presidents and their families lived in their own home, but the cost of securing these private homes had grown substantially over the years. After years of debate, Congress agreed to refurbish the house at the Naval Observatory as a home for the Vice President.


go ahead, nit-pick some more...

_________________
Brian Westbrook taking a knee cost me the Fantasy Football championship!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: here it comes
PostPosted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 4:13 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2102
Location: Deepinthehearta
ridethemattrain wrote:
Wease wrote:
ridethemattrain wrote:
Wease wrote:
ridethemattrain wrote:
Wease wrote:
BONUS history fact: The republicans have not had a person not named Bush or Nixon in the White House since 1929. :shock:


uh...
Date from to Date
Dwight David Eisenhower 20 Jan 1953 20 Jan 1961
Gerald Rudolph Ford 09 Aug 1974 20 Jan 1977
Ronald Wilson Reagan 20 Jan 1981 20 Jan 1989


Who was Eisenhower's VP? :wink: Who was Reagan's VP? :wink:

Your point is taken as to Ford and the bonus tidbit should be amended to "elected" to the White House since 1929. Still an interesting factoid.


"elected" is the key word. VPs don't stay in the White House...they live at the Naval Observatory.


That is where they work. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: I never said "stay" and by "stay" you apparently mean "live" and that really is irrelevant to the point.

Jumpin Jesus on a pogo stick you are grasping now. Admit that you missed it and be done with it. Besides, they don't live at the Naval Observatory, the live on a house on the grounds of the Naval Observatory (Number One Observatory Circle) and then only since 1974. Game. Set. Match. :twisted:

W


f*** off...you are the one grasping now. you said "in the White House", and i read that as them being "in the White House", not serving as VP for the person "in the White House".

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/life/vpresidence.html

Quote:
Before 1974, Vice Presidents and their families lived in their own home, but the cost of securing these private homes had grown substantially over the years. After years of debate, Congress agreed to refurbish the house at the Naval Observatory as a home for the Vice President.


go ahead, nit-pick some more...


Don't blame me for your wrong assumptions. Admit that you are wrong if you are capable. I modified my original statement when it was ambiguous. Give it up. You are wrong and now you are just showing that you are stubborn in the face of being wrong. You are still wrong pre-1974 even with your incorrect attempt to prove me wrong. Appeal Denied. :lol: :lol: :lol: :wink:

And while I don't care, Pudge and the mods (see Cappy) don't like profanity on the site.

W

_________________
Fantasy League Champion 2010
Pick Em Co-Champion 2011

We are building a fighting force of extraordinary magnitude. We forge our tradition in the spirit of our ancestors. You have our gratitude.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: here it comes
PostPosted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 5:02 pm 
Offline
All-Pro
All-Pro
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 7:54 pm
Posts: 707
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Wease wrote:
ridethemattrain wrote:
Wease wrote:
ridethemattrain wrote:
Wease wrote:
ridethemattrain wrote:
Wease wrote:
BONUS history fact: The republicans have not had a person not named Bush or Nixon in the White House since 1929. :shock:


uh...
Date from to Date
Dwight David Eisenhower 20 Jan 1953 20 Jan 1961
Gerald Rudolph Ford 09 Aug 1974 20 Jan 1977
Ronald Wilson Reagan 20 Jan 1981 20 Jan 1989


Who was Eisenhower's VP? :wink: Who was Reagan's VP? :wink:

Your point is taken as to Ford and the bonus tidbit should be amended to "elected" to the White House since 1929. Still an interesting factoid.


"elected" is the key word. VPs don't stay in the White House...they live at the Naval Observatory.


That is where they work. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: I never said "stay" and by "stay" you apparently mean "live" and that really is irrelevant to the point.

Jumpin Jesus on a pogo stick you are grasping now. Admit that you missed it and be done with it. Besides, they don't live at the Naval Observatory, the live on a house on the grounds of the Naval Observatory (Number One Observatory Circle) and then only since 1974. Game. Set. Match. :twisted:

W


f*** off...you are the one grasping now. you said "in the White House", and i read that as them being "in the White House", not serving as VP for the person "in the White House".

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/life/vpresidence.html

Quote:
Before 1974, Vice Presidents and their families lived in their own home, but the cost of securing these private homes had grown substantially over the years. After years of debate, Congress agreed to refurbish the house at the Naval Observatory as a home for the Vice President.


go ahead, nit-pick some more...


Don't blame me for your wrong assumptions. Admit that you are wrong if you are capable. I modified my original statement when it was ambiguous. Give it up. You are wrong and now you are just showing that you are stubborn in the face of being wrong. You are still wrong pre-1974 even with your incorrect attempt to prove me wrong. Appeal Denied. :lol: :lol: :lol: :wink:

And while I don't care, Pudge and the mods (see Cappy) don't like profanity on the site.

W


i don't feel i was wrong, so i'm not going to admit that i am. maybe you should clarify yourself more next time, so you aren't wrong.

it doesn't matter though...no matter what i say (or anyone else, for that matter) you always have to win, and try to prove everybody else wrong.

kinda reminds me of someone else that used to be here...

_________________
Brian Westbrook taking a knee cost me the Fantasy Football championship!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: here it comes
PostPosted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 6:11 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2102
Location: Deepinthehearta
Not feeling that you were wrong does not change the fact that you were, in fact, wrong. :P It is not so much that I win - it is that all other must lose! :lol: :lol: :lol: Now if I could only translate that into my Fantasy Football team. :mrgreen:

It is all good.

_________________
Fantasy League Champion 2010
Pick Em Co-Champion 2011

We are building a fighting force of extraordinary magnitude. We forge our tradition in the spirit of our ancestors. You have our gratitude.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: here it comes
PostPosted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 8:10 am 
Offline
All-Pro
All-Pro
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 7:54 pm
Posts: 707
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Wease wrote:
Not feeling that you were wrong does not change the fact that you were, in fact, wrong.


whatever makes you feel better Wease. :roll:

_________________
Brian Westbrook taking a knee cost me the Fantasy Football championship!!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to: