A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into. - Page 52

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy · 11-20-2006, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
He could move in with Spanky. Win-win!

You know, I could see this working.

Spanks, any interest in a roommate who knows a lot of "models". He can also fly anywhere in the world a military jet goes when he feels like chasing them. And can get lodging at Shades of Green for a couple of single guys "doing" Disney.

ltl/fb · 11-20-2006, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
How could that possibly bring in enough revenue?

Holy mother-fucking shit, I agree with Spanky.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy · 11-20-2006, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Holy mother-fucking shit, I agree with Spanky.

Tomorrow is Pynchon Day.

Hank Chinaski · 11-20-2006, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
I live between Aurora and Joliet. Caterpillar has plants in both places. Joilet is hiring at about $12/hour. Aurora isn't. You can't transfer to Joilet if you've been laid off in Aurora.

There are jobs, but finding them, especially if you don't have a reliable car, is often harder than it should be, and there are all kinds of quirks. I'd like to think you're right about work being not too hard to find, but anecdotal and empirical evidence aren't running in your favor.

you seemed to be leveling the playing field to allow $10 per hour jobs here. My point was you don't need to. Are you proposing buying cars for people? Can't the Aurora people just go on Oprah if they need a car?

SlaveNoMore · 11-20-2006, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Tomorrow is Pynchon Day.

Read it and let me know if it's anything like "Mason & Dixon"

I really don't need another $35 paperweight.

sebastian_dangerfield · 11-20-2006, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you cut taxes for the poor and middle class, the tax cuts pay for themselves eventually by promoting growth.

Wal Mart's growth...

Tyrone Slothrop · 11-20-2006, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Read it and let me know if it's anything like "Mason & Dixon"

I really don't need another $35 paperweight.

I liked Mason & Dixon. But I didn't get around to reading it until this year.

SlaveNoMore · 11-20-2006, 09:22 PM

From Drudge:

Quote:

HILLARY DEPLETES WAR CHEST; SPENT $30M TO GET RE-ELECTED
Mon Nov 20 2006 19:20:36 ET

For the $30 million or more she spent on her re-election campaign, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton scored a 36-point victory over an obscure opponent, built a new set of contributors and began assembling the nuts and bolts she would need to run a presidential campaign, the NY TIMES is planning to report on Tuesday.

She also purchased more than $13,000 worth of flowers and funneled tens of thousands of dollars a month to consultants and aides.

The result was to deplete what had been a formidable war chests in politics down to a level that leaves her with little financial advantage over her potential rivals for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination -- and perhaps even trailing some of them.

Developing...

If true, then HRC is a bigger idiot than I thought previously.

She could have spent six bucks and she still would have won in a 20 point walk.

Somewhere, a guy named Obama is laughing.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 11-20-2006, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
From Drudge:

If true, then HRC is a bigger idiot than I thought previously.

She could have spent six bucks and she still would have won in a 20 point walk.

Somewhere, a guy named Obama is laughing.

Please. She'll have two dinners, and be right back in the lead. She spent the money as a warning, not because she needed to.

Hank Chinaski · 11-21-2006, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
Only if you also think Bush was for making fun of a blind reporter's sunglasses.

ummmm..... someone said Bush was "the shit?"

sebastian_dangerfield · 11-21-2006, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
From Drudge:

If true, then HRC is a bigger idiot than I thought previously.

She could have spent six bucks and she still would have won in a 20 point walk.

Somewhere, a guy named Obama is laughing.

Who cares? She's got banquet halls of idiots with 8 figure salaries all over Hollywood and the Beltway teed up to fill her coffers to three times that amount in 2008.

Most people here think it's improbable the Dems would push her, assuming rightly that she's hopeless. But the fact is, a lot of Dems actually think she's electable, and want to run her. I guess its wishful thinking overwhelming logic.

Hank Chinaski · 11-21-2006, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Who cares? She's got banquet halls of idiots with 8 figure salaries all over Hollywood and the Beltway teed up to fill her coffers to three times that amount in 2008.

Most people here think it's improbable the Dems would push her, assuming rightly that she's hopeless. But the fact is, a lot of Dems actually think she's electable, and want to run her. I guess its wishful thinking overwhelming logic.

I can't believe she doesn't go back to the futures market. It's like Jordon retiring after 1 Championship.

Secret_Agent_Man · 11-21-2006, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
From Drudge:

If true, then HRC is a bigger idiot than I thought previously.

She could have spent six bucks and she still would have won in a 20 point walk.

Somewhere, a guy named Obama is laughing.

Aside from the obvious problems with the source, I think it is a mistake to say she has no financial advantage over her rivals.

I don't know how much she has on hand, but I'm sure she doled out a lot of cash to other candidates and their PACs to "build the party" and build up chits.

I know you dislike her, but you have no reason to think she is stupid, or doesn't understand how to run and win elections.

S_A_M

sebastian_dangerfield · 11-21-2006, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Aside from the obvious problems with the source, I think it is a mistake to say she has no financial advantage over her rivals.

I don't know how much she has on hand, but I'm sure she doled out a lot of cash to other candidates and their PACs to "build the party" and build up chits.

I know you dislike her, but you have no reason to think she is stupid, or doesn't understand how to run and win elections.

S_A_M

You're right. There's good reason to think she WAS stupid - namely, her demand for national health care while her husband was President (which her husband wisely responded to by shoving a sock in her mouth). But there is no reason to assume she's stupid today... Well, save her belief she can sell herself as a moderate and get elected to the White House.

Hank Chinaski · 11-21-2006, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You're right. There's good reason to think she WAS stupid - namely, her demand for national health care while her husband was President (which her husband wisely responded to by shoving a sock in her mouth). But there is no reason to assume she's stupid today... Well, save her belief she can sell herself as a moderate and get elected to the White House.

I think the first woman president should look like a guy to ease us into it, and Hillary is pretty manly looking, and the lesbian thing helps too, but there are Dem senators that are way more manly looking. Why don't you hear about them running?