Mr. Wonderful Talks Politics
|
|
Topics:
6/11/00: Rosie, Better Than You
6/09/00: SS Scams Citizens
6/02/00: Electric Car Zoning
5/25/00: Micro-Size Microsoft
5/24/00: Clinton, Castro & Communism
|
( This Cell Purposely Blank )
|
6/11/2000: Rosie The Two Faced Bitch !
What have I told you about liberals in the past? I've said that they twist statistics, for instance, with gun deaths they use the age of 25 years old as a cut-off for the definition of a "child." They purposely ignore published, verified and truthful facts that negate their position. They lie. And they think that they are better than you or me. I'm a little late with this story, but your Mr.Wonderful had to confer with the fine folks at the New York Post to confirm the facts of this incident. An incident purposely ignored by the major media. Rosie O'Donnell, second only to Donna Dees-Thomases, in promoting the virulent anti-gun Million Mom March, has been quoted as saying, "...my security people, who are off-duty policemen, have guns."
 
The ballooning Rosie also revealed her desire for the bodyguard of her 4-year old to be armed as he delivered and picked up the poor little bastard at his private school. Rosie says she does not allow guns inside her home because, "The statistic is that you're three times more likely to be a victim of violence if you own a gun." There we go with the twisted statistics again. However, don't you see? It's okay for Rosie to hire two or three or more armed bodyguards at a cost of $90 an hour and it's too bad that you can't afford to do that too. But you should not own firearms period! Because you are not smart enough, not responsible enough and most of all, not important enough.
Here is Rosie's insane logic: "If you (law abiding) citizens would only relinquish the right to bear arms, there would be far less gun violence committed by criminals." In the minds of millionaires in the entertainment business, spending thousands of dollars per week on personal security, it makes perfect sense that their fans, and their lesser's should be left defenseless.( Back to "Anti-Gun Sen. Feinstein" )
6/09/2000: Social Security Scheme Scams Citizens
In regards to investing our Social Security taxes into the U.S. Stock Market, we hear the liberals screaming "risky scheme, risky scheme!" Mr.Wonderful just received his Social Security Statement. That's odd because I did not request one and have to assume that this Clinton-Gore administration, in an attempt to preserve the jobs of the 56,000 employees at the SSA, mailed them more as advertisement than as an advisement. How could this mailing "preserve the jobs of the 56,000 employees?" Because most citizens will read, in my case, the $68,398 amount, add a reasonable interest rate, and assume their retirement is somewhat taken care of. ( Note that since I owned the corporation I worked for since 1974, and retired from in 1991, that virtually 100% of the $68,398 total was taken from my own income.) If we were to freeze that amount, at age 66 I would begin to receive, in (greatly inflated) year 2016 dollars, $1,240 a month from the SSA. If we were to take that same $68,398 amount, and prudently invest it in the U.S. Stock Market, earning the historic long term rate of 10%, at age 66 (using simple interest) I would have an Ostrich sized nest-egg of $343,723. At that point, even a miserable return of 5% would generate an annual income of $17,187 per year (in year 2000 dollars) versus the SSA 'projected' $14,880 ( $1,240 x 12 month ) resulting in an income 13.5% higher than Social Security offers, plus having almost $350,000 in the bank! A realistic 10% return would generate an income of $34,372 annually, a 57% increase of what Social Security would offer and still leave my $343,723 principal untouched. Note, that my figures are very, very conservative and they still crush anything SSA can only promise. So, does what is a "risky scheme" once again depend on what "IS" "IS?" Har, har!
6/02/2000: Zoning to Zap Your Zooming !
As Mr.Wonderful stated previously, the Fed's, under the banner of 'Zero Pollution,' would just love to force most of us into mass transit and limit the wealthy to driving only electric vehicles. Much easier to keep track of us that way! (By the way, how much pollution do you imagine an M1A1 Abrams tank puts out top speed while screaming across the desert gulping one gallon of fuel per mile?) After reading a wonderful article in the May 26th, 2000 Wall Street Journal, it struck me how the Fed's can further restrict travel ... even if you happen to be behind the wheel of an Electric Slug. The batteries in these vehicles must be charged for a period of around four hours after every 150 miles of excruciatingly slow travel. How can the Federal Government virtually forbid travel to areas where they determine you don't need to journey? Simply pass zoning laws that do not allow the construction or placement of any charging stations within 150 miles. Like the Communist's who limited travel in the Soviet Union by only building railroad tracks to the locations they alone determined, our government, while seemingly allowing travel anywhere in the land, will actually be determining your journey's exact destination.
5/25/2000:Federal Court to Micro-Size Microsoft !
Rumors are that our Federal Courts have decided to split Microsoft, the business success-story of the 20th Century, into three pieces. This is because Microsoft has been judged to be in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. According to the Legal Information Institution ( www.secure.law.cornell.edu/topics/antitrust.html ) corporations violating this statute "obliterate normal marketplace competition ... yield undesirable price controls ... cause markets to stagnate and sap individual initiative." And that "the Sherman Act was designed to maintain economic liberty ..." Oh yes, I understand ... not! But who better to delve into the corporate world and "maintain economic liberty" than an arm of the Federal Government? The same Federal Government that holds a monopoly on First Class Mail but yet still manages to lose millions of dollars per month? The same Federal Government where the General Accounting Office audits the IRS and discovers desk top PC's carried on their books at $35,000 each, and that an actual audit is impossible to complete?
The same Federal Government that allows a single employee to determine the viability of a 'controlled-burn' that incinerates tens of thousands of acres of invaluable National Forest and consumes the homes of over 200 families? The same Federal Government that cannot allocate the funding or the nerve to deal with the hundreds of thousands of illegal alien's flooding the American Southwest, but yet can demand the personal attention of the Attorney General of the United States, and mobilize the INS and the United States Marshall's Office to instantly deal with one Cuban child? And these clowns are going to decide what is best for the thousands of employees and the millions of users and stockholders of Microsoft ?
Guffaw, guffaw!
5/24/2000:Clinton Administration Craps on Americans !
 
The Clinton Administration is now openly exposing the disgust it holds the American citizenship in. When a refugee from communist Cuba washes ashore, these Nazi's at gun point, seize the child from his relatives and return him to be tutored in the pluses of communism at a wealthy liberal's forested 1,000 acre estate.  When Arizona's rancher's, in an attempt to return them to Mexico, begin to round up illegal aliens trashing, trampling and tresspassing on their private property, Secretary of State, Madelyn Albright sides with the U.S. lawyers representing these same Mexican criminals. When the hermit Randy Weaver fails to show up for a court hearing, Reno's FBI issues a 'shoot-to-kill' order and a wife and mother is shot through the head and murdered while cuddling her infant. What kind of an ignorant-slinky spined moron would continue to support this anti-American Administration?
|
Rumors are that our Federal Courts have decided to split Microsoft, the business success-story of the 20th Century, into three pieces. This is because Microsoft has been judged to be in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. According to the Legal Information Institution ( www.secure.law.cornell.edu/topics/antitrust.html ) corporations violating this statute "obliterate normal marketplace competition ... yield undesirable price controls ... cause markets to stagnate and sap individual initiative." And that "the Sherman Act was designed to maintain economic liberty ..." Oh yes, I understand ... not! But who better to delve into the corporate world and "maintain economic liberty" than an arm of the Federal Government? The same Federal Government that holds a monopoly on First Class Mail but yet still manages to lose millions of dollars per month? The same Federal Government where the General Accounting Office audits the IRS and discovers desk top PC's carried on their books at $35,000 each, and that an actual audit is impossible to complete?
