[Masthead] Mostly Cloudy ~ 89°F  
Feels like: 96°F
Tuesday, Sep. 2, 2014

McCain wins first debate by a landslide according to poll!

Posted Saturday, September 27, 2008, at 7:30 AM

Did the headline get your attention? Will you read more? Hopefully you will, but how many get their news from headlines alone?

Here is another from CNN:

Round 1 in debates goes to Obama, poll says

In the second paragraph they happen to mention that the majority of viewers polled were Democrats, and in the fifth paragraph is this, "It can be reasonably concluded, especially after accounting for the slight Democratic bias in the survey, that we witnessed a tie in Mississippi tonight,". I wonder HOW SLIGHT was the Democratic bias?

What if I only read the headline?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/27/d...

Oh, by the way, the poll mentioned in the headline was just me and my mother-in-law but we are only slightly biased. I guess that is important to mention somewhere in this blog, but for "some" reason I chose to put it at the end.


Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

Polls are bias Steve no matter which one you look at even your poll at home is a little on the bias side.

But in all honesty McCain is not much of a public speaker. It is a well known fact I am not an Obama fan but I will have to disagree with your poll. As bad as I hate to admit it I think Obama won that debate.

Obama had more constructive things to say while all I really got from McCain was he thought, Obama Just didn't quite Understand. He went on and on about things that happened many years ago and personally I don't care what happened 40 years ago I want to know what's going to happen in the next 4 years.

The entire problem I have with any debate is Just how much can we believe of what comes out of either candidates mouth.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Sat, Sep 27, 2008, at 9:48 AM

Believing is a BIG problem. We have to filter just about everything we get and hope that we are close to a truth.

Foreseeing the future is not much more dependable. The realities of office will soon educate one of them.

I am not keen on either one and I hope Sarah Palin is different, but I have not heard much about her lately.

Anyone know?

-- Posted by stevemills on Sat, Sep 27, 2008, at 10:29 AM

I know many people who will slam me through the roof with this statement but I am going to say it anyway:>)

Where the heck is Bill Clinton when we need him :>)

-- Posted by Dianatn on Sat, Sep 27, 2008, at 10:35 AM

What? What!!!

-- Posted by stevemills on Sat, Sep 27, 2008, at 11:36 AM

I'm just wondering how much of a chance that crazy little fellow from Texas with the big ears would have with these two candidates.

Dianetn - According to some, he's going to be in the running for "second gentleman".

-- Posted by Thom on Sat, Sep 27, 2008, at 12:11 PM

Everything that I have read indicated that Obama was the clear winner last night. Personally from what I saw, Obama was calm and collected and responded with ease to the attacks that McCain used. McCain did not do so bad himself, but he really didn't wow me like I would thought he would. McCain is not really very good at debating from what I saw.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Sat, Sep 27, 2008, at 12:55 PM

Dianatn, I completely agree that Obama did a much better job in the debate. Like you, I am not an Obama fan. The thought of the anti-christ running this country seems to put a little fear in me! LOL!! The main reason I can not vote for Obama is due to his Muslim faith.....whether or not he will admit it:)

Obama's thoughts did appear to be more calm and collective. Also, I could not get over how McCain would not even look at Obama. As another poster said, McCain spent too much time on what happened many years ago.

Like many other American citizens, I want to know how we are going to survive financially over the next four years. Too many people in this country are living paycheck to paycheck. They are having to choose between paying the bills or feeding their children. These are sad times that our country is facing.

I believe the government needs to reconsider bailing out these huge corporations. They should take those billions of dollars and bail out the American citizens. We are living in a time where there is no longer a middle class. You are either rich or poor. Unfortunately, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. This bailout is only going to hurt the small businesses. Just look around Shelbyville at all of the small business owners who will go under because the government chose to save those with the most money in their pocket. We, the citizens, will be the ones paying out the taxes for this bailout. Someone, please tell me how that is going to personally help us?!?!?!?!?

-- Posted by ohwell on Sat, Sep 27, 2008, at 3:43 PM

This nation United States will be destroyed from within my its own. I believe Obama is the anti christ that will destroy us. He talks the talk that the American people are wanting to hear just like the Devil tempts us with all the glitz. Christian people need to open their eyes and look around at all the corruption going on around us, not only in the big cities but ours. There is never any good news on tv and from the news media. I am really skeptical of whats to come. Just like when man first went to the moon, my grandmother thought when man landed, the world would be destroyed.

-- Posted by boog100 on Sat, Sep 27, 2008, at 4:51 PM

If the government doesn't bail out the corporate financial, it will create a chain reaction and soon the smaller banks will fail. The smaller banks will be calling their assets in which are your home mortages, car loans and etc.

-- Posted by boog100 on Sat, Sep 27, 2008, at 4:55 PM

Speaking of Bill Clinton, Did any of you watch Bill on Letterman the other night?

In case you didn't just listen to him he is a very smart man

It is in 3 parts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5GBWOx6b...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azWIvxEkQ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7pgn_qLL...

-- Posted by Dianatn on Sat, Sep 27, 2008, at 7:18 PM

RE: MCCAIIN WINS BY LANDSLIDE. I THINK YOU MUST BE WATCHING THE MUPPETS.

ALL PEOPLE POLLED PER MSNBC(REPUTABLE NEWS STATION), 51% SAID OBAMA WON AND ONLY 41% SAID MCCAIN WON. THE REST WERE UNDECIDED.

YOU PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR GEORGE W. BUSH ARE GETTING WHAT YOU DESERVE, UNFORTUNETLY, THE REST OF US HAVE TO SUFFER BECAUSE OF IT.

NOW YOU WANT TO DO IT AGAIN!! HAVEN'T YOU LEARNED ANYTHING! IT'S TIME FOR A DRASTIC CHANGE! OBAMA CARES FOR LITTLE GUY, THE HARD WORKING LITTLE GUY,

WHILE ALL YOU REPUBLICANS CAN THINK ABOUT IS BIG BUSINESS GETTING MORE TAX BREAKS!

MCCAIN IS TOO OLD AND IT SHOWED ON DEBATE. IT ALSO SHOWED HOW HE HAS LOST HIS MIND BY SELECTING PALIN. EVEN KATHLEEN PARKER, REPUBLICAN, SAYS SHE SHOULD BOW OUT GRACEFULLY BEFORE SHE MAKES MORE OF A FOOL OF HERSELF.

SO GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT. GET OFF VOTING FOR PARTY, USE YOUR BRAIN AND LET THE REPUBLICANS GET A REST. THEY DEFINITELY HAVE BEEN WORKING OVERTIME.

-- Posted by katthyr000 on Sun, Sep 28, 2008, at 1:59 PM

You sound like a person who has found our blog and is copying and pasting in all the blogs they can find. Talk about thinking for yourself.

If you had, you would have seen that the initial blog was making a point about people who react to headlines, without reading the "guts" of the statement.

From your statement katthyrooo, I believe you have substantiated my premise.

Mr. Obama is for the working class? Want to talk about ACORN and those associated with it?

-- Posted by stevemills on Sun, Sep 28, 2008, at 4:33 PM

Mr. Obama is for the working class? Want to talk about ACORN and those associated with it?

-- Posted by stevemills on Sun, Sep 28, 2008, at 4:33 PM

How is he not for the working class?

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Sun, Sep 28, 2008, at 5:14 PM

boog100, I really feel sorry for you. I'll pray for you, OK?

-- Posted by mom23 on Mon, Sep 29, 2008, at 9:57 AM

Obama is the antichrist? I have to laugh on that one myself. I think that is a very hateful and extreme comment to make . . . if you dislike someone then that is fine but don't let your dislike or intolerance to be colored by such negative comments. There is no sense in that. I don't particular care for Obama nor am I misled by his false idealism but that doesn't mean he is evil or the antichrist . . . . it just means he doesn't appeal to my ideas and what I want from a candidate.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Mon, Sep 29, 2008, at 11:44 AM

Also I agree that the first debate went to Obama because it played more to his strengths. Obama loves a grand stage while McCain is more at home on a smaller level talking to actual people and conversing with them. Yes, Obama articulates himself well and uses grandiose wording to punctuate what he says but doesn't mean much when those words are lacking in substance.

I was not impressed with either candidate so I will be looking forward to the debate between Palin and Biden.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Mon, Sep 29, 2008, at 11:51 AM

Considering she doesn't know how to answer questions (see interview with Katie Couric and Charles Gibson) and Biden loves to talk, that should be hilarious!

Too bad there are restrictions such as timed responses and minimal if ANY interaction between the candidates. She put herself out there as a pit bull so she ought to take everything she dishses out.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Mon, Sep 29, 2008, at 3:14 PM

Where the heck is Bill Clinton when we need him :>)

-- Posted by Dianatn on Sat, Sep 27, 2008, at 10:35 AM

Still trying to convince Hillary he did not have sex with that woman.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Mon, Sep 29, 2008, at 7:53 PM

Still trying to convince Hillary he did not have sex with that woman.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Mon, Sep 29, 2008, at 7:53 PM

if that is the worse thing you can come up with about Bill Clinton then I think we need him even more than I imagined!

-- Posted by Dianatn on Mon, Sep 29, 2008, at 8:26 PM

I think if Bill would have worried about the reports on his desk instead of the vacuum cleaner under his desk the mounting terrorist threat could have been dealt with in a more timely manner and not dumped on this current Commander in Chief. He has had to deal with a problem that was allowed to grow virtually unchecked for the 8 lax years on defence before him.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Mon, Sep 29, 2008, at 9:27 PM

Bush also had to deal with record budget surpluses, and within two years he turned them into deficits, WITH the SAME CONGRESS (essentially) as Clinton had.

Ironically enough, under those "8 lax years on defense" we were never once attacked, never once involved in illegal wars, and never once borrowed money from China to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq...and bail out multinational, multi-billion dollar corporations.

The fact is, we don't know how many times a threat arose and it was stopped before it happened under Clinton's two terms... We do however know there were multiple credible threats that were made aware to President Bush, which HE ignored, not Clinton.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Mon, Sep 29, 2008, at 9:36 PM

Darrick,

A friend of mine sent me this and I believe it gives a little better picture of just what President Bush inherited from Slick Willie. Much like the lax attitude on defence from the previous Democratic president that Bush has had to straighten out he now this Democratic mortgage "program".

Dear Friends,

I am sounding an alarm! For the life of me, I cannot figure out why this is not being discussed on the media or why conservatives are not making their case: IT IS SO IMPORTANT!!!!! The following is a condensation of a series from the Investor's Business Daily explaining "What Caused the Loan Crisis":

1977: Pres. Jimmy Carter signs the Community Reinvestment Act into Law. The law pressured financial institutions to extend home loans to those who would otherwise not qualify. The Premise: Home ownership would improve poor and crime-ridden communities and neighborhoods in terms of crime, investment, jobs, etc.

Results: Statistics bear out that it did not help.

How did the government get so deeply involved in the housing market? Answer: Bill Clinton wanted it that way.

1992: Republican representative Jim Leach (IO) warned of the danger that Fannie and Freddie were changing from being agencies of the public at large to money machines for the principals and the stockholding few.

1993: Clinton extensively rewrote Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's rules turning the quasi-private mortgage-funding firms into semi-nationalized monopoies dispensing cash and loans to large Democratic voting blocks and handing favors, jobs and contributions to political allies. This potent mix led inevitably to corruption and now the collapse of Freddie and Fannie.

1994: Despite warnings, Clinton unveiled his National Home-Ownership Strategy which broadened the CRA in ways congress never intended.

1995: Congress, about to change from a Democrat majority to Republican, Clinton orders Robert Rubin's Treasury Dept to rewrite the rules. Robt. Rubin's Treasury reworked rules, forcing banks to satisfy quotas for sub-prime and minority loans to get a satisfactory CRA rating. The rating was key to expansion or mergers for banks. Loans began to be made on the basis of race and little else.

1997 - 1999: Clinton, bypassing Republicans, enlisted Andrew Cuomo, then Secretary of Housing and Urban Developement, allowing Freddie and Fannie to get into the sub-prime market in a BIG way. Led by Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd, congress doubled down on the risk by easing capital limits and allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments vs. 10% for banks. Since they could borrow at lower rates than banks their enterprises boomed.

With incentives in place, banks poured billions in loans into poor communities, often "no doc", "no income", requiring no money down and no verification of income. Worse still was the cronyism: Fannie and Freddie became home to out-of work-politicians, mostly Clinton Democrats. 384 politicians got big campaign donations from Fannie and Freddie. Over $200 million had been spent on lobbying and political activities. During the 1990's Fannie and Freddie enjoyed a subsidy of as musch as $182 Billion, most of it going to principals and shareholders, not poor borrowers as claimed.

Did it work? Minorities made up 49% of the 12.5 million new homeowners but many of those loans have gone bad and the minority homeownership rates are shrinking fast.

1999: New Treasury Secretary, Lawrence Summers, became alarmed at Fannie and Freddie's excesses. Congress held hearings the ensuing year but nothing was done because Fannie and Freddie had donated millions to key congressmen and radical groups, ensuring no meaningful changes would take place. "We manage our political risk with the same intensity that we manage our credit and interest rate risks," Fannie CEO Franklin Raines, a former Clinton official and current Barack Obama advisor, bragged to investors in 1999.

2000: Secretary Summers sent Undersecretary Gary Gensler to Congress seeking an end to the "special status". Democrats raised a ruckus as did Fannie and Freddie, headed by politically connected CEO's who knew how to reward and punish. "We think that the statements evidence a contempt for the nation's housing and mortgage markets" Freddie spokesperson Sharon McHale said. It was the last chance during the Clinton era for reform.

2001: Republicans try repeatedly to bring fiscal sanity to Fannie and Freddie but Democrats blocked any attempt at reform; especially Rep. Barney Frank and Sen.Chris Dodd who now run key banking committees and were huge beneficiaries of campaign contributions from the mortgage giants.

2003: Bush proposes what the NY Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago". Even after discovering a scheme by Fannie and Freddie to overstate earnings by $10.6 billion to boost their bonuses, the Democrats killed reform.

2005: Then Fed chairman Alan Greenspan warns Congress: "We are placing the total financial system at substantial risk". Sen. McCain, with two others, sponsored a Fannie/Freddie reform bill and said, "If congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole". Sen. Harry Reid accused the GOP ;of trying to "cripple the ability of Fannie and Freddie to carry out their mission of expanding homeownership" The bill went nowhere.

2007: By now Fannie and Freddie own or guarantee over HALF of the $12 trillion US mortgage market. The mortgage giants, whose executive suites were top-heavy with former Democratic officials, had been working with Wall St. to repackage the bad loans and sell them to investors. As the housing market fell in '07, subprime mortgage portfolios suffered major losses. The crisis was on, though it was 15 years in the making.

2008: McCain has repeatedly called for reforming the behemoths, Bush urged reform 17 times. Still the media have repeated Democrats' talking points about this being a "Republican" disaster. A few Republicans are complicit but Fannie and Freddie were created by Democrats, regulated by Democrats, largely run by Democrats and protected by Democrats. That's why taxpayers are now being asked for $700 billion!!

If you doubt any of this, just click the links below and listen to your lawmakers own words. They are condeming!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68D9Xrqyr...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIgqfM5C8...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9juJr8CS...

Postscript: ACORN is one of the principle beneficiaries of Fannie/ Freddie's slush funds. They are currently under indictment or investigation in many states. Barack Obama served as their legal counsel, defending their activities for several years.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Thu, Oct 2, 2008, at 7:12 AM

1993: Clinton extensively rewrote Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's rules turning the quasi-private mortgage-funding firms into semi-nationalized monopoies dispensing cash and loans to large Democratic voting blocks.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Thu, Oct 2, 2008, at 7:12 AM

I am curious PB, how does a home buyer in one of these Democratic voting blocks apply for a loan from Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac?

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Thu, Oct 2, 2008, at 8:24 AM

parkerbrothers,

Hmmm and who was in the office before 1992? Did you leave out the last 12 years before Clinton was in office? Noticed you left out an entire decade plus 2 years of blame of several Republican administrations. Of course that isn't including this administration. 28 years since 1980 that this so called "cause" And out of those 28 years, 20 of them were Republican. And who is to blame? Clinton? ROFL.

-- Posted by Evil Monkey on Thu, Oct 2, 2008, at 11:08 PM

My dear Evil Monkey,

Let me give you a simple lesson on this mild crisis our country is working through. When the talk first started on the move to let the public know of the needed bailout (the one we knew the country would need back in 2000) and figures were tossed both here and there I performed a very simple calculation and came up with the figure of $643,200,000,000 needed.

It was quite easy to come up with. You see all I had to do was take the 2.4 trillion "program" that the Demoncratic Clinton hailed and multiply it times the 26.8% failure rate that Bedford County was experiencing as an 8 year average on sub-prime loans and there it was. Of coarse some adjustment had to be made for location but it was quite apparrent that 700 billion was the amount of bad paper that needed securing. Rest easy dear monkey and remember that the entire 700 billion is not bad assets. Weak perhaps but worth close to 450 billion in a 30 minute sale. Properly managed the 700 billion of paper is worth a little over 1 trillion in a few years. Chiquita is in no immediate danger.

Below is the key to the issue. Notice the last half of the last sentence (federal expansion of housing aid).

In November 2000, Clinton's HUD hailed "new regulations to provide $2.4 trillion in mortgages for affordable housing for 28.1 million families." It made Fannie and Freddie take part in the biggest federal expansion of housing aid ever.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Fri, Oct 3, 2008, at 6:06 AM

parkerbrothers,

Hmmm and who was in the office before 1992? Did you leave out the last 12 years before Clinton was in office?

Posted by Evil Monkey on Thu, Oct 2, 2008, at 11:08 PM

Evil Monkey,

It took Reagen nearly 8 years to straighten out what the nut farmer from Geopgia had done in order to hand Clinton something good he could manage to screw up in his 8 years.

It takes 8 years for some of Clinton's last work in 2000 to come to fruit. Look at all the bad apples that tree produced in his full bloom.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Fri, Oct 3, 2008, at 6:14 AM

It took Reagen nearly 8 years to straighten out what the nut farmer from Geopgia had done in order to hand Clinton something good he could manage to screw up in his 8 years.

It takes 8 years for some of Clinton's last work in 2000 to come to fruit. Look at all the bad apples that tree produced in his full bloom.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Fri, Oct 3, 2008

If that is even remotely true, then God help us all when Bush's mistakes start to bloom

-- Posted by Dianatn on Fri, Oct 3, 2008, at 6:38 PM

If that is even remotely true, then God help us all when Bush's mistakes start to bloom

-- Posted by Dianatn on Fri, Oct 3, 2008, at 6:38 PM

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It must be Clinton's fault that BUSH decided we should be engaged in illegal wars as well... HAHA. This pathetic thinking of Parkerbrothers is hilarious.

I guarantee you, he made his millions during this housing boom, and he is no longer building houses at such a fast pace, so he wants to blame a man who has been out of office for nearly 7 years... Without at all acknowledging the guy who is there now, whom apparently can't make a mistake even if he tried. In his own words: "I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden" in 2003, and in 2008... it is still true.

-- Posted by Disturbia on Fri, Oct 3, 2008, at 10:55 PM

Disturbia,

Indeed the fruit of his works will take time to show. Much like the mortgage issue got full steam almost through the last acts of Clinton it has finally been properly handled almost as the last acts of Bush. Someone will inherit and mistakenly be given credit for the performance of the country over the next 8 years when in essence it is nothing more than the acts of the previous administrations wrangling in of the problems from the administration before it.

It took Reagan years to undo the works of the nut farmer and all his "programs".

I think the Bush administration has finally got us pointed back in the right direction in both the areas of Economy and Defense. I only wish they had more time to get to real problem that we have to address and that is the Energy issue. Until we move away from all the primarily Democratic deceiving obstacles (tree huggers and bird watchers) like Al Gore we are going to be dependent. No administration is going to be able to effectively guide our economy if we are dependent on anything. Whoever are whatever our dependence is with or on will sit in the left seat. The man in the left seat always carries you to your destination.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Sat, Oct 4, 2008, at 8:11 AM

I think the Bush administration has finally got us pointed back in the right direction in both the areas of Economy and DefensePosted by parkerbrothers on Sat, Oct 4, 2008, at 8:11 AM

Are you freaking crazy!!! You must have been living under a rock for the past 8 years. Let me take a moment to update you.

The Iraq War has cost us $559,602,466,351 and growing every minute, and for WHAT? Are we any safer today than we were 8 years ago? Our National Debt is $10,154,096,814,763.01 this is not including the new handout of 700+ Billion dollars yesterday to Wall Street. And we won't even go into how much surplus Bush came into office with when Clinton left office.

Bush ignored Katrina victims, Bush's idea of saving Social Security was putting our money in the stock market (and anybody with an ounce of brains can see that would have been a smart move...NOT) NCLB is pet project of Bush's which is a total mess. And don't even get me started on illegal migration and the Patriot Act! Jobs moving overseas leaving Americans with outsourced jobs. Giving millions of dollars to refugees while Americans suffer. Foreclosures at an all time high. Gas prices at an all time High.

Yea ,I can see clearly now what you mean Bush is the Savior I just haven't decided which country it is he is trying to save because it sure isn't America!!

I just Thank God Everyday, Bush Can't "Help" Us Anymore!!

-- Posted by Dianatn on Sat, Oct 4, 2008, at 11:09 AM

Dianatn,

Learn more about the origination of the problems. Who is left handling them is not always the way to lay blame.

This mortgage situation did not originate with Bush. He tried to rein it in but the Democrats even had a minority of the Republicans deceived and allowed it to go on even against the recommendations of both Bush and McCain.

As far as Iraq goes they should have been dealt with by Willie himself years ago. There was no excuse for allowing these evils to build right under our own eyes during 8 years of Clinton.

I suppose you still believe him when he says "I did not have sex with that woman."

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Sat, Oct 4, 2008, at 12:30 PM

parkerbrothers

I honestly could care less if he had sex with everyone in the White House that is between him and his wife not between him and the American Public. If you think he is the first to ever have sex in the White House or outside his marriage you are in fact misinformed

Please do inform me of the evils we have destroyed in the past 8 years, the fact is we have only made them stronger and more united.

Bin Laden himself stated he will destroy America without any gunfire or bombs personally I think he is doing a fine job of destroying us from within. Problem is, Bush is too stupid to realize he can't throw money at the problem and expect it to go away.

I assume you believe Bush has been doing everything in his power to fix any problems in America for the past 8 years also.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Sat, Oct 4, 2008, at 2:01 PM

parkerbrothers

I honestly could care less if he had sex with everyone in the White House that is between him and his wife not between him and the American Public. If you think he is the first to ever have sex in the White House or outside his marriage you are in fact misinformed

Posted by Dianatn on Sat, Oct 4, 2008, at 2:01 PM

Speaking from speculation or experience???

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Sat, Oct 4, 2008, at 6:10 PM

History?

-- Posted by Dianatn on Sun, Oct 5, 2008, at 12:22 AM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


Steve Mills and his wife have one daughter and live on a farm outside of Bell Buckle. They previously owned two coffee/ice cream shops, currently operate an internet sales company and teach classes, but his primary job involves the paper industry worldwide. Hobbies and interests lie in gardening, photography, recorded music and of course, their pets.