It was two years ago today...

[Alan Mendelson]

The bet and the puzzle are EXACTLY the same. Two dice will be rolled. If AT LEAST ONE DIE is a 2, the player will be paid 8 to 1 if BOTH DICE are a 2. If only one 2 shows, the player pays 1 to 1. Any other result is a push.

Pay 8 to 1 for a 1/6 occurrence? You call that the same?

[Alan Mendelson]

Let me just say this. If people don't come to the proper conclusion from an equation, the assumption is that the people "reading" the equation are wrong. If these same people come to a wrong conclusion from a verbal summary, the fault does not necessarily or even most likely lie with the readers, but with the writer. The writer has a responsibility to be clear, just as the "writer" of an equation has a responsibility to use a left-to-right format and not something right to left (that's a salute to Alan in case he reads Hebrew).

The responsibility to guide lies with the writer. If the readers are of average or above intelligence, and their conclusions are generally wrong vis-a-vis the material, the writer has failed.

In this case I don't think the writer was at fault. I think the writer intentionally wrote a question to confuse and to draw out incorrect answers. I said this both on this forum and the WOV forum because of how the original poster of the question had a "spoiler" that revealed nonsense. Also the question was set up to throw off the way responders might answer the question.

The original poster of the question never returned to the WOV forum again which means he was there for one purpose and one purpose only: to create chaos and to throw off the mathematicians. He did that.

[slingshot]

Let me just say this. If people don't come to the proper conclusion from an equation, the assumption is that the people "reading" the equation are wrong. If these same people come to a wrong conclusion from a verbal summary, the fault does not necessarily or even most likely lie with the readers, but with the writer. The writer has a responsibility to be clear, just as the "writer" of an equation has a responsibility to use a left-to-right format and not something right to left (that's a salute to Alan in case he reads Hebrew).

The responsibility to guide lies with the writer. If the readers are of average or above intelligence, and their conclusions are generally wrong vis-a-vis the material, the writer has failed.

In this case I don't think the writer was at fault. I think the writer intentionally wrote a question to confuse and to draw out incorrect answers. I said this both on this forum and the WOV forum because of how the original poster of the question had a "spoiler" that revealed nonsense. Also the question was set up to throw off the way responders might answer the question.

The original poster of the question never returned to the WOV forum again which means he was there for one purpose and one purpose only: to create chaos and to throw off the mathematicians. He did that.

So if someone came along with a VP strategy and no one was willing to try it, but instead used spurious theories based on "superior" math ability and probability- would that be nothing more than an attempt to create chaos? Nah. I guess that's too far fetched.

[mickeycrimm]

I hear you loud and clear: you are saying it has to be 1/11 because you don't know which of the two dice is showing a 2.

I am asking you to explain why it matters which of the two dice is a 2?

You haven't answered my question.

I've told, regnis has told you, Rob has told you that:

if the green die is the 2, the red die is 1/6
if the red die is the 2, the green die is 1/6

if the left die is the 2, the right die is 1/6
if the right die is the 2, the left die is 1/6

For us it makes no difference.

Why do you say it makes a difference?

Please explain and describe it so that when I have two dice in front of me, I will see why it matters.

Again, please explain and describe it so that when I have two dice in front of me, I will see why it matters.

Combinations don't disappear. They can only be eliminated from possibility. If all you know is one die is a two then the answer is 1 in 11. If you know the red die is the 2 then you can eliminate five combinations from possibility. If you know that the green die is a 2 then you can eliminate five combinations from possibility.

I've told you that.
Eddie has told you that.
RS has told you that.
Count Room has told you that.
Dan Druff has told you that.
Arci has told you that.
Quahung has told you that.

I forgot to include jbjb on the list. He has told you that too. The only one with a reading comprehension problem is YOU. You definitely have a math problem too. Rob changed his answer to suit YOU. It's the first time he's sucked up to you after you have been sucking up to him for years. It's about time Rob that you finally did something for Alan. The answer is 1 in 6, right, Rob? Wink, Wink.

[Alan Mendelson]

Actually you forgot regnis. He said it was 1/11 too, right? And redietz too, right? Frankly, outside of the members of this forum and on WOV I couldn't find anyone who said the answer was 1/11 including the dealers and floormen I asked at Caesars.

But I am still willing to learn. Tell me again how you get 11 faces to consider when one of two dice settles on a 2? Are you still going to rotate that die showing a 2? They just won't let me do that at Caesars. Or anywhere else.

I am left with one die, and I just can't get past one die having six sides.

[arcimede$]

Arc asks: "Alan, assume one die is red and the other green. After the toss and verification that at least one die is a 2, tell us the value of the red die.which die is the 2?"

Arc, if the red die is the 2, the green die is 1/6. If the green die is the 2, the red die is 1/6.

That's the answer to your question.

I didn't ask you for any odds, I ask you to tell me the value of the red die.

[Rob.Singer]

Alan, you see how mickey cherry-picked the minority part of the conclusion I input (1 in 11) while ignoring that I said 1 in 6 is by far the proper, majority solution to the problem based on how the question was presented. In other words, he discovered he needed to dance around the facts because he also is frustrated over not being able to turn you.

These guys are not geniuses....they're not even college graduates (and in mickey's case, he likely is not a HIGH SCHOOL graduate!). So a debate like this would never favor people who rode past the education window on bicycles with rusty chains and baseball cards clothspinned to their wheel housings.

I wouldn't be surprised if it were wizard using one of his aliases who posted the dice problem. After all, his job with the foreigners who own the site is to generate views....and if he gets fired he doesn't want to ever get into the same pickle of having to beg for money again.

[a2a3dseddie]

Actually you forgot regnis. He said it was 1/11 too, right? And redietz too, right? Frankly, outside of the members of this forum and on WOV I couldn't find anyone who said the answer was 1/11 including the dealers and floormen I asked at Caesars.

But I am still willing to learn. Tell me again how you get 11 faces to consider when one of two dice settles on a 2? Are you still going to rotate that die showing a 2? They just won't let me do that at Caesars. Or anywhere else.

I am left with one die, and I just can't get past one die having six sides.

Could you show me a link where redietz said it was 1 in 6?
If you're reading redietz, could you please erase some of your inbox messages? I am trying to PM you.

[a2a3dseddie]

When rolling two dice simultaneously, 2-2 shows up 1/36 times.
There are 11 combinations showing at least one 2, and only one combination that shows 2-2. So you are facing 10 losing decisions for each winning decision.

So what reduces the 1/11 scenario you describe here to 1/6 after you put both dice both in a cup, roll them simultaneously, and a peeker says at least one of the dice is a 2?

[Alan Mendelson]

So what reduces the 1/11 scenario you describe here to 1/6 after you put both dice both in a cup, roll them simultaneously, and a peeker says at least one of the dice is a 2?

I am glad you wrote this, because this illustrates the problem: they are different questions, and because they are different questions they have different answers.

I've been telling you this all along. You get 1/11 as the answer to one question, and you get 1/6 as the answer to another question. What you are doing is confusing the questions because you are missing the language of the questions.

redietz accurately pointed out that to answer the question about the dice in the cup with the peeker you would look at the dice one at a time (successive observation, not simultaneous observations) and that would give you the answer of 1/6. But when you are able to consider both dice at once (simultaneous observation) AS IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT A CHART OR A GRAPHIC OF DICE RESULTS your answer can be 1/11.

You are failing to recognize the wording and the condition of the question that gives you the answer 1/6. For some reason you are mistaking the question and applying the method that gives you the 1/11 answer.

Once again it's a problem of reading comprehension and it's a problem of not answering the question that is being asked.

These are all valid answers: 1/36, 10/36, 1/11, 1/6, 0/36 -- but they are not the correct answers to all questions.

1/36 the chance of rolling 2-2
10/36 the number of combinations of dice showing one 2
1/11 the number of combinations of dice showing at least one 2 that has 2-2
1/6 the face on one die that will match the face of another die
0/36 when you roll two dice but fail to get the combination you want

So, once again, when do we properly get the answer 1/6 ?? We get the answer 1/6 when we are asking how many faces on a die would match the face of a certain die. So, when we are told at least one die is showing a 2, there is 1/6 faces on a die that would have us have 2-2.

I'll say it again in a slightly different way:

If we are told that at least one die is showing a 2, to get a combination of 2-2 we would know that 1/6 faces on another die would present that.

In the dice in cup with peeker problem it is clearly said that at least one die is a 2.
When we look at a chart or graph or dice combinations we can see that 11 combinations have at least one 2 and one combination has 2-2.
When we are told that at least one of two dice is showing a 2 we don't consider 11 combinations-- we only consider what are the possible combinations of the second die in the problem.

Why can't you understand this?

[redietz]

Actually you forgot regnis. He said it was 1/11 too, right? And redietz too, right? Frankly, outside of the members of this forum and on WOV I couldn't find anyone who said the answer was 1/11 including the dealers and floormen I asked at Caesars.

But I am still willing to learn. Tell me again how you get 11 faces to consider when one of two dice settles on a 2? Are you still going to rotate that die showing a 2? They just won't let me do that at Caesars. Or anywhere else.

I am left with one die, and I just can't get past one die having six sides.

Could you show me a link where redietz said it was 1 in 6?
If you're reading redietz, could you please erase some of your inbox messages? I am trying to PM you.

I cleaned out a few. Thanks for the heads up.

[mickeycrimm]

So what reduces the 1/11 scenario you describe here to 1/6 after you put both dice both in a cup, roll them simultaneously, and a peeker says at least one of the dice is a 2?

I am glad you wrote this, because this illustrates the problem: they are different questions, and because they are different questions they have different answers.

I've been telling you this all along. You get 1/11 as the answer to one question, and you get 1/6 as the answer to another question. What you are doing is confusing the questions because you are missing the language of the questions.

redietz accurately pointed out that to answer the question about the dice in the cup with the peeker you would look at the dice one at a time (successive observation, not simultaneous observations) and that would give you the answer of 1/6. But when you are able to consider both dice at once (simultaneous observation) AS IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT A CHART OR A GRAPHIC OF DICE RESULTS your answer can be 1/11.

You are failing to recognize the wording and the condition of the question that gives you the answer 1/6. For some reason you are mistaking the question and applying the method that gives you the 1/11 answer.

Once again it's a problem of reading comprehension and it's a problem of not answering the question that is being asked.

These are all valid answers: 1/36, 10/36, 1/11, 1/6, 0/36 -- but they are not the correct answers to all questions.

1/36 the chance of rolling 2-2
10/36 the number of combinations of dice showing one 2
1/11 the number of combinations of dice showing at least one 2 that has 2-2
1/6 the face on one die that will match the face of another die
0/36 when you roll two dice but fail to get the combination you want

So, once again, when do we properly get the answer 1/6 ?? We get the answer 1/6 when we are asking how many faces on a die would match the face of a certain die. So, when we are told at least one die is showing a 2, there is 1/6 faces on a die that would have us have 2-2.

I'll say it again in a slightly different way:

If we are told that at least one die is showing a 2, to get a combination of 2-2 we would know that 1/6 faces on another die would present that.

In the dice in cup with peeker problem it is clearly said that at least one die is a 2.
When we look at a chart or graph or dice combinations we can see that 11 combinations have at least one 2 and one combination has 2-2.
When we are told that at least one of two dice is showing a 2 we don't consider 11 combinations-- we only consider what are the possible combinations of the second die in the problem.

Why can't you understand this?

I don't understand why your reasoning is so far off the mark and ends with an erroneous conclusion. But I'm in good company. These guys don't understand why your logic is so far off the mark either.

http://www.fabpedigree.com/james/greatmm.htm

[Alan Mendelson]

Actually, you guys with your 1/11 answer are off the mark. You're not understanding the actual question that was asked. And you are applying the methodology for a different question to answer this one.

You're not going to back down, and neither am I.

[a2a3dseddie]

So what reduces the 1/11 scenario you describe here to 1/6 after you put both dice both in a cup, roll them simultaneously, and a peeker says at least one of the dice is a 2?

I am glad you wrote this, because this illustrates the problem: they are different questions, and because they are different questions they have different answers.

I've been telling you this all along. You get 1/11 as the answer to one question, and you get 1/6 as the answer to another question. What you are doing is confusing the questions because you are missing the language of the questions.

redietz accurately pointed out that to answer the question about the dice in the cup with the peeker you would look at the dice one at a time (successive observation, not simultaneous observations) and that would give you the answer of 1/6. But when you are able to consider both dice at once (simultaneous observation) AS IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT A CHART OR A GRAPHIC OF DICE RESULTS your answer can be 1/11.

You are failing to recognize the wording and the condition of the question that gives you the answer 1/6. For some reason you are mistaking the question and applying the method that gives you the 1/11 answer.

Once again it's a problem of reading comprehension and it's a problem of not answering the question that is being asked.

These are all valid answers: 1/36, 10/36, 1/11, 1/6, 0/36 -- but they are not the correct answers to all questions.

1/36 the chance of rolling 2-2
10/36 the number of combinations of dice showing one 2
1/11 the number of combinations of dice showing at least one 2 that has 2-2
1/6 the face on one die that will match the face of another die
0/36 when you roll two dice but fail to get the combination you want

So, once again, when do we properly get the answer 1/6 ?? We get the answer 1/6 when we are asking how many faces on a die would match the face of a certain die. So, when we are told at least one die is showing a 2, there is 1/6 faces on a die that would have us have 2-2.

I'll say it again in a slightly different way:

If we are told that at least one die is showing a 2, to get a combination of 2-2 we would know that 1/6 faces on another die would present that.

In the dice in cup with peeker problem it is clearly said that at least one die is a 2.
When we look at a chart or graph or dice combinations we can see that 11 combinations have at least one 2 and one combination has 2-2.
When we are told that at least one of two dice is showing a 2 we don't consider 11 combinations-- we only consider what are the possible combinations of the second die in the problem.

Why can't you understand this?

Thank-you for your long response Alan. I DO understand how you arrived at 1/6. I honestly do. And I disagree.

Using 2 six sided dice.

How many combinations are 2 2? 1/36. Rolling it is 35 to 1 against.
How many combinations contain at least one 2? 11/36.
Of those 11/36, how many are 2 2? 1/11.

So, not considering the 25/36 rolls that do not contain a 2, what are your odds of rolling 2 2? 1/11.

From what you've typed above you agree with this.

I am going to colour the dice red and green for this next part.

Again, disregarding the 25/36 rolls that do not contain at least one 2, what are the odds of rolling:

Red 2 Green 5
or
Red 2 Green 6
or
Red 2 Green 1
or
Red 4 Green 2
or
Red 5 Green 2
or
Red 1 Green 2
?
The answer is 1/11 for any of them right?

When the dice are rolled simultaneously either in full view, or peeked at under a cup and we disregard those 25/36 combinations that do not contain at least one 2 we are looking at a specific dice combination that is a 1/11 occurrence. The result the peeker sees is a 1/11 occurrence. It doesn't matter if he looks at 1 die at a time.

If you roll 2 2 in full view you are looking at a 1/36 occurrence. Is it no longer 1/36 occurrence if you rolled it out of a cup and peeked at the dice one at a time?

[Alan Mendelson]

So what reduces the 1/11 scenario you describe here to 1/6 after you put both dice both in a cup, roll them simultaneously, and a peeker says at least one of the dice is a 2?

I am glad you wrote this, because this illustrates the problem: they are different questions, and because they are different questions they have different answers.

I've been telling you this all along. You get 1/11 as the answer to one question, and you get 1/6 as the answer to another question. What you are doing is confusing the questions because you are missing the language of the questions.

redietz accurately pointed out that to answer the question about the dice in the cup with the peeker you would look at the dice one at a time (successive observation, not simultaneous observations) and that would give you the answer of 1/6. But when you are able to consider both dice at once (simultaneous observation) AS IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT A CHART OR A GRAPHIC OF DICE RESULTS your answer can be 1/11.

You are failing to recognize the wording and the condition of the question that gives you the answer 1/6. For some reason you are mistaking the question and applying the method that gives you the 1/11 answer.

Once again it's a problem of reading comprehension and it's a problem of not answering the question that is being asked.

These are all valid answers: 1/36, 10/36, 1/11, 1/6, 0/36 -- but they are not the correct answers to all questions.

1/36 the chance of rolling 2-2
10/36 the number of combinations of dice showing one 2
1/11 the number of combinations of dice showing at least one 2 that has 2-2
1/6 the face on one die that will match the face of another die
0/36 when you roll two dice but fail to get the combination you want

So, once again, when do we properly get the answer 1/6 ?? We get the answer 1/6 when we are asking how many faces on a die would match the face of a certain die. So, when we are told at least one die is showing a 2, there is 1/6 faces on a die that would have us have 2-2.

I'll say it again in a slightly different way:

If we are told that at least one die is showing a 2, to get a combination of 2-2 we would know that 1/6 faces on another die would present that.

In the dice in cup with peeker problem it is clearly said that at least one die is a 2.
When we look at a chart or graph or dice combinations we can see that 11 combinations have at least one 2 and one combination has 2-2.
When we are told that at least one of two dice is showing a 2 we don't consider 11 combinations-- we only consider what are the possible combinations of the second die in the problem.

Why can't you understand this?

Thank-you for your long response Alan. I DO understand how you arrived at 1/6. I honestly do. And I disagree.

Using 2 six sided dice.

How many combinations are 2 2? 1/36. Rolling it is 35 to 1 against.
How many combinations contain at least one 2? 11/36.
Of those 11/36, how many are 2 2? 1/11.

So, not considering the 25/36 rolls that do not contain a 2, what are your odds of rolling 2 2? 1/11.

From what you've typed above you agree with this.

I am going to colour the dice red and green for this next part.

Again, disregarding the 25/36 rolls that do not contain at least one 2, what are the odds of rolling:

Red 2 Green 5
or
Red 2 Green 6
or
Red 2 Green 1
or
Red 4 Green 2
or
Red 5 Green 2
or
Red 1 Green 2
?
The answer is 1/11 for any of them right?

When the dice are rolled simultaneously either in full view, or peeked at under a cup and we disregard those 25/36 combinations that do not contain at least one 2 we are looking at a specific dice combination that is a 1/11 occurrence. The result the peeker sees is a 1/11 occurrence. It doesn't matter if he looks at 1 die at a time.

If you roll 2 2 in full view you are looking at a 1/36 occurrence. Is it no longer 1/36 occurrence if you rolled it out of a cup and peeked at the dice one at a time?

Why are you jumping through hoops and looking at 36 different combinations to answer a simple question which really only involves ONE die with six sides. The question clearly directs to consider the six sides on one die. But look at what you just did. This is why we will never agree.

I wonder what your SAT scores were in school? You probably did very well on the math but not so well on the English part. Did you ever take the LSAT exam? It has a section with a "made up imaginary language." I did very well on that, because it was for logic and reasoning.

Sorry, this long explanation of all these dice combinations is way out of the ball park. You're not even close to getting to first base.

Sorry.

[arcimede$]

Arc asks: "Alan, assume one die is red and the other green. After the toss and verification that at least one die is a 2, tell us the value of the red die.which die is the 2?"

Arc, if the red die is the 2, the green die is 1/6. If the green die is the 2, the red die is 1/6.

That's the answer to your question.

I didn't ask you for any odds, I ask you to tell me the value of the red die.

Notice how Alan once again refuses to answer this question. We all know why. He has no answer. He doesn't know the value of the red die. I could also ask him the value of the green die and he would avoid answering that as well. The reason is the same. He doesn't know the value of the green die.

Why am I asking? Well previously when I stated I didn't know the value of either die, Alan claimed I was senile. Now, he has essentially admitted he does't know their values either. The only possible conclusion is Alan thinks Alan is senile.

[mickeycrimm]

Actually you forgot regnis. He said it was 1/11 too, right? And redietz too, right? Frankly, outside of the members of this forum and on WOV I couldn't find anyone who said the answer was 1/11 including the dealers and floormen I asked at Caesars.

Reiditz has never said it is 1 in 6. You are clutching at straws, Alan. And the dealers and floormen? That's the biggest joke in this thread. Why don't you get your video poker strategy from the slot attendent instead of Dancer and Shackleford? After all, the slot attendent must be an expert on video poker strategy because he/she works in the slot department, right?

[mickeycrimm]

For the record, two years ago, when the two dice puzzle thread started on WoV, there were some members, like Alan, who believed the answer was 1 in 6. But by the end of the thread, those members had changed their opinion to 1 in 11 and Alan was the only one left in the 1 in 6 column. He received several offers of money challenges, some at a 7 to 1 payoff, and some at an 8 to 1 payoff. Alan begged off from betting any money other than 'play for lunch."

But Alan said that he had members of his own forum wanting action on the game and taking the 1 in 6 side. The Wizard jumped in the thread offering a 9 to 1 payoff and willing to play the challenge receiving $100 every time the other dice wasn't a 2 and paying off $900 when it was a 2. The "members wanting action" that Alan alluded to turned out to be Rob Singer. Singer's initial response was "I'm in for any amount Wizard wants to put up."

Did the challenge ever go down? Well, all of you already know what happened next. When Rob seen that the Wizard was serious he (Rob) went into his usual tap dance. Change this, change that, money in escrow, independent auditors, arbitrators. You know, the usual hogwash Rob throws up when he's to chicken to follow through on a challenge and needs to save face.

Rob is like that dog that comes out barking and growling when you drive up to someone's house. As soon as you enter the gate the dog runs up under the house crying and wimpering like a little pup.

I think that you will find the Wizard is still ready to get it on with this bet. Any takers?

[Alan Mendelson]

All you have to do is show me eleven faces to choose from with two dice, when one die is showing a 2. That's it.

Don't give me side bets, don't ask me about colors, don't tell me I'm the last man on earth who thinks 1/6 is right.

Just take two dice, with at least one die showing a 2, and show me 11 possible combinations.

Oh... and you can't rotate the die showing a 2 because you can't rotate dice in the real world after they come to rest.

[Rob.Singer]

For the record, two years ago, when the two dice puzzle thread started on WoV, there were some members, like Alan, who believed the answer was 1 in 6. But by the end of the thread, those members had changed their opinion to 1 in 11 and Alan was the only one left in the 1 in 6 column. He received several offers of money challenges, some at a 7 to 1 payoff, and some at an 8 to 1 payoff. Alan begged off from betting any money other than 'play for lunch."

But Alan said that he had members of his own forum wanting action on the game and taking the 1 in 6 side. The Wizard jumped in the thread offering a 9 to 1 payoff and willing to play the challenge receiving $100 every time the other dice wasn't a 2 and paying off $900 when it was a 2. The "members wanting action" that Alan alluded to turned out to be Rob Singer. Singer's initial response was "I'm in for any amount Wizard wants to put up."

Did the challenge ever go down? Well, all of you already know what happened next. When Rob seen that the Wizard was serious he (Rob) went into his usual tap dance. Change this, change that, money in escrow, independent auditors, arbitrators. You know, the usual hogwash Rob throws up when he's to chicken to follow through on a challenge and needs to save face.

Rob is like that dog that comes out barking and growling when you drive up to someone's house. As soon as you enter the gate the dog runs up under the house crying and wimpering like a little pup.

I think that you will find the Wizard is still ready to get it on with this bet. Any takers?

....says someone who lost whatever little money he ever had in Nevada, and now hides in Montana where he makes up fantasy gambling stories, plagiarizes others, and because his whole life's been a failure--social and otherwise--he despises anyone who's been successful in any way. And that's exactly why he's so agitated with not being able to get Alan to see things his way.

I do believe mickey, that REAL bets aren't theories, they have REAL parameters, and that I'm the only one you've ever heard of who's actually put up an escrow, identified how much and where it was, then actually published about it in two LV papers along with the challenge. You see, all those libtard mensas on WoV have never offered Alan or me or anyone else anything but bets based on the theoretical, which is why they never happen as soon as they look real. Just look at this clown right here jbjb. Did he have the balls to show up at the Silverton two nights ago to follow thru on his bet with coach--and to face ME? This is why you guys are so full of it, and live armchair gambling lives. These people are nothing but anonymous cowards who live their virtual lives out on the internet as you do.

mickey, ask yourself this: wizard had a forum/Alan had a forum. wizard claimed to be the "AP's AP" who operates on theory and believes that it's "more important to make a good bet and lose than to win money making what he calls a bad bet".

Alan OTOH, and in step with his conclusion to the dice problem, believes in the reality of the situation as presented before his eyes, and would much rather win money than advantage player-phantom bucks, and would never rather lose under ANY circumstances.

Alan unloaded his forum without much fanfare, and he continues to play what to most vp players is high limit video poker....something YOU'VE never even come close to being able to do--with your slug life and all.. Wizard, after completely humiliating himself and basically admitting how his "AP lifestyle" was a failure by begging his forum for cash, sold out to online gambling foreigners for a never verified, boasted amount of money (which has undoubtedly all been turned into phantom bucks long ago)--and now has to WORK for them. (Now there's family security for ya--I'll bet the health insurance plan is something to behold).

So who does mickey support? You got it! And why? ROTFLMFAO!!!

At least your Republican Congressman beat--and beat up--the libtards last night....