On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 08:51:28 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Dec 14, 11:19*am, hk wrote:


* Not my quote...found it on DailyKOS and it is completely true.


LOL... That's the best one I have heard all day!!!

Have you ever noticed that liberals, when asked a specific question, will
ignore the question, change the subject, or resort to personal insults -
rather than answer the question.
--
John

On Dec 14, 2:28*pm, John wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 08:51:28 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Dec 14, 11:19*am, hk wrote:

* Not my quote...found it on DailyKOS and it is completely true.

LOL... That's the best one I have heard all day!!!

Have you ever noticed that liberals, when asked a specific question, will
ignore the question, change the subject, or resort to personal insults -
rather than answer the question.
--
John

Why yes, yes I have.. Notice the direct answer ??

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 12:41:56 -0500, Boater wrote:

Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:

Harry,
I have never known anyone


Reggie, I *don't care* who you have or haven't known, or what you think.

Got it?

Harry, for your own good, I will address you.

Reggie is correct.

You *should* care.

Until next time....goodbye.
--
John

John wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 12:41:56 -0500, Boater wrote:

Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:
Harry,
I have never known anyone

Reggie, I *don't care* who you have or haven't known, or what you think.

Got it?

Harry, for your own good, I will address you.

Reggie is correct.

You *should* care.

Until next time....goodbye.


Since you are dumber than and less relevant than even Reggie, I will
give your suggestions the same consideration I give his: none.

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 08:22:02 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Dec 14, 9:22*am, John wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 08:14:22 -0600, wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 09:06:56 -0500, John wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 07:51:17 -0600, wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 08:45:40 -0500, John wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 07:23:49 -0600, wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 07:23:39 -0500, John wrote:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...tribution.html

Thunder, do you really believe the 'worker' has increased his output
by 20%? Does that line make sense to you?

The fact that you read it in an anti-Bush article doesn't make it
true.

As you are clearly too lazy to do your own search:

http://www.bls.gov/lpc/prodybar.htm

Let's see, 7 * 2.5 = 17.5 *You could then extrapolate, considering it
is 2008. *So, yes, I do believe the 'worker' has increased his output
by 20%, even though, I probably shouldn't believe anything that comes
out of the Bush government.

That's overall productivity, not an increase in productivity of
'workers'.

If I have an assembly line with 10 workers, I replace five with a
robot, and my output remains constant, does that mean the productivity
of the five remaining workers has increased by 100%? *Should I double
the pay of the remaining five workers?

If you believe that, then I can understand your anguish.

Well, seeing you are talking an assembly line, productivity in the
manufacturing sector was 26% between 2000-2007. *I'm well aware of what
"productivity" is, and I'm also quite aware that productivity has
increased, wages haven't kept up, which was the whole point of the first
link posted.

I'd also point out, that article was posted in reply to Just's statement
that "The lazy ones who won't work need the representation." *Well,
apparently, that's not true, now is it?

Have you ever noticed that liberals, when asked a specific question,
will ignore the question, change the subject, or resort to personal
insults - rather than answer the question.

Just's statement is very true. The article you posted had no bearing on
his statement, just as your comparison of productivity and wages has no
bearing on his statement.

Here, I'll ask again:

" If I have an assembly line with 10 workers, I replace five with a
robot,
*and my output remains constant, does that mean the productivity of the
*five remaining workers has increased by 100%? *Should I double the pay
*of the remaining five workers?"

Are you talking labor productivity? *Multifactor productivity? *What
productivity model? *Kurosawa? Gollop?

Widget productivity.

Jeeez.

Have you ever noticed that liberals, when asked a specific question,
will ignore the question, change the subject, or resort to personal
insults - rather than answer the question?

Goodbye. Going golfing. You've proven my point.
--
John- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not all of them. I'll take to task anyone who lumps ALL people of a
certain political belief into a very narrow group.

You are probably correct. Note that I didn't say Democrats, but I probably
should have said, "...most liberals...".
--
John

On Dec 14, 2:34*pm, Boater wrote:
John wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 12:41:56 -0500, Boater wrote:

Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:
Harry,
I have never known anyone

Reggie, I **don't care* who you have or haven't known, or what you think.

Got it?

Harry, for your own good, I will address you.

Reggie is correct.

You *should* care.

Until next time....goodbye.

Since you are dumber than and less relevant than even Reggie, I will
give your suggestions the same consideration I give his: none.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So, since you think everyone here is dumb and not worth addressing,
why do you post? Here, let me make it easy for even you. Tell us who
you feel is worth addressing here in rec.boats, that will give a
little insight into where you are coming from?

wrote:
On Dec 14, 2:34 pm, Boater wrote:
John wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 12:41:56 -0500, Boater wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:
Harry,
I have never known anyone
Reggie, I *don't care* who you have or haven't known, or what you think.
Got it?
Harry, for your own good, I will address you.
Reggie is correct.
You *should* care.
Until next time....goodbye.
Since you are dumber than and less relevant than even Reggie, I will
give your suggestions the same consideration I give his: none.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So, since you think everyone here is dumb and not worth addressing,
why do you post? Here, let me make it easy for even you. Tell us who
you feel is worth addressing here in rec.boats, that will give a
little insight into where you are coming from?


Please repost the post in which I stated "everyone here is dumb."

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 14:28:20 -0500, John wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 08:51:28 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Dec 14, 11:19*am, hk wrote:


* Not my quote...found it on DailyKOS and it is completely true.


LOL... That's the best one I have heard all day!!!

Have you ever noticed that liberals, when asked a specific question, will
ignore the question, change the subject, or resort to personal insults -
rather than answer the question.

edit...'most liberals'...
--
John

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 11:46:12 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Dec 14, 2:34*pm, Boater wrote:
John wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 12:41:56 -0500, Boater wrote:

Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:
Harry,
I have never known anyone

Reggie, I **don't care* who you have or haven't known, or what you think.

Got it?

Harry, for your own good, I will address you.

Reggie is correct.

You *should* care.

Until next time....goodbye.

Since you are dumber than and less relevant than even Reggie, I will
give your suggestions the same consideration I give his: none.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So, since you think everyone here is dumb and not worth addressing,
why do you post? Here, let me make it easy for even you. Tell us who
you feel is worth addressing here in rec.boats, that will give a
little insight into where you are coming from?

And ask him why he's made about 72 posts to me in the past week even though
I've made none to him.

Weird.
--
John

Boater wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:

Harry,
I have never known anyone


Reggie, I *don't care* who you have or haven't known, or what you think.

Got it?

Why is that?