BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
John wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:36:09 -0500, Boater
wrote:


I am not a coward. I am not a liar. You are just going to have to
trust me on that. Bah humbug.



Another fool. Check the headers, fruitcake.

Make a complaint to somebody's ISP.


It's only the fools who are fooled.

If it lies like a Harry Krause and if it whines like a Harry Krause and
if it complains like a Harry Krause it must be a Harry Krause.

Maybe you should do some work towards becoming a more personable and
likable individual.


You should report to the Soylent Green depot for processing. No maybes
about it.

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 11:59:55 -0500, BAR wrote:

Boater wrote:
John wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:36:09 -0500, Boater
wrote:


I am not a coward. I am not a liar. You are just going to have to
trust me on that. Bah humbug.



Another fool. Check the headers, fruitcake.

Make a complaint to somebody's ISP.


I wonder if Harry is complaining because, " I am not a coward. I am not a
liar. You are just going to have to trust me on that. Bah humbug," is a
false statement.
--
John

John wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 11:59:55 -0500, BAR wrote:

Boater wrote:
John wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:36:09 -0500, Boater
wrote:


I am not a coward. I am not a liar. You are just going to have to
trust me on that. Bah humbug.

Another fool. Check the headers, fruitcake.
Make a complaint to somebody's ISP.


I wonder if Harry is complaining because, " I am not a coward. I am not a
liar. You are just going to have to trust me on that. Bah humbug," is a
false statement.

I think he is just getting it on record that he didn't make the statement.

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 13:02:21 -0500, BAR wrote:

John wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 11:59:55 -0500, BAR wrote:

Boater wrote:
John wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:36:09 -0500, Boater
wrote:


I am not a coward. I am not a liar. You are just going to have to
trust me on that. Bah humbug.

Another fool. Check the headers, fruitcake.
Make a complaint to somebody's ISP.


I wonder if Harry is complaining because, " I am not a coward. I am not a
liar. You are just going to have to trust me on that. Bah humbug," is a
false statement.

I think he is just getting it on record that he didn't make the statement.

You'd think he'd be singing the praises of whoever did.
--
John

On Dec 11, 12:26*pm, BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
John wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:36:09 -0500, Boater
wrote:

I am not a coward. I am not a liar. You are just going to have to
trust me on that. Bah humbug.

Another fool. Check the headers, fruitcake.

Make a complaint to somebody's ISP.

It's only the fools who are fooled.

If it lies like a Harry Krause and if it whines like a Harry Krause and
if it complains like a Harry Krause it must be a Harry Krause.

Maybe you should do some work towards becoming a more personable and
likable individual.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

He can't, he's been caught in so many lies that he's had to turn to
being a fat, vulgar low life for deflection!

John wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 13:02:21 -0500, BAR wrote:

John wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 11:59:55 -0500, BAR wrote:

Boater wrote:
John wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:36:09 -0500, Boater
wrote:


I am not a coward. I am not a liar. You are just going to have to
trust me on that. Bah humbug.
Another fool. Check the headers, fruitcake.
Make a complaint to somebody's ISP.

I wonder if Harry is complaining because, " I am not a coward. I am not a
liar. You are just going to have to trust me on that. Bah humbug," is a
false statement.
I think he is just getting it on record that he didn't make the statement.

You'd think he'd be singing the praises of whoever did.


Our boy John Herring, the "Christian" ex-soldier and chief handjobber of
rec.boats

"Boater" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
John wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 09:40:09 -0400, "Don White"

wrote:

"Boater" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:

I wasn't expecting you to accept.


There's no reason to meet a turd like you. You offer up nothing
unique or interesting.
Maybe Bertie has some interesting service medals to show off.
Oh wait....he didn't go anywhere or do anything.

Hey Don, tell us about your military experience. Maybe you can get
Harry to
tell us about his also. Unless you've been there and done that, I
wouldn't
think your derogatory comments very appropriate. If either of you
*had*
been there or done that, you wouldn't be making them.

Have you ever noticed that the derogatory comments about military
service
always come from those who've not been there and done that?

I am not a coward. I am not a liar. You are just going to have to
trust me on that. Bah humbug.

You are a coward. You are a liar. Nobody trusts you due to the fact
that you have been proved to be a liar time and time again.


Who are you writing to now, Mr. Savant-less Idiot?

You.


The post you quoted was not mine, idiot.


Take some mellow yellow pills and chill

Boater wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 23:59:58 -0500, Eisboch wrote:



A Chapter 11 filing does not, in itself, reorganize a company and
certainly is *not* a means for "getting people to do the same things,
only cheaper". All it does is protects the company from involuntary
bankrupcy by putting the vendor bill collectors, banks and lawsuits at
bay while an effort is made to reorganize and satisfy current finanical
obligations via negotiation. While protected in Chapter 11 a plan is
developed to reorganize, refinance, and re-negotiate existing (and in
GM's case - obsolete) contracts. Overseen by a bankruptcy court, the
plan, agreed to by all concerned parties is generated and when
implimentated, the company emerges from Chapter 11. If a plan cannot be
produced that is approved by all concerned parties, the company usually
goes belly up in Chapter 7.

Sure, but the end result is "getting people to do the same thing, only
cheaper". Let me ask you something, does the bankruptcy court take
into consideration America's interests? Under normal circumstances,
I would readily agree GM should go Chapter 11, but these are not
normal circumstances. We are in recession, and it's looking like it
could be a severe one. Personally, I don't think we can afford to let
GM go into bankruptcy at this time.

Barney Frank's bill limits the ability to truly reorganize the auto
companies. It's simply throwing money into the same sink hole.
Six-eight months from now they'll be back, needing more survival money.

The auto industry's contracts and historical ways of doing business need
a complete overhauling in order to be a viable, competitive entity in
today's global markets. Chapter 11 reorganization, prepackaged with a
government bridge loan to keep the beast breathing during the process,
makes sense to me.

You know, we have already spent $350 billion to bail out the *******s
that caused this mess. We've let them keep their millions in bonuses,
but we're quibbling about spending 1/10 of that to save an industry
that provides 1-3 million jobs. I don't get it. And, I would point
out, it was the incompetence of Wall Street that brought Detroit's
troubles into crisis.
Obama's already talking about major infrastructure spending with the
intent of creating jobs. It seems to me, saving GM's jobs, might in
the long run, be cheaper.


You don't get it? It's easy. The Republicans have great disdain for
working people, especially working people represented by unions. Working
people, after all, are nothing more than property, to be used up and
discarded.

I was opposed to the Wall Street-banker bailout, but not the auto bailout.

Why do employees need the added cost of "representation"? That money
could go into their pockets, not to a litany of people who profit from
other people's work. "Joe Six Pack" certainly doesn't need Jerry
Maguire to represent them.

JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 09:14:07 -0600, wrote:

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 23:59:58 -0500, Eisboch wrote:



A Chapter 11 filing does not, in itself, reorganize a company and
certainly is *not* a means for "getting people to do the same things,
only cheaper". All it does is protects the company from involuntary
bankrupcy by putting the vendor bill collectors, banks and lawsuits at
bay while an effort is made to reorganize and satisfy current finanical
obligations via negotiation. While protected in Chapter 11 a plan is
developed to reorganize, refinance, and re-negotiate existing (and in
GM's case - obsolete) contracts. Overseen by a bankruptcy court, the
plan, agreed to by all concerned parties is generated and when
implimentated, the company emerges from Chapter 11. If a plan cannot be
produced that is approved by all concerned parties, the company usually
goes belly up in Chapter 7.
Sure, but the end result is "getting people to do the same thing, only
cheaper". Let me ask you something, does the bankruptcy court take into
consideration America's interests? Under normal circumstances, I would
readily agree GM should go Chapter 11, but these are not normal
circumstances. We are in recession, and it's looking like it could be a
severe one. Personally, I don't think we can afford to let GM go into
bankruptcy at this time.

Barney Frank's bill limits the ability to truly reorganize the auto
companies. It's simply throwing money into the same sink hole.
Six-eight months from now they'll be back, needing more survival money.

The auto industry's contracts and historical ways of doing business need
a complete overhauling in order to be a viable, competitive entity in
today's global markets. Chapter 11 reorganization, prepackaged with a
government bridge loan to keep the beast breathing during the process,
makes sense to me.
You know, we have already spent $350 billion to bail out the *******s
that caused this mess. We've let them keep their millions in bonuses,
but we're quibbling about spending 1/10 of that to save an industry that
provides 1-3 million jobs. I don't get it. And, I would point out, it
was the incompetence of Wall Street that brought Detroit's troubles into
crisis.

Obama's already talking about major infrastructure spending with the
intent of creating jobs. It seems to me, saving GM's jobs, might in the
long run, be cheaper.

If the demand for the autos is there, the supply will be furnished by the
companies remaining in business. If those companies must gear up to meet
the new demand, they will do so. If doing so means hiring people, then
people will be hired.

Let GM go.

Infrastructure spending makes much more sense than bailing out a failing
auto company. And, it solves one of the problems - gets people working.

The unions are done. They serve to purpose.

Boater wrote:
Don White wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 06:50:55 -0500, BAR wrote:


Does the rule of law mean anything? From where do the laws
of the USA
come? I find it interesting that a lawyer, The Obama, is
so ignorant of
the laws of the USA. What is he hiding regarding his birth?
Absolutely nothing, he has disclosed his birth certificate,
and the state of Hawaii has declared it legitimate.
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/ar...ING01/81031064

We have seen a computer generated piece of paper. What we
want is a photo copy of his birth certificate.
What you want is not relevant.
Sure it is. I am a US citizen.

Yeah? Prove it. How do we know your birth certificates were not
photoshopped, and that you haven't bribed someone at the hall
of records in the city where you were born?

Contact the State of Washington's Vital Records Department.

Maybe you bribed them.

See where this is going?

D'oh.
Let's meet, I'll show you a real birth certificate and a computer
printout.



How would *you* prove it was real during a meeting? Anyone can
print up just about anything these days. I'm not a document expert,
nor do I know or care about what documents are issued wherever you
were born.

Meet you? Don't make me puke at this hour.
I wasn't expecting you to accept.


There's no reason to meet a turd like you. You offer up nothing
unique or interesting.

Maybe Bertie has some interesting service medals to show off.
Oh wait....he didn't go anywhere or do anything.


Latrine Guard Duty. It isn't easy snapping that rifle from shoulder to
shoulder while you hand guys a roll of toilet paper. He kept the spares
on his bayonet.

Interesting circle jerk.