Obamanomics....
 

jps wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2009 19:58:56 -0400, DK
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 19:37:06 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 18:40:21 -0400, BAR wrote:

wf3h wrote:
On May 8, 8:22 am, BAR wrote:
... trickle up poverty.
the rich have just given us trickle down poverty

payback's a bitch
Rich people employ poor people. Poor people employ no one.
Poor people service rich people. The world wouldn't work very well
without poor people. Rich people are far more expendible, as the
French proved.
I am now forced to ask when are you going to go the way of the rich French?
I'm not rich. I'm comfortable but far from rich.
Sucks to be you.

And you're clearly in the **** hauling business. Can't stay away from
sniffing people's asses on usenet.

Where did you get that, fruitcake? You know enough about what I do.
Remember the S corp discussion?

Sucks to be you.

Obamanomics....
 

On Fri, 15 May 2009 21:24:30 -0400, DK
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2009 19:58:56 -0400, DK
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 19:37:06 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 18:40:21 -0400, BAR wrote:

wf3h wrote:
On May 8, 8:22 am, BAR wrote:
... trickle up poverty.
the rich have just given us trickle down poverty

payback's a bitch
Rich people employ poor people. Poor people employ no one.
Poor people service rich people. The world wouldn't work very well
without poor people. Rich people are far more expendible, as the
French proved.
I am now forced to ask when are you going to go the way of the rich French?
I'm not rich. I'm comfortable but far from rich.
Sucks to be you.

And you're clearly in the **** hauling business. Can't stay away from
sniffing people's asses on usenet.

Where did you get that, fruitcake? You know enough about what I do.
Remember the S corp discussion?

Sucks to be you.

I'm sure it's something equally as foul, as to match your personality.

I recall the S corp discussion wherein we established that its use by
you is for avoidance of the corporate tax rate.

Obamanomics....
 

jps wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2009 21:24:30 -0400, DK
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2009 19:58:56 -0400, DK
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 19:37:06 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 18:40:21 -0400, BAR wrote:

wf3h wrote:
On May 8, 8:22 am, BAR wrote:
... trickle up poverty.
the rich have just given us trickle down poverty

payback's a bitch
Rich people employ poor people. Poor people employ no one.
Poor people service rich people. The world wouldn't work very well
without poor people. Rich people are far more expendible, as the
French proved.
I am now forced to ask when are you going to go the way of the rich French?
I'm not rich. I'm comfortable but far from rich.
Sucks to be you.
And you're clearly in the **** hauling business. Can't stay away from
sniffing people's asses on usenet.
Where did you get that, fruitcake? You know enough about what I do.
Remember the S corp discussion?

Sucks to be you.

I'm sure it's something equally as foul, as to match your personality.

I recall the S corp discussion wherein we established that its use by
you is for avoidance of the corporate tax rate.

As long as it is legal you have noting to whine about.

Obamanomics....
 

On Sat, 16 May 2009 10:03:51 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2009 21:24:30 -0400, DK
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2009 19:58:56 -0400, DK
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 19:37:06 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 18:40:21 -0400, BAR wrote:

wf3h wrote:
On May 8, 8:22 am, BAR wrote:
... trickle up poverty.
the rich have just given us trickle down poverty

payback's a bitch
Rich people employ poor people. Poor people employ no one.
Poor people service rich people. The world wouldn't work very well
without poor people. Rich people are far more expendible, as the
French proved.
I am now forced to ask when are you going to go the way of the rich French?
I'm not rich. I'm comfortable but far from rich.
Sucks to be you.
And you're clearly in the **** hauling business. Can't stay away from
sniffing people's asses on usenet.
Where did you get that, fruitcake? You know enough about what I do.
Remember the S corp discussion?

Sucks to be you.

I'm sure it's something equally as foul, as to match your personality.

I recall the S corp discussion wherein we established that its use by
you is for avoidance of the corporate tax rate.

As long as it is legal you have noting to whine about.

Just like torture.

Obamanomics....
 

jps wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 10:03:51 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2009 21:24:30 -0400, DK
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2009 19:58:56 -0400, DK
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 19:37:06 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 18:40:21 -0400, BAR wrote:

wf3h wrote:
On May 8, 8:22 am, BAR wrote:
... trickle up poverty.
the rich have just given us trickle down poverty

payback's a bitch
Rich people employ poor people. Poor people employ no one.
Poor people service rich people. The world wouldn't work very well
without poor people. Rich people are far more expendible, as the
French proved.
I am now forced to ask when are you going to go the way of the rich French?
I'm not rich. I'm comfortable but far from rich.
Sucks to be you.
And you're clearly in the **** hauling business. Can't stay away from
sniffing people's asses on usenet.
Where did you get that, fruitcake? You know enough about what I do.
Remember the S corp discussion?

Sucks to be you.
I'm sure it's something equally as foul, as to match your personality.

I recall the S corp discussion wherein we established that its use by
you is for avoidance of the corporate tax rate.
As long as it is legal you have noting to whine about.

Just like torture.

Legal is legal regardless of the activity.

Obamanomics....
 

On Sat, 16 May 2009 13:35:14 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 10:03:51 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2009 21:24:30 -0400, DK
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2009 19:58:56 -0400, DK
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 19:37:06 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 18:40:21 -0400, BAR wrote:

wf3h wrote:
On May 8, 8:22 am, BAR wrote:
... trickle up poverty.
the rich have just given us trickle down poverty

payback's a bitch
Rich people employ poor people. Poor people employ no one.
Poor people service rich people. The world wouldn't work very well
without poor people. Rich people are far more expendible, as the
French proved.
I am now forced to ask when are you going to go the way of the rich French?
I'm not rich. I'm comfortable but far from rich.
Sucks to be you.
And you're clearly in the **** hauling business. Can't stay away from
sniffing people's asses on usenet.
Where did you get that, fruitcake? You know enough about what I do.
Remember the S corp discussion?

Sucks to be you.
I'm sure it's something equally as foul, as to match your personality.

I recall the S corp discussion wherein we established that its use by
you is for avoidance of the corporate tax rate.
As long as it is legal you have noting to whine about.

Just like torture.

Legal is legal regardless of the activity.

Subject to misinterpretation by the highest legal authorities in the
land.

It's also legal to have a PO box in the Cayman Islands to avoid
taxation in the US.

Doesn't make it any less scummy.

Obamanomics....
 

jps wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 13:35:14 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 10:03:51 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2009 21:24:30 -0400, DK
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2009 19:58:56 -0400, DK
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 19:37:06 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 18:40:21 -0400, BAR wrote:

wf3h wrote:
On May 8, 8:22 am, BAR wrote:
... trickle up poverty.
the rich have just given us trickle down poverty

payback's a bitch
Rich people employ poor people. Poor people employ no one.
Poor people service rich people. The world wouldn't work very well
without poor people. Rich people are far more expendible, as the
French proved.
I am now forced to ask when are you going to go the way of the rich French?
I'm not rich. I'm comfortable but far from rich.
Sucks to be you.
And you're clearly in the **** hauling business. Can't stay away from
sniffing people's asses on usenet.
Where did you get that, fruitcake? You know enough about what I do.
Remember the S corp discussion?

Sucks to be you.
I'm sure it's something equally as foul, as to match your personality.

I recall the S corp discussion wherein we established that its use by
you is for avoidance of the corporate tax rate.
As long as it is legal you have noting to whine about.
Just like torture.
Legal is legal regardless of the activity.

Subject to misinterpretation by the highest legal authorities in the
land.

It's also legal to have a PO box in the Cayman Islands to avoid
taxation in the US.

Doesn't make it any less scummy.

Scummy is not a legal opinion.

Obamanomics....
 

On Sat, 16 May 2009 14:09:56 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 13:35:14 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 10:03:51 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2009 21:24:30 -0400, DK
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2009 19:58:56 -0400, DK
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 19:37:06 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 18:40:21 -0400, BAR wrote:

wf3h wrote:
On May 8, 8:22 am, BAR wrote:
... trickle up poverty.
the rich have just given us trickle down poverty

payback's a bitch
Rich people employ poor people. Poor people employ no one.
Poor people service rich people. The world wouldn't work very well
without poor people. Rich people are far more expendible, as the
French proved.
I am now forced to ask when are you going to go the way of the rich French?
I'm not rich. I'm comfortable but far from rich.
Sucks to be you.
And you're clearly in the **** hauling business. Can't stay away from
sniffing people's asses on usenet.
Where did you get that, fruitcake? You know enough about what I do.
Remember the S corp discussion?

Sucks to be you.
I'm sure it's something equally as foul, as to match your personality.

I recall the S corp discussion wherein we established that its use by
you is for avoidance of the corporate tax rate.
As long as it is legal you have noting to whine about.
Just like torture.
Legal is legal regardless of the activity.

Subject to misinterpretation by the highest legal authorities in the
land.

It's also legal to have a PO box in the Cayman Islands to avoid
taxation in the US.

Doesn't make it any less scummy.

Scummy is not a legal opinion.

No, it's a moral choice.

Just like it's okay to torture but it's not okay to have Arab
translators in the military who admit to being gay.

Tax evaders are scummy, even if their methods are legal.

Obamanomics....
 

jps wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 14:09:56 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 13:35:14 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 10:03:51 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2009 21:24:30 -0400, DK
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2009 19:58:56 -0400, DK
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 19:37:06 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 18:40:21 -0400, BAR wrote:

wf3h wrote:
On May 8, 8:22 am, BAR wrote:
... trickle up poverty.
the rich have just given us trickle down poverty

payback's a bitch
Rich people employ poor people. Poor people employ no one.
Poor people service rich people. The world wouldn't work very well
without poor people. Rich people are far more expendible, as the
French proved.
I am now forced to ask when are you going to go the way of the rich French?
I'm not rich. I'm comfortable but far from rich.
Sucks to be you.
And you're clearly in the **** hauling business. Can't stay away from
sniffing people's asses on usenet.
Where did you get that, fruitcake? You know enough about what I do.
Remember the S corp discussion?

Sucks to be you.
I'm sure it's something equally as foul, as to match your personality.

I recall the S corp discussion wherein we established that its use by
you is for avoidance of the corporate tax rate.
As long as it is legal you have noting to whine about.
Just like torture.
Legal is legal regardless of the activity.
Subject to misinterpretation by the highest legal authorities in the
land.

It's also legal to have a PO box in the Cayman Islands to avoid
taxation in the US.

Doesn't make it any less scummy.
Scummy is not a legal opinion.

No, it's a moral choice.

I didn't know law was based upon morality? Who arbitrates morality
within the law?

Just like it's okay to torture but it's not okay to have Arab
translators in the military who admit to being gay.

Change the law. It is that simple.

Tax evaders are scummy, even if their methods are legal.

Killing babies still in the womb may be legal but it is scummy.

The knife cuts both ways.

Obamanomics....
 

On Sat, 16 May 2009 14:52:32 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 14:09:56 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 13:35:14 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 10:03:51 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2009 21:24:30 -0400, DK
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2009 19:58:56 -0400, DK
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 19:37:06 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 18:40:21 -0400, BAR wrote:

wf3h wrote:
On May 8, 8:22 am, BAR wrote:
... trickle up poverty.
the rich have just given us trickle down poverty

payback's a bitch
Rich people employ poor people. Poor people employ no one.
Poor people service rich people. The world wouldn't work very well
without poor people. Rich people are far more expendible, as the
French proved.
I am now forced to ask when are you going to go the way of the rich French?
I'm not rich. I'm comfortable but far from rich.
Sucks to be you.
And you're clearly in the **** hauling business. Can't stay away from
sniffing people's asses on usenet.
Where did you get that, fruitcake? You know enough about what I do.
Remember the S corp discussion?

Sucks to be you.
I'm sure it's something equally as foul, as to match your personality.

I recall the S corp discussion wherein we established that its use by
you is for avoidance of the corporate tax rate.
As long as it is legal you have noting to whine about.
Just like torture.
Legal is legal regardless of the activity.
Subject to misinterpretation by the highest legal authorities in the
land.

It's also legal to have a PO box in the Cayman Islands to avoid
taxation in the US.

Doesn't make it any less scummy.
Scummy is not a legal opinion.

No, it's a moral choice.

I didn't know law was based upon morality? Who arbitrates morality
within the law?

Just like it's okay to torture but it's not okay to have Arab
translators in the military who admit to being gay.

Change the law. It is that simple.

When those whose interests are best served by leaving well enough
alone and they're the ones with the resources to sway opinion, guess
what happens.

That's right, the laws that would serve the greater good get thwarted.


Tax evaders are scummy, even if their methods are legal.

Killing babies still in the womb may be legal but it is scummy.

The knife cuts both ways.

Glad your wife or daughter were never raped and impregnated.

Obamanomics....
 

jps wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 14:52:32 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 14:09:56 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 13:35:14 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 10:03:51 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2009 21:24:30 -0400, DK
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2009 19:58:56 -0400, DK
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 19:37:06 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 18:40:21 -0400, BAR wrote:

wf3h wrote:
On May 8, 8:22 am, BAR wrote:
... trickle up poverty.
the rich have just given us trickle down poverty

payback's a bitch
Rich people employ poor people. Poor people employ no one.
Poor people service rich people. The world wouldn't work very well
without poor people. Rich people are far more expendible, as the
French proved.
I am now forced to ask when are you going to go the way of the rich French?
I'm not rich. I'm comfortable but far from rich.
Sucks to be you.
And you're clearly in the **** hauling business. Can't stay away from
sniffing people's asses on usenet.
Where did you get that, fruitcake? You know enough about what I do.
Remember the S corp discussion?

Sucks to be you.
I'm sure it's something equally as foul, as to match your personality.

I recall the S corp discussion wherein we established that its use by
you is for avoidance of the corporate tax rate.
As long as it is legal you have noting to whine about.
Just like torture.
Legal is legal regardless of the activity.
Subject to misinterpretation by the highest legal authorities in the
land.

It's also legal to have a PO box in the Cayman Islands to avoid
taxation in the US.

Doesn't make it any less scummy.
Scummy is not a legal opinion.
No, it's a moral choice.
I didn't know law was based upon morality? Who arbitrates morality
within the law?

Just like it's okay to torture but it's not okay to have Arab
translators in the military who admit to being gay.
Change the law. It is that simple.

When those whose interests are best served by leaving well enough
alone and they're the ones with the resources to sway opinion, guess
what happens.

Get off your lazy ass and work for what you want. Stop whining about the
other side.

That's right, the laws that would serve the greater good get thwarted.

Preservation of the individual's rights should be paramount to the
greater good.

Tax evaders are scummy, even if their methods are legal.
Killing babies still in the womb may be legal but it is scummy.

The knife cuts both ways.

Glad your wife or daughter were never raped and impregnated.

As I said before. Life is life. The child in the womb did not do
anything to deserve to die.

Obamanomics....
 

jps wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2009 21:24:30 -0400, DK
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2009 19:58:56 -0400, DK
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 19:37:06 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 18:40:21 -0400, BAR wrote:

wf3h wrote:
On May 8, 8:22 am, BAR wrote:
... trickle up poverty.
the rich have just given us trickle down poverty

payback's a bitch
Rich people employ poor people. Poor people employ no one.
Poor people service rich people. The world wouldn't work very well
without poor people. Rich people are far more expendible, as the
French proved.
I am now forced to ask when are you going to go the way of the rich French?
I'm not rich. I'm comfortable but far from rich.
Sucks to be you.
And you're clearly in the **** hauling business. Can't stay away from
sniffing people's asses on usenet.
Where did you get that, fruitcake? You know enough about what I do.
Remember the S corp discussion?

Sucks to be you.

I'm sure it's something equally as foul, as to match your personality.

I recall the S corp discussion wherein we established that its use by
you is for avoidance of the corporate tax rate.

Then you should know it's legal and doesn't avoid anything other than
double taxation.

Obamanomics....
 

"DK" wrote in message
...
jps wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2009 21:24:30 -0400, DK
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2009 19:58:56 -0400, DK
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 19:37:06 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 18:40:21 -0400, BAR wrote:

wf3h wrote:
On May 8, 8:22 am, BAR wrote:
... trickle up poverty.
the rich have just given us trickle down poverty

payback's a bitch
Rich people employ poor people. Poor people employ no one.
Poor people service rich people. The world wouldn't work very well
without poor people. Rich people are far more expendible, as the
French proved.
I am now forced to ask when are you going to go the way of the rich
French?
I'm not rich. I'm comfortable but far from rich.
Sucks to be you.
And you're clearly in the **** hauling business. Can't stay away from
sniffing people's asses on usenet.
Where did you get that, fruitcake? You know enough about what I do.
Remember the S corp discussion?

Sucks to be you.

I'm sure it's something equally as foul, as to match your personality.

I recall the S corp discussion wherein we established that its use by
you is for avoidance of the corporate tax rate.

Then you should know it's legal and doesn't avoid anything other than
double taxation.

How dare you use the "laws" to your advantage.

Obamanomics....
 

On Sun, 17 May 2009 18:15:29 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:


Then you should know it's legal and doesn't avoid anything other than
double taxation.

How dare you use the "laws" to your advantage.

The same excuse used by all the tax scammers, "double taxation."

Capital gains shouldn't be taxed.

Estates shouldn't be taxed.

Roads should be paved with fairy dust.

Schools should be built with chocolate.

There should be no tax.

I know the kind of scammin' asshole that considers everything double
taxation.

Obamanomics....
 

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 May 2009 18:15:29 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:


Then you should know it's legal and doesn't avoid anything other than
double taxation.

How dare you use the "laws" to your advantage.

The same excuse used by all the tax scammers, "double taxation."

Capital gains shouldn't be taxed.

Estates shouldn't be taxed.

Roads should be paved with fairy dust.

Schools should be built with chocolate.

There should be no tax.

I know the kind of scammin' asshole that considers everything double
taxation.


How dare someone use the "LAWS" to their advantage.

Obamanomics....
 

On May 16, 3:09*pm, jps wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 14:52:32 -0400, BAR wrote:
jps wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 14:09:56 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 13:35:14 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 10:03:51 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2009 21:24:30 -0400, DK
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2009 19:58:56 -0400, DK
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 19:37:06 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 18:40:21 -0400, BAR wrote:

wf3h wrote:
On May 8, 8:22 am, BAR wrote:
... trickle up poverty.
the rich have just given us trickle down poverty

payback's a bitch
Rich people employ poor people. Poor people employ no one..
Poor people service rich people. *The world wouldn't work very well
without poor people. *Rich people are far more expendible, as the
French proved.
I am now forced to ask when are you going to go the way of the rich French?
I'm not rich. *I'm comfortable but far from rich.
Sucks to be you.
And you're clearly in the **** hauling business. *Can't stay away from
sniffing people's asses on usenet.
Where did you get that, fruitcake? *You know enough about what I do.
Remember the S corp discussion?

Sucks to be you.
I'm sure it's something equally as foul, as to match your personality.

I recall the S corp discussion wherein we established that its use by
you is for avoidance of the corporate tax rate.
As long as it is legal you have noting to whine about.
Just like torture.
Legal is legal regardless of the activity.
Subject to misinterpretation by the highest legal authorities in the
land.

It's also legal to have a PO box in the Cayman Islands to avoid
taxation in the US.

Doesn't make it any less scummy.
Scummy is not a legal opinion.

No, it's a moral choice.

I didn't know law was based upon morality? Who arbitrates morality
within the law?

Just like it's okay to torture but it's not okay to have Arab
translators in the military who admit to being gay.

Change the law. It is that simple.

When those whose interests are best served by leaving well enough
alone and they're the ones with the resources to sway opinion, guess
what happens.

That's right, the laws that would serve the greater good get thwarted.



Tax evaders are scummy, even if their methods are legal.

Killing babies still in the womb may be legal but it is scummy.

The knife cuts both ways.

Glad your wife or daughter were never raped and impregnated.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Pffffttt. I wonder what percent of abrotions are because of rape? It
is a red herring to be sure, intellectually dishonest, who'd a thunk?
LOL

Obamanomics....
 

Obamanomics....
 

On May 18, 9:09*am, HK wrote:
wrote:
Pffffttt. I wonder what percent of abrotions are because of rape? It
is a red herring to be sure, intellectually dishonest, who'd a thunk?
LOL

What could be funnier than *you* trying to discuss something based upon
intellectuality?

Most men who oppose the right of women to seek safe abortions have one
thing in common: they feel the need to try to control women.

Pffttt, screw you.. Go back to hiding under your desk dummy...

Obamanomics....
 

Obamanomics....
 

HK wrote:
wrote:
On May 18, 9:09 am, HK wrote:
wrote:
Pffffttt. I wonder what percent of abrotions are because of rape? It
is a red herring to be sure, intellectually dishonest, who'd a thunk?
LOL
What could be funnier than *you* trying to discuss something based upon
intellectuality?

Most men who oppose the right of women to seek safe abortions have one
thing in common: they feel the need to try to control women.

Pffttt, screw you.. Go back to hiding under your desk dummy...


Got a high school diploma? Didn't think so.




http://www.psk12.com/rating/USindivp...year_2002.html

Pretty dismal ranking for Krause's high school.

Obamanomics....
 

On Mon, 18 May 2009 05:21:43 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On May 16, 3:09*pm, jps wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 14:52:32 -0400, BAR wrote:
jps wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 14:09:56 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 13:35:14 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 10:03:51 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2009 21:24:30 -0400, DK
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2009 19:58:56 -0400, DK
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 19:37:06 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 18:40:21 -0400, BAR wrote:

wf3h wrote:
On May 8, 8:22 am, BAR wrote:
... trickle up poverty.
the rich have just given us trickle down poverty

payback's a bitch
Rich people employ poor people. Poor people employ no one.
Poor people service rich people. *The world wouldn't work very well
without poor people. *Rich people are far more expendible, as the
French proved.
I am now forced to ask when are you going to go the way of the rich French?
I'm not rich. *I'm comfortable but far from rich.
Sucks to be you.
And you're clearly in the **** hauling business. *Can't stay away from
sniffing people's asses on usenet.
Where did you get that, fruitcake? *You know enough about what I do.
Remember the S corp discussion?

Sucks to be you.
I'm sure it's something equally as foul, as to match your personality.

I recall the S corp discussion wherein we established that its use by
you is for avoidance of the corporate tax rate.
As long as it is legal you have noting to whine about.
Just like torture.
Legal is legal regardless of the activity.
Subject to misinterpretation by the highest legal authorities in the
land.

It's also legal to have a PO box in the Cayman Islands to avoid
taxation in the US.

Doesn't make it any less scummy.
Scummy is not a legal opinion.

No, it's a moral choice.

I didn't know law was based upon morality? Who arbitrates morality
within the law?

Just like it's okay to torture but it's not okay to have Arab
translators in the military who admit to being gay.

Change the law. It is that simple.

When those whose interests are best served by leaving well enough
alone and they're the ones with the resources to sway opinion, guess
what happens.

That's right, the laws that would serve the greater good get thwarted.



Tax evaders are scummy, even if their methods are legal.

Killing babies still in the womb may be legal but it is scummy.

The knife cuts both ways.

Glad your wife or daughter were never raped and impregnated.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Pffffttt. I wonder what percent of abrotions are because of rape? It
is a red herring to be sure, intellectually dishonest, who'd a thunk?
LOL

It's probably a given that a rape victim wouldn't wait until the
infant was viable before making the decision to abort.

Using my name is quite permissable in this case. :)
--

John H

Obamanomics....
 

On May 18, 10:45*am, jim7856 wrote:
HK wrote:
wrote:
On May 18, 9:09 am, HK wrote:
wrote:
Pffffttt. I wonder what percent of abrotions are because of rape? It
is a red herring to be sure, intellectually dishonest, who'd a thunk?
LOL
What could be funnier than *you* trying to discuss something based upon
intellectuality?

Most men who oppose the right of women to seek safe abortions have one
thing in common: they feel the need to try to control women.

Pffttt, screw you.. Go back to hiding under your desk dummy...

Got a high school diploma? Didn't think so.

http://www.psk12.com/rating/USindivp...year_2002.html

Pretty dismal ranking for Krause's high school.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Good thing he got a great Yale education. Oh, wait, sorry, that's but
another of his lies.

Obamanomics....
 

On Mon, 18 May 2009 07:12:28 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On May 18, 9:09*am, HK wrote:
wrote:
Pffffttt. I wonder what percent of abrotions are because of rape? It
is a red herring to be sure, intellectually dishonest, who'd a thunk?
LOL

What could be funnier than *you* trying to discuss something based upon
intellectuality?

Most men who oppose the right of women to seek safe abortions have one
thing in common: they feel the need to try to control women.

Pffttt, screw you.. Go back to hiding under your desk dummy...

Quite an appropriate response. Why they try to equate saving the lives
of babies with the 'controlling' of women is beyond me.
--

John H

Obamanomics....
 

On May 18, 10:45*am, jim7856 wrote:
HK wrote:
wrote:
On May 18, 9:09 am, HK wrote:
wrote:
Pffffttt. I wonder what percent of abrotions are because of rape? It
is a red herring to be sure, intellectually dishonest, who'd a thunk?
LOL
What could be funnier than *you* trying to discuss something based upon
intellectuality?

Most men who oppose the right of women to seek safe abortions have one
thing in common: they feel the need to try to control women.

Pffttt, screw you.. Go back to hiding under your desk dummy...

Got a high school diploma? Didn't think so.

http://www.psk12.com/rating/USindivp...year_2002.html

Pretty dismal ranking for Krause's high school.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

....as compared to mine;-

http://www.psk12.com/rating/USindivp...year_2002.html

Pfffffttt.

Obamanomics....
 

wrote:
On May 18, 10:45 am, jim7856 wrote:
HK wrote:
wrote:
On May 18, 9:09 am, HK wrote:
wrote:
Pffffttt. I wonder what percent of abrotions are because of rape? It
is a red herring to be sure, intellectually dishonest, who'd a thunk?
LOL
What could be funnier than *you* trying to discuss something based upon
intellectuality?
Most men who oppose the right of women to seek safe abortions have one
thing in common: they feel the need to try to control women.
Pffttt, screw you.. Go back to hiding under your desk dummy...
Got a high school diploma? Didn't think so.
http://www.psk12.com/rating/USindivp...year_2002.html

Pretty dismal ranking for Krause's high school.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

...as compared to mine;-

http://www.psk12.com/rating/USindivp...year_2002.html

Pfffffttt.

That's hilarious.
You ought to post the stats side by side the next time he opens his fat
mouth.

Obamanomics....
 

wrote:
On May 18, 10:45 am, jim7856 wrote:
HK wrote:
wrote:
On May 18, 9:09 am, HK wrote:
wrote:
Pffffttt. I wonder what percent of abrotions are because of rape? It
is a red herring to be sure, intellectually dishonest, who'd a thunk?
LOL
What could be funnier than *you* trying to discuss something based upon
intellectuality?
Most men who oppose the right of women to seek safe abortions have one
thing in common: they feel the need to try to control women.
Pffttt, screw you.. Go back to hiding under your desk dummy...
Got a high school diploma? Didn't think so.
http://www.psk12.com/rating/USindivp...year_2002.html

Pretty dismal ranking for Krause's high school.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Good thing he got a great Yale education. Oh, wait, sorry, that's but
another of his lies.

It does explain why he had to go to Univ. of Kansas.

--
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq.

This Newsgroup post is a natural product. The slight variations in
spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in
no way are to be considered flaws or defects

Obamanomics....
 

On May 18, 12:49*pm, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:
wrote:
On May 18, 10:45 am, jim7856 wrote:
HK wrote:
wrote:
On May 18, 9:09 am, HK wrote:
wrote:
Pffffttt. I wonder what percent of abrotions are because of rape? It
is a red herring to be sure, intellectually dishonest, who'd a thunk?
LOL
What could be funnier than *you* trying to discuss something based upon
intellectuality?
Most men who oppose the right of women to seek safe abortions have one
thing in common: they feel the need to try to control women.
Pffttt, screw you.. Go back to hiding under your desk dummy...
Got a high school diploma? Didn't think so.
http://www.psk12.com/rating/USindivp...year_2002.html

Pretty dismal ranking for Krause's high school.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Good thing he got a great Yale education. Oh, wait, sorry, that's but
another of his lies.

It does explain why he had to go to Univ. of Kansas.

--
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq.


And going to Univ. of Kansas would explain why he lied and said he
went to Yale!

Obamanomics....
 

wrote:
On May 18, 12:49 pm, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:
wrote:
On May 18, 10:45 am, jim7856 wrote:
HK wrote:
wrote:
On May 18, 9:09 am, HK wrote:
wrote:
Pffffttt. I wonder what percent of abrotions are because of rape? It
is a red herring to be sure, intellectually dishonest, who'd a thunk?
LOL
What could be funnier than *you* trying to discuss something based upon
intellectuality?
Most men who oppose the right of women to seek safe abortions have one
thing in common: they feel the need to try to control women.
Pffttt, screw you.. Go back to hiding under your desk dummy...
Got a high school diploma? Didn't think so.
http://www.psk12.com/rating/USindivp...year_2002.html
Pretty dismal ranking for Krause's high school.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Good thing he got a great Yale education. Oh, wait, sorry, that's but
another of his lies.
It does explain why he had to go to Univ. of Kansas.

--
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq.


And going to Univ. of Kansas would explain why he lied and said he
went to Yale!

Ahhh Some of the Krause puzzle pieces are beginning to fit together.

Obamanomics....
 

On Mon, 18 May 2009 12:49:09 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:


Good thing he got a great Yale education. Oh, wait, sorry, that's but
another of his lies.

It does explain why he had to go to Univ. of Kansas.

And this is what you do to add to the "dialogue."

Obamanomics....
 

On Mon, 18 May 2009 09:09:52 -0400, HK wrote:

wrote:

Pffffttt. I wonder what percent of abrotions are because of rape? It
is a red herring to be sure, intellectually dishonest, who'd a thunk?
LOL


What could be funnier than *you* trying to discuss something based upon
intellectuality?

Most men who oppose the right of women to seek safe abortions have one
thing in common: they feel the need to try to control women.

The idiot freak attempts thinking. Not his stong suit.

In cases of rape, the question isn't whether or not to have an
abortion, it's a question of who decides.

BAR and the rest of the "conservatives" think the state should decide.

Obamanomics....
 

On Mon, 18 May 2009 09:57:12 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

And going to Univ. of Kansas would explain why he lied and said he
went to Yale!

My uncle thought KU was a great place to work. He could afford a
hundred acre place five miles out of town. Had three no upkeep horses.
Dean of the law school wasn't a bad gig. I spent quite a bit of time
at his place when I was a kid. KU has a much better location than
Yale.

Casady

Obamanomics....
 

On May 18, 2:52*pm, Richard Casady
wrote:
On Mon, 18 May 2009 09:57:12 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
And going to Univ. of Kansas would explain why he lied and said he
went to Yale!

My uncle thought KU was a great place to work. He could afford a
hundred acre place five miles out of town. Had three no upkeep horses.
Dean of the law school wasn't a bad gig. I spent quite a bit of time
at his place when I was a kid. KU has a much better location than
Yale.

Casady

Makes you wonder why Harry felt the need to lie then!

Obamanomics....
 

wrote:
On May 18, 10:45 am, jim7856 wrote:
HK wrote:
wrote:
On May 18, 9:09 am, HK wrote:
wrote:
Pffffttt. I wonder what percent of abrotions are because of rape? It
is a red herring to be sure, intellectually dishonest, who'd a thunk?
LOL
What could be funnier than *you* trying to discuss something based upon
intellectuality?
Most men who oppose the right of women to seek safe abortions have one
thing in common: they feel the need to try to control women.
Pffttt, screw you.. Go back to hiding under your desk dummy...
Got a high school diploma? Didn't think so.
http://www.psk12.com/rating/USindivp...year_2002.html

Pretty dismal ranking for Krause's high school.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

...as compared to mine;-

http://www.psk12.com/rating/USindivp...year_2002.html

Pfffffttt.


Idiots. The New Haven school system of nearly 50 years ago was quite a
bit different than the school system today.

Oh...I got a diploma from mine, **** for brains...but you dropped out,
right?

Obamanomics....
 

Richard Casady wrote:
On Mon, 18 May 2009 09:57:12 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

And going to Univ. of Kansas would explain why he lied and said he
went to Yale!

My uncle thought KU was a great place to work. He could afford a
hundred acre place five miles out of town. Had three no upkeep horses.
Dean of the law school wasn't a bad gig. I spent quite a bit of time
at his place when I was a kid. KU has a much better location than
Yale.

Casady


Indeed, but try to explain to **** for brains loogy the concept of
getting one degree from university A and a second degree from university
B. Maybe when loogy enrolls in a community college, someone might tell
him about it.

Obamanomics....
 

"HK" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On May 18, 10:45 am, jim7856 wrote:
HK wrote:
wrote:
On May 18, 9:09 am, HK wrote:
wrote:
Pffffttt. I wonder what percent of abrotions are because of rape? It
is a red herring to be sure, intellectually dishonest, who'd a
thunk?
LOL
What could be funnier than *you* trying to discuss something based
upon
intellectuality?
Most men who oppose the right of women to seek safe abortions have
one
thing in common: they feel the need to try to control women.
Pffttt, screw you.. Go back to hiding under your desk dummy...
Got a high school diploma? Didn't think so.
http://www.psk12.com/rating/USindivp...year_2002.html

Pretty dismal ranking for Krause's high school.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

...as compared to mine;-

http://www.psk12.com/rating/USindivp...year_2002.html

Pfffffttt.


Idiots. The New Haven school system of nearly 50 years ago was quite a bit
different than the school system today.

Oh...I got a diploma from mine, **** for brains...but you dropped out,
right?

More like... 'kicked out'.

Obamanomics....
 

jps wrote:
On Mon, 18 May 2009 09:09:52 -0400, HK wrote:

wrote:

Pffffttt. I wonder what percent of abrotions are because of rape? It
is a red herring to be sure, intellectually dishonest, who'd a thunk?
LOL

What could be funnier than *you* trying to discuss something based upon
intellectuality?

Most men who oppose the right of women to seek safe abortions have one
thing in common: they feel the need to try to control women.

The idiot freak attempts thinking. Not his stong suit.

In cases of rape, the question isn't whether or not to have an
abortion, it's a question of who decides.

Who decides?

BAR and the rest of the "conservatives" think the state should decide.

Provide a cite where I have said the state should decide. I have told
you what I believe. I have never told you nor anyone else what to
believe or what to do.

Obamanomics....
 

BAR wrote:
jps wrote:
On Mon, 18 May 2009 09:09:52 -0400, HK wrote:

wrote:

Pffffttt. I wonder what percent of abrotions are because of rape? It
is a red herring to be sure, intellectually dishonest, who'd a thunk?
LOL

What could be funnier than *you* trying to discuss something based
upon intellectuality?

Most men who oppose the right of women to seek safe abortions have
one thing in common: they feel the need to try to control women.

The idiot freak attempts thinking. Not his stong suit.

In cases of rape, the question isn't whether or not to have an
abortion, it's a question of who decides.

Who decides?

BAR and the rest of the "conservatives" think the state should decide.

Provide a cite where I have said the state should decide. I have told
you what I believe. I have never told you nor anyone else what to
believe or what to do.



Who decides? The female who is pregnant. That's who decides. No one
else's opinion matters in such a situation. Imagine having a brain-dead
****head like Justhate weighing in on such a decision.

Obamanomics....
 

On Mon, 18 May 2009 19:11:43 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Mon, 18 May 2009 09:09:52 -0400, HK wrote:

wrote:

Pffffttt. I wonder what percent of abrotions are because of rape? It
is a red herring to be sure, intellectually dishonest, who'd a thunk?
LOL

What could be funnier than *you* trying to discuss something based upon
intellectuality?

Most men who oppose the right of women to seek safe abortions have one
thing in common: they feel the need to try to control women.

The idiot freak attempts thinking. Not his stong suit.

In cases of rape, the question isn't whether or not to have an
abortion, it's a question of who decides.

Who decides?

The person who's body is affected.

BAR and the rest of the "conservatives" think the state should decide.

Provide a cite where I have said the state should decide. I have told
you what I believe. I have never told you nor anyone else what to
believe or what to do.

I believe it's up to the person who's carrying.

What do you believe?

Obamanomics....
 

jps wrote:
On Sun, 17 May 2009 18:15:29 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:


Then you should know it's legal and doesn't avoid anything other than
double taxation.
How dare you use the "laws" to your advantage.

The same excuse used by all the tax scammers, "double taxation."

Capital gains shouldn't be taxed.

Estates shouldn't be taxed.

Roads should be paved with fairy dust.

Schools should be built with chocolate.

There should be no tax.

I know the kind of scammin' asshole that considers everything double
taxation.

So you are a C-corp? Dumb move.

Get back to me when the law changes. Until then - **** off.

Obamanomics....
 

Don White wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On May 18, 10:45 am, jim7856 wrote:
HK wrote:
wrote:
On May 18, 9:09 am, HK wrote:
wrote:
Pffffttt. I wonder what percent of abrotions are because of rape? It
is a red herring to be sure, intellectually dishonest, who'd a
thunk?
LOL
What could be funnier than *you* trying to discuss something based
upon
intellectuality?
Most men who oppose the right of women to seek safe abortions have
one
thing in common: they feel the need to try to control women.
Pffttt, screw you.. Go back to hiding under your desk dummy...
Got a high school diploma? Didn't think so.
http://www.psk12.com/rating/USindivp...year_2002.html

Pretty dismal ranking for Krause's high school.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
...as compared to mine;-

http://www.psk12.com/rating/USindivp...year_2002.html

Pfffffttt.

Idiots. The New Haven school system of nearly 50 years ago was quite a bit
different than the school system today.

Oh...I got a diploma from mine, **** for brains...but you dropped out,
right?

More like... 'kicked out'.



Always the little puppy. Nipping at your master's nasty heels.