More liberal math problems...
 

"The administration wants to keep some of the unspent funds available
for emergencies, but is considering setting aside a chunk for debt
reduction, according to people familiar with the matter. It is also
expected to lower the projected long-term cost of the program -- the
amount it expects to lose -- to as little as $200 billion from $341
billion estimated in August."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125799009185344567.html

So let me see if I got this right. The Administration wants to use
borrowed money which created increased debt to pay down the overall
debt incurred by increased spending.

Son-of-a-gun. That must mean that your average citizen should be able
to decrease his/her overall debt by borrowing more money to pay down
that debt.

Huh - how about that.

More liberal math problems...
 

3 trillion dollars in war debt?

Repaying a trillion dollars in Chinese financing for tax breaks?

45,000 people a year dying for lack of proper health coverage?

More liberal math problems...
 

On Nov 13, 2:56*am, jps wrote:
3 trillion dollars in war debt?

Repaying a trillion dollars in Chinese financing for tax breaks?

45,000 people a year dying for lack of proper health coverage?

When do you start bawling, JPS?

More liberal math problems...
 

jps wrote:
3 trillion dollars in war debt?

Repaying a trillion dollars in Chinese financing for tax breaks?

45,000 people a year dying for lack of proper health coverage?


What's most amazing, and the saddest, is that you believe O's "math".
Paying debt with borrowed money!

Pure stupidity, all for an ideal, and not a clue what a fool you are.

Johnson

More liberal math problems...
 

In article ,
says...

"The administration wants to keep some of the unspent funds available
for emergencies, but is considering setting aside a chunk for debt
reduction, according to people familiar with the matter. It is also
expected to lower the projected long-term cost of the program -- the
amount it expects to lose -- to as little as $200 billion from $341
billion estimated in August."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125799009185344567.html

So let me see if I got this right. The Administration wants to use
borrowed money which created increased debt to pay down the overall
debt incurred by increased spending.

Son-of-a-gun. That must mean that your average citizen should be able
to decrease his/her overall debt by borrowing more money to pay down
that debt.

Huh - how about that.

Uh, speculators have been doing such forever. It can actually be quite
cost affective to borrow money at a much lower rate to pay off debt with
a higher rate of interest.

--
WAFA the newsgroup liar free!

More liberal math problems...
 

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
"The administration wants to keep some of the unspent funds available
for emergencies, but is considering setting aside a chunk for debt
reduction, according to people familiar with the matter. It is also
expected to lower the projected long-term cost of the program -- the
amount it expects to lose -- to as little as $200 billion from $341
billion estimated in August."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125799009185344567.html

So let me see if I got this right. The Administration wants to use
borrowed money which created increased debt to pay down the overall
debt incurred by increased spending.

Son-of-a-gun. That must mean that your average citizen should be able
to decrease his/her overall debt by borrowing more money to pay down
that debt.

Huh - how about that.


Is that something like "check kiting"?

More liberal math problems...
 

On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:54:27 -0500, Johnson
wrote:

jps wrote:
3 trillion dollars in war debt?

Repaying a trillion dollars in Chinese financing for tax breaks?

45,000 people a year dying for lack of proper health coverage?


What's most amazing, and the saddest, is that you believe O's "math".
Paying debt with borrowed money!

Pure stupidity, all for an ideal, and not a clue what a fool you are.

Johnson

An ideal to provide health care at a reasonable cost? No, it's called
civilized.

You think it's an ideal to not give those who need it least tax cuts?
That's called common sense.

More liberal math problems...
 

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:54:27 -0500, Johnson
wrote:

jps wrote:
3 trillion dollars in war debt?

Repaying a trillion dollars in Chinese financing for tax breaks?

45,000 people a year dying for lack of proper health coverage?


What's most amazing, and the saddest, is that you believe O's "math".
Paying debt with borrowed money!

Pure stupidity, all for an ideal, and not a clue what a fool you are.

Johnson

An ideal to provide health care at a reasonable cost? No, it's called
civilized.

You think it's an ideal to not give those who need it least tax cuts?
That's called common sense.

Where is the House bill going to provide health care at a resonable cost?
Where does it reduce cost?

More liberal math problems...
 

"NowNow" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"The administration wants to keep some of the unspent funds available
for emergencies, but is considering setting aside a chunk for debt
reduction, according to people familiar with the matter. It is also
expected to lower the projected long-term cost of the program -- the
amount it expects to lose -- to as little as $200 billion from $341
billion estimated in August."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125799009185344567.html

So let me see if I got this right. The Administration wants to use
borrowed money which created increased debt to pay down the overall
debt incurred by increased spending.

Son-of-a-gun. That must mean that your average citizen should be able
to decrease his/her overall debt by borrowing more money to pay down
that debt.

Huh - how about that.

Uh, speculators have been doing such forever. It can actually be quite
cost affective to borrow money at a much lower rate to pay off debt with
a higher rate of interest.

--
WAFA the newsgroup liar free!

And this lowered your debt?

More liberal math problems...
 

On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:18:51 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:54:27 -0500, Johnson
wrote:

jps wrote:
3 trillion dollars in war debt?

Repaying a trillion dollars in Chinese financing for tax breaks?

45,000 people a year dying for lack of proper health coverage?


What's most amazing, and the saddest, is that you believe O's "math".
Paying debt with borrowed money!

Pure stupidity, all for an ideal, and not a clue what a fool you are.

Johnson

An ideal to provide health care at a reasonable cost? No, it's called
civilized.

You think it's an ideal to not give those who need it least tax cuts?
That's called common sense.

Where is the House bill going to provide health care at a resonable cost?
Where does it reduce cost?

What's reasonable, Bill? Today's rate, tomorrow's rate, the rates 10
years from now or the rates 10 years ago?

The whole point is to make it affordable. It's not and it's not
working. I don't make sausage and don't pretend to know how it's made
but I have to trust that the guy I put in charge is going to make sure
that what's important is preserved.

How is it that you put so much faith in Bush and you cannot in Obama?
Bush was responsible for two questionable wars, tax cuts we couldn't
afford, the fastest growth of the federal government in history and an
overall ballooning debt that crescendo'd as he left office.

Now you're jumping up and down about debt.

Pardon me if I scratch my head in wonder like I'm watching a strangely
behaving animal at the local zoo. A gorilla eating his own poop.

More liberal math problems...
 

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
"The administration wants to keep some of the unspent funds available
for emergencies, but is considering setting aside a chunk for debt
reduction, according to people familiar with the matter. It is also
expected to lower the projected long-term cost of the program -- the
amount it expects to lose -- to as little as $200 billion from $341
billion estimated in August."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125799009185344567.html

So let me see if I got this right. The Administration wants to use
borrowed money which created increased debt to pay down the overall
debt incurred by increased spending.

Son-of-a-gun. That must mean that your average citizen should be able
to decrease his/her overall debt by borrowing more money to pay down
that debt.

Huh - how about that.


You're mis-reading the information. The money is available to be borrowed.
If it isn't used, it doesn't need to be borrowed. The current projected
deficit would thus be lower, since the money isn't used. It's not like it's
sitting in a paper bag somewhere.

--
Nom=de=Plume

More liberal math problems...
 

On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:19:34 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

And this lowered your debt?

You can see how desperate our resident liberal know-nothings are.
Laying claim to "speculation" as a debt reduction technique. The
borrowed money comes from the same pool - US Treasuries. And the debt
cost is high. Speculators make their money manipulating 10/ths and
100/ths on much smaller scale debt bets than an entire national
economy.

The current administration is clueless, hapless, arrogant and
terminally wedded to an ideology that just does not work.

And liberals realise it, can't do anything about it, but persist in
adhering to it.

The ultimate Kool-Aid swallowers.

More liberal math problems...
 

On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 09:38:04 -0500, NowNow wrote:

In article ,
says...

"The administration wants to keep some of the unspent funds available
for emergencies, but is considering setting aside a chunk for debt
reduction, according to people familiar with the matter. It is also
expected to lower the projected long-term cost of the program -- the
amount it expects to lose -- to as little as $200 billion from $341
billion estimated in August."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125799009185344567.html

So let me see if I got this right. The Administration wants to use
borrowed money which created increased debt to pay down the overall
debt incurred by increased spending.

Son-of-a-gun. That must mean that your average citizen should be able
to decrease his/her overall debt by borrowing more money to pay down
that debt.

Huh - how about that.

Uh, speculators have been doing such forever. It can actually be quite
cost affective to borrow money at a much lower rate to pay off debt with
a higher rate of interest.

Well, that explains it. Good mind, Loogy.
--

John H

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Churchill

More liberal math problems...
 

On 11/13/09 2:35 PM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:19:34 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

And this lowered your debt?

You can see how desperate


Go pound sand, tomcat. No one gives a flying fuch about your bull****
here anymore. And whatever meds you are taking for your bipolar
disorder...double them.



--
If you are flajim, herring, loogy, GC boater, johnson, topbassdog, rob,
or one of a half dozen others, you're wasting your time by trying to
*communicate* with me through rec.boats, because, well, you are among
the permanent members of my dumbfoch dumpster. As always, have a nice,
simple-minded day.

More liberal math problems...
 

H the K wrote:
On 11/13/09 2:35 PM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:19:34 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

And this lowered your debt?

You can see how desperate


Go pound sand, tomcat. No one gives a flying fuch about your bull****
here anymore. And whatever meds you are taking for your bipolar
disorder...double them.


Gawd, Tom was such a good friend of yours too once, like loopy. A
'responsible righty', or something, you called him.

Someone will quote my post so you can answer vicariously.

Johnson

More liberal math problems...
 

Johnson wrote:
H the K wrote:
On 11/13/09 2:35 PM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:19:34 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

And this lowered your debt?

You can see how desperate


Go pound sand, tomcat. No one gives a flying fuch about your bull****
here anymore. And whatever meds you are taking for your bipolar
disorder...double them.


Gawd, Tom was such a good friend of yours too once, like loopy. A
'responsible righty', or something, you called him.

Someone will quote my post so you can answer vicariously.

Johnson

I'd like to help you out, but I'm on his pretend to ignore list too.

More liberal math problems...
 

On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:24:00 -0500, Johnson
wrote:

H the K wrote:
On 11/13/09 2:35 PM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:19:34 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

And this lowered your debt?

You can see how desperate


Go pound sand, tomcat. No one gives a flying fuch about your bull****
here anymore. And whatever meds you are taking for your bipolar
disorder...double them.


Gawd, Tom was such a good friend of yours too once, like loopy. A
'responsible righty', or something, you called him.

Someone will quote my post so you can answer vicariously.

Johnson

I know folks in your world never change. Tom certainly has, or
perhaps we just didn't see his true colors when his guy was in office.

More liberal math problems...
 

On 11/13/09 6:16 PM, jps wrote:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:24:00 -0500, Johnson
wrote:

H the K wrote:
On 11/13/09 2:35 PM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:19:34 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

And this lowered your debt?

You can see how desperate


Go pound sand, tomcat. No one gives a flying fuch about your bull****
here anymore. And whatever meds you are taking for your bipolar
disorder...double them.


Gawd, Tom was such a good friend of yours too once, like loopy. A
'responsible righty', or something, you called him.

Someone will quote my post so you can answer vicariously.

Johnson

I know folks in your world never change. Tom certainly has, or
perhaps we just didn't see his true colors when his guy was in office.


Neither tom nor loogy were ever "good friends" of mine. Loogy always has
been a dimwit here. Tom? Just lately.


--
If you are flajim, herring, loogy, GC boater, johnson, topbassdog, rob,
or one of a half dozen others, you're wasting your time by trying to
*communicate* with me through rec.boats, because, well, you are among
the permanent members of my dumbfoch dumpster. As always, have a nice,
simple-minded day.

More liberal math problems...
 

jps wrote:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:24:00 -0500, Johnson
wrote:

H the K wrote:
On 11/13/09 2:35 PM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:19:34 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

And this lowered your debt?
You can see how desperate

Go pound sand, tomcat. No one gives a flying fuch about your bull****
here anymore. And whatever meds you are taking for your bipolar
disorder...double them.

Gawd, Tom was such a good friend of yours too once, like loopy. A
'responsible righty', or something, you called him.

Someone will quote my post so you can answer vicariously.

Johnson

I know folks in your world never change. Tom certainly has, or
perhaps we just didn't see his true colors when his guy was in office.

Tom hasn't changed. Krause's opinion of him changed, just like it does
sooner or later with everyone.

Johnson

More liberal math problems...
 

On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:30:51 -0500, Johnson
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:24:00 -0500, Johnson
wrote:

H the K wrote:
On 11/13/09 2:35 PM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:19:34 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

And this lowered your debt?
You can see how desperate

Go pound sand, tomcat. No one gives a flying fuch about your bull****
here anymore. And whatever meds you are taking for your bipolar
disorder...double them.

Gawd, Tom was such a good friend of yours too once, like loopy. A
'responsible righty', or something, you called him.

Someone will quote my post so you can answer vicariously.

Johnson

I know folks in your world never change. Tom certainly has, or
perhaps we just didn't see his true colors when his guy was in office.

Tom hasn't changed. Krause's opinion of him changed, just like it does
sooner or later with everyone.

Johnson

No, Johnson. I've noticed a marked change in Tom's demeanor since the
2007 election. He went into attack mode immediately. Identified
Obama as the enemy and went on a weekly tirade about liberals.

He'd never been that hostile before the election season.

BTW, what caused you to emerge from your hermit shell?

More liberal math problems...
 

On 11/13/09 7:45 PM, jps wrote:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:30:51 -0500, Johnson
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:24:00 -0500, Johnson
wrote:

H the K wrote:
On 11/13/09 2:35 PM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:19:34 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

And this lowered your debt?
You can see how desperate

Go pound sand, tomcat. No one gives a flying fuch about your bull****
here anymore. And whatever meds you are taking for your bipolar
disorder...double them.

Gawd, Tom was such a good friend of yours too once, like loopy. A
'responsible righty', or something, you called him.

Someone will quote my post so you can answer vicariously.

Johnson

I know folks in your world never change. Tom certainly has, or
perhaps we just didn't see his true colors when his guy was in office.

Tom hasn't changed. Krause's opinion of him changed, just like it does
sooner or later with everyone.

Johnson

No, Johnson. I've noticed a marked change in Tom's demeanor since the
2007 election. He went into attack mode immediately. Identified
Obama as the enemy and went on a weekly tirade about liberals.

He'd never been that hostile before the election season.

BTW, what caused you to emerge from your hermit shell?


Tom is an entirely different guy these days...Palin losing really got to
him.


--
If you are flajim, herring, loogy, GC boater, johnson, topbassdog, rob,
or one of a half dozen others, you're wasting your time by trying to
*communicate* with me through rec.boats, because, well, you are among
the permanent members of my dumbfoch dumpster. As always, have a nice,
simple-minded day.

More liberal math problems...
 

On Nov 13, 2:29*pm, H the K wrote:
On 11/13/09 2:35 PM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:19:34 -0800, "Bill McKee"
*wrote:

And this lowered your debt?

You can see how desperate

Go pound sand, tomcat. No one gives a flying fuch about your bull****
here anymore.

That is to say, no one of your ilk, Herr Krause.

And whatever meds you are taking for your bipolar
disorder...double them.

Herr Krause. If he truly is bipolar as you boast, then his challenged
thought processes are far superiour to your greatest genius.

More liberal math problems...
 

On Nov 13, 5:17*pm, H the K wrote:
On 11/13/09 6:16 PM, jps wrote:



On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:24:00 -0500, Johnson
*wrote:

H the K wrote:
On 11/13/09 2:35 PM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:19:34 -0800, "Bill McKee"
* wrote:

And this lowered your debt?

You can see how desperate

Go pound sand, tomcat. No one gives a flying fuch about your bull****
here anymore. And whatever meds you are taking for your bipolar
disorder...double them.

Gawd, Tom was such a good friend of yours too once, like loopy. A
'responsible righty', or something, you called him.

Someone will quote my post so you can answer vicariously.

Johnson

I know folks in your world never change. *Tom certainly has, or
perhaps we just didn't see his true colors when his guy was in office.

Neither tom nor loogy were ever "good friends" of mine. Loogy always has
been a dimwit here. Tom? Just lately.


Yes, Herr Krause. Only you are the guiding light of rec.boats!

More liberal math problems...
 

On Nov 13, 6:45*pm, jps wrote:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:30:51 -0500, Johnson



wrote:
jps wrote:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:24:00 -0500, Johnson
wrote:

H the K wrote:
On 11/13/09 2:35 PM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:19:34 -0800, "Bill McKee"
*wrote:

And this lowered your debt?
You can see how desperate

Go pound sand, tomcat. No one gives a flying fuch about your bull****
here anymore. And whatever meds you are taking for your bipolar
disorder...double them.

Gawd, Tom was such a good friend of yours too once, like loopy. A
'responsible righty', or something, you called him.

Someone will quote my post so you can answer vicariously.

Johnson

I know folks in your world never change. *Tom certainly has, or
perhaps we just didn't see his true colors when his guy was in office.

Tom hasn't changed. Krause's opinion of him changed, just like it does
sooner or later with everyone.

Johnson

No, Johnson. *I've noticed a marked change in Tom's demeanor since the
2007 election. *He went into attack mode immediately. *Identified
Obama as the enemy and went on a weekly tirade about liberals.

He'd never been that hostile before the election season.

BTW, what caused you to emerge from your hermit shell?

It should be of no concern to you, JPSimeon. You have permanently been
in a hostile attack mode with Conservatives.

More liberal math problems...
 

On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:24:00 -0500, Johnson
wrote:

H the K wrote:
On 11/13/09 2:35 PM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:19:34 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

And this lowered your debt?

You can see how desperate


Go pound sand, tomcat. No one gives a flying fuch about your bull****
here anymore. And whatever meds you are taking for your bipolar
disorder...double them.


Gawd, Tom was such a good friend of yours too once, like loopy. A
'responsible righty', or something, you called him.

Someone will quote my post so you can answer vicariously.

Johnson

Not necessary. Like Donnie, jps, et al, they brag about their
'filters' as they read every message.
--

John H

More liberal math problems...
 

"JohnH," wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:24:00 -0500, Johnson
wrote:

H the K wrote:
On 11/13/09 2:35 PM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:19:34 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

And this lowered your debt?

You can see how desperate


Go pound sand, tomcat. No one gives a flying fuch about your bull****
here anymore. And whatever meds you are taking for your bipolar
disorder...double them.


Gawd, Tom was such a good friend of yours too once, like loopy. A
'responsible righty', or something, you called him.

Someone will quote my post so you can answer vicariously.

Johnson

Not necessary. Like Donnie, jps, et al, they brag about their
'filters' as they read every message.
--

John H

Huh? I don't brag about anything.
I have a special place for the worst scum in here and never let them out.
Some of course slither back up by changing some detail in their info.

More liberal math problems...
 

Don White wrote:
"JohnH," wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:24:00 -0500, Johnson
wrote:

H the K wrote:
On 11/13/09 2:35 PM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:19:34 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

And this lowered your debt?
You can see how desperate

Go pound sand, tomcat. No one gives a flying fuch about your bull****
here anymore. And whatever meds you are taking for your bipolar
disorder...double them.

Gawd, Tom was such a good friend of yours too once, like loopy. A
'responsible righty', or something, you called him.

Someone will quote my post so you can answer vicariously.

Johnson
Not necessary. Like Donnie, jps, et al, they brag about their
'filters' as they read every message.
--

John H

Huh? I don't brag about anything.
I have a special place for the worst scum in here and never let them out.
Some of course slither back up by changing some detail in their info.


You're braggin again dummy.

More liberal math problems...
 

On 11/13/09 9:42 PM, Don White wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:24:00 -0500, Johnson
wrote:

H the K wrote:
On 11/13/09 2:35 PM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:19:34 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

And this lowered your debt?

You can see how desperate


Go pound sand, tomcat. No one gives a flying fuch about your bull****
here anymore. And whatever meds you are taking for your bipolar
disorder...double them.


Gawd, Tom was such a good friend of yours too once, like loopy. A
'responsible righty', or something, you called him.

Someone will quote my post so you can answer vicariously.

Johnson

Not necessary. Like Donnie, jps, et al, they brag about their
'filters' as they read every message.
--

John H

Huh? I don't brag about anything.
I have a special place for the worst scum in here and never let them out.
Some of course slither back up by changing some detail in their info.




Funnier still is herring's claim that his every message is so
interesting that everyone reads them. Herring, the racist, non-boating,
lousy fisherman, crappy boater with too many grandchildren and nothing
but snarkiness.

Sorry, herring, you and the rest of the dumfochs here ain't on my
reading list.

--
If you are flajim, herring, loogy, GC boater, johnson, topbassdog, rob,
or one of a half dozen others, you're wasting your time by trying to
*communicate* with me through rec.boats, because, well, you are among
the permanent members of my dumbfoch dumpster. As always, have a nice,
simple-minded day.

More liberal math problems...
 

On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 22:52:05 -0500, H the K
wrote:

On 11/13/09 9:42 PM, Don White wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:24:00 -0500, Johnson
wrote:

H the K wrote:
On 11/13/09 2:35 PM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:19:34 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

And this lowered your debt?

You can see how desperate


Go pound sand, tomcat. No one gives a flying fuch about your bull****
here anymore. And whatever meds you are taking for your bipolar
disorder...double them.


Gawd, Tom was such a good friend of yours too once, like loopy. A
'responsible righty', or something, you called him.

Someone will quote my post so you can answer vicariously.

Johnson

Not necessary. Like Donnie, jps, et al, they brag about their
'filters' as they read every message.
--

John H

Huh? I don't brag about anything.
I have a special place for the worst scum in here and never let them out.
Some of course slither back up by changing some detail in their info.




Funnier still is herring's claim that his every message is so
interesting that everyone reads them. Herring, the racist, non-boating,
lousy fisherman, crappy boater with too many grandchildren and nothing
but snarkiness.

Sorry, herring, you and the rest of the dumfochs here ain't on my
reading list.

You forgot his golfing skills. His grandkids must think he's a blast.