On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 16:11:50 -0700 (PDT), TopBassDog
wrote:

On Apr 24, 1:00*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 10:51:12 -0700, "nom=de=plume"



I doubt he's ever taken anything resembling a college course, no less a
business or law course.

everything he writes is right wing cliches. i haven't seen a single,
coherent argument from his at all.

it would be useless to even review this stuff with him if he didn't
represent millions of backwards, uneducated thugs who call themselves
'teabaggers'.

pathetic. truly pathetic.

Herr Krause writes nothing but left wing cliche's. I haven't seen a
single, coherent argument from his at all. But it's obvious you
approve of those.

pathetic. truly pathetic.

you be sure and let me know how canuck's right wing view of the
solution to our economic problems worked out in '29,

m'kay?

On Apr 24, 6:19*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 16:11:50 -0700 (PDT), TopBassDog



wrote:
On Apr 24, 1:00*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 10:51:12 -0700, "nom=de=plume"

I doubt he's ever taken anything resembling a college course, no less a
business or law course.

everything he writes is right wing cliches. i haven't seen a single,
coherent argument from his at all.

it would be useless to even review this stuff with him if he didn't
represent millions of backwards, uneducated thugs who call themselves
'teabaggers'.

pathetic. truly pathetic.

Herr Krause writes nothing but left wing cliche's. I haven't seen a
single, coherent argument from his at all. But it's obvious you
approve of those.

pathetic. truly pathetic.

you be sure and let me know how canuck's right wing view of the
solution to our economic problems worked out in '29,

m'kay?

I take it you don't plan on being around in another 19 years. Are you
that old, that feeble, or are you contemplative of taking yourself out
early?

On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 19:18:39 -0700 (PDT), TopBassDog
wrote:

On Apr 24, 6:19*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 16:11:50 -0700 (PDT), TopBassDog



pathetic. truly pathetic.

you be sure and let me know how canuck's right wing view of the
solution to our economic problems worked out in '29,

m'kay?

I take it you don't plan on being around in another 19 years. Are you
that old, that feeble, or are you contemplative of taking yourself out
early?

i'm 55. in 19 years who knows.

if i get old and senile i'll join the GOP.

On 4/24/10 10:32 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 19:18:39 -0700 (PDT), TopBassDog
wrote:

On Apr 24, 6:19 pm, wrote:
On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 16:11:50 -0700 (PDT), TopBassDog



pathetic. truly pathetic.

you be sure and let me know how canuck's right wing view of the
solution to our economic problems worked out in '29,

m'kay?

I take it you don't plan on being around in another 19 years. Are you
that old, that feeble, or are you contemplative of taking yourself out
early?

i'm 55. in 19 years who knows.

if i get old and senile i'll join the GOP.



Apparently the asshole didn't realize you were referring to 1929, eh?
TopBass is one of right-wing assholes whose posts I pass over.



--
The Tea Party's teabaggers are just the Republican base by another name.

On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 22:34:11 -0400, hk
wrote:

On 4/24/10 10:32 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 19:18:39 -0700 (PDT), TopBassDog
wrote:

On Apr 24, 6:19 pm, wrote:
On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 16:11:50 -0700 (PDT), TopBassDog



pathetic. truly pathetic.

you be sure and let me know how canuck's right wing view of the
solution to our economic problems worked out in '29,

m'kay?

I take it you don't plan on being around in another 19 years. Are you
that old, that feeble, or are you contemplative of taking yourself out
early?

i'm 55. in 19 years who knows.

if i get old and senile i'll join the GOP.



Apparently the asshole didn't realize you were referring to 1929, eh?

i give up on trying to figure out the right wing. it's a group of
losers who just figure everything was perfect until the darkie took
over.


TopBass is one of right-wing assholes whose posts I pass over.

it's like watching a snail slither across a rock leaving a trail of
slime behind

On 4/24/10 10:40 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 22:34:11 -0400,
wrote:

On 4/24/10 10:32 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 19:18:39 -0700 (PDT), TopBassDog
wrote:

On Apr 24, 6:19 pm, wrote:
On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 16:11:50 -0700 (PDT), TopBassDog



pathetic. truly pathetic.

you be sure and let me know how canuck's right wing view of the
solution to our economic problems worked out in '29,

m'kay?

I take it you don't plan on being around in another 19 years. Are you
that old, that feeble, or are you contemplative of taking yourself out
early?

i'm 55. in 19 years who knows.

if i get old and senile i'll join the GOP.



Apparently the asshole didn't realize you were referring to 1929, eh?

i give up on trying to figure out the right wing. it's a group of
losers who just figure everything was perfect until the darkie took
over.


TopBass is one of right-wing assholes whose posts I pass over.

it's like watching a snail slither across a rock leaving a trail of
slime behind


Reason enough to skip over his posts.


--
The Tea Party's teabaggers are just the Republican base by another name.

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"hk" wrote in message
m...
On 4/23/10 11:26 AM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 23/04/2010 8:29 AM, hk wrote:
On 4/23/10 10:21 AM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 23/04/2010 7:48 AM, hk wrote:
On 4/23/10 9:42 AM, Canuck57 wrote:

Now if you lose 5% or 7% purchasing power over a working career,
I
doubt
anyone would argue that it would buy a boat... right?

After all given Democat/Obama debt-spending is at record levels,
bailing
out the inept, lazy, corrupt comes at a cost right?

http://congress.blogs.foxnews.com/20...-tax-increase/





The big reason greedy big fat government likes VAT is simple, it
gets
everyone. Shares the pain. Instead of punitive taxes on the 30%
(or
less) of those that work in non-governmetn jobs and pay any
signifigant
amout of taxes, it isn't limited to the 30%. It gets 100% of us.



Us? Why would you be subject to such a tax, *if* it were imposed
in the
USA? You're a Canadian, living in Canada.

Oh...and you're quoting from Faux News, the home of tea partying
teabaggers...the bull**** news network.

What? You don't believe big mouth debt spender Obama doesn't want a
huge
increase in revenue from the sheeples?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100421/...e/us_obama_tax


First, I asked why you used "us," since "us," as you used it,
wouldn't
apply to Canadians living in Canada. You're not one of us, as it
were.

Second, there's no need to even consider what you think are your
points
when you use terms like "big mouth debt spender Obama." Obama is
extricating this country from a terrific mess left him by his
predecessor. It looks like what he has done so far is beginning to
work.
The opposing party had no logical plan for bringing us out of Bush
recession.

Well, Obama talks a lot, big mouth.

Running into the second year of record debt spending makes Obama a
debt
monger.

US government is hungry for your money, you are right, I will not
have
to pay much of the US VAT. But I used to like going to Montana
shopping,
guess I had better go early this year as to avoid the US VAT.

Anyone who thought Obamanomics in and Obamanation is about to find
out
that Obama isn't free, he is quite taxing.


I never thought repairing the damage caused by eight years of Bush and
Cheney would be free, and I thought our taxes would go up in order to
help pull this country out of the Bush-Cheney deep, dark hole. My wife
and I expect to be paying more in taxes next year, in one form or
another.

If you want to live in fear of a VAT that may be imposted in the
future, you go right ahead. It'll just be another entry on the stupid
decisions you've made in live.


If he wants to correct the Bush overspending, seems an odd way to do
the job. Should be cutting spending by the Fed's. Lots of Bush's
problem is he vetoed maybe 2 spending bills in the 8 years. And Bush
overspending in his 8 years is probably the major screwup. Even more
than opening up a 2nd front in the war.



Cutting what spending by the Fed? Specifically what? Oh wait, let me
guess... programs that help the poor and the middle class.

Nice slam on Bush though...

--
Nom=de=Plume


We were overspending voraciously before Obama got in. And he has kicked
up the spending 2-3x. They are forecasting trillion dollar deficits for
the next 10 years/ How is this all Bush II's fault? How about cutting
spending to GM. They just paid back a 5 billion buck loan with interest.
Where did the pay back money come from? Serious question! It came from
TARP money. So paying back a loan with another loan. We the people own
60% of new GM. The present people in power say we will get all our money
back when GM goes public again. That would take a capitalization of $50
billion dollars. GM stock was never worth that much when they were
successful. And 80% would still not return the $80 billion or so we took
off the GM books. Cut Goldman Sachs 150% Let them fold. Demand back
every bit of money we lent them. If they can pay $6+ billion in bonus
money with our taxpayer paid funds, we can demand back all the money and
a penalty for screwing us. Stop spending a couple million here, a couple
million there on some of the asinine research the government is funding
these days. We can not afford some of these items. Why are we funding
the arts through the Federal government? KILL the NEA! Is not a Federal
government function. Lot of cutting with out cutting vital programs to
the poor. Cut back on the Education Bureau. Was not even a federal
deptpartment until 1974. Now it controls most money for education in the
USA. And only charges a 20-25% handling fee for sending the money back
to the states with strings attached. Where would you and your clone HK
cut the overspending? Even you must have some tolerable ideas about
reducing government costs. Cut unemployment extensions. Save money and
give incentives to work.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...952375172.html



You're really looney. We the people are on track to make a profit from the
GM ownership. That must be a bummer for you.

Let Goldman fold, but don't break up big banks. Throw millions more out of
work. Sounds like your typical right-wing bs to me.

Forget the arts, forget education. If you can't afford to go to school,
too bad. Forget unemployment insurance... those people don't have to eat.

Let's start with PayGo. Oh wait, the Republicans aren't interested.


--
Nom=de=Plume


You are completely loony. Answer the question that I posed to BP. Not some
asinine talking points. Where the hell we the people going to make a profit
on GM? When it goes public? What would the capitalization have to be fore
use to break even. I did not say kill education. I said kill the US Dept
of Education. Killing it would instantly give a 20% raise in money
available to local schools. We could get rid of a lot of asinine rules.
Rules that have nothing to do with educating the children. Just make a law
that all schools have to be funded equally per student in a state. They
have to teach the 3 R's. You a fail to have a decent graduation rate, the
teachers and administrators are fired. Easy. The kids do not show up for
class, they are taken off the rolls and banned from them and their families
receiving welfare. Ever. You fail to get at least a GED, no public
assistance. Where is there a Federal responsibility to fund the arts? Why
should the San Francisco opera get Federal money? Same for a symphony in
Houston or Fargo?

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:12:51 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:



Nom=de=Plume


We were overspending voraciously before Obama got in. And he has kicked
up
the spending 2-3x.

for good economic reasons as opposed to bush who just killed 4400 US
troops and spent money on tax cuts for the rich

how did the rich use their money? did they give wage increases to the
middle class?

nope the middle class hasnt had a pay increase in 10 y ears.

did they create jobs? nope. no jobs created in 10 years.

what did they do? well...in the last 10 years, the richest 1% have
seen their incomes triple.

They are forecasting trillion dollar deficits for the
next 10 years/ How is this all Bush II's fault?

yeah it is. we have to spend what's needed to get out of the free
market hole we've dug ourselves into.


How about cutting spending
to GM.

peanuts


Point out the good reasons why Obama spending excess amounts of money is
good. Not some talking point that Bush killed a bunch of people, spent a
Trillion dollars. Explain it, or go get an education. Explain how we
are getting more jobs, when California and others reached record
unemployment this last quarter. Show how many foreclosed houses are in
inventory, and which areas are selling, and how much discount from the
last sale. Stop parroting Olberman, etc. He is probably more biased and
not as smart as Rush.



This has been explained many times, and for the record, the "amounts"
aren't "excessive." They're what's needed to get the economy moving again.
Feel free to believe otherwise. Already explained the unemployment
situation several times. Re-read the posts.

Rush is an idiot. You're an idiot. Canuck is an idiot.

--
Nom=de=Plume


If your are going to answer for BP, at least do it coherently. Not some
Olberman talking points or why we do not have the economy moving with all
the debt spending. If you were ever a lawyer, you were fired for laziness.

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 13:40:28 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"hk" wrote in message
news:t_6dnYKWzvk9I0zWnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@earthlink. com...
On 4/23/10 11:26 AM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 23/04/2010 8:29 AM, hk wrote:
On 4/23/10 10:21 AM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 23/04/2010 7:48 AM, hk wrote:
On 4/23/10 9:42 AM, Canuck57 wrote:

Now if you lose 5% or 7% purchasing power over a working career, I
doubt
anyone would argue that it would buy a boat... right?

After all given Democat/Obama debt-spending is at record levels,
bailing
out the inept, lazy, corrupt comes at a cost right?

http://congress.blogs.foxnews.com/20...-tax-increase/





The big reason greedy big fat government likes VAT is simple, it
gets
everyone. Shares the pain. Instead of punitive taxes on the 30% (or
less) of those that work in non-governmetn jobs and pay any
signifigant
amout of taxes, it isn't limited to the 30%. It gets 100% of us.



Us? Why would you be subject to such a tax, *if* it were imposed in
the
USA? You're a Canadian, living in Canada.

Oh...and you're quoting from Faux News, the home of tea partying
teabaggers...the bull**** news network.

What? You don't believe big mouth debt spender Obama doesn't want a
huge
increase in revenue from the sheeples?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100421/...e/us_obama_tax


First, I asked why you used "us," since "us," as you used it, wouldn't
apply to Canadians living in Canada. You're not one of us, as it were.

Second, there's no need to even consider what you think are your
points
when you use terms like "big mouth debt spender Obama." Obama is
extricating this country from a terrific mess left him by his
predecessor. It looks like what he has done so far is beginning to
work.
The opposing party had no logical plan for bringing us out of Bush
recession.

Well, Obama talks a lot, big mouth.

Running into the second year of record debt spending makes Obama a debt
monger.

US government is hungry for your money, you are right, I will not have
to pay much of the US VAT. But I used to like going to Montana
shopping,
guess I had better go early this year as to avoid the US VAT.

Anyone who thought Obamanomics in and Obamanation is about to find out
that Obama isn't free, he is quite taxing.


I never thought repairing the damage caused by eight years of Bush and
Cheney would be free, and I thought our taxes would go up in order to
help
pull this country out of the Bush-Cheney deep, dark hole. My wife and I
expect to be paying more in taxes next year, in one form or another.

If you want to live in fear of a VAT that may be imposted in the future,
you go right ahead. It'll just be another entry on the stupid decisions
you've made in live.


If he wants to correct the Bush overspending, seems an odd way to do the
job. Should be cutting spending by the Fed's. Lots of Bush's problem is
he vetoed maybe 2 spending bills in the 8 years. And Bush overspending in
his 8 years is probably the major screwup. Even more than opening up a
2nd
front in the war.

Vetoed two spending bills is the problem?

What do you think that tax giveaway to the wealthy and the *two* wars
did, bring money into the federal coffers?

Those wars were both of choice. Afganistan is just a Vietnam redux.
Years of ****ing money down a rathole for no gain and a lot of dead
and injured.

The Russians taught us nothing?

I see you can not comprehend what you read. Bush should have vetoed about
80% of the spending bills. And both the Republicans and the Democrats and
the public for was for Afghanistan.

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 21:05:39 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:12:51 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:



nope the middle class hasnt had a pay increase in 10 y ears.

did they create jobs? nope. no jobs created in 10 years.

what did they do? well...in the last 10 years, the richest 1% have
seen their incomes triple.



Point out the good reasons why Obama spending excess amounts of money is
good.

he's spending the money to keep spending up in the absence of consumer
spending. as the rich raped the middle class like a bunch of catholic
priests at a boy's school, the MC lost the ability to keep its head
above water. so obama had to step in, stabilized the financial sector
and provide for 1.5M jobs.

all to correct 30 years of rabid right wing free market capitalism

Not some talking point that Bush killed a bunch of people, spent a
Trillion dollars. Explain it, or go get an education. Explain how we are
getting more jobs, when California and others reached record unemployment
this last quarter.

i'm a scientist. i go with evidence

the FACT is unemployment has dropped by 10% since obama took office.
teh FACT is we are no longer losing more jobs than we're creating. the
FACT is the economy is growing

those are FACTS. i dont care what rush tells you to believe.

Show how many foreclosed houses are in inventory, and
which areas are selling, and how much discount from the last sale. Stop
parroting Olberman, etc. He is probably more biased and not as smart as
Rush.

rush is a blow hard drug addict. and the people who believe him are
dumber than he is.



You have to be one ****ty scientist! You state you go with facts and your
can not state a factual fact in your argument. Show me where unemployment
had gone down .0000001% since Obama took office. I will even give your the
link to the public data graph to start with.
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=...t+rate+grap h