bpuharic wrote:
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 19:15:05 -0400,
wrote:


bpuharic wrote:

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 19:38:38 -0400,
wrote:





They are for the lazy. You would fit in fine!


ah. and how did all those hard working non union guys on wall street
do for the economy in the last few years?


You'll have to be more specific. Which guys on Wall St.?

the guys who helped the finanical sector go from 20% to 40% of GDP
without adding anything to the economy

you really do live in a bubble, don't you?


No, but apparently you do. Which guys? How about some names?

On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 18:50:32 -0400, Larry
wrote:

bpuharic wrote:
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 19:15:05 -0400,
wrote:


bpuharic wrote:

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 19:38:38 -0400,
wrote:





They are for the lazy. You would fit in fine!


ah. and how did all those hard working non union guys on wall street
do for the economy in the last few years?


You'll have to be more specific. Which guys on Wall St.?

the guys who helped the finanical sector go from 20% to 40% of GDP
without adding anything to the economy

you really do live in a bubble, don't you?


No, but apparently you do. Which guys? How about some names?

IOW you don't read the news. you never heard of john paulson, etc.

uh huh. that explains alot

bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 18:50:32 -0400,
wrote:


bpuharic wrote:

On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 19:15:05 -0400,
wrote:



bpuharic wrote:


On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 19:38:38 -0400,
wrote:






They are for the lazy. You would fit in fine!



ah. and how did all those hard working non union guys on wall street
do for the economy in the last few years?



You'll have to be more specific. Which guys on Wall St.?


the guys who helped the finanical sector go from 20% to 40% of GDP
without adding anything to the economy

you really do live in a bubble, don't you?



No, but apparently you do. Which guys? How about some names?

IOW you don't read the news. you never heard of john paulson, etc.

uh huh. that explains alot

He's a generous Democratic supporter. Next?

On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 19:33:31 -0400, Larry
wrote:

bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 18:50:32 -0400,
wrote:


ah. and how did all those hard working non union guys on wall street
do for the economy in the last few years?



You'll have to be more specific. Which guys on Wall St.?


the guys who helped the finanical sector go from 20% to 40% of GDP
without adding anything to the economy

you really do live in a bubble, don't you?



No, but apparently you do. Which guys? How about some names?

IOW you don't read the news. you never heard of john paulson, etc.

uh huh. that explains alot

He's a generous Democratic supporter. Next?

ROFLMAO!! so democrats have opportunists?

bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 19:33:31 -0400,
wrote:


bpuharic wrote:

On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 18:50:32 -0400,
wrote:



ah. and how did all those hard working non union guys on wall street
do for the economy in the last few years?




You'll have to be more specific. Which guys on Wall St.?



the guys who helped the finanical sector go from 20% to 40% of GDP
without adding anything to the economy

you really do live in a bubble, don't you?




No, but apparently you do. Which guys? How about some names?


IOW you don't read the news. you never heard of john paulson, etc.

uh huh. that explains alot


He's a generous Democratic supporter. Next?

ROFLMAO!! so democrats have opportunists?


What are you really trying to say? "have opportunists"? You had some
idea in your simple mind you were trying to communicate. Try again.

On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 20:04:43 -0400, Larry
wrote:

bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 19:33:31 -0400,
wrote:




No, but apparently you do. Which guys? How about some names?


IOW you don't read the news. you never heard of john paulson, etc.

uh huh. that explains alot


He's a generous Democratic supporter. Next?

ROFLMAO!! so democrats have opportunists?


What are you really trying to say? "have opportunists"? You had some
idea in your simple mind you were trying to communicate. Try again.


you dont know what an opportunist is??

think 'conservative'

by definition