|
the rich are doing OK thank god!!
wrote in message ... On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 10:42:56 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 22:57:28 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message m... On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 16:39:25 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:t1nka6t433accl3g3cqurj5jclqenier4i@4ax. com... On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 10:35:42 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: According to you. Kids are allowed to stay on the parent policies until 26. Yes, there are always exceptions. It is true that your 2o something can stay on the policy but it is extra money. ($200 at Aetna) As from a previous response... Did she suppose it would be free? $2400 a year is far from free though and that is after tax money so it is more like $2700. If your kid doesn't have a serious disease, it is a horrible deal. I have no idea what the actual cost of the policy is, but I do know that nobody has a contract with God. Feel free to not have homeowner's insurance, fire insurance, flood insurance, etc. I have fire, theft and liability but I dropped flood and windstorm ... for the same reason. If I keep the $4,000 a year they want for the insurance, I can cover the 25 year storm (that is the break even point assuming maximum payout and zero interest). Granted we have the contacts in the construction industry that would allow us to make repairs quickly and fairly cheap but I also have the ability to take he hit. Insurance is like credit cards. It is a huge price you pay for not saving any money in your life and becomes a trap. I thought they were on the right track when they were pushing tax free health savings accounts. Well, again... you can afford to keep money in reserve. That's great, but that's not very typical. I'm on the fence about the HSAs and Flexible Spending accounts. You have to pay them upfront and then if you don't use all of it you lose it. It's pre-tax, but you have to be really good at estimating your expenses. I don't use either, but I have the option. That is just bad legislation, not a problem with the idea. There is no reason why your HSA should not stay with you for your whole life, in effect self insuring you for the sickness that generally comes toward the end of your life. "Insurance" should only be for catastrophic illness and accidents. In fact, that is the way it was in the 50s and early 60s. You had coverage for accidents and major medical. You were on your own for the day to day sniffles and such. A doctor visit was also about what you would expect to pay for a nice dinner at a restaurant. Great. So, let's get rid of the insurance companies, then create wellness programs nationwide. I'm all for it, but it sounds like a gov't takeover. |
the rich are doing OK thank god!!
bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 04 Oct 2010 20:42:49 -0400, wrote: bpuharic wrote: turns out incomes of most americans are dropping. but not the rich, thank god!! they're doing just fine. the american dream is alive. while the middle class continues to get hammered, the rich prove that america is becoming a plutocracy...all the while rush and the right wing tell us it isn't http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cha...-rich-and-poor Thank you! any time. always glad to tell the truth about the right No, blind man, thanks for that cash you *gave* me! |
the rich are doing OK thank god!!
|
the rich are doing OK thank god!!
wrote in message ... On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 15:31:17 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: You have described the problem but the ONLY fix it is to get some personal responsibility back in the populace. I am not rich and I really never have been but I was brought up understanding it is better to save up your money and buy something instead of doing it on credit. Insurance is nothing but prepaid credit. That's part of the "fix" but most people take personal responsibility if given half a chance. Personal responsibility doesn't help much if you're making minimum wage or have medical problems. If you are making double the minimum wage, you are still eligible for Medicaid. Wow... that means you're rich and have no problem supporting yourself, because the min. wage is a true living wage. NOT |
the rich are doing OK thank god!!
wrote in message ... On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 21:17:26 -0400, Secular Humoresque wrote: That's part of the "fix" but most people take personal responsibility if given half a chance. Personal responsibility doesn't help much if you're making minimum wage or have medical problems. If you are making double the minimum wage, you are still eligible for Medicaid. As well you should be. That is why "the poor" were a red herring in this whole health care debate. The people most likely not to have insurance are in the 25k-50k range and the younger of them by choice ... until they get sick. From what I am seeing, they may still choose not to have insurance and just pay the fine until 2014 when it really becomes a number. I think when this shakes out, you will see a whole lot of people on high deductible plans and they still won't be able to afford to go to doctors for minor ailments. It's hardly every "by choice." It's more about not being able to afford much. And, it's not as simple as you make it out to be re the fine. Read up. |
the rich are doing OK thank god!!
wrote in message ... On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 15:32:27 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: No repeal is needed or warranted. It's totally fixable. The repeal first is just a reactionary load of crap that would put us back. Many programs start as major compromises. There's nothing new. Social Security and Medicare are good examples. They've been amended many times, and they still have problems (fixable problems), but few people seriously advocate repealing them. By definition you have to repeal one law to replace it with another one. In fact when you actually read the legislation it will say "delete XXX add YYY" to whatever statute they are changing. No.... did we repeal the Constitution when we amended it? I missed that one. So, by your own statement, laws are changed. Would you like to try again? Counselor it is clear you have read a lot of laws but it is also clear you have not read much of the legislation that writes those laws. This is the first part of the current stem cell bill (just chosen at random from yesterday on Thomas.) Every time they say "strike" they are repealing that part of the existing law and most legislation is actually changing an existing law. Most if the heath care bill looks just like this. A BILL To amend the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Reauthorization Act of 2010'. SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE STEM CELL THERAPEUTIC AND RESEARCH ACT OF 2005. (a) Cord Blood Inventory- Section 2 of the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 274k note) is amended-- (1) in subsection (a), by inserting `at least' before `150,000'; (2) in subsection (c)(3), by inserting `at least' before `150,000'; (3) in subsection (d)-- (A) in paragraph (2), by striking `; and' and inserting `;'; (B) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (5); and (C) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following: `(3) will provide a plan to increase cord blood unit collections at collection sites that exist at the time of application, assist with the establishment of new collection sites, or contract with new collection sites; `(4) will annually provide to the Secretary a plan for, and demonstrate, ongoing measurable progress toward achieving self-sufficiency of cord blood unit collection and banking operations; and'; (4) in subsection (e)-- (A) in paragraph (1)-- (i) by striking `10 years' and inserting `a period of at least 10 years beginning on the last date on which the recipient of a contract under this section receives Federal funds under this section'; and (ii) by striking the second sentence and inserting `The Secretary shall ensure that no Federal funds shall be obligated under any such contract after the date that is 5 years after the date on which the contract is entered into, except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3).'; (B) in paragraph (2)-- (i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A)-- (I) by striking `Subject to paragraph (1)(B), the' and inserting `The'; and (II) by striking `3' and inserting `5'; (ii) in subparagraph (A)-- (I) by inserting `at least' before `150,000'; and (II) by striking `; and' and inserting `;'; (iii) in subparagraph (B)-- (I) by inserting `meeting the requirements under subsection (d)' after `receive an application for a contract under this section'; and (II) by striking `or the Secretary' and all that follows through the period at the end and inserting `; or'; and (iv) by adding at the end the following: `(C) the Secretary determines that the outstanding inventory need cannot be met by the qualified cord blood banks under contract under this section.'; and ... and on and on, striking and inserting. Repealing PART of a law is not the same as repealing the ENTIRE law. As I said, laws are amended all the time, including the Constitution... like when they REPEALED the 18th (Volstead Act). They didn't repeal the entire Constitution. |
the rich are doing OK thank god!!
wrote in message ... On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 19:33:47 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 21:17:26 -0400, Secular Humoresque wrote: That's part of the "fix" but most people take personal responsibility if given half a chance. Personal responsibility doesn't help much if you're making minimum wage or have medical problems. If you are making double the minimum wage, you are still eligible for Medicaid. As well you should be. That is why "the poor" were a red herring in this whole health care debate. The people most likely not to have insurance are in the 25k-50k range and the younger of them by choice ... until they get sick. From what I am seeing, they may still choose not to have insurance and just pay the fine until 2014 when it really becomes a number. I think when this shakes out, you will see a whole lot of people on high deductible plans and they still won't be able to afford to go to doctors for minor ailments. It's hardly every "by choice." It's more about not being able to afford much. And, it's not as simple as you make it out to be re the fine. Read up. If they "can't afford much" how will they be dealing with having to buy insurance. We have all agreed it won't be free. So, you think that someone who can make a $200/mo payment is the same as the person who has $3K sitting in the bank? You keep talking about the government 35% subsidy but the rates have gone up close to 100% so you still will have employers who will not be offering insurance. The small business people we know are still scared to death about how this will work out for them and that is why they are not hiring. The kid that used to be my wife's assistant is working 70-80 hours a week at the gate company as is his boss because they are afraid to hire anyone. ?? Firstly, I never said anything about subsidies. Yes, there will be employers who don't offer insurance. And, that means they don't have to spend money on those programs and can hire people. I don't know who you've been talking to, but the definition of a small business seems pretty loose. There are some pretty big companies that are technically and for tax purposes are considered "small businesses." Yes, Karl Rove and friends certainly did a number on lots of people. They are certainly afraid. He is happy with the money tho. This is a smart kid and he is paying down his mortgage with his overtime. |
the rich are doing OK thank god!!
wrote in message ... On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 19:30:25 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 15:31:17 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: You have described the problem but the ONLY fix it is to get some personal responsibility back in the populace. I am not rich and I really never have been but I was brought up understanding it is better to save up your money and buy something instead of doing it on credit. Insurance is nothing but prepaid credit. That's part of the "fix" but most people take personal responsibility if given half a chance. Personal responsibility doesn't help much if you're making minimum wage or have medical problems. If you are making double the minimum wage, you are still eligible for Medicaid. Wow... that means you're rich and have no problem supporting yourself, because the min. wage is a true living wage. NOT I responded to your minimum wage note, I still say, if you are too broke to pay your bills, how can you afford to support a banker/insurance company and still pay your bills. You claimed that somehow someone who makes twice the minimum age shouldn't be eligible for Medicaid. I called you out on that. Who's talking about supporting banker/ins. companies????? |
the rich are doing OK thank god!!
wrote in message ... On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 19:36:19 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Repealing PART of a law is not the same as repealing the ENTIRE law. As I said, laws are amended all the time, including the Constitution... like when they REPEALED the 18th (Volstead Act). They didn't repeal the entire Constitution. The health care law is just like this one. Most of it is changing existing law. To repeal it they will need another 2000 pages of "strikes" and "inserts" restoring the original language., It won't just be a 1 liner like Sec 1 of the 21st amendment. In that regard the whole idea of "repeal" is just a metaphor to feed the masses. I think the GOP is screwing up even using the word. It is stupid, politically but they have not really showed much political intelligence for 15 years ?? You're making my argument for me. Again, modifying a law isn't necessarily a repeal, and the 21st didn't repeal the Const. If it's pabulum for the masses, why do you keep trying to use it in an argument? You used it. The GOP is using it. |
the rich are doing OK thank god!!
wrote in message ... On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 21:14:15 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 19:33:47 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message m... If they "can't afford much" how will they be dealing with having to buy insurance. We have all agreed it won't be free. So, you think that someone who can make a $200/mo payment is the same as the person who has $3K sitting in the bank? Adding me was $500 a month, $200 was the 26 year old AFTER you bought the $500 "family" policy. Total $700 a month. I thought you were rich. What's the problem? You keep talking about the government 35% subsidy but the rates have gone up close to 100% so you still will have employers who will not be offering insurance. The small business people we know are still scared to death about how this will work out for them and that is why they are not hiring. The kid that used to be my wife's assistant is working 70-80 hours a week at the gate company as is his boss because they are afraid to hire anyone. ?? Firstly, I never said anything about subsidies. Yes, there will be employers who don't offer insurance. And, that means they don't have to spend money on those programs and can hire people. I don't know who you've been talking to, but the definition of a small business seems pretty loose. There are some pretty big companies that are technically and for tax purposes are considered "small businesses." I am talking about small business 4-20 employees. Your confusion is the legislation talks about type S corporations and everyone assumes that means "S"mall. It is just a type of closely held corporation ... of any size. I had a type S for years. So does Bechtel and a host of other "small" corporations of similar size. It's not _my_ confusion. It's the confusion that the Republicans are perpetrating on the American public. Yes, Karl Rove and friends certainly did a number on lots of people. They are certainly afraid. What does Karl Rove have to do with a health care bill written in Harry Reids office? It wasn't "written in Harry Reid's office." Nice try. The Republicans made lots of contributions, as did Democrats, and unfortunately too many lobbyists and not enough regular people. Karl Rove... not a thing, except all the money he's funneling into negative campaigns.. money from guess who? Don't know? Neither do I. Why? The Disclosure Act that was blocked by Republicans. He is happy with the money tho. This is a smart kid and he is paying down his mortgage with his overtime. |
the rich are doing OK thank god!!
wrote in message ... On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 21:15:35 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: If you are making double the minimum wage, you are still eligible for Medicaid. Wow... that means you're rich and have no problem supporting yourself, because the min. wage is a true living wage. NOT I responded to your minimum wage note, I still say, if you are too broke to pay your bills, how can you afford to support a banker/insurance company and still pay your bills. You claimed that somehow someone who makes twice the minimum age shouldn't be eligible for Medicaid. I called you out on that. I just said they were eligible. I made no judgement beyond that. Read it again. It is on top right now. So, what were you trying to point out? Why the comment? What does double the minimum wage have to do with Medicaid? Who's talking about supporting banker/ins. companies????? That is the effect of wanting "dollar zero" insurance because you can't manage to save enough to even pay a minimal amount of doctor bills. It is just fiscal lunacy, much the same as saying you are too broke to pay your bills so you charge up your credit cards. Who's advocating dollar zero insurance? The fact is that when you have lots of medical problems and you don't have a great job, you still have to get help. Where do you think you're going to get the money? While it might be lunacy from your point of view, from the point of view of the person in trouble, it's a short-term viable solution. But, you just want to cut them off, right? So they can either sink or swim on their own. You've got yours, right? I bet you always remember to pay your fire insurance too. I guess you don't have any moral imperative to help your neighbors in case they have a problem. If you can't afford your bills, how can you possibly afford your bills PLUS 29% interest? YOU CAN'T. That's the POINT. They don't have an alternative in the short term. Then, the CC bill comes due and they can't pay, and they go broke, get evicted, can't feed their kids. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand. Not everyone can manage to live like you do. Sometimes people live paycheck to paycheck, and sometimes they get over-extended due to unforeseen expenses, but I guess that's never happened to you. Good for you!! Unfortunately anyone who thinks that is OK also thinks the government is doing fine borrowing 40 cents of every dollar they spend. Please show me where anyone here thinks that's "OK." That's missing the point by a wide mile. |
the rich are doing OK thank god!!
wrote in message ... On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 00:21:45 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 21:14:15 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message m... On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 19:33:47 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:ndlna6dacff61fbi75lsrsj0ji0p8j4psq@4ax. com... If they "can't afford much" how will they be dealing with having to buy insurance. We have all agreed it won't be free. So, you think that someone who can make a $200/mo payment is the same as the person who has $3K sitting in the bank? Adding me was $500 a month, $200 was the 26 year old AFTER you bought the $500 "family" policy. Total $700 a month. I thought you were rich. What's the problem? I never said I was rich, you did. But you have a problem affording a measly $700/mo.? Yes, Karl Rove and friends certainly did a number on lots of people. They are certainly afraid. What does Karl Rove have to do with a health care bill written in Harry Reids office? It wasn't "written in Harry Reid's office." Nice try. The Republicans made lots of contributions, as did Democrats, and unfortunately too many lobbyists and not enough regular people. Bull****, the bill that came from the Democrats in the senate was written without any input from the republicans. Nice try tho. Completely untrue. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...ealth_car.html Nice try with an alternate set of facts. Karl Rove... not a thing, except all the money he's funneling into negative campaigns.. money from guess who? Don't know? Neither do I. Why? The Disclosure Act that was blocked by Republicans. Both sides have plenty of "bundled" money It's estimated that the contributions from hidden money is something like 10:1 Reps/Dems. Thanks SC and Citizen's United. |
the rich are doing OK thank god!!
wrote in message ... On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 00:28:04 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 21:15:35 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: If you are making double the minimum wage, you are still eligible for Medicaid. Wow... that means you're rich and have no problem supporting yourself, because the min. wage is a true living wage. NOT I responded to your minimum wage note, I still say, if you are too broke to pay your bills, how can you afford to support a banker/insurance company and still pay your bills. You claimed that somehow someone who makes twice the minimum age shouldn't be eligible for Medicaid. I called you out on that. I just said they were eligible. I made no judgement beyond that. Read it again. It is on top right now. So, what were you trying to point out? Why the comment? What does double the minimum wage have to do with Medicaid? You said a "minimum wage" person could not afford to set up a HSA. No I didn't. Feel free to quote me. Who's talking about supporting banker/ins. companies????? That is the effect of wanting "dollar zero" insurance because you can't manage to save enough to even pay a minimal amount of doctor bills. It is just fiscal lunacy, much the same as saying you are too broke to pay your bills so you charge up your credit cards. Who's advocating dollar zero insurance? The fact is that when you have lots of medical problems and you don't have a great job, you still have to get help. Where do you think you're going to get the money? While it might be lunacy from your point of view, from the point of view of the person in trouble, it's a short-term viable solution. But, you just want to cut them off, right? So they can either sink or swim on their own. You've got yours, right? I bet you always remember to pay your fire insurance too. I guess you don't have any moral imperative to help your neighbors in case they have a problem. If you can't afford your bills, how can you possibly afford your bills PLUS 29% interest? YOU CAN'T. That's the POINT. They don't have an alternative in the short term. Then, the CC bill comes due and they can't pay, and they go broke, get evicted, can't feed their kids. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand. Not everyone can manage to live like you do. Sometimes people live paycheck to paycheck, and sometimes they get over-extended due to unforeseen expenses, but I guess that's never happened to you. Good for you!! Unfortunately anyone who thinks that is OK also thinks the government is doing fine borrowing 40 cents of every dollar they spend. Please show me where anyone here thinks that's "OK." That's missing the point by a wide mile. Yet that is exactly what this administration (and the one before it) is doing. The last one did nothing about it. The current one has to fix a mess that's been growing for 10 years or more... all in 2 years of course. |
the rich are doing OK thank god!!
On 10/6/10 1:04 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message ... On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 00:28:04 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 21:15:35 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: If you are making double the minimum wage, you are still eligible for Medicaid. Wow... that means you're rich and have no problem supporting yourself, because the min. wage is a true living wage. NOT I responded to your minimum wage note, I still say, if you are too broke to pay your bills, how can you afford to support a banker/insurance company and still pay your bills. You claimed that somehow someone who makes twice the minimum age shouldn't be eligible for Medicaid. I called you out on that. I just said they were eligible. I made no judgement beyond that. Read it again. It is on top right now. So, what were you trying to point out? Why the comment? What does double the minimum wage have to do with Medicaid? You said a "minimum wage" person could not afford to set up a HSA. No I didn't. Feel free to quote me. Who's talking about supporting banker/ins. companies????? That is the effect of wanting "dollar zero" insurance because you can't manage to save enough to even pay a minimal amount of doctor bills. It is just fiscal lunacy, much the same as saying you are too broke to pay your bills so you charge up your credit cards. Who's advocating dollar zero insurance? The fact is that when you have lots of medical problems and you don't have a great job, you still have to get help. Where do you think you're going to get the money? While it might be lunacy from your point of view, from the point of view of the person in trouble, it's a short-term viable solution. But, you just want to cut them off, right? So they can either sink or swim on their own. You've got yours, right? I bet you always remember to pay your fire insurance too. I guess you don't have any moral imperative to help your neighbors in case they have a problem. If you can't afford your bills, how can you possibly afford your bills PLUS 29% interest? YOU CAN'T. That's the POINT. They don't have an alternative in the short term. Then, the CC bill comes due and they can't pay, and they go broke, get evicted, can't feed their kids. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand. Not everyone can manage to live like you do. Sometimes people live paycheck to paycheck, and sometimes they get over-extended due to unforeseen expenses, but I guess that's never happened to you. Good for you!! Unfortunately anyone who thinks that is OK also thinks the government is doing fine borrowing 40 cents of every dollar they spend. Please show me where anyone here thinks that's "OK." That's missing the point by a wide mile. Yet that is exactly what this administration (and the one before it) is doing. The last one did nothing about it. The current one has to fix a mess that's been growing for 10 years or more... all in 2 years of course. Fretwell tries very, very hard to make a moral equivalence between the Republicans and Democrats when it is obvious there isn't one. -- Republicans are the Party of No: No Leaders / No Ideas / No Morals |
the rich are doing OK thank god!!
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ...
wrote in message ... On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 00:21:45 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 21:14:15 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message om... On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 19:33:47 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:ndlna6dacff61fbi75lsrsj0ji0p8j4psq@4ax .com... If they "can't afford much" how will they be dealing with having to buy insurance. We have all agreed it won't be free. So, you think that someone who can make a $200/mo payment is the same as the person who has $3K sitting in the bank? Adding me was $500 a month, $200 was the 26 year old AFTER you bought the $500 "family" policy. Total $700 a month. I thought you were rich. What's the problem? I never said I was rich, you did. But you have a problem affording a measly $700/mo.? Yes, Karl Rove and friends certainly did a number on lots of people. They are certainly afraid. What does Karl Rove have to do with a health care bill written in Harry Reids office? It wasn't "written in Harry Reid's office." Nice try. The Republicans made lots of contributions, as did Democrats, and unfortunately too many lobbyists and not enough regular people. Bull****, the bill that came from the Democrats in the senate was written without any input from the republicans. Nice try tho. Completely untrue. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...ealth_car.html Nice try with an alternate set of facts. Karl Rove... not a thing, except all the money he's funneling into negative campaigns.. money from guess who? Don't know? Neither do I. Why? The Disclosure Act that was blocked by Republicans. Both sides have plenty of "bundled" money It's estimated that the contributions from hidden money is something like 10:1 Reps/Dems. Thanks SC and Citizen's United. I find that hard to believe. Is it possible that your estimator could be blowing smoke up your ass? -- I'm the real Harry, and I post from a PC or a MAC, as virtually everyone knows. If a post is attributed to me, and it isn't from a PC or a MAC, it's from an ID spoofer who hasn't the balls to post with his current ID Boatless Harry |
the rich are doing OK thank god!!
|
the rich are doing OK thank god!!
|
the rich are doing OK thank god!!
wrote in message ... On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 10:02:49 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 00:21:45 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: I thought you were rich. What's the problem? I never said I was rich, you did. But you have a problem affording a measly $700/mo.? I just said it was stupid to pay $500 a month($6000) for $3000 worth of insurance And, I agree with you, but if you don't really have a choice, then it isn't a question of being stupid is it? Yes, Karl Rove and friends certainly did a number on lots of people. They are certainly afraid. What does Karl Rove have to do with a health care bill written in Harry Reids office? It wasn't "written in Harry Reid's office." Nice try. The Republicans made lots of contributions, as did Democrats, and unfortunately too many lobbyists and not enough regular people. Bull****, the bill that came from the Democrats in the senate was written without any input from the republicans. Nice try tho. Completely untrue. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...ealth_car.html Nice try with an alternate set of facts. Those are "ideas" the GOP still did not have anyone around when the bill was written. Yet those "ideas" were part of the bill. So, the Democrats who wrote the final draft didn't just use their own ideas. QED Karl Rove... not a thing, except all the money he's funneling into negative campaigns.. money from guess who? Don't know? Neither do I. Why? The Disclosure Act that was blocked by Republicans. Both sides have plenty of "bundled" money It's estimated that the contributions from hidden money is something like 10:1 Reps/Dems. cite that Well, here's 8:1 on the insurance companies... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-0...elections.html |
the rich are doing OK thank god!!
wrote in message ... On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 10:04:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 00:28:04 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message m... On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 21:15:35 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: If you are making double the minimum wage, you are still eligible for Medicaid. Wow... that means you're rich and have no problem supporting yourself, because the min. wage is a true living wage. NOT I responded to your minimum wage note, I still say, if you are too broke to pay your bills, how can you afford to support a banker/insurance company and still pay your bills. You claimed that somehow someone who makes twice the minimum age shouldn't be eligible for Medicaid. I called you out on that. I just said they were eligible. I made no judgement beyond that. Read it again. It is on top right now. So, what were you trying to point out? Why the comment? What does double the minimum wage have to do with Medicaid? You said a "minimum wage" person could not afford to set up a HSA. No I didn't. Feel free to quote me. OK You have described the problem but the ONLY fix it is to get some personal responsibility back in the populace. I am not rich and I really never have been but I was brought up understanding it is better to save up your money and buy something instead of doing it on credit. Insurance is nothing but prepaid credit. That's part of the "fix" but most people take personal responsibility if given half a chance. Personal responsibility doesn't help much if you're making minimum wage or have medical problems. Who's talking about supporting banker/ins. companies????? That is the effect of wanting "dollar zero" insurance because you can't manage to save enough to even pay a minimal amount of doctor bills. It is just fiscal lunacy, much the same as saying you are too broke to pay your bills so you charge up your credit cards. Who's advocating dollar zero insurance? The fact is that when you have lots of medical problems and you don't have a great job, you still have to get help. Where do you think you're going to get the money? While it might be lunacy from your point of view, from the point of view of the person in trouble, it's a short-term viable solution. But, you just want to cut them off, right? So they can either sink or swim on their own. You've got yours, right? I bet you always remember to pay your fire insurance too. I guess you don't have any moral imperative to help your neighbors in case they have a problem. If you can't afford your bills, how can you possibly afford your bills PLUS 29% interest? YOU CAN'T. That's the POINT. They don't have an alternative in the short term. Then, the CC bill comes due and they can't pay, and they go broke, get evicted, can't feed their kids. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand. Not everyone can manage to live like you do. Sometimes people live paycheck to paycheck, and sometimes they get over-extended due to unforeseen expenses, but I guess that's never happened to you. Good for you!! Unfortunately anyone who thinks that is OK also thinks the government is doing fine borrowing 40 cents of every dollar they spend. Please show me where anyone here thinks that's "OK." That's missing the point by a wide mile. Yet that is exactly what this administration (and the one before it) is doing. The last one did nothing about it. The current one has to fix a mess that's been growing for 10 years or more... all in 2 years of course. The problem has been going on since 1957, the last YEAR with a decreasing national debt. I have never said Bush was good on the debt. He was a disaster. Ok. :) We're even. lol |
Quote:
|
the rich are doing OK thank god!!
wrote in message ... On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 18:39:57 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: What does Karl Rove have to do with a health care bill written in Harry Reids office? It wasn't "written in Harry Reid's office." Nice try. The Republicans made lots of contributions, as did Democrats, and unfortunately too many lobbyists and not enough regular people. Bull****, the bill that came from the Democrats in the senate was written without any input from the republicans. Nice try tho. Completely untrue. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...ealth_car.html Nice try with an alternate set of facts. Those are "ideas" the GOP still did not have anyone around when the bill was written. Yet those "ideas" were part of the bill. So, the Democrats who wrote the final draft didn't just use their own ideas. QED Of the "five" Ezra says are in the bill he really only cited 3. There is no real tort reform and the fifth was not even defined. I agree they threw a few bones in there to try to get a GOP vote or two but the fact remains the GOP was not in there helping to write this bill. Normally these kinds of things come out of a bipartisan committee, not the Senate Majority leader's office. They weren't helping because they refused to help. They were and remain the party of NO. They're not, as far as I can tell, interested in getting the US on the right path. Normally, you're sort of right, but the party in power runs the show with constructive input from the opposition. But, Obama and the Democrats are evil, so the Republicans aren't playing. Again, with Reid's office. Please show us some citation that describes this secret meeting in his office. Karl Rove... not a thing, except all the money he's funneling into negative campaigns.. money from guess who? Don't know? Neither do I. Why? The Disclosure Act that was blocked by Republicans. Both sides have plenty of "bundled" money It's estimated that the contributions from hidden money is something like 10:1 Reps/Dems. cite that Well, here's 8:1 on the insurance companies... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-0...elections.html You said "hidden" Yes. So, please tell us who is contributing money to the US Chamber of Commerce and how that money is being kept separated from the funds that group is throwing at attack ads for Republicans. http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/05/...mber-commerce/ |
the rich are doing OK thank god!!
On 10/7/10 2:05 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 18:39:57 -0700, wrote: What does Karl Rove have to do with a health care bill written in Harry Reids office? It wasn't "written in Harry Reid's office." Nice try. The Republicans made lots of contributions, as did Democrats, and unfortunately too many lobbyists and not enough regular people. Bull****, the bill that came from the Democrats in the senate was written without any input from the republicans. Nice try tho. Completely untrue. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...ealth_car.html Nice try with an alternate set of facts. Those are "ideas" the GOP still did not have anyone around when the bill was written. Yet those "ideas" were part of the bill. So, the Democrats who wrote the final draft didn't just use their own ideas. QED Of the "five" Ezra says are in the bill he really only cited 3. There is no real tort reform and the fifth was not even defined. I agree they threw a few bones in there to try to get a GOP vote or two but the fact remains the GOP was not in there helping to write this bill. Normally these kinds of things come out of a bipartisan committee, not the Senate Majority leader's office. It should be obvious even to you that no matter what was in that bill, the Republicans wouldn't have voted for it if it represented any sort of progress because, as we know, the Republicans are doing whatever they can to prevent *any* legislative accomplishments for the current president. The country would have been far better off if Obama had just said, "We gave the Republicans their chance many times, **** 'em." The bill that finally was passed is too compromised and is nothing more than a beginning in a process that will take decades. We're not going to resolve our medical insurance catastrophes until we get the private for-profit sector out of the primary medical insurance business. There should be nothing sacrosanct about "profit making" when it doesn't serve the public's interest. The United States does not exist for the purpose of corporate profit. -- Republicans are the Party of No: No Leaders / No Ideas / No Morals |
the rich are doing OK thank god!!
wrote in message ...
On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 18:39:57 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: What does Karl Rove have to do with a health care bill written in Harry Reids office? It wasn't "written in Harry Reid's office." Nice try. The Republicans made lots of contributions, as did Democrats, and unfortunately too many lobbyists and not enough regular people. Bull****, the bill that came from the Democrats in the senate was written without any input from the republicans. Nice try tho. Completely untrue. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...ealth_car.html Nice try with an alternate set of facts. Those are "ideas" the GOP still did not have anyone around when the bill was written. Yet those "ideas" were part of the bill. So, the Democrats who wrote the final draft didn't just use their own ideas. QED Of the "five" Ezra says are in the bill he really only cited 3. There is no real tort reform and the fifth was not even defined. I agree they threw a few bones in there to try to get a GOP vote or two but the fact remains the GOP was not in there helping to write this bill. Normally these kinds of things come out of a bipartisan committee, not the Senate Majority leader's office. Karl Rove... not a thing, except all the money he's funneling into negative campaigns.. money from guess who? Don't know? Neither do I. Why? The Disclosure Act that was blocked by Republicans. Both sides have plenty of "bundled" money It's estimated that the contributions from hidden money is something like 10:1 Reps/Dems. cite that Well, here's 8:1 on the insurance companies... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-0...elections.html You said "hidden" She's about as slippery as a greased pig. She won't let facts or logic stand in her way. -- I'm the real Harry, and I post from a PC or a MAC, as virtually everyone knows. If a post is attributed to me, and it isn't from a PC or a MAC, it's from an ID spoofer who hasn't the balls to post with his current ID Boatless Harry |
the rich are doing OK thank god!!
On 10/7/2010 7:58 AM, Harry® wrote:
She's about as slippery as a greased pig. She won't let facts or logic stand in her way. I'm the real Harry, and I post from a PC or a MAC, as virtually everyone knows. If a post is attributed to me, and it isn't from a PC or a MAC, it's from an ID spoofer who hasn't the balls to post with his current IDBoatless Harry ### It is obvious you are not "the real Harry," but just another of the weak personality morons who can only get attention here by posing as another poster. If you were posting under your own "handle," hardly anyone would pay attention to you. Other posters here claim you are either flajim, loogy, or tosk. That's probably the case, since all three of them are very similar in many ways. |
the rich are doing OK thank god!!
On 10/7/10 8:03 AM, Jim wrote:
On 10/7/2010 7:58 AM, Harry® wrote: She's about as slippery as a greased pig. She won't let facts or logic stand in her way. I'm the real Harry, and I post from a PC or a MAC, as virtually everyone knows. If a post is attributed to me, and it isn't from a PC or a MAC, it's from an ID spoofer who hasn't the balls to post with his current IDBoatless Harry ### It is obvious you are not "the real Harry," but just another of the weak personality morons who can only get attention here by posing as another poster. If you were posting under your own "handle," hardly anyone would pay attention to you. Other posters here claim you are either flajim, loogy, or tosk. That's probably the case, since all three of them are very similar in many ways. I can certainly understand why flajim, loogy or tosk would not want to post as flajim, loogy or tosk. All three are candidates for the scoops. -- Republicans are the Party of No: No Leaders / No Ideas / No Morals |
the rich are doing OK thank god!!
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ...
wrote in message ... On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 18:39:57 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: What does Karl Rove have to do with a health care bill written in Harry Reids office? It wasn't "written in Harry Reid's office." Nice try. The Republicans made lots of contributions, as did Democrats, and unfortunately too many lobbyists and not enough regular people. Bull****, the bill that came from the Democrats in the senate was written without any input from the republicans. Nice try tho. Completely untrue. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...ealth_car.html Nice try with an alternate set of facts. Those are "ideas" the GOP still did not have anyone around when the bill was written. Yet those "ideas" were part of the bill. So, the Democrats who wrote the final draft didn't just use their own ideas. QED Of the "five" Ezra says are in the bill he really only cited 3. There is no real tort reform and the fifth was not even defined. I agree they threw a few bones in there to try to get a GOP vote or two but the fact remains the GOP was not in there helping to write this bill. Normally these kinds of things come out of a bipartisan committee, not the Senate Majority leader's office. They weren't helping because they refused to help. They were and remain the party of NO. They're not, as far as I can tell, interested in getting the US on the right path. Normally, you're sort of right, but the party in power runs the show with constructive input from the opposition. But, Obama and the Democrats are evil, so the Republicans aren't playing. Again, with Reid's office. Please show us some citation that describes this secret meeting in his office. Karl Rove... not a thing, except all the money he's funneling into negative campaigns.. money from guess who? Don't know? Neither do I. Why? The Disclosure Act that was blocked by Republicans. Both sides have plenty of "bundled" money It's estimated that the contributions from hidden money is something like 10:1 Reps/Dems. cite that Well, here's 8:1 on the insurance companies... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-0...elections.html You said "hidden" Yes. So, please tell us who is contributing money to the US Chamber of Commerce and how that money is being kept separated from the funds that group is throwing at attack ads for Republicans. http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/05/...mber-commerce/ Here is a link that will help you to understand which way "Think Progress" leans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_...rican_Progress Before subscribing to the message of articles like the one you cited, you need to think about what motivates the author. I hardly think you could get objective reporting from The Center for American Progress. And hows about the money they channel? Now that's impressive. You really are pathetic. -- I'm the real Harry, and I post from a PC or a MAC, as virtually everyone knows. If a post is attributed to me, and it isn't from a PC or a MAC, it's from an ID spoofer who hasn't the balls to post with his current ID Boatless Harry |
the rich are doing OK thank god!!
"Secular Humoresque" AKA Harry Krause wrote in message
It should be obvious even to you that no matter what was in that bill, the Republicans wouldn't have voted for it if it represented any sort of progress because, as we know, the Republicans are doing whatever they can to prevent *any* legislative accomplishments for the current president. The country would have been far better off if Obama had just said, "We gave the Republicans their chance many times, **** 'em." The bill that finally was passed is too compromised and is nothing more than a beginning in a process that will take decades. We're not going to resolve our medical insurance catastrophes until we get the private for-profit sector out of the primary medical insurance business. There should be nothing sacrosanct about "profit making" when it doesn't serve the public's interest. The United States does not exist for the purpose of corporate profit. -- Republicans are the Party of No: No Leaders / No Ideas / No Morals More total bull**** from Krause the Democratic robot. -- I'm the real Harry, and I post from a PC or a MAC, as virtually everyone knows. If a post is attributed to me, and it isn't from a PC or a MAC, it's from an ID spoofer who hasn't the balls to post with his current ID Boatless Harry |
the rich are doing OK thank god!!
In article , says...
On 10/6/2010 4:08 PM, Harry® wrote: "Secular wrote in message ... In article0qydnd8eQ_NrMDHRnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@earthlink .com, says... On 10/6/10 1:04 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 00:28:04 -0700, wrote: wrote in message ... On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 21:15:35 -0700, wrote: If you are making double the minimum wage, you are still eligible for Medicaid. Wow... that means you're rich and have no problem supporting yourself, because the min. wage is a true living wage. NOT I responded to your minimum wage note, I still say, if you are too broke to pay your bills, how can you afford to support a banker/insurance company and still pay your bills. You claimed that somehow someone who makes twice the minimum age shouldn't be eligible for Medicaid. I called you out on that. I just said they were eligible. I made no judgement beyond that. Read it again. It is on top right now. So, what were you trying to point out? Why the comment? What does double the minimum wage have to do with Medicaid? You said a "minimum wage" person could not afford to set up a HSA. No I didn't. Feel free to quote me. Who's talking about supporting banker/ins. companies????? That is the effect of wanting "dollar zero" insurance because you can't manage to save enough to even pay a minimal amount of doctor bills. It is just fiscal lunacy, much the same as saying you are too broke to pay your bills so you charge up your credit cards. Who's advocating dollar zero insurance? The fact is that when you have lots of medical problems and you don't have a great job, you still have to get help. Where do you think you're going to get the money? While it might be lunacy from your point of view, from the point of view of the person in trouble, it's a short-term viable solution. But, you just want to cut them off, right? So they can either sink or swim on their own. You've got yours, right? I bet you always remember to pay your fire insurance too. I guess you don't have any moral imperative to help your neighbors in case they have a problem. If you can't afford your bills, how can you possibly afford your bills PLUS 29% interest? YOU CAN'T. That's the POINT. They don't have an alternative in the short term. Then, the CC bill comes due and they can't pay, and they go broke, get evicted, can't feed their kids. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand. Not everyone can manage to live like you do. Sometimes people live paycheck to paycheck, and sometimes they get over-extended due to unforeseen expenses, but I guess that's never happened to you. Good for you!! Unfortunately anyone who thinks that is OK also thinks the government is doing fine borrowing 40 cents of every dollar they spend. Please show me where anyone here thinks that's "OK." That's missing the point by a wide mile. Yet that is exactly what this administration (and the one before it) is doing. The last one did nothing about it. The current one has to fix a mess that's been growing for 10 years or more... all in 2 years of course. Fretwell tries very, very hard to make a moral equivalence between the Republicans and Democrats when it is obvious there isn't one. Hey the spoofer came up with a true statement for once! Both parties are full of corrupt politicians whose only goal is re-election. And there's your moral equivalency. Surprised the politic junkie didn't see it How's your daughter, loogy? Any more broken arms? He's not "loogy", he's Harry?. Been threatening to molest anyone's wife again lately? |
the rich are doing OK thank god!!
In article , says...
On 10/7/2010 7:58 AM, Harry® wrote: She's about as slippery as a greased pig. She won't let facts or logic stand in her way. I'm the real Harry, and I post from a PC or a MAC, as virtually everyone knows. If a post is attributed to me, and it isn't from a PC or a MAC, it's from an ID spoofer who hasn't the balls to post with his current IDBoatless Harry ### It is obvious you are not "the real Harry," but just another of the weak personality morons who can only get attention here by posing as another poster. If you were posting under your own "handle," hardly anyone would pay attention to you. Other posters here claim you are either flajim, loogy, or tosk. That's probably the case, since all three of them are very similar in many ways. Go call someone's wife and threaten to molest them...again. |
the rich are doing OK thank god!!
|
the rich are doing OK thank god!!
On 10/7/10 8:40 AM, I am Tosk wrote:
In , says... Obama just said, "We gave the Republicans their chance many times, **** 'em." Democrats are the Party of No: No Leaders / No Ideas / No Morals There, I fixed it for you;) Your parents should have had you fixed long ago, so as to preserve what little is left of the human gene pool. Short, stupid fools like you have no reason to live and shouldn't have any right to reproduce. -- Republicans are the Party of No: No Leaders / No Ideas / No Morals |
the rich are doing OK thank god!!
"Secular Humouresque" wrote in message ... On 10/7/10 8:40 AM, I am Tosk wrote: In , says... Obama just said, "We gave the Republicans their chance many times, **** 'em." Democrats are the Party of No: No Leaders / No Ideas / No Morals There, I fixed it for you;) Your parents should have had you fixed long ago, so as to preserve what little is left of the human gene pool. Short, stupid fools like you have no reason to live and shouldn't have any right to reproduce. Yup... if only there was a way to enforce that. America would be better off for it. On the other hand we just have to hope that the kids take after their mother. |
the rich are doing OK thank god!!
"Secular Humoresque" wrote in message ... In article , says... On 10/7/10 8:03 AM, Jim wrote: On 10/7/2010 7:58 AM, Harry® wrote: She's about as slippery as a greased pig. She won't let facts or logic stand in her way. I'm the real Harry, and I post from a PC or a MAC, as virtually everyone knows. If a post is attributed to me, and it isn't from a PC or a MAC, it's from an ID spoofer who hasn't the balls to post with his current IDBoatless Harry ### It is obvious you are not "the real Harry," but just another of the weak personality morons who can only get attention here by posing as another poster. If you were posting under your own "handle," hardly anyone would pay attention to you. Other posters here claim you are either flajim, loogy, or tosk. That's probably the case, since all three of them are very similar in many ways. I can certainly understand why flajim, loogy or tosk would not want to post as flajim, loogy or tosk. All three are candidates for the scoops. I think it's time to call Hertvik's wife and tell her what he did to John. That should straighten things out. Who's going to do that... a coward who hides behind another's ID?? Careful, the light of day may hit you when you crawl out from under that rock. |
the rich are doing OK thank god!!
In article ,
says... "Secular Humouresque" wrote in message ... On 10/7/10 8:40 AM, I am Tosk wrote: In , says... Obama just said, "We gave the Republicans their chance many times, **** 'em." Democrats are the Party of No: No Leaders / No Ideas / No Morals There, I fixed it for you;) Your parents should have had you fixed long ago, so as to preserve what little is left of the human gene pool. Short, stupid fools like you have no reason to live and shouldn't have any right to reproduce. Yup... if only there was a way to enforce that. America would be better off for it. On the other hand we just have to hope that the kids take after their mother. Damn it, that hurts when you stuff your nose up my ass so hard. |
the rich are doing OK thank god!!
In article ,
says... "Secular Humoresque" wrote in message ... In article , says... On 10/7/10 8:03 AM, Jim wrote: On 10/7/2010 7:58 AM, Harry® wrote: She's about as slippery as a greased pig. She won't let facts or logic stand in her way. I'm the real Harry, and I post from a PC or a MAC, as virtually everyone knows. If a post is attributed to me, and it isn't from a PC or a MAC, it's from an ID spoofer who hasn't the balls to post with his current IDBoatless Harry ### It is obvious you are not "the real Harry," but just another of the weak personality morons who can only get attention here by posing as another poster. If you were posting under your own "handle," hardly anyone would pay attention to you. Other posters here claim you are either flajim, loogy, or tosk. That's probably the case, since all three of them are very similar in many ways. I can certainly understand why flajim, loogy or tosk would not want to post as flajim, loogy or tosk. All three are candidates for the scoops. I think it's time to call Hertvik's wife and tell her what he did to John. That should straighten things out. Who's going to do that... a coward who hides behind another's ID?? Careful, the light of day may hit you when you crawl out from under that rock. Sorry, you are the coward little buddy. Hide behind an ID?? Is your real name YukonBound? I've stated here for years that anybody that doesn't post using their real name is a pussy. As far as a ball-less coward, that would be you. YOU were the one who stated here that you were going to call someone's wife, then backed down like a scared little girl. |
the rich are doing OK thank god!!
On 10/7/2010 9:43 AM, Secular Humoresque wrote:
In , says... "Secular wrote in message ... In , says... On 10/7/10 8:03 AM, Jim wrote: On 10/7/2010 7:58 AM, Harry® wrote: She's about as slippery as a greased pig. She won't let facts or logic stand in her way. I'm the real Harry, and I post from a PC or a MAC, as virtually everyone knows. If a post is attributed to me, and it isn't from a PC or a MAC, it's from an ID spoofer who hasn't the balls to post with his current IDBoatless Harry ### It is obvious you are not "the real Harry," but just another of the weak personality morons who can only get attention here by posing as another poster. If you were posting under your own "handle," hardly anyone would pay attention to you. Other posters here claim you are either flajim, loogy, or tosk. That's probably the case, since all three of them are very similar in many ways. I can certainly understand why flajim, loogy or tosk would not want to post as flajim, loogy or tosk. All three are candidates for the scoops. I think it's time to call Hertvik's wife and tell her what he did to John. That should straighten things out. Who's going to do that... a coward who hides behind another's ID?? Careful, the light of day may hit you when you crawl out from under that rock. Sorry, you are the coward little buddy. Hide behind an ID?? Is your real name YukonBound? I've stated here for years that anybody that doesn't post using their real name is a pussy. As far as a ball-less coward, that would be you. YOU were the one who stated here that you were going to call someone's wife, then backed down like a scared little girl. You are hiding behind the user ID of another poster. You are either loogy, flajim, tosk, or one of the other non-contributing, non-boating morons who plague this usenet group. |
the rich are doing OK thank god!!
On 10/7/10 10:13 AM, Jim wrote:
On 10/7/2010 9:43 AM, Secular Humoresque wrote: In , says... "Secular wrote in message ... In , says... On 10/7/10 8:03 AM, Jim wrote: On 10/7/2010 7:58 AM, Harry® wrote: She's about as slippery as a greased pig. She won't let facts or logic stand in her way. I'm the real Harry, and I post from a PC or a MAC, as virtually everyone knows. If a post is attributed to me, and it isn't from a PC or a MAC, it's from an ID spoofer who hasn't the balls to post with his current IDBoatless Harry ### It is obvious you are not "the real Harry," but just another of the weak personality morons who can only get attention here by posing as another poster. If you were posting under your own "handle," hardly anyone would pay attention to you. Other posters here claim you are either flajim, loogy, or tosk. That's probably the case, since all three of them are very similar in many ways. I can certainly understand why flajim, loogy or tosk would not want to post as flajim, loogy or tosk. All three are candidates for the scoops. I think it's time to call Hertvik's wife and tell her what he did to John. That should straighten things out. Who's going to do that... a coward who hides behind another's ID?? Careful, the light of day may hit you when you crawl out from under that rock. Sorry, you are the coward little buddy. Hide behind an ID?? Is your real name YukonBound? I've stated here for years that anybody that doesn't post using their real name is a pussy. As far as a ball-less coward, that would be you. YOU were the one who stated here that you were going to call someone's wife, then backed down like a scared little girl. You are hiding behind the user ID of another poster. You are either loogy, flajim, tosk, or one of the other non-contributing, non-boating morons who plague this usenet group. What a nightmare it must be to be loogy, flajim, or ingersoll, and to spend your entire life pretending you are an engineer, or that you accomplished something in the navy, or that you weren't fired from your job cleaning out a stables. Sheesh. -- Republicans are the Party of No: No Leaders / No Ideas / No Morals |
the rich are doing OK thank god!!
In article , says...
On 10/7/2010 9:43 AM, Secular Humoresque wrote: In , says... "Secular wrote in message ... In , says... On 10/7/10 8:03 AM, Jim wrote: On 10/7/2010 7:58 AM, Harry® wrote: She's about as slippery as a greased pig. She won't let facts or logic stand in her way. I'm the real Harry, and I post from a PC or a MAC, as virtually everyone knows. If a post is attributed to me, and it isn't from a PC or a MAC, it's from an ID spoofer who hasn't the balls to post with his current IDBoatless Harry ### It is obvious you are not "the real Harry," but just another of the weak personality morons who can only get attention here by posing as another poster. If you were posting under your own "handle," hardly anyone would pay attention to you. Other posters here claim you are either flajim, loogy, or tosk. That's probably the case, since all three of them are very similar in many ways. I can certainly understand why flajim, loogy or tosk would not want to post as flajim, loogy or tosk. All three are candidates for the scoops. I think it's time to call Hertvik's wife and tell her what he did to John. That should straighten things out. Who's going to do that... a coward who hides behind another's ID?? Careful, the light of day may hit you when you crawl out from under that rock. Sorry, you are the coward little buddy. Hide behind an ID?? Is your real name YukonBound? I've stated here for years that anybody that doesn't post using their real name is a pussy. As far as a ball-less coward, that would be you. YOU were the one who stated here that you were going to call someone's wife, then backed down like a scared little girl. You are hiding behind the user ID of another poster. You are either loogy, flajim, tosk, or one of the other non-contributing, non-boating morons who plague this usenet group. You are using the ID of another poster. I looked and there are HUNDREDS of people withe the "Jim" ID. And you are wrong. I am Harry Krause of Huntingtown, MD. I can prove it. Now, what have you been "contributing" here? And where are all of YOUR boating posts? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! |
the rich are doing OK thank god!!
In article ,
says... On 10/7/10 10:13 AM, Jim wrote: On 10/7/2010 9:43 AM, Secular Humoresque wrote: In , says... "Secular wrote in message ... In , says... On 10/7/10 8:03 AM, Jim wrote: On 10/7/2010 7:58 AM, Harry® wrote: She's about as slippery as a greased pig. She won't let facts or logic stand in her way. I'm the real Harry, and I post from a PC or a MAC, as virtually everyone knows. If a post is attributed to me, and it isn't from a PC or a MAC, it's from an ID spoofer who hasn't the balls to post with his current IDBoatless Harry ### It is obvious you are not "the real Harry," but just another of the weak personality morons who can only get attention here by posing as another poster. If you were posting under your own "handle," hardly anyone would pay attention to you. Other posters here claim you are either flajim, loogy, or tosk. That's probably the case, since all three of them are very similar in many ways. I can certainly understand why flajim, loogy or tosk would not want to post as flajim, loogy or tosk. All three are candidates for the scoops. I think it's time to call Hertvik's wife and tell her what he did to John. That should straighten things out. Who's going to do that... a coward who hides behind another's ID?? Careful, the light of day may hit you when you crawl out from under that rock. Sorry, you are the coward little buddy. Hide behind an ID?? Is your real name YukonBound? I've stated here for years that anybody that doesn't post using their real name is a pussy. As far as a ball-less coward, that would be you. YOU were the one who stated here that you were going to call someone's wife, then backed down like a scared little girl. You are hiding behind the user ID of another poster. You are either loogy, flajim, tosk, or one of the other non-contributing, non-boating morons who plague this usenet group. What a nightmare it must be to be loogy, flajim, or ingersoll, and to spend your entire life pretending you are an engineer, or that you accomplished something in the navy, or that you weren't fired from your job cleaning out a stables. Sheesh. Then why are you spoofing me? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:19 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com