We *need* women in Combat roles...
 

On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 11:39:55 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

So you don't mind his narrow mindedness, his bigotry and his racism, got
it.

====

Let he who is without sin throw the first stone.

We *need* women in Combat roles...
 

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 11:39:55 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

So you don't mind his narrow mindedness, his bigotry and his racism, got
it.

====

Let he who is without sin throw the first stone.

Could you give specific examples, please? I can!

We *need* women in Combat roles...
 

On 2/15/13 3:14 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 11:39:55 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

So you don't mind his narrow mindedness, his bigotry and his racism, got
it.

====

Let he who is without sin throw the first stone.

Could you give specific examples, please? I can!



My King James bible has the phrase as:

"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."
and it refers to jesus speaking out against imposition of the death
penalty, among other things.

--
I'm a *Liberal* because I knew militant christian fundamentalist racist
militaristic xenophobic corporate oligarchy wasn't going to work for me.

We *need* women in Combat roles...
 

On 2/15/2013 2:04 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 08:19:53 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

I can understand why we originally went into Afghanistan. But I
don't understand why we are still there, other than political deals.

Bush originally went to Afghanistan with a small tactical force, just
looking tor Bin Laden. He got in so much trouble from the left because
they missed him (supposedly because the mission was too small) that we
came in force.
In the end we got Bin Laden with a small tactical force. Everything
else we did in Afghanistan was counter productive.

You can say all you want about the Iraqi "mistake" but we did end up
with a quasi democratic government that is not threatening Israel (the
real goal).
Compared with what happened in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Iraq was a
raging success. Thousands of American lives lost and we are worse off
there now than we were in 2001 or even 2009


Their selfish needs outweigh the facts.. Bush may have been a much
better president, but harry didn't get an IPhone from him, sooooo...

We *need* women in Combat roles...
 

On 2/15/13 5:10 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:


Their selfish needs outweigh the facts.. Bush may have been a much
better president, but harry didn't get an IPhone from him, sooooo...


Dubya was the worst president in modern United States history. No one
was worse.

--
I'm a *Liberal* because I knew militant christian fundamentalist racist
militaristic xenophobic corporate oligarchy wasn't going to work for me.

We *need* women in Combat roles...
 

On Feb 15, 8:02*am, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


I like the modern "Rev. Al" a lot better than I liked the older model.
He's matured a lot.


Yeah, he looks like walking death

We *need* women in Combat roles...
 

In article om,
says...

On 2/15/2013 8:39 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/15/13 8:35 AM, Tim wrote:
On Feb 15, 5:39 am, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 2/15/13 6:24 AM, Tim wrote:









On Feb 14, 12:44 pm, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 2/14/13 1:38 PM, Urin Asshole wrote: On Thu, 14 Feb 2013
12:46:15 -0500, Salmonbait
wrote:

...and here's a good example of why!

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=722_1360164856

When are you going to sign up?

Johnny Boy Herring claims he served as a combat engineer during our
war
against Vietnam. I've asked him several times how many Vietnamese
people
he killed with explosives or even his rifle, but as far as I
recall, he
has never responded with the facts.

Harry, Engineers arn't combat troops, They build stuff like roads,
bridges, etc. not that doesn't mean they're not also trained in
fighting. Don't personally know, but with a bit of speculation, I'd
say John 'probably' didn't kill anybody.

I understand that, and I also understand they usually aren't
"engineers," as we think of that term in the construction industry.
Combat engineers also blow things up.

I had two great-uncles who were engineers. They both drove steam
locomotives at5 the turn of the last century



I have a relative who drove diesel locomotives, but he wasn't an engineer.

You also have a relative who is a social worker but not a real Doctor.

You claim to be a writer, but seriously, that title doesn't fit you
well, does it?

Did Harry's relative pay his taxes?

We *need* women in Combat roles...
 

On 2/15/2013 10:37 PM, BAR wrote:
In article om,
says...

On 2/15/2013 8:39 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/15/13 8:35 AM, Tim wrote:
On Feb 15, 5:39 am, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 2/15/13 6:24 AM, Tim wrote:









On Feb 14, 12:44 pm, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 2/14/13 1:38 PM, Urin Asshole wrote: On Thu, 14 Feb 2013
12:46:15 -0500, Salmonbait
wrote:

...and here's a good example of why!

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=722_1360164856

When are you going to sign up?

Johnny Boy Herring claims he served as a combat engineer during our
war
against Vietnam. I've asked him several times how many Vietnamese
people
he killed with explosives or even his rifle, but as far as I
recall, he
has never responded with the facts.

Harry, Engineers arn't combat troops, They build stuff like roads,
bridges, etc. not that doesn't mean they're not also trained in
fighting. Don't personally know, but with a bit of speculation, I'd
say John 'probably' didn't kill anybody.

I understand that, and I also understand they usually aren't
"engineers," as we think of that term in the construction industry.
Combat engineers also blow things up.

I had two great-uncles who were engineers. They both drove steam
locomotives at5 the turn of the last century



I have a relative who drove diesel locomotives, but he wasn't an engineer.

You also have a relative who is a social worker but not a real Doctor.

You claim to be a writer, but seriously, that title doesn't fit you
well, does it?

Did Harry's relative pay his taxes?


**** the taxes... I would be more concerened with the people and small
businesses he ****ed when he went bankrupt twice... Now he hides assets
while those folks pay his bills...

We *need* women in Combat roles...
 

In article ,
says...

Why can't she just admit that she doesn't agree with the policy?
This is an example of the dishonest flavor that some liberals exhibit.

All talking heads show "dishonesty." Because they're people. Matthews
and Shultz are probably the most "honest." But I disagree with all of
them on some points.
"Liberals" don't have the tunnel vision market locked up.
As you said, more views to digest.
What galls me the most is seeing a table full of millionaires on Morning
Joe talking about how it's perfectly reasonable to cut SS and Medicare
benefits for old poor folks. Just has to be done.
And at least half of the millionaires at the table are "Democrats."
What a bunch of ignorant dopes.


Al Sharpton does it often in his snarky kind of way, but sometimes
it's humorous. During the last election, he constantly referred to
Romney as "Willard" .... a poorly disguised attempt to make fun of
Romney's given name, even though Romney has been called "Mitt"
throughout his entire public life. Sharpton got great glee and
satisfaction calling him "Willard" however. Strange, considering
that Sharpton's given name is "Alfred".

Can't watch him much. He'a always yelling, so I flip to CNN or CSPAN.
Same with Maddow. She's another preacher, but worse. She'll often
spend 15 minutes straight just yakking - no guests. Her nagging voice
starts to grate. Her rhetorical device of repeating the same thing 10
times is likewise grating. Comes across as an egomaniac.

We *need* women in Combat roles...
 

On 2/16/2013 2:06 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 23:18:16 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

Because they're people. Matthews
and Shultz are probably the most "honest."

Huh?

Matthews just makes stuff up and he ignores anything that does not
support his rants,.

I watch his Sunday show and the weekend roll up of his weekly show.
There are always at least one or two boldfaced lies. He is Rush for
the lefties.


And "half of the millionaires are democrats".. LOL. Conservatives are
not hardly ever represented on MSNBC... Their idea of fair and balanced
is Louis Farrakahn, and Al Sharpton, Matthews and Maddow... and Matthews
is the conservative in the group... LOL!

The biggest reason folks "can't" watch Fox, is they can't stand the
right having a say in the matters....

We *need* women in Combat roles...
 

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 23:18:16 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

Because they're people. Matthews
and Shultz are probably the most "honest."

Huh?

Matthews just makes stuff up and he ignores anything that does not
support his rants,.

I watch his Sunday show and the weekend roll up of his weekly show.
There are always at least one or two boldfaced lies. He is Rush for
the lefties.

You righties sure hate him, like lefties hate - what did you call him,
"Rush?" First name basis, eh? That's sweet.
But you'd have to give examples of Matthews lying.
I pretty much ignore unsupported accusations.
Some Youtube links would do. That's where all televised brazen lies end
up, for everybody to see. Shouldn't be hard.
Him putting his foot in his mouth and later apologizing doesn't count as
a lie. Neither is him disagreeing with your views, unless he's lying.
And it just won't work to claim Youtube is another "lib" MSM outlet.
So go for it.
I've often disagreed with Matthews. Especially when he went rabid over
Clinton "desecrating" the WH with the Lewinsky chick, then became a GWB
fan.
He's wised up since then. But I've never doubted his integrity.
Everybody has some wacko views. Hell, you're a gun nut.
Matthews could have been a priest, given his strong attachment to
Catholicism.
Doubt he'd go for the child molestation, so it's good he chose to do
something else.
You need to forget politics long enough to understand the definition of
"honest."

We *need* women in Combat roles...
 

On 2/16/13 6:30 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 2/16/2013 2:06 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 23:18:16 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

Because they're people. Matthews
and Shultz are probably the most "honest."

Huh?

Matthews just makes stuff up and he ignores anything that does not
support his rants,.

I watch his Sunday show and the weekend roll up of his weekly show.
There are always at least one or two boldfaced lies. He is Rush for
the lefties.


And "half of the millionaires are democrats".. LOL. Conservatives are
not hardly ever represented on MSNBC... Their idea of fair and balanced
is Louis Farrakahn, and Al Sharpton, Matthews and Maddow... and Matthews
is the conservative in the group... LOL!

The biggest reason folks "can't" watch Fox, is they can't stand the
right having a say in the matters....


Some months ago, a university released a research study that indicated
the more you watch Fox News, the dumber you get. Obviously, Snotty was
one of those interviewed for the study.

It is Fox that uses the tagline "fair and balanced," and it uses it the
same way and for the same reason the old Soviet Union "official"
newspaper was named "Pravda." Most of MSNBC's commentators are
progressives, liberals, whatever, and the "station" makes no effort to
conceal that fact with a "bull****" tagline of "fair and balanced." The
network does, however, have a legitimate conservative morning anchor on
for three hours who presents a rational conservative viewpoint. His name
is Joe Scarborough. S.E. Cupp is a conservative host on an afternoon
show. Plus the network sprinkles in plenty of paid and unpaid
conservative commentators during the day, though they are not the rabid,
bat**** crazy folks you find on Fox.

It's funny that Snotty brings up Louis Farrakhan (not Farrakahn).
Farrakhan has been in semi-retirement for close to a decade because of
health issues. He still pops up once in a while, but he's certainly no
regular on MSNBC or anywhere else.

I don't watch Fox because it presents stupid viewpoints in a stupid way.
It's programmed for nitwits like...Scotty.


--
I'm a *Liberal* because I knew militant christian fundamentalist racist
militaristic xenophobic corporate oligarchy wasn't going to work for me.

We *need* women in Combat roles...
 

On 2/16/13 1:59 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 17:15:38 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

Dubya was the worst president in modern United States history. No one
was worse.

This is one of those things that time will tell.

People have rehabilitated Truman.



Truman had many accomplishments of significance, most of them good. The
only "good" thing I can recall about Dubya is that he increased research
spending on HIV/AIDs. Nothing is going to wash away the fact that his
administration lied us into two wars, not even the GOP/neocon efforts to
rewrite the history on those times.

--
I'm a *Liberal* because I knew the militant christian fundamentalist
racist militaristic xenophobic corporate oligarchy wasn't going to work
for me.

We *need* women in Combat roles...
 

On 2/15/13 10:27 PM, Eisboch wrote:


Why can't she just admit that she doesn't agree with the policy? This is
an example of the dishonest flavor that some liberals exhibit. Al
Sharpton does it often in his snarky kind of way, but sometimes it's
humorous. During the last election, he constantly referred to Romney
as "Willard" .... a poorly disguised attempt to make fun of Romney's
given name, even though Romney has been called "Mitt" throughout his
entire public life. Sharpton got great glee and satisfaction calling
him "Willard" however. Strange, considering that Sharpton's given
name is "Alfred".




The Rev. Al called the Mittster "Willard" because it is a name many
think is "highfalutin," or at least that is the explanation I recall
hearing somewhere.

I prefer thinking the Rev. was a fan of that 1970's horror film,
Willard, in which the "hero," named Willard, is a socially maladjusted
rich kid living in a mansion and whose only real friends are rats. In
the end, the rats turn on Willard. My guess is the Mittster reminded the
Rev. of the guy in the movie. The Mittster sure reminded me of the movie
Willard. Romney is...creepy.



--
I'm a *Liberal* because I knew the militant christian fundamentalist
racist militaristic xenophobic corporate oligarchy wasn't going to work
for me.

We *need* women in Combat roles...
 

On 2/16/2013 7:38 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/16/13 6:30 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 2/16/2013 2:06 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 23:18:16 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

Because they're people. Matthews
and Shultz are probably the most "honest."

Huh?

Matthews just makes stuff up and he ignores anything that does not
support his rants,.

I watch his Sunday show and the weekend roll up of his weekly show.
There are always at least one or two boldfaced lies. He is Rush for
the lefties.


And "half of the millionaires are democrats".. LOL. Conservatives are
not hardly ever represented on MSNBC... Their idea of fair and balanced
is Louis Farrakahn, and Al Sharpton, Matthews and Maddow... and Matthews
is the conservative in the group... LOL!

The biggest reason folks "can't" watch Fox, is they can't stand the
right having a say in the matters....


Some months ago, a university released a research study that indicated
the more you watch Fox News, the dumber you get. Obviously, Snotty was
one of those interviewed for the study.

It is Fox that uses the tagline "fair and balanced," and it uses it the
same way and for the same reason the old Soviet Union "official"
newspaper was named "Pravda." Most of MSNBC's commentators are
progressives, liberals, whatever, and the "station" makes no effort to
conceal that fact with a "bull****" tagline of "fair and balanced." The
network does, however, have a legitimate conservative morning anchor on
for three hours who presents a rational conservative viewpoint. His name
is Joe Scarborough. S.E. Cupp is a conservative host on an afternoon
show. Plus the network sprinkles in plenty of paid and unpaid
conservative commentators during the day, though they are not the rabid,
bat**** crazy folks you find on Fox.

It's funny that Snotty brings up Louis Farrakhan (not Farrakahn).
Farrakhan has been in semi-retirement for close to a decade because of
health issues. He still pops up once in a while, but he's certainly no
regular on MSNBC or anywhere else.

I don't watch Fox because it presents stupid viewpoints in a stupid way.
It's programmed for nitwits like...Scotty.



A university study, presented by the, fake where it matters, Dr. Krause.

We *need* women in Combat roles...
 

On 2/16/2013 7:57 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/15/13 10:27 PM, Eisboch wrote:


Why can't she just admit that she doesn't agree with the policy? This is
an example of the dishonest flavor that some liberals exhibit. Al
Sharpton does it often in his snarky kind of way, but sometimes it's
humorous. During the last election, he constantly referred to Romney
as "Willard" .... a poorly disguised attempt to make fun of Romney's
given name, even though Romney has been called "Mitt" throughout his
entire public life. Sharpton got great glee and satisfaction calling
him "Willard" however. Strange, considering that Sharpton's given
name is "Alfred".




The Rev. Al called the Mittster "Willard" because it is a name many
think is "highfalutin," or at least that is the explanation I recall
hearing somewhere.

I prefer thinking the Rev. was a fan of that 1970's horror film,
Willard, in which the "hero," named Willard, is a socially maladjusted
rich kid living in a mansion and whose only real friends are rats. In
the end, the rats turn on Willard. My guess is the Mittster reminded the
Rev. of the guy in the movie. The Mittster sure reminded me of the movie
Willard. Romney is...creepy.




You are an odd little man, Krausie.

We *need* women in Combat roles...
 

In article ,
says...

On 2/15/2013 2:04 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 08:19:53 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

I can understand why we originally went into Afghanistan. But I
don't understand why we are still there, other than political deals.

Bush originally went to Afghanistan with a small tactical force, just
looking tor Bin Laden. He got in so much trouble from the left because
they missed him (supposedly because the mission was too small) that we
came in force.
In the end we got Bin Laden with a small tactical force. Everything
else we did in Afghanistan was counter productive.

You can say all you want about the Iraqi "mistake" but we did end up
with a quasi democratic government that is not threatening Israel (the
real goal).
Compared with what happened in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Iraq was a
raging success. Thousands of American lives lost and we are worse off
there now than we were in 2001 or even 2009


Their selfish needs outweigh the facts.. Bush may have been a much
better president, but harry didn't get an IPhone from him, sooooo...

You stupid little fool!! Once again you go posting bull**** with no
facts. In reality, here ARE some facts, but then again, you'll ignore
them because you are insanely narrow minded to the right.

"Bush politicized parts of the government that should be nonpartisan.
From NASA to the Justice Department, professionals were forced out or
silenced if they departed from the true Republican way. What was good
for the Republican Party trumped what was good policy for the nation.
Every administration is political to some extent, but the Bush
administration took it too far. When Paul O'Neill was forced out at
Treasury, it was clear that every major decision would be determined by
Karl Rove's calculus"

"Bush squandered the budget surplus. Despite overwhelming evidence to
the contrary, Bush had a near-religious faith in the ability of tax cuts
to deliver prosperity. Tax cuts were the panacea that would cure all
ills. Economy too strong? Cut taxes. Economy too weak? Cut taxes. Stock
market falling? Cut dividend taxes. Investment weak? Cut capital gains
taxes. But tax cuts didn't make the economy stronger; they merely blew a
big hole in the budget. Now, when we could really use that surplus to
pay for the bailouts and the stimulus, it's gone"

"Bush comforted the comfortable and afflicted the afflicted. The Bush
years were the ultimate test of trickle-down economics, the theory that
says the government should favor the rich because the benefits will flow
down to the rest of us. The results of that experiment are clear: We've
had the weakest job growth since the 1930s. We've had the biggest
increase in debt ever. We've had the highest share of national income
going to profits since the 1920s. Income inequality has soared while our
public and private investment has slowed to a trickle. Instead of
building a fundamentally sound economy, Bush nurtured a Ponzi economy
based on get-rich-quick schemes"

"Bush rewarded incompetence. Because politics and personal loyalty were
all that counted, Bush appointed incompetent people to vital jobs. He
hired interns to run Iraq. He hired a horse expert to run the Federal
Emergency Management Agency. He wanted to hire Harriett Miers to be a
Supreme Court justice. Top jobs were reserved for sycophants, toadies
and failures."

"Bush lied us into war. Every argument for war against Iraq was a
delusion, and hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost as a
result.Saddam Hussein was not responsible for 9/11 in any way. He was
not a danger to the United States. The Bush administration ignored or
dismissed mountains of evidence that showed that Saddam was not building
an arsenal of chemical or nuclear weapons. Bush rushed to war without
giving diplomacy or weapons inspectors a chance. Later, administration
officials blew the cover of a CIA employee whose husband told the truth,
and then lied about their involvement"

Bush had the opportunity to be a great president. After 9/11, the nation
was as united as it had been since Pearl Harbor, and Bush rode a wave of
popularity that he could have used to turn around the nation's politics,
security and economy.

Instead of uniting us as he promised, he divided us instead

We *need* women in Combat roles...
 

On 2/15/2013 10:37 PM, BAR wrote:
In article om,
says...

On 2/15/2013 8:39 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/15/13 8:35 AM, Tim wrote:
On Feb 15, 5:39 am, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 2/15/13 6:24 AM, Tim wrote:









On Feb 14, 12:44 pm, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 2/14/13 1:38 PM, Urin Asshole wrote: On Thu, 14 Feb 2013
12:46:15 -0500, Salmonbait
wrote:

...and here's a good example of why!

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=722_1360164856

When are you going to sign up?

Johnny Boy Herring claims he served as a combat engineer during our
war
against Vietnam. I've asked him several times how many Vietnamese
people
he killed with explosives or even his rifle, but as far as I
recall, he
has never responded with the facts.

Harry, Engineers arn't combat troops, They build stuff like roads,
bridges, etc. not that doesn't mean they're not also trained in
fighting. Don't personally know, but with a bit of speculation, I'd
say John 'probably' didn't kill anybody.

I understand that, and I also understand they usually aren't
"engineers," as we think of that term in the construction industry.
Combat engineers also blow things up.

I had two great-uncles who were engineers. They both drove steam
locomotives at5 the turn of the last century



I have a relative who drove diesel locomotives, but he wasn't an engineer.

You also have a relative who is a social worker but not a real Doctor.

You claim to be a writer, but seriously, that title doesn't fit you
well, does it?

Did Harry's relative pay his taxes?


Harry should answer that.

We *need* women in Combat roles...
 

On 2/16/2013 1:59 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 17:15:38 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

Dubya was the worst president in modern United States history. No one
was worse.

This is one of those things that time will tell.

People have rehabilitated Truman.


Carter still holds the title, but Clinton and O'Bama are close runner
ups. Mebbe O'Bama will get the prize when he's finished his "work". He
could put it on his mantle along side his peace prize.

We *need* women in Combat roles...
 

In article ,
says...

On 2/16/2013 2:06 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 23:18:16 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

Because they're people. Matthews
and Shultz are probably the most "honest."

Huh?

Matthews just makes stuff up and he ignores anything that does not
support his rants,.

I watch his Sunday show and the weekend roll up of his weekly show.
There are always at least one or two boldfaced lies. He is Rush for
the lefties.


And "half of the millionaires are democrats".. LOL. Conservatives are
not hardly ever represented on MSNBC... Their idea of fair and balanced
is Louis Farrakahn, and Al Sharpton, Matthews and Maddow... and Matthews
is the conservative in the group... LOL!

The biggest reason folks "can't" watch Fox, is they can't stand the
right having a say in the matters....

I can't speak for others, but of course you think you can speak for all,
BUT my problem with FOX is the lies and deceipt that you narrow minded
faction of the right wing eats up with a spoon as truth. ****, you call
the lies and pablum that people like O'Reilly, Hannity, Rush, etc as
"news" and believe their lies because it fits your narrow minded agenda.

We *need* women in Combat roles...
 

In article ,
says...

On 2/15/2013 10:37 PM, BAR wrote:
In article om,
says...

On 2/15/2013 8:39 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/15/13 8:35 AM, Tim wrote:
On Feb 15, 5:39 am, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 2/15/13 6:24 AM, Tim wrote:









On Feb 14, 12:44 pm, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 2/14/13 1:38 PM, Urin Asshole wrote: On Thu, 14 Feb 2013
12:46:15 -0500, Salmonbait
wrote:

...and here's a good example of why!

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=722_1360164856

When are you going to sign up?

Johnny Boy Herring claims he served as a combat engineer during our
war
against Vietnam. I've asked him several times how many Vietnamese
people
he killed with explosives or even his rifle, but as far as I
recall, he
has never responded with the facts.

Harry, Engineers arn't combat troops, They build stuff like roads,
bridges, etc. not that doesn't mean they're not also trained in
fighting. Don't personally know, but with a bit of speculation, I'd
say John 'probably' didn't kill anybody.

I understand that, and I also understand they usually aren't
"engineers," as we think of that term in the construction industry.
Combat engineers also blow things up.

I had two great-uncles who were engineers. They both drove steam
locomotives at5 the turn of the last century



I have a relative who drove diesel locomotives, but he wasn't an engineer.

You also have a relative who is a social worker but not a real Doctor.

You claim to be a writer, but seriously, that title doesn't fit you
well, does it?

Did Harry's relative pay his taxes?


**** the taxes... I would be more concerened with the people and small
businesses he ****ed when he went bankrupt twice... Now he hides assets
while those folks pay his bills...

Of course, "**** the taxes" lowlife, you don't pay yours either. Now,
can you actually post a reply about anything without trying to prove to
the rest what a low life scum you are?

We *need* women in Combat roles...
 

On 2/16/13 8:51 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

Sharpton is a piece of ****...

Yeah, that dirty ******* and his wanting equal rights! Damn it, that's
against everything the Christian conservatives want. It isn't however,
against what REAL Christians want. He's fought for the "voiceless" part
of society, and of course, the right doesn't want that, they fight for
the large corporations!



Sharpton has mellowed out in the last few years. I watch his show every
so often, especially when he has interesting guests you don't see much
on many other shows.

The reality is that here on rec.boats, you have a handful of really
hate-filled right-wingers, such as Scotty, Herring, Bertie Robbins,
Meyer, Pontoons, et cetera, whose minds slammed shut years ago and who
sound as if they are fed every day from the cutting room floors of Fox
News and Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Hell, Herring use to promote
clips from Beck here.

I can't wait for these righties to start posting whatever crazy garbage
the new Fox commentators ejaculate on that cable channel.

"If you are mentally unable, you'll love Herman Cain."



--
I'm a *Liberal* because I knew the militant christian fundamentalist
racist militaristic xenophobic corporate oligarchy wasn't going to work
for me.

We *need* women in Combat roles...
 

On 2/16/2013 8:43 AM, Meyer wrote:
On 2/16/2013 7:38 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/16/13 6:30 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 2/16/2013 2:06 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 23:18:16 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

Because they're people. Matthews
and Shultz are probably the most "honest."

Huh?

Matthews just makes stuff up and he ignores anything that does not
support his rants,.

I watch his Sunday show and the weekend roll up of his weekly show.
There are always at least one or two boldfaced lies. He is Rush for
the lefties.


And "half of the millionaires are democrats".. LOL. Conservatives are
not hardly ever represented on MSNBC... Their idea of fair and balanced
is Louis Farrakahn, and Al Sharpton, Matthews and Maddow... and Matthews
is the conservative in the group... LOL!

The biggest reason folks "can't" watch Fox, is they can't stand the
right having a say in the matters....


Some months ago, a university released a research study that indicated
the more you watch Fox News, the dumber you get. Obviously, Snotty was
one of those interviewed for the study.

It is Fox that uses the tagline "fair and balanced," and it uses it the
same way and for the same reason the old Soviet Union "official"
newspaper was named "Pravda." Most of MSNBC's commentators are
progressives, liberals, whatever, and the "station" makes no effort to
conceal that fact with a "bull****" tagline of "fair and balanced." The
network does, however, have a legitimate conservative morning anchor on
for three hours who presents a rational conservative viewpoint. His name
is Joe Scarborough. S.E. Cupp is a conservative host on an afternoon
show. Plus the network sprinkles in plenty of paid and unpaid
conservative commentators during the day, though they are not the rabid,
bat**** crazy folks you find on Fox.

It's funny that Snotty brings up Louis Farrakhan (not Farrakahn).
Farrakhan has been in semi-retirement for close to a decade because of
health issues. He still pops up once in a while, but he's certainly no
regular on MSNBC or anywhere else.

I don't watch Fox because it presents stupid viewpoints in a stupid way.
It's programmed for nitwits like...Scotty.



A university study, presented by the, fake where it matters, Dr. Krause.

Do you still really read the rantings of the slut doctor?? LOL!

We *need* women in Combat roles...
 

On 2/16/2013 9:44 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 2/16/2013 8:43 AM, Meyer wrote:
On 2/16/2013 7:38 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/16/13 6:30 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 2/16/2013 2:06 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 23:18:16 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

Because they're people. Matthews
and Shultz are probably the most "honest."

Huh?

Matthews just makes stuff up and he ignores anything that does not
support his rants,.

I watch his Sunday show and the weekend roll up of his weekly show.
There are always at least one or two boldfaced lies. He is Rush for
the lefties.


And "half of the millionaires are democrats".. LOL. Conservatives are
not hardly ever represented on MSNBC... Their idea of fair and balanced
is Louis Farrakahn, and Al Sharpton, Matthews and Maddow... and
Matthews
is the conservative in the group... LOL!

The biggest reason folks "can't" watch Fox, is they can't stand the
right having a say in the matters....


Some months ago, a university released a research study that indicated
the more you watch Fox News, the dumber you get. Obviously, Snotty was
one of those interviewed for the study.

It is Fox that uses the tagline "fair and balanced," and it uses it the
same way and for the same reason the old Soviet Union "official"
newspaper was named "Pravda." Most of MSNBC's commentators are
progressives, liberals, whatever, and the "station" makes no effort to
conceal that fact with a "bull****" tagline of "fair and balanced." The
network does, however, have a legitimate conservative morning anchor on
for three hours who presents a rational conservative viewpoint. His name
is Joe Scarborough. S.E. Cupp is a conservative host on an afternoon
show. Plus the network sprinkles in plenty of paid and unpaid
conservative commentators during the day, though they are not the rabid,
bat**** crazy folks you find on Fox.

It's funny that Snotty brings up Louis Farrakhan (not Farrakahn).
Farrakhan has been in semi-retirement for close to a decade because of
health issues. He still pops up once in a while, but he's certainly no
regular on MSNBC or anywhere else.

I don't watch Fox because it presents stupid viewpoints in a stupid way.
It's programmed for nitwits like...Scotty.



A university study, presented by the, fake where it matters, Dr. Krause.

Do you still really read the rantings of the slut doctor?? LOL!

I think kevin and harry wrote to me at least 30 times this morning
already.. I skipped each and every word.. LOL!

We *need* women in Combat roles...
 

On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 09:44:13 -0500, JustWaitAFrekinMinute
wrote
On 2/16/2013 8:43 AM, Meyer wrote:
On 2/16/2013 7:38 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/16/13 6:30 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 2/16/2013 2:06 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 23:18:16 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

Because they're people. Matthews
and Shultz are probably the most "honest."

Huh?

Matthews just makes stuff up and he ignores anything that does
not
support his rants,.

I watch his Sunday show and the weekend roll up of his weekly
show.
There are always at least one or two boldfaced lies. He is
Rush for
the lefties.


And "half of the millionaires are democrats".. LOL.
Conservatives are
not hardly ever represented on MSNBC... Their idea of fair and
balanced
is Louis Farrakahn, and Al Sharpton, Matthews and Maddow... and
Matthews
is the conservative in the group... LOL!

The biggest reason folks "can't" watch Fox, is they can't stand
the
right having a say in the matters....


Some months ago, a university released a research study that
indicated
the more you watch Fox News, the dumber you get. Obviously,
Snotty was
one of those interviewed for the study.

It is Fox that uses the tagline "fair and balanced," and it uses
it the
same way and for the same reason the old Soviet Union "official"
newspaper was named "Pravda." Most of MSNBC's commentators are
progressives, liberals, whatever, and the "station" makes no
effort to
conceal that fact with a "bull****" tagline of "fair and
balanced." The
network does, however, have a legitimate conservative morning
anchor on
for three hours who presents a rational conservative viewpoint.
His name
is Joe Scarborough. S.E. Cupp is a conservative host on an
afternoon
show. Plus the network sprinkles in plenty of paid and unpaid
conservative commentators during the day, though they are not
the rabid,
bat**** crazy folks you find on Fox.

It's funny that Snotty brings up Louis Farrakhan (not Farrakahn).
Farrakhan has been in semi-retirement for close to a decade
because of
health issues. He still pops up once in a while, but he's
certainly no
regular on MSNBC or anywhere else.

I don't watch Fox because it presents stupid viewpoints in a
stupid way.
It's programmed for nitwits like...Scotty.



A university study, presented by the, fake where it matters, Dr.
Krause.


Do you still really read the rantings of the slut doctor?? LOL!

I do not.

We *need* women in Combat roles...
 

In article om,
says...

On 2/16/2013 1:59 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 17:15:38 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

Dubya was the worst president in modern United States history. No one
was worse.

This is one of those things that time will tell.

People have rehabilitated Truman.


Carter still holds the title, but Clinton and O'Bama are close runner
ups. Mebbe O'Bama will get the prize when he's finished his "work". He
could put it on his mantle along side his peace prize.

Amazing!!! You narrow minded hard core righties NEVER say anything
negative about anyone on the right.

We *need* women in Combat roles...
 

In article ,
says...

On 2/16/2013 8:43 AM, Meyer wrote:
On 2/16/2013 7:38 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/16/13 6:30 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 2/16/2013 2:06 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 23:18:16 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

Because they're people. Matthews
and Shultz are probably the most "honest."

Huh?

Matthews just makes stuff up and he ignores anything that does not
support his rants,.

I watch his Sunday show and the weekend roll up of his weekly show.
There are always at least one or two boldfaced lies. He is Rush for
the lefties.


And "half of the millionaires are democrats".. LOL. Conservatives are
not hardly ever represented on MSNBC... Their idea of fair and balanced
is Louis Farrakahn, and Al Sharpton, Matthews and Maddow... and Matthews
is the conservative in the group... LOL!

The biggest reason folks "can't" watch Fox, is they can't stand the
right having a say in the matters....


Some months ago, a university released a research study that indicated
the more you watch Fox News, the dumber you get. Obviously, Snotty was
one of those interviewed for the study.

It is Fox that uses the tagline "fair and balanced," and it uses it the
same way and for the same reason the old Soviet Union "official"
newspaper was named "Pravda." Most of MSNBC's commentators are
progressives, liberals, whatever, and the "station" makes no effort to
conceal that fact with a "bull****" tagline of "fair and balanced." The
network does, however, have a legitimate conservative morning anchor on
for three hours who presents a rational conservative viewpoint. His name
is Joe Scarborough. S.E. Cupp is a conservative host on an afternoon
show. Plus the network sprinkles in plenty of paid and unpaid
conservative commentators during the day, though they are not the rabid,
bat**** crazy folks you find on Fox.

It's funny that Snotty brings up Louis Farrakhan (not Farrakahn).
Farrakhan has been in semi-retirement for close to a decade because of
health issues. He still pops up once in a while, but he's certainly no
regular on MSNBC or anywhere else.

I don't watch Fox because it presents stupid viewpoints in a stupid way.
It's programmed for nitwits like...Scotty.



A university study, presented by the, fake where it matters, Dr. Krause.

Do you still really read the rantings of the slut doctor?? LOL!

How low can you go, scum?

We *need* women in Combat roles...
 

In article ,
says...

On 2/16/2013 9:44 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 2/16/2013 8:43 AM, Meyer wrote:
On 2/16/2013 7:38 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/16/13 6:30 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 2/16/2013 2:06 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 23:18:16 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

Because they're people. Matthews
and Shultz are probably the most "honest."

Huh?

Matthews just makes stuff up and he ignores anything that does not
support his rants,.

I watch his Sunday show and the weekend roll up of his weekly show.
There are always at least one or two boldfaced lies. He is Rush for
the lefties.


And "half of the millionaires are democrats".. LOL. Conservatives are
not hardly ever represented on MSNBC... Their idea of fair and balanced
is Louis Farrakahn, and Al Sharpton, Matthews and Maddow... and
Matthews
is the conservative in the group... LOL!

The biggest reason folks "can't" watch Fox, is they can't stand the
right having a say in the matters....


Some months ago, a university released a research study that indicated
the more you watch Fox News, the dumber you get. Obviously, Snotty was
one of those interviewed for the study.

It is Fox that uses the tagline "fair and balanced," and it uses it the
same way and for the same reason the old Soviet Union "official"
newspaper was named "Pravda." Most of MSNBC's commentators are
progressives, liberals, whatever, and the "station" makes no effort to
conceal that fact with a "bull****" tagline of "fair and balanced." The
network does, however, have a legitimate conservative morning anchor on
for three hours who presents a rational conservative viewpoint. His name
is Joe Scarborough. S.E. Cupp is a conservative host on an afternoon
show. Plus the network sprinkles in plenty of paid and unpaid
conservative commentators during the day, though they are not the rabid,
bat**** crazy folks you find on Fox.

It's funny that Snotty brings up Louis Farrakhan (not Farrakahn).
Farrakhan has been in semi-retirement for close to a decade because of
health issues. He still pops up once in a while, but he's certainly no
regular on MSNBC or anywhere else.

I don't watch Fox because it presents stupid viewpoints in a stupid way.
It's programmed for nitwits like...Scotty.



A university study, presented by the, fake where it matters, Dr. Krause.

Do you still really read the rantings of the slut doctor?? LOL!

I think kevin and harry wrote to me at least 30 times this morning
already.. I skipped each and every word.. LOL!

Yet ANOTHER example of you being ignorant and proud of it! Oh, and I
knew you'd start ignorantly ignoring because you now realize how
childish and stupid it was to post about someone "blackmailing" you and
how you were going to deal with it... Oh, and the stupid claim about
tear gas canisters "shooting fire".

We *need* women in Combat roles...
 

On 2/16/13 9:48 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:


I think kevin and harry wrote to me at least 30 times this morning
already.. I skipped each and every word.. LOL!


Is that another of your "blackmail" fantasies, little turd? No one
"wrote to you" this morning.

--
I'm a *Liberal* because I knew the militant christian fundamentalist
racist militaristic xenophobic corporate oligarchy wasn't going to work
for me.

We *need* women in Combat roles...
 

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 09:09:10 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,

What to ****?? You're claiming that Iraq and dead Americans are a good
thing? Oh well, WW2 killed a lot more, so I guess Bush is the best
president ever. He didn't cut and run like Reagan in Beruit either.

We won in WWII.

I guess if losing 400,000 troops is a "win"....

We are not speaking German or Japanese.
it was a win.

We're not speaking Vietnamese, so was that a win?

We *need* women in Combat roles...
 

On 2/17/13 5:30 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 14:09:10 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

I guess if losing 400,000 troops is a "win"....

We are not speaking German or Japanese.
it was a win.


The Vietnamese never threatened the US but if the spread of economic
freedom was our goal, we won. Have you turned a piece of wood
furniture over lately? It usually says made in Vietnam. They are even
cutting into the Chinese manufacturing base.
We certainly made IndoChina safe for the sale of Marlboro and
Budweiser


There's not much "economic freedom" in either Vietnam or China. What has
happened is that one form of economic exploitation of workers has been
exchanged for another. A relatively few people in both countries are
doing well, and the rest are working for near slavery wages. They got to
where this country is headed before we did, that's all.

--
I'm a *Liberal* because I knew the militant christian fundamentalist
racist militaristic xenophobic corporate oligarchy wasn't going to work
for me.

We *need* women in Combat roles...
 

On 2/17/13 9:34 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 19:18:39 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

There's not much "economic freedom" in either Vietnam or China. What has
happened is that one form of economic exploitation of workers has been
exchanged for another. A relatively few people in both countries are
doing well, and the rest are working for near slavery wages. They got to
where this country is headed before we did, that's all.

Vietnam is probably about where China was 10 years ago. Right now
China has more middle class people than the US. They are starting to
reach up and demand more things. GM going to sell more cars in China
than they do in the US this year



China has nearly five times the population of the United States. Middle
income in China is defined at about $20,000. China has a lot of
millionaires on a numerical basis, but most Chinese are still living in
abject poverty. The wealthy are raiding that country just as they have
here.

We *need* women in Combat roles...
 

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 01:46:39 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 21:45:33 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/17/13 9:34 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 19:18:39 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

There's not much "economic freedom" in either Vietnam or China. What has
happened is that one form of economic exploitation of workers has been
exchanged for another. A relatively few people in both countries are
doing well, and the rest are working for near slavery wages. They got to
where this country is headed before we did, that's all.

Vietnam is probably about where China was 10 years ago. Right now
China has more middle class people than the US. They are starting to
reach up and demand more things. GM going to sell more cars in China
than they do in the US this year



China has nearly five times the population of the United States. Middle
income in China is defined at about $20,000. China has a lot of
millionaires on a numerical basis, but most Chinese are still living in
abject poverty. The wealthy are raiding that country just as they have
here.

It is all relative, If you use the US standard of living, most of the
world is living in abject poverty.
I agree the people out in the country in China are not seeing much
from the industrial revolution there but the same was true here 100
years ago.

The open question is what happens when China's economy slows down ...
but that is a global problem.

You mean you don't believe in a market driven economy? Good grief.

We *need* women in Combat roles...
 

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 19:18:39 -0500, "F.O.A.D."
wrote:

There's not much "economic freedom" in either Vietnam or China.
What has
happened is that one form of economic exploitation of workers has
been
exchanged for another. A relatively few people in both countries
are
doing well, and the rest are working for near slavery wages. They
got to
where this country is headed before we did, that's all.


==============================

More like the USA is heading toward where China *was* before the
1980's.

Prior to China's great experiment in capitalism, the government
provided all necessary commodities, including food and clothing to the
general population on a ration basis. Everyone lived, ate and dressed
alike. It was an existence, although a meager one. Then, in the
1980's, certain provinces in China were opened to industrial
modernization as an experiment in controlled capitalism. Foreign
countries (including the USA and Canada) were invited to establish
manufacturing and to enter into "joint ventures" within these regions.
I participated in one of them in 1986 in a remote area of China
called Wuxi .... about a three hour drive on mostly dirt roads (back
then) northeast of Shanghai. I saw very few cars but thousands of
Chinese pedaling bicycles, both in the rural areas outside of Wuxi and
within the city itself. Very few of the industrial plants that we
visited (and their associated restaurants) had any form of modern
toilets. I remember the "facilities" consisted of an inclined trough
along a wall that exited through a hole in the wall and simply drained
outside.

Fast forward to today and Wuxi is a modern, active city with
automobiles everywhere, replacing the bicycles. The standard of
living for the average Chinese worker has risen dramatically. People
live in clean, modern apartments with wide screen TV's (unheard of in
the 1980's) and shops selling consumer goods have sprung up
everywhere, replacing the government rationing. Wages may not
compare to the "middle class" of the USA, but that's a relative thing.
Most important is that the experiment in capitalism has been a
resounding success and the quality and standard of living for more and
more Chinese people has grown by leaps and bounds. It's not a
"relatively few people" that are doing better. A growing number in
the millions are doing better. Sure, some remote areas have not yet
benefited, but the trend has been established.

Here, we seem to be moving in the other direction with the government
being expected to provide more and more for the population's needs.

We *need* women in Combat roles...
 

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 21:34:59 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 19:18:39 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

There's not much "economic freedom" in either Vietnam or China. What has
happened is that one form of economic exploitation of workers has been
exchanged for another. A relatively few people in both countries are
doing well, and the rest are working for near slavery wages. They got to
where this country is headed before we did, that's all.

Vietnam is probably about where China was 10 years ago. Right now
China has more middle class people than the US. They are starting to
reach up and demand more things. GM going to sell more cars in China
than they do in the US this year

Can't imagine ESAD bitching about the exploitive effects of socialism.


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' answer to a lost argument!

You know you live in a Country run by idiots if...
....the death penalty is a 'no-no', but death by Hellfire
*without* a trial is AOK!

We *need* women in Combat roles...
 

On 2/18/2013 4:38 AM, Eisboch wrote:





On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 19:18:39 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

There's not much "economic freedom" in either Vietnam or China. What has
happened is that one form of economic exploitation of workers has been
exchanged for another. A relatively few people in both countries are
doing well, and the rest are working for near slavery wages. They got to
where this country is headed before we did, that's all.


==============================

More like the USA is heading toward where China *was* before the 1980's.

Prior to China's great experiment in capitalism, the government provided
all necessary commodities, including food and clothing to the general
population on a ration basis. Everyone lived, ate and dressed alike.
It was an existence, although a meager one. Then, in the 1980's,
certain provinces in China were opened to industrial modernization as an
experiment in controlled capitalism. Foreign countries (including the
USA and Canada) were invited to establish manufacturing and to enter
into "joint ventures" within these regions. I participated in one of
them in 1986 in a remote area of China called Wuxi .... about a three
hour drive on mostly dirt roads (back then) northeast of Shanghai. I
saw very few cars but thousands of Chinese pedaling bicycles, both in
the rural areas outside of Wuxi and within the city itself. Very few of
the industrial plants that we visited (and their associated
restaurants) had any form of modern toilets. I remember the
"facilities" consisted of an inclined trough along a wall that exited
through a hole in the wall and simply drained outside.

Fast forward to today and Wuxi is a modern, active city with automobiles
everywhere, replacing the bicycles. The standard of living for the
average Chinese worker has risen dramatically. People live in clean,
modern apartments with wide screen TV's (unheard of in the 1980's) and
shops selling consumer goods have sprung up everywhere, replacing the
government rationing. Wages may not compare to the "middle class" of
the USA, but that's a relative thing. Most important is that the
experiment in capitalism has been a resounding success and the quality
and standard of living for more and more Chinese people has grown by
leaps and bounds. It's not a "relatively few people" that are doing
better. A growing number in the millions are doing better. Sure,
some remote areas have not yet benefited, but the trend has been
established.

Here, we seem to be moving in the other direction with the government
being expected to provide more and more for the population's needs.




You don't have to sell Harry on the idea. He once claimed he was
himself, a capitalist.;-)

We *need* women in Combat roles...
 

In article om,
says...

On 2/18/2013 4:38 AM, Eisboch wrote:





On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 19:18:39 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

There's not much "economic freedom" in either Vietnam or China. What has
happened is that one form of economic exploitation of workers has been
exchanged for another. A relatively few people in both countries are
doing well, and the rest are working for near slavery wages. They got to
where this country is headed before we did, that's all.


==============================

More like the USA is heading toward where China *was* before the 1980's.

Prior to China's great experiment in capitalism, the government provided
all necessary commodities, including food and clothing to the general
population on a ration basis. Everyone lived, ate and dressed alike.
It was an existence, although a meager one. Then, in the 1980's,
certain provinces in China were opened to industrial modernization as an
experiment in controlled capitalism. Foreign countries (including the
USA and Canada) were invited to establish manufacturing and to enter
into "joint ventures" within these regions. I participated in one of
them in 1986 in a remote area of China called Wuxi .... about a three
hour drive on mostly dirt roads (back then) northeast of Shanghai. I
saw very few cars but thousands of Chinese pedaling bicycles, both in
the rural areas outside of Wuxi and within the city itself. Very few of
the industrial plants that we visited (and their associated
restaurants) had any form of modern toilets. I remember the
"facilities" consisted of an inclined trough along a wall that exited
through a hole in the wall and simply drained outside.

Fast forward to today and Wuxi is a modern, active city with automobiles
everywhere, replacing the bicycles. The standard of living for the
average Chinese worker has risen dramatically. People live in clean,
modern apartments with wide screen TV's (unheard of in the 1980's) and
shops selling consumer goods have sprung up everywhere, replacing the
government rationing. Wages may not compare to the "middle class" of
the USA, but that's a relative thing. Most important is that the
experiment in capitalism has been a resounding success and the quality
and standard of living for more and more Chinese people has grown by
leaps and bounds. It's not a "relatively few people" that are doing
better. A growing number in the millions are doing better. Sure,
some remote areas have not yet benefited, but the trend has been
established.

Here, we seem to be moving in the other direction with the government
being expected to provide more and more for the population's needs.




You don't have to sell Harry on the idea. He once claimed he was
himself, a capitalist.;-)

The title "thief" may be more appropriate due to the fact that he steals
from people because he doesn't pay his taxes.

We *need* women in Combat roles...
 

On 2/18/2013 9:31 AM, BAR wrote:
In article om,
says...

On 2/18/2013 4:38 AM, Eisboch wrote:





On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 19:18:39 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

There's not much "economic freedom" in either Vietnam or China. What has
happened is that one form of economic exploitation of workers has been
exchanged for another. A relatively few people in both countries are
doing well, and the rest are working for near slavery wages. They got to
where this country is headed before we did, that's all.


==============================

More like the USA is heading toward where China *was* before the 1980's.

Prior to China's great experiment in capitalism, the government provided
all necessary commodities, including food and clothing to the general
population on a ration basis. Everyone lived, ate and dressed alike.
It was an existence, although a meager one. Then, in the 1980's,
certain provinces in China were opened to industrial modernization as an
experiment in controlled capitalism. Foreign countries (including the
USA and Canada) were invited to establish manufacturing and to enter
into "joint ventures" within these regions. I participated in one of
them in 1986 in a remote area of China called Wuxi .... about a three
hour drive on mostly dirt roads (back then) northeast of Shanghai. I
saw very few cars but thousands of Chinese pedaling bicycles, both in
the rural areas outside of Wuxi and within the city itself. Very few of
the industrial plants that we visited (and their associated
restaurants) had any form of modern toilets. I remember the
"facilities" consisted of an inclined trough along a wall that exited
through a hole in the wall and simply drained outside.

Fast forward to today and Wuxi is a modern, active city with automobiles
everywhere, replacing the bicycles. The standard of living for the
average Chinese worker has risen dramatically. People live in clean,
modern apartments with wide screen TV's (unheard of in the 1980's) and
shops selling consumer goods have sprung up everywhere, replacing the
government rationing. Wages may not compare to the "middle class" of
the USA, but that's a relative thing. Most important is that the
experiment in capitalism has been a resounding success and the quality
and standard of living for more and more Chinese people has grown by
leaps and bounds. It's not a "relatively few people" that are doing
better. A growing number in the millions are doing better. Sure,
some remote areas have not yet benefited, but the trend has been
established.

Here, we seem to be moving in the other direction with the government
being expected to provide more and more for the population's needs.




You don't have to sell Harry on the idea. He once claimed he was
himself, a capitalist.;-)

The title "thief" may be more appropriate due to the fact that he steals
from people because he doesn't pay his taxes.


Harry fails to see what others see in him.

We *need* women in Combat roles...
 

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 16:42:35 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 23:22:45 -0800, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 01:46:39 -0500, wrote:



It is all relative, If you use the US standard of living, most of the
world is living in abject poverty.
I agree the people out in the country in China are not seeing much
from the industrial revolution there but the same was true here 100
years ago.

The open question is what happens when China's economy slows down ...
but that is a global problem.

You mean you don't believe in a market driven economy? Good grief.

Do you just type your snarky remarks without reading the note you are
replying to? What did I say about the free market?

It's hard to tell, since your comments blow. I mean blow with the
wind.