Did you hear about the knife/gun fight?
 

F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/30/14 10:21 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 20:38:39 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 9/29/2014 7:09 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/29/14 4:56 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/29/2014 4:06 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/29/14 2:14 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 13:12:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:


I think you and many other liberals have a hair trigger when it
comes to
accusing people of being a racist. Then again, it serves the
liberal
purpose.

Do you know any liberal racists?


Sharpton leaps to mind.


You're way behind the times. Al has mellowed out over the years, has
admitted to his close-mindedness, and certainly far less of a racist
than, say, John Herring.


That's the giggle of the day.

The few times a month I see Al's show, I don't see him making racist
remarks, which is more than can be said for Herring, your arrested
development buddy FlaJim, PsychoSnotty, and a few other right-wing
posters here.




If someone here is a Republican or conservative you are *looking* for
anything that could remotely be tagged as being a racist statement.
Like so many other "progressive liberals" flapping their jaws close to
an election, it's what you do.


That was pretty well said.



How's your brother doing?

Your diversion is lame. Did it work with the IRS?

Did you hear about the knife/gun fight?
 

On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 20:35:54 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 9/29/14 8:25 PM, amdx wrote:

Let's start with, I don't want all corporation to go offshore.
And, yes if they could cut 15% off their cost of doing business,
prices would generally drift down.

FOAD (Harry Krause) said:

I think those cuts in cost would simply slip over to the profit column,
and prices would remain the same.

===

That demonstrates a simplistic and inaccurate view of how the business
world really works, about what I'd expect from a naive college
freshman raised in an utra liberal family.

In actuality corporations and small business have the option to use
retained earnings (cash flow) in a number of ways depending on their
competitive environment and overall goals. In a tight labor market
businesses will try harder to recruit and retain the talent they need.
Offering better benefits and better overall compensation is one of the
ways they compete for workers. Corporate tradition and
stockholder/board of director goals also play into that equation. In
your particular example, the resulting short term increase in cash
flow would accrue equally to all businesses and some (many) would
choose lower prices to increase market share. Everyone else would be
forced to follow suit or accept a smaller market share.

Unfortunately for workers, today's labor market is not particularly
tight except for certain skills, and the global economic business
market is more competitive than it has ever been. No one can turn
back the clock just because they don't like how things have turned
out. Unskilled labor will never again see the compensation levels
that they came to take for granted in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s. Those
days are over, time to accept it and move on. Everyone who has skills
which have become oboslete will need to reinvent themselves or be left
behind. That's the way it has always been.

Did you hear about the knife/gun fight?
 

On 10/1/14 9:06 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 20:35:54 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 9/29/14 8:25 PM, amdx wrote:

Let's start with, I don't want all corporation to go offshore.
And, yes if they could cut 15% off their cost of doing business,
prices would generally drift down.

FOAD (Harry Krause) said:

I think those cuts in cost would simply slip over to the profit column,
and prices would remain the same.

===

That demonstrates a simplistic and inaccurate view of how the business
world really works, about what I'd expect from a naive college
freshman raised in an utra liberal family.

In actuality corporations and small business have the option to use
retained earnings (cash flow) in a number of ways depending on their
competitive environment and overall goals. In a tight labor market
businesses will try harder to recruit and retain the talent they need.
Offering better benefits and better overall compensation is one of the
ways they compete for workers. Corporate tradition and
stockholder/board of director goals also play into that equation. In
your particular example, the resulting short term increase in cash
flow would accrue equally to all businesses and some (many) would
choose lower prices to increase market share. Everyone else would be
forced to follow suit or accept a smaller market share.

Unfortunately for workers, today's labor market is not particularly
tight except for certain skills, and the global economic business
market is more competitive than it has ever been. No one can turn
back the clock just because they don't like how things have turned
out. Unskilled labor will never again see the compensation levels
that they came to take for granted in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s. Those
days are over, time to accept it and move on. Everyone who has skills
which have become oboslete will need to reinvent themselves or be left
behind. That's the way it has always been.



His pontificateness speaketh... yawn.

Thanks for the high school "theory of how business works" lecture,
W'hine. That, couple with your compassion for displaced workers, is a
wonderful capper for the fairly interesting day I've had today over in
Virginia.

Did you hear about the knife/gun fight?
 

On 9/29/2014 3:46 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:

Hey, I have a great example, I had competition under cutting my
prices by 30%, what I sold for $7.50 they sold for $5.00. Why, one
reason is they didn't pay federal income taxes or FICA taxes. There were
other things, but that's at least 30% of profits.
Mikek



Gosh. A grad of the London School of Economics. Here's a clue...if the
pittance in taxes corporations pay were reduced, prices would not be.
Why? Why, corporate greed, of course.

Next.


That's just your hate clouding your thought.
Do you remember the gas wars of the early 70's,
if one gas station lowered their price the one
across the street did to.
Just like me, the competition undercut my prices,
I had no choice, my customers of 12 years were
driving 75 ft farther down the dock and buying
lower priced shrimp. Guess what I was greedy, I
thought $1.50 profit was better than $0. Someone
mentioned how computers prices have come down, how
about cellphone prices, when they first came out only
business's could afford them. I'll bet if you lifted
your hatred of business veil, you could probably come
up with 5 or 6 examples of products that have come down
in price because the competition forced it.
In 1980 milk in today's dollars, would be $4.62 my
wife says she pays $3.69.
Three items that are more expensive cars and gasoline and stamps.
I contend the reason is for all is government interference.
Cars are more expensive because the government has mandated, many
safety related items, and antipollution devices. Mostly good ideas. They
also come with more features.
Gasoline costs more now than in 1980, today's price would be $2.97 if
only inflation were to blame for increases, but the taxes on gallon of
gas have gone up, If you lowered the taxes to the same as 1980
it would be less than 2.97. However gas is a bad example because of the
middle east monopoly over the years. (no free market)
The price of a stamp would be lower if we got the government out of
it. But again you would not be charged for that guy out in the boonies,
He would need to drive into town once a week and get his mail.



I'll ask others to chip in and list items that cost less
today then when they first came out.
Here's an inflation calculator to compare today's price with
the price for whatever year.
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc....981&year2=2014

Mikek

It will be interesting to see a point by point counter to the free
market ratcheting prices down as costs come down. But you won't, and
your thinking won't change either. You will continue to be blinded by
your hatred.

Did you hear about the knife/gun fight?
 

On 9/29/2014 8:06 PM, amdx wrote:
On 9/29/2014 7:35 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/29/14 8:25 PM, amdx wrote:

Let's start with, I don't want all corporation to go offshore.
And, yes if they could cut 15% off their cost of doing business,
prices would generally drift down.


I think those cuts in cost would simply slip over to the profit column,
and prices would remain the same.


I know you do.
I suggest you save your money and invest it in the corporations that
have these excessive profit margins, and get some for yourself.
Oh, I'll bet you think it doesn't work that way.

Mikek

I'm wondering if you pay any attention to the world around you.
Have you seen Walmart, they have grown because of one policy, Lower
Prices. Those greedy mom and pop stores have gone away because they
wouldn't lower there prices.
Do you get the newspaper? Business's place ads in there that show
prices lower than their competitors, just to get business.
"Blasphemy, you mean lowering prices can increase profits, well it must,
otherwise those greedy corporations wouldn't do it!"
Take some time, look around at what the free market has done for you.

Mikek

Did you hear about the knife/gun fight?
 

On 9/29/2014 2:45 PM, amdx wrote:
On 9/29/2014 1:14 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/29/14 1:38 PM, amdx wrote:


Look it up in the dictionary.

Now you told Foad how to find it!
When I ask, I new he would not, could not respond with real information.
Just like all the other times I've ask him for real information and came
up with some excuse.
Mikek

---


What's "new" with you?

Speaking of banksterism, Last Friday I had a customer that somehow we
moved from welfare cheats to our fiat currency. He did about a 45
minute spiel with not much room for me to interrupt :-)
He's so radical he thinks we should all stop paying taxes, and turn
over our money system.
He is a radical on the subject, but came to it from a different
direction. His thinking is, if we had real money, we could not afford
the welfare we give and we wouldn't have the system that we have.
Another thing was compound interest, he thinks that is terrible.

I don't, in fact I think I'm losing out on a property every month.
Let's see what you think.
My wife and I have worked 40hrs plus for years, paid our taxes, paid
all our bills and managed to save some money. in fact every year we have
done that. It was hard and took a long time. We bought a property and
resold it, the buyer is paying less than interest only, meaning every
month the bill goes up because of the interest plus principal he didn't
pay. I think I deserve interest on the extra money he owes for the
interest he didn't pay. Example: he owes $100,000 the interest for the
month is $750 but he only pays $600, I think I can add the $150 back
onto the principal and charge interest on $100,150 the next month.
My lawyer says I can't, (Florida law?). But you can be sure if the buyer
had the $150 every month, he would be getting interest on it.
What do you think?

Mikek


I thought I'd get some response from one of these paragraphs.

Did you hear about the knife/gun fight?
 

On 9/29/2014 1:14 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/29/14 1:33 PM, amdx wrote:
On 9/29/2014 10:48 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/29/14 11:08 AM, amdx wrote:
On 9/29/2014 5:48 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/28/14 10:26 PM, amdx wrote:
On 9/28/2014 4:53 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:


You don't even know what racism is. Sheesh.

Thank you, your getting it figured out.
And note I'm a conservative too.
Mikek




Nice try, but the reality, from your posts here, is that you are just
another right-wing racist.

Your ignorance is showing.
Mikek

---

You frequently put up posts that attempt to show minorities in a bad
light. You're a racist.




Could you please, find a couple of those for me?

Could you please, find a couple of those for me?

Mikek

Did you hear about the knife/gun fight?
 

On 10/1/2014 9:21 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/1/14 9:06 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 20:35:54 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 9/29/14 8:25 PM, amdx wrote:

Let's start with, I don't want all corporation to go offshore.
And, yes if they could cut 15% off their cost of doing business,
prices would generally drift down.

FOAD (Harry Krause) said:

I think those cuts in cost would simply slip over to the profit column,
and prices would remain the same.

===

That demonstrates a simplistic and inaccurate view of how the business
world really works, about what I'd expect from a naive college
freshman raised in an utra liberal family.

In actuality corporations and small business have the option to use
retained earnings (cash flow) in a number of ways depending on their
competitive environment and overall goals. In a tight labor market
businesses will try harder to recruit and retain the talent they need.
Offering better benefits and better overall compensation is one of the
ways they compete for workers. Corporate tradition and
stockholder/board of director goals also play into that equation. In
your particular example, the resulting short term increase in cash
flow would accrue equally to all businesses and some (many) would
choose lower prices to increase market share. Everyone else would be
forced to follow suit or accept a smaller market share.

Unfortunately for workers, today's labor market is not particularly
tight except for certain skills, and the global economic business
market is more competitive than it has ever been. No one can turn
back the clock just because they don't like how things have turned
out. Unskilled labor will never again see the compensation levels
that they came to take for granted in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s. Those
days are over, time to accept it and move on. Everyone who has skills
which have become oboslete will need to reinvent themselves or be left
behind. That's the way it has always been.



His pontificateness speaketh... yawn.

Thanks for the high school "theory of how business works" lecture,
W'hine. That, couple with your compassion for displaced workers, is a
wonderful capper for the fairly interesting day I've had today over in
Virginia.




I thought Wayne's analysis was spot on. Another use of retained
earnings is growth which is an indicator of a healthy company. Growth
means more jobs. More jobs means a healthier economic climate overall.
Federal revenues go up and the number of people/families relying on
assistance programs goes down.

Apparently you would rather see higher corporate taxes and let the
screwballs in Wash DC decide how to dole it out while chasing votes.

Did you hear about the knife/gun fight?
 

On Wed, 01 Oct 2014 20:57:08 -0500, amdx wrote:

On 9/29/2014 2:45 PM, amdx wrote:
On 9/29/2014 1:14 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/29/14 1:38 PM, amdx wrote:


Look it up in the dictionary.

Now you told Foad how to find it!
When I ask, I new he would not, could not respond with real information.
Just like all the other times I've ask him for real information and came
up with some excuse.
Mikek

---


What's "new" with you?

Speaking of banksterism, Last Friday I had a customer that somehow we
moved from welfare cheats to our fiat currency. He did about a 45
minute spiel with not much room for me to interrupt :-)
He's so radical he thinks we should all stop paying taxes, and turn
over our money system.
He is a radical on the subject, but came to it from a different
direction. His thinking is, if we had real money, we could not afford
the welfare we give and we wouldn't have the system that we have.
Another thing was compound interest, he thinks that is terrible.

I don't, in fact I think I'm losing out on a property every month.
Let's see what you think.
My wife and I have worked 40hrs plus for years, paid our taxes, paid
all our bills and managed to save some money. in fact every year we have
done that. It was hard and took a long time. We bought a property and
resold it, the buyer is paying less than interest only, meaning every
month the bill goes up because of the interest plus principal he didn't
pay. I think I deserve interest on the extra money he owes for the
interest he didn't pay. Example: he owes $100,000 the interest for the
month is $750 but he only pays $600, I think I can add the $150 back
onto the principal and charge interest on $100,150 the next month.
My lawyer says I can't, (Florida law?). But you can be sure if the buyer
had the $150 every month, he would be getting interest on it.
What do you think?

Mikek


I thought I'd get some response from one of these paragraphs.


===

Did you personally provide financing to the buyer where he pays you
back at less than the accrued interest rate? If so, when do you get
to call in the principle on the loan?

Did you hear about the knife/gun fight?
 

On Wed, 01 Oct 2014 21:21:55 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 10/1/14 9:06 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 20:35:54 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 9/29/14 8:25 PM, amdx wrote:

Let's start with, I don't want all corporation to go offshore.
And, yes if they could cut 15% off their cost of doing business,
prices would generally drift down.

FOAD (Harry Krause) said:

I think those cuts in cost would simply slip over to the profit column,
and prices would remain the same.

===

That demonstrates a simplistic and inaccurate view of how the business
world really works, about what I'd expect from a naive college
freshman raised in an utra liberal family.

In actuality corporations and small business have the option to use
retained earnings (cash flow) in a number of ways depending on their
competitive environment and overall goals. In a tight labor market
businesses will try harder to recruit and retain the talent they need.
Offering better benefits and better overall compensation is one of the
ways they compete for workers. Corporate tradition and
stockholder/board of director goals also play into that equation. In
your particular example, the resulting short term increase in cash
flow would accrue equally to all businesses and some (many) would
choose lower prices to increase market share. Everyone else would be
forced to follow suit or accept a smaller market share.

Unfortunately for workers, today's labor market is not particularly
tight except for certain skills, and the global economic business
market is more competitive than it has ever been. No one can turn
back the clock just because they don't like how things have turned
out. Unskilled labor will never again see the compensation levels
that they came to take for granted in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s. Those
days are over, time to accept it and move on. Everyone who has skills
which have become oboslete will need to reinvent themselves or be left
behind. That's the way it has always been.



His pontificateness speaketh... yawn.

Thanks for the high school "theory of how business works" lecture,
W'hine. That, couple with your compassion for displaced workers, is a
wonderful capper for the fairly interesting day I've had today over in
Virginia.


===

You're quite welcome for the encapsulated theory lesson. I'd have
given it at a more advanced level if I thought there was any chance
you'd understand it.

As far as compassion goes, it has always played well in "woe is us"
liberal circles. At the end of the day however you've still got a
bunch of workers on your hands who have been displaced by a changing
world. No amount of grieving will bring back the jobs of buggy whip
manufacturers or telephone operators. People have to accept reality,
move on, retrain, re-invent themselves, or pay the consequences.
Change is inevitable and it's no one's fault.

Did you hear about the knife/gun fight?
 

On 10/1/2014 9:29 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 01 Oct 2014 20:57:08 -0500, amdx wrote:

On 9/29/2014 2:45 PM, amdx wrote:
On 9/29/2014 1:14 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/29/14 1:38 PM, amdx wrote:


Look it up in the dictionary.

Now you told Foad how to find it!
When I ask, I new he would not, could not respond with real information.
Just like all the other times I've ask him for real information and came
up with some excuse.
Mikek

---


What's "new" with you?

Speaking of banksterism, Last Friday I had a customer that somehow we
moved from welfare cheats to our fiat currency. He did about a 45
minute spiel with not much room for me to interrupt :-)
He's so radical he thinks we should all stop paying taxes, and turn
over our money system.
He is a radical on the subject, but came to it from a different
direction. His thinking is, if we had real money, we could not afford
the welfare we give and we wouldn't have the system that we have.
Another thing was compound interest, he thinks that is terrible.

I don't, in fact I think I'm losing out on a property every month.
Let's see what you think.
My wife and I have worked 40hrs plus for years, paid our taxes, paid
all our bills and managed to save some money. in fact every year we have
done that. It was hard and took a long time. We bought a property and
resold it, the buyer is paying less than interest only, meaning every
month the bill goes up because of the interest plus principal he didn't
pay. I think I deserve interest on the extra money he owes for the
interest he didn't pay. Example: he owes $100,000 the interest for the
month is $750 but he only pays $600, I think I can add the $150 back
onto the principal and charge interest on $100,150 the next month.
My lawyer says I can't, (Florida law?). But you can be sure if the buyer
had the $150 every month, he would be getting interest on it.
What do you think?

Mikek


I thought I'd get some response from one of these paragraphs.


===

Did you personally provide financing to the buyer where he pays you
back at less than the accrued interest rate? If so, when do you get
to call in the principle on the loan?

Yes, that is what I agreed to. It was a five year contract. The buyer
only wanted a two year contract, I told him I'll make it a five year
contract, 8% first two years and 10% last three. Then he could pay in
off in two years if he wanted. He didn't. I'm happy, good payer, 10%
interest, good down payment. Just thought I would get interest on the
accrued interest when I made the deal. I didn't ask the right question
until it was to late. I'm still happy with the deal.
Mikek


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

Did you hear about the knife/gun fight?
 

On 10/3/14 12:28 PM, amdx wrote:
On 10/1/2014 9:29 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 01 Oct 2014 20:57:08 -0500, amdx wrote:

On 9/29/2014 2:45 PM, amdx wrote:
On 9/29/2014 1:14 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/29/14 1:38 PM, amdx wrote:


Look it up in the dictionary.

Now you told Foad how to find it!
When I ask, I new he would not, could not respond with real
information.
Just like all the other times I've ask him for real information
and came
up with some excuse.
Mikek

---


What's "new" with you?

Speaking of banksterism, Last Friday I had a customer that
somehow we
moved from welfare cheats to our fiat currency. He did about a 45
minute spiel with not much room for me to interrupt :-)
He's so radical he thinks we should all stop paying taxes, and turn
over our money system.
He is a radical on the subject, but came to it from a different
direction. His thinking is, if we had real money, we could not afford
the welfare we give and we wouldn't have the system that we have.
Another thing was compound interest, he thinks that is terrible.

I don't, in fact I think I'm losing out on a property every month.
Let's see what you think.
My wife and I have worked 40hrs plus for years, paid our taxes, paid
all our bills and managed to save some money. in fact every year we
have
done that. It was hard and took a long time. We bought a property and
resold it, the buyer is paying less than interest only, meaning every
month the bill goes up because of the interest plus principal he didn't
pay. I think I deserve interest on the extra money he owes for the
interest he didn't pay. Example: he owes $100,000 the interest for the
month is $750 but he only pays $600, I think I can add the $150 back
onto the principal and charge interest on $100,150 the next month.
My lawyer says I can't, (Florida law?). But you can be sure if the
buyer
had the $150 every month, he would be getting interest on it.
What do you think?

Mikek


I thought I'd get some response from one of these paragraphs.


===

Did you personally provide financing to the buyer where he pays you
back at less than the accrued interest rate? If so, when do you get
to call in the principle on the loan?

Yes, that is what I agreed to. It was a five year contract. The buyer
only wanted a two year contract, I told him I'll make it a five year
contract, 8% first two years and 10% last three. Then he could pay in
off in two years if he wanted. He didn't. I'm happy, good payer, 10%
interest, good down payment. Just thought I would get interest on the
accrued interest when I made the deal. I didn't ask the right question
until it was to late. I'm still happy with the deal.
Mikek




Whoever is questioning you here possibly should learn the difference
between "principle" and "principal." Oh, wait...is it Wayne the
Bankster? Well, that explains it. Imagine a bankster who doesn't know
the difference between the two terms. I think you should consult with
Scotty Ingerfool, the rec.boats expert on house sales/rentals, et cetera.





--
“My heart goes out to the people of Ebola.”
Sarah Palin

Did you hear about the knife/gun fight?
 

On 10/3/2014 11:33 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/3/14 12:28 PM, amdx wrote:
On 10/1/2014 9:29 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 01 Oct 2014 20:57:08 -0500, amdx wrote:

On 9/29/2014 2:45 PM, amdx wrote:
On 9/29/2014 1:14 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/29/14 1:38 PM, amdx wrote:


Look it up in the dictionary.

Now you told Foad how to find it!
When I ask, I new he would not, could not respond with real
information.
Just like all the other times I've ask him for real information
and came
up with some excuse.
Mikek

---


What's "new" with you?

Speaking of banksterism, Last Friday I had a customer that
somehow we
moved from welfare cheats to our fiat currency. He did about a 45
minute spiel with not much room for me to interrupt :-)
He's so radical he thinks we should all stop paying taxes, and turn
over our money system.
He is a radical on the subject, but came to it from a different
direction. His thinking is, if we had real money, we could not afford
the welfare we give and we wouldn't have the system that we have.
Another thing was compound interest, he thinks that is terrible.

I don't, in fact I think I'm losing out on a property every month.
Let's see what you think.
My wife and I have worked 40hrs plus for years, paid our taxes,
paid
all our bills and managed to save some money. in fact every year we
have
done that. It was hard and took a long time. We bought a property and
resold it, the buyer is paying less than interest only, meaning every
month the bill goes up because of the interest plus principal he
didn't
pay. I think I deserve interest on the extra money he owes for the
interest he didn't pay. Example: he owes $100,000 the interest for
the
month is $750 but he only pays $600, I think I can add the $150 back
onto the principal and charge interest on $100,150 the next month.
My lawyer says I can't, (Florida law?). But you can be sure if the
buyer
had the $150 every month, he would be getting interest on it.
What do you think?

Mikek


I thought I'd get some response from one of these paragraphs.


===

Did you personally provide financing to the buyer where he pays you
back at less than the accrued interest rate? If so, when do you get
to call in the principle on the loan?

Yes, that is what I agreed to. It was a five year contract. The buyer
only wanted a two year contract, I told him I'll make it a five year
contract, 8% first two years and 10% last three. Then he could pay in
off in two years if he wanted. He didn't. I'm happy, good payer, 10%
interest, good down payment. Just thought I would get interest on the
accrued interest when I made the deal. I didn't ask the right question
until it was to late. I'm still happy with the deal.
Mikek




Whoever is questioning you here possibly should learn the difference
between "principle" and "principal."

What are you lacking that make you feel the need to point out minor
mistakes. Does it soothe your poor ego.

If he proof read he would catch those mistakes, but unlike you,
some of us have other duties to take care of. Proof reading isn't as
important.
Please keep it up though, I wouldn't want you working on anything that
is important to us conservatives.
Mikek
Prepared to be called a racist by the hater.


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

Did you hear about the knife/gun fight?
 

On 10/3/14 1:44 PM, amdx wrote:
On 10/3/2014 11:33 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/3/14 12:28 PM, amdx wrote:
On 10/1/2014 9:29 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 01 Oct 2014 20:57:08 -0500, amdx wrote:

On 9/29/2014 2:45 PM, amdx wrote:
On 9/29/2014 1:14 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/29/14 1:38 PM, amdx wrote:


Look it up in the dictionary.

Now you told Foad how to find it!
When I ask, I new he would not, could not respond with real
information.
Just like all the other times I've ask him for real information
and came
up with some excuse.
Mikek

---


What's "new" with you?

Speaking of banksterism, Last Friday I had a customer that
somehow we
moved from welfare cheats to our fiat currency. He did about a 45
minute spiel with not much room for me to interrupt :-)
He's so radical he thinks we should all stop paying taxes, and turn
over our money system.
He is a radical on the subject, but came to it from a different
direction. His thinking is, if we had real money, we could not afford
the welfare we give and we wouldn't have the system that we have.
Another thing was compound interest, he thinks that is terrible.

I don't, in fact I think I'm losing out on a property every month.
Let's see what you think.
My wife and I have worked 40hrs plus for years, paid our taxes,
paid
all our bills and managed to save some money. in fact every year we
have
done that. It was hard and took a long time. We bought a property and
resold it, the buyer is paying less than interest only, meaning every
month the bill goes up because of the interest plus principal he
didn't
pay. I think I deserve interest on the extra money he owes for the
interest he didn't pay. Example: he owes $100,000 the interest for
the
month is $750 but he only pays $600, I think I can add the $150 back
onto the principal and charge interest on $100,150 the next month.
My lawyer says I can't, (Florida law?). But you can be sure if the
buyer
had the $150 every month, he would be getting interest on it.
What do you think?

Mikek


I thought I'd get some response from one of these paragraphs.


===

Did you personally provide financing to the buyer where he pays you
back at less than the accrued interest rate? If so, when do you get
to call in the principle on the loan?

Yes, that is what I agreed to. It was a five year contract. The buyer
only wanted a two year contract, I told him I'll make it a five year
contract, 8% first two years and 10% last three. Then he could pay in
off in two years if he wanted. He didn't. I'm happy, good payer, 10%
interest, good down payment. Just thought I would get interest on the
accrued interest when I made the deal. I didn't ask the right question
until it was to late. I'm still happy with the deal.
Mikek




Whoever is questioning you here possibly should learn the difference
between "principle" and "principal."

What are you lacking that make you feel the need to point out minor
mistakes. Does it soothe your poor ego.

If he proof read he would catch those mistakes, but unlike you,
some of us have other duties to take care of. Proof reading isn't as
important.
Please keep it up though, I wouldn't want you working on anything that
is important to us conservatives.
Mikek
Prepared to be called a racist by the hater.



One might think a retired bankster like W'hine would know the difference
between principal and principle but, come to think of it, banksters and
principles are opposites.

It's not a proofreading error, by the way, not for a college graduate
who worked in the field. It's not like me spelling "encyclopedia"
*encyclopaedia*, since both spellings are correct and have the same
meaning.



--
“My heart goes out to the people of Ebola.”
Sarah Palin

Did you hear about the knife/gun fight?
 

On 10/3/2014 1:50 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:


“My heart goes out to the people of Ebola.”
Sarah Palin


Could be funny except for the seriousness of Ebola and, of course, the
fact that Palin never said, tweeted or posted such a statement.

More BS spread by liberals.

Did you hear about the knife/gun fight?
 

On 10/3/14 2:06 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/3/2014 1:50 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:


“My heart goes out to the people of Ebola.”
Sarah Palin


Could be funny except for the seriousness of Ebola and, of course, the
fact that Palin never said, tweeted or posted such a statement.

More BS spread by liberals.



It's a joke on Palin.

--
“My heart goes out to the people of Ebola.”
Sarah Palin

Did you hear about the knife/gun fight?
 

On 10/3/14 2:11 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 03 Oct 2014 13:50:13 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 10/3/14 1:44 PM, amdx wrote:
On 10/3/2014 11:33 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/3/14 12:28 PM, amdx wrote:
On 10/1/2014 9:29 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 01 Oct 2014 20:57:08 -0500, amdx wrote:

On 9/29/2014 2:45 PM, amdx wrote:
On 9/29/2014 1:14 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/29/14 1:38 PM, amdx wrote:


Look it up in the dictionary.

Now you told Foad how to find it!
When I ask, I new he would not, could not respond with real
information.
Just like all the other times I've ask him for real information
and came
up with some excuse.
Mikek

---


What's "new" with you?

Speaking of banksterism, Last Friday I had a customer that
somehow we
moved from welfare cheats to our fiat currency. He did about a 45
minute spiel with not much room for me to interrupt :-)
He's so radical he thinks we should all stop paying taxes, and turn
over our money system.
He is a radical on the subject, but came to it from a different
direction. His thinking is, if we had real money, we could not afford
the welfare we give and we wouldn't have the system that we have.
Another thing was compound interest, he thinks that is terrible.

I don't, in fact I think I'm losing out on a property every month.
Let's see what you think.
My wife and I have worked 40hrs plus for years, paid our taxes,
paid
all our bills and managed to save some money. in fact every year we
have
done that. It was hard and took a long time. We bought a property and
resold it, the buyer is paying less than interest only, meaning every
month the bill goes up because of the interest plus principal he
didn't
pay. I think I deserve interest on the extra money he owes for the
interest he didn't pay. Example: he owes $100,000 the interest for
the
month is $750 but he only pays $600, I think I can add the $150 back
onto the principal and charge interest on $100,150 the next month.
My lawyer says I can't, (Florida law?). But you can be sure if the
buyer
had the $150 every month, he would be getting interest on it.
What do you think?

Mikek


I thought I'd get some response from one of these paragraphs.


===

Did you personally provide financing to the buyer where he pays you
back at less than the accrued interest rate? If so, when do you get
to call in the principle on the loan?

Yes, that is what I agreed to. It was a five year contract. The buyer
only wanted a two year contract, I told him I'll make it a five year
contract, 8% first two years and 10% last three. Then he could pay in
off in two years if he wanted. He didn't. I'm happy, good payer, 10%
interest, good down payment. Just thought I would get interest on the
accrued interest when I made the deal. I didn't ask the right question
until it was to late. I'm still happy with the deal.
Mikek




Whoever is questioning you here possibly should learn the difference
between "principle" and "principal."

What are you lacking that make you feel the need to point out minor
mistakes. Does it soothe your poor ego.

If he proof read he would catch those mistakes, but unlike you,
some of us have other duties to take care of. Proof reading isn't as
important.
Please keep it up though, I wouldn't want you working on anything that
is important to us conservatives.
Mikek
Prepared to be called a racist by the hater.



One might think a retired bankster like W'hine would know the difference
between principal and principle but, come to think of it, banksters and
principles are opposites.

It's not a proofreading error, by the way, not for a college graduate
who worked in the field. It's not like me spelling "encyclopedia"
*encyclopaedia*, since both spellings are correct and have the same
meaning.

Wayne got it right, what the hell are you talking about?
From his response
" If so, when do you get to call in the principle on the loan"

Your blind hatred is hampering your ability to read, I guess.

I see you screwing up now and then but I just ignore it.



Read to me as if W'hine the Bankster used the word "principle" when he
should have used "principal."

principal, a. and n. (adv.)

6.A.II.6 Of money: Constituting the primary or original sum; that is the
main or capital sum invested or lent, and yielding interest or income;
capital, capitalized. (Cf. B. 9.)
†principal cost, principal money, original or prime cost.

Principle is what banksters lack.

Next?






--
“My heart goes out to the people of Ebola.”
Sarah Palin

Did you hear about the knife/gun fight?
 

On 10/3/2014 12:50 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/3/14 1:44 PM, amdx wrote:
On 10/3/2014 11:33 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/3/14 12:28 PM, amdx wrote:
On 10/1/2014 9:29 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 01 Oct 2014 20:57:08 -0500, amdx wrote:

On 9/29/2014 2:45 PM, amdx wrote:
On 9/29/2014 1:14 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/29/14 1:38 PM, amdx wrote:


Look it up in the dictionary.

Now you told Foad how to find it!
When I ask, I new he would not, could not respond with real
information.
Just like all the other times I've ask him for real information
and came
up with some excuse.
Mikek

---


What's "new" with you?

Speaking of banksterism, Last Friday I had a customer that
somehow we
moved from welfare cheats to our fiat currency. He did about a 45
minute spiel with not much room for me to interrupt :-)
He's so radical he thinks we should all stop paying taxes, and turn
over our money system.
He is a radical on the subject, but came to it from a different
direction. His thinking is, if we had real money, we could not
afford
the welfare we give and we wouldn't have the system that we have.
Another thing was compound interest, he thinks that is terrible.

I don't, in fact I think I'm losing out on a property every
month.
Let's see what you think.
My wife and I have worked 40hrs plus for years, paid our taxes,
paid
all our bills and managed to save some money. in fact every year we
have
done that. It was hard and took a long time. We bought a property
and
resold it, the buyer is paying less than interest only, meaning
every
month the bill goes up because of the interest plus principal he
didn't
pay. I think I deserve interest on the extra money he owes for the
interest he didn't pay. Example: he owes $100,000 the interest for
the
month is $750 but he only pays $600, I think I can add the $150 back
onto the principal and charge interest on $100,150 the next month.
My lawyer says I can't, (Florida law?). But you can be sure if the
buyer
had the $150 every month, he would be getting interest on it.
What do you think?

Mikek


I thought I'd get some response from one of these paragraphs.


===

Did you personally provide financing to the buyer where he pays you
back at less than the accrued interest rate? If so, when do you get
to call in the principle on the loan?

Yes, that is what I agreed to. It was a five year contract. The
buyer
only wanted a two year contract, I told him I'll make it a five year
contract, 8% first two years and 10% last three. Then he could pay in
off in two years if he wanted. He didn't. I'm happy, good payer, 10%
interest, good down payment. Just thought I would get interest on the
accrued interest when I made the deal. I didn't ask the right question
until it was to late. I'm still happy with the deal.
Mikek




Whoever is questioning you here possibly should learn the difference
between "principle" and "principal."

What are you lacking that make you feel the need to point out minor
mistakes. Does it soothe your poor ego.

If he proof read he would catch those mistakes, but unlike you,
some of us have other duties to take care of. Proof reading isn't as
important.
Please keep it up though, I wouldn't want you working on anything that
is important to us conservatives.
Mikek
Prepared to be called a racist by the hater.



One might think a retired bankster like W'hine would know the difference
between principal and principle but, come to think of it, banksters and
principles are opposites.

It's not a proofreading error, by the way, not for a college graduate
who worked in the field. It's not like me spelling "encyclopedia"
*encyclopaedia*, since both spellings are correct and have the same
meaning.



Your first mistake is, he does know the difference, he simply
misspelled it. It doesn't matter as long as you feel better.
Mikek
PS, I commonly get these wrong the first go round.
there and their, and your and you're, even though I know
what's correct. If I get it wrong and I proof read, I fix it
if I don't, I keep you busy. It is a relief to know we have an expert
speller, you can be our vade mecum.
Mikek


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

Did you hear about the knife/gun fight?
 

On Fri, 03 Oct 2014 14:06:31 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/3/2014 1:50 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:


“My heart goes out to the people of Ebola.”
Sarah Palin


Could be funny except for the seriousness of Ebola and, of course, the
fact that Palin never said, tweeted or posted such a statement.

More BS spread by liberals.


Harry takes joy in the misfortune of others. Surely you've noticed.

Did you hear about the knife/gun fight?
 

On 10/3/2014 2:17 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/3/14 2:11 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 03 Oct 2014 13:50:13 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 10/3/14 1:44 PM, amdx wrote:
On 10/3/2014 11:33 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/3/14 12:28 PM, amdx wrote:
On 10/1/2014 9:29 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 01 Oct 2014 20:57:08 -0500, amdx wrote:

On 9/29/2014 2:45 PM, amdx wrote:
On 9/29/2014 1:14 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/29/14 1:38 PM, amdx wrote:


Look it up in the dictionary.

Now you told Foad how to find it!
When I ask, I new he would not, could not respond with real
information.
Just like all the other times I've ask him for real information
and came
up with some excuse.
Mikek

---


What's "new" with you?

Speaking of banksterism, Last Friday I had a customer that
somehow we
moved from welfare cheats to our fiat currency. He did about a 45
minute spiel with not much room for me to interrupt :-)
He's so radical he thinks we should all stop paying taxes, and
turn
over our money system.
He is a radical on the subject, but came to it from a
different
direction. His thinking is, if we had real money, we could not
afford
the welfare we give and we wouldn't have the system that we have.
Another thing was compound interest, he thinks that is terrible.

I don't, in fact I think I'm losing out on a property every
month.
Let's see what you think.
My wife and I have worked 40hrs plus for years, paid our
taxes,
paid
all our bills and managed to save some money. in fact every
year we
have
done that. It was hard and took a long time. We bought a
property and
resold it, the buyer is paying less than interest only, meaning
every
month the bill goes up because of the interest plus principal he
didn't
pay. I think I deserve interest on the extra money he owes for the
interest he didn't pay. Example: he owes $100,000 the interest
for
the
month is $750 but he only pays $600, I think I can add the $150
back
onto the principal and charge interest on $100,150 the next month.
My lawyer says I can't, (Florida law?). But you can be sure if the
buyer
had the $150 every month, he would be getting interest on it.
What do you think?

Mikek


I thought I'd get some response from one of these paragraphs.


===

Did you personally provide financing to the buyer where he pays you
back at less than the accrued interest rate? If so, when do you
get
to call in the principle on the loan?

Yes, that is what I agreed to. It was a five year contract.
The buyer
only wanted a two year contract, I told him I'll make it a five year
contract, 8% first two years and 10% last three. Then he could pay in
off in two years if he wanted. He didn't. I'm happy, good payer, 10%
interest, good down payment. Just thought I would get interest on the
accrued interest when I made the deal. I didn't ask the right
question
until it was to late. I'm still happy with the deal.
Mikek




Whoever is questioning you here possibly should learn the difference
between "principle" and "principal."

What are you lacking that make you feel the need to point out minor
mistakes. Does it soothe your poor ego.

If he proof read he would catch those mistakes, but unlike you,
some of us have other duties to take care of. Proof reading isn't as
important.
Please keep it up though, I wouldn't want you working on
anything that
is important to us conservatives.
Mikek
Prepared to be called a racist by the hater.



One might think a retired bankster like W'hine would know the difference
between principal and principle but, come to think of it, banksters and
principles are opposites.

It's not a proofreading error, by the way, not for a college graduate
who worked in the field. It's not like me spelling "encyclopedia"
*encyclopaedia*, since both spellings are correct and have the same
meaning.

Wayne got it right, what the hell are you talking about?
From his response
" If so, when do you get to call in the principle on the loan"

Your blind hatred is hampering your ability to read, I guess.

I see you screwing up now and then but I just ignore it.



Read to me as if W'hine the Bankster used the word "principle" when he
should have used "principal."

principal, a. and n. (adv.)

6.A.II.6 Of money: Constituting the primary or original sum; that is the
main or capital sum invested or lent, and yielding interest or income;
capital, capitalized. (Cf. B. 9.)
†principal cost, principal money, original or prime cost.

Principle is what banksters lack.

Next?

Enough already. Say "next?" as if you mean it. Puhlease.

Did you hear about the knife/gun fight?
 

On Fri, 03 Oct 2014 14:11:09 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 03 Oct 2014 13:50:13 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 10/3/14 1:44 PM, amdx wrote:
On 10/3/2014 11:33 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/3/14 12:28 PM, amdx wrote:
On 10/1/2014 9:29 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 01 Oct 2014 20:57:08 -0500, amdx wrote:

On 9/29/2014 2:45 PM, amdx wrote:
On 9/29/2014 1:14 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/29/14 1:38 PM, amdx wrote:


Look it up in the dictionary.

Now you told Foad how to find it!
When I ask, I new he would not, could not respond with real
information.
Just like all the other times I've ask him for real information
and came
up with some excuse.
Mikek

---


What's "new" with you?

Speaking of banksterism, Last Friday I had a customer that
somehow we
moved from welfare cheats to our fiat currency. He did about a 45
minute spiel with not much room for me to interrupt :-)
He's so radical he thinks we should all stop paying taxes, and turn
over our money system.
He is a radical on the subject, but came to it from a different
direction. His thinking is, if we had real money, we could not afford
the welfare we give and we wouldn't have the system that we have.
Another thing was compound interest, he thinks that is terrible.

I don't, in fact I think I'm losing out on a property every month.
Let's see what you think.
My wife and I have worked 40hrs plus for years, paid our taxes,
paid
all our bills and managed to save some money. in fact every year we
have
done that. It was hard and took a long time. We bought a property and
resold it, the buyer is paying less than interest only, meaning every
month the bill goes up because of the interest plus principal he
didn't
pay. I think I deserve interest on the extra money he owes for the
interest he didn't pay. Example: he owes $100,000 the interest for
the
month is $750 but he only pays $600, I think I can add the $150 back
onto the principal and charge interest on $100,150 the next month.
My lawyer says I can't, (Florida law?). But you can be sure if the
buyer
had the $150 every month, he would be getting interest on it.
What do you think?

Mikek


I thought I'd get some response from one of these paragraphs.


===

Did you personally provide financing to the buyer where he pays you
back at less than the accrued interest rate? If so, when do you get
to call in the principle on the loan?

Yes, that is what I agreed to. It was a five year contract. The buyer
only wanted a two year contract, I told him I'll make it a five year
contract, 8% first two years and 10% last three. Then he could pay in
off in two years if he wanted. He didn't. I'm happy, good payer, 10%
interest, good down payment. Just thought I would get interest on the
accrued interest when I made the deal. I didn't ask the right question
until it was to late. I'm still happy with the deal.
Mikek




Whoever is questioning you here possibly should learn the difference
between "principle" and "principal."

What are you lacking that make you feel the need to point out minor
mistakes. Does it soothe your poor ego.

If he proof read he would catch those mistakes, but unlike you,
some of us have other duties to take care of. Proof reading isn't as
important.
Please keep it up though, I wouldn't want you working on anything that
is important to us conservatives.
Mikek
Prepared to be called a racist by the hater.



One might think a retired bankster like W'hine would know the difference
between principal and principle but, come to think of it, banksters and
principles are opposites.

It's not a proofreading error, by the way, not for a college graduate
who worked in the field. It's not like me spelling "encyclopedia"
*encyclopaedia*, since both spellings are correct and have the same
meaning.

Wayne got it right, what the hell are you talking about?
From his response
" If so, when do you get to call in the principle on the loan"

Your blind hatred is hampering your ability to read, I guess.

I see you screwing up now and then but I just ignore it.

Yes, Wayne got it right. I imagine the Krause has a red face about
now. Can't wait to see his response.

Did you hear about the knife/gun fight?
 

On 10/3/14 3:32 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 03 Oct 2014 14:06:31 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/3/2014 1:50 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:


“My heart goes out to the people of Ebola.�
Sarah Palin


Could be funny except for the seriousness of Ebola and, of course, the
fact that Palin never said, tweeted or posted such a statement.

More BS spread by liberals.


Harry can't tell the difference between Palin and Tina Fey.



Sure I can. Tina is the smart one.

--
“My heart goes out to the people of Ebola.�
Sarah Palin

Did you hear about the knife/gun fight?
 

On 10/3/2014 4:27 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/3/14 3:32 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 03 Oct 2014 14:06:31 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/3/2014 1:50 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:


“My heart goes out to the people of Ebola.�
Sarah Palin


Could be funny except for the seriousness of Ebola and, of course, the
fact that Palin never said, tweeted or posted such a statement.

More BS spread by liberals.


Harry can't tell the difference between Palin and Tina Fey.



Sure I can. Tina is the smart one.



For the record, I think Sarah Palin *is* a joke. What gets me however
is the sleezy reporting and repeating by certain groups of these kind of
quotes. Palin never said she could see Russia from her house but after
the SNL spoof by Tina Fey that quote was repeated over and over by
commentators on the liberal networks, yuking it up and high fiving each
other as if it was real.

Did you hear about the knife/gun fight?
 

On 10/3/2014 2:17 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/3/14 2:11 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 03 Oct 2014 13:50:13 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 10/3/14 1:44 PM, amdx wrote:
On 10/3/2014 11:33 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/3/14 12:28 PM, amdx wrote:
On 10/1/2014 9:29 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 01 Oct 2014 20:57:08 -0500, amdx wrote:

On 9/29/2014 2:45 PM, amdx wrote:
On 9/29/2014 1:14 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/29/14 1:38 PM, amdx wrote:


Look it up in the dictionary.

Now you told Foad how to find it!
When I ask, I new he would not, could not respond with real
information.
Just like all the other times I've ask him for real information
and came
up with some excuse.
Mikek

---


What's "new" with you?

Speaking of banksterism, Last Friday I had a customer that
somehow we
moved from welfare cheats to our fiat currency. He did about a 45
minute spiel with not much room for me to interrupt :-)
He's so radical he thinks we should all stop paying taxes, and
turn
over our money system.
He is a radical on the subject, but came to it from a
different
direction. His thinking is, if we had real money, we could not
afford
the welfare we give and we wouldn't have the system that we have.
Another thing was compound interest, he thinks that is terrible.

I don't, in fact I think I'm losing out on a property every
month.
Let's see what you think.
My wife and I have worked 40hrs plus for years, paid our
taxes,
paid
all our bills and managed to save some money. in fact every
year we
have
done that. It was hard and took a long time. We bought a
property and
resold it, the buyer is paying less than interest only, meaning
every
month the bill goes up because of the interest plus principal he
didn't
pay. I think I deserve interest on the extra money he owes for the
interest he didn't pay. Example: he owes $100,000 the interest
for
the
month is $750 but he only pays $600, I think I can add the $150
back
onto the principal and charge interest on $100,150 the next month.
My lawyer says I can't, (Florida law?). But you can be sure if the
buyer
had the $150 every month, he would be getting interest on it.
What do you think?

Mikek


I thought I'd get some response from one of these paragraphs.


===

Did you personally provide financing to the buyer where he pays you
back at less than the accrued interest rate? If so, when do you
get
to call in the principle on the loan?

Yes, that is what I agreed to. It was a five year contract.
The buyer
only wanted a two year contract, I told him I'll make it a five year
contract, 8% first two years and 10% last three. Then he could pay in
off in two years if he wanted. He didn't. I'm happy, good payer, 10%
interest, good down payment. Just thought I would get interest on the
accrued interest when I made the deal. I didn't ask the right
question
until it was to late. I'm still happy with the deal.
Mikek




Whoever is questioning you here possibly should learn the difference
between "principle" and "principal."

What are you lacking that make you feel the need to point out minor
mistakes. Does it soothe your poor ego.

If he proof read he would catch those mistakes, but unlike you,
some of us have other duties to take care of. Proof reading isn't as
important.
Please keep it up though, I wouldn't want you working on
anything that
is important to us conservatives.
Mikek
Prepared to be called a racist by the hater.



One might think a retired bankster like W'hine would know the difference
between principal and principle but, come to think of it, banksters and
principles are opposites.

It's not a proofreading error, by the way, not for a college graduate
who worked in the field. It's not like me spelling "encyclopedia"
*encyclopaedia*, since both spellings are correct and have the same
meaning.

Wayne got it right, what the hell are you talking about?
From his response
" If so, when do you get to call in the principle on the loan"

Your blind hatred is hampering your ability to read, I guess.

I see you screwing up now and then but I just ignore it.



Read to me as if W'hine the Bankster used the word "principle" when he
should have used "principal."

principal, a. and n. (adv.)

6.A.II.6 Of money: Constituting the primary or original sum; that is the
main or capital sum invested or lent, and yielding interest or income;
capital, capitalized. (Cf. B. 9.)
†principal cost, principal money, original or prime cost.

Principle is what banksters lack.

Next?


The principle on a loan can be called upon to pay the principal owed.

Did you hear about the knife/gun fight?
 

On Friday, October 3, 2014 5:45:00 PM UTC-4, F*O*A*D wrote:

A better work ethic? She quit her job as governor of Alaska.


But harry....has no job.

Did you hear about the knife/gun fight?
 

On 10/3/14 6:10 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 03 Oct 2014 14:17:16 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:


Read to me as if W'hine the Bankster used the word "principle" when he
should have used "principal."

principal, a. and n. (adv.)

6.A.II.6 Of money: Constituting the primary or original sum; that is the
main or capital sum invested or lent, and yielding interest or income;
capital, capitalized. (Cf. B. 9.)
â€*principal cost, principal money, original or prime cost.

Principle is what banksters lack.

Next?

I have seen it defined the other way when Principal was a guy. AKA the
principal of a school.


It isn't illegal for a word to have several meanings. Check out a big
time dictionary sometime. In the school sense, "principal" used to mean
"principal teacher." It can also refer to the amount of money borrowed,
or to the lead person or persons in a business organization. "Principle"
is an entirely different word with its own list of definitions.


--
“My heart goes out to the people of Ebola.�
Sarah Palin

Did you hear about the knife/gun fight?
 

On Fri, 03 Oct 2014 12:33:08 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Whoever is questioning you here possibly should learn the difference
between "principle" and "principal."

===

That's lame. It's too bad the banks you defrauded didn't prosecute,
or maybe you were just luckier than you deserved. The IRS will
definitely go after you however once they get on the case of those
fraudulent conveyances and concealed assets. Send us a postcard from
the Gray Bar Resort when you get there and tell us about your new
friend Bubba. Maybe you'll get to meet Bernie Madoff since you two
definitely deserve each other.

Did you hear about the knife/gun fight?
 

F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/3/14 2:06 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/3/2014 1:50 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:


“My heart goes out to the people of Ebola.”
Sarah Palin


Could be funny except for the seriousness of Ebola and, of course, the
fact that Palin never said, tweeted or posted such a statement.

More BS spread by liberals.



It's a joke on Palin.



It's a lie, deadbeat.