Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Good GAWD
|
#3
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Good GAWD
On 10/25/2014 10:43 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
You think disenfranchising tens of millions of American voters is a good thing, eh? How very Republican of you. -- This Halloween, I知 dressing up as a Republican to answer the doorbell. I値l give one rich white kid an entire bag of expensive imported chocolate and make the other 100 kids split a Tootsie Roll. You mean How O'Bamaesque, don't you? |
#4
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Good GAWD
On 10/25/2014 10:43 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/25/14 10:26 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/25/2014 10:14 AM, BAR wrote: In article , says... On 10/25/2014 7:34 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/25/14 5:59 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Hillary in Boston on Friday: Now she's claiming that as a senator she voted to increase the minimum wage in 2007 and "millions" of jobs were created. She neglected to mention that the only way the 2007 minimum wage bill was approved by the Senate was by offsetting the cost to businesses by providing additional tax breaks over the next 10 years. Then she went on to say that corporations and businesses *don't* create jobs. Really? If people like arrogance over competence in their leaders, vote for Hillary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nbFYP3xB6k 1. Indeed, she voted to raise the minimum wage. 2. Her point was that raising the minimum wage didn't cost jobs, as opponents of such raises like to claim. 3. Her comment about corproations and businesses was directed at the Republican idea that "trickle down" economics works, and of course, it doesn't. But, hey, nice try. The righties here will snap it up. The House version of that bill passed with *all* Democrats voting for it along with 86 of the Republicans. It died in the Senate though until it was modified to include the tax breaks for businesses to offset the cost of higher wages. *That's* what she voted for. (of course a year later the whole thing didn't matter anymore). Two sentences later though she reminds the Boston audience that corporations and businesses don't create jobs. Why give them a tax break then? The minimum wage thing is always the issue that Democrats rely upon to garner votes. They are focusing on it again now. Then they bitch about corporations not paying their share of taxes after passing the bill that created tax breaks. More of note though: Hillary is adopting the party line BS along with the tones of sarcasm and arrogance that liberals apparently find so appealing. We've had over 6 years of arrogant leadership. Do we need more? As time goes by I am convinced more and more that only those who are verifiable US citizens and who are 25 to 55 should be able to vote in any election in the USA. If you are under 25 you haven't really got a clue as to what is going on in the world and how it affects you and once you are over 55 all you want to do is make the rest of your life comfortable on someone else's back. As far as non-US citizens go I really don't care what they think, what they want or whether they are happy. Be careful of expressing any rational thoughts. They are not welcome by some here. My brother's favorite saying: "Republican while you work and a Democrat when you retire". You think disenfranchising tens of millions of American voters is a good thing, eh? How very Republican of you. Where did I say that? |
#5
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Good GAWD
On 10/25/14 2:55 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/25/2014 10:43 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/25/14 10:26 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/25/2014 10:14 AM, BAR wrote: In article , says... On 10/25/2014 7:34 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/25/14 5:59 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Hillary in Boston on Friday: Now she's claiming that as a senator she voted to increase the minimum wage in 2007 and "millions" of jobs were created. She neglected to mention that the only way the 2007 minimum wage bill was approved by the Senate was by offsetting the cost to businesses by providing additional tax breaks over the next 10 years. Then she went on to say that corporations and businesses *don't* create jobs. Really? If people like arrogance over competence in their leaders, vote for Hillary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nbFYP3xB6k 1. Indeed, she voted to raise the minimum wage. 2. Her point was that raising the minimum wage didn't cost jobs, as opponents of such raises like to claim. 3. Her comment about corproations and businesses was directed at the Republican idea that "trickle down" economics works, and of course, it doesn't. But, hey, nice try. The righties here will snap it up. The House version of that bill passed with *all* Democrats voting for it along with 86 of the Republicans. It died in the Senate though until it was modified to include the tax breaks for businesses to offset the cost of higher wages. *That's* what she voted for. (of course a year later the whole thing didn't matter anymore). Two sentences later though she reminds the Boston audience that corporations and businesses don't create jobs. Why give them a tax break then? The minimum wage thing is always the issue that Democrats rely upon to garner votes. They are focusing on it again now. Then they bitch about corporations not paying their share of taxes after passing the bill that created tax breaks. More of note though: Hillary is adopting the party line BS along with the tones of sarcasm and arrogance that liberals apparently find so appealing. We've had over 6 years of arrogant leadership. Do we need more? As time goes by I am convinced more and more that only those who are verifiable US citizens and who are 25 to 55 should be able to vote in any election in the USA. If you are under 25 you haven't really got a clue as to what is going on in the world and how it affects you and once you are over 55 all you want to do is make the rest of your life comfortable on someone else's back. As far as non-US citizens go I really don't care what they think, what they want or whether they are happy. Be careful of expressing any rational thoughts. They are not welcome by some here. My brother's favorite saying: "Republican while you work and a Democrat when you retire". You think disenfranchising tens of millions of American voters is a good thing, eh? How very Republican of you. Where did I say that? Ahh, you stated that Bertbrain's idea to disenfranchise millions of coters was a "rational thought," or at least you implied that. -- This Halloween, I知 dressing up as a Republican to answer the doorbell. I値l give one rich white kid an entire bag of expensive imported chocolate and make the other 100 kids split a Tootsie Roll. |
#6
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Good GAWD
On 10/25/14 3:04 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/25/14 2:55 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/25/2014 10:43 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/25/14 10:26 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/25/2014 10:14 AM, BAR wrote: In article , says... On 10/25/2014 7:34 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/25/14 5:59 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Hillary in Boston on Friday: Now she's claiming that as a senator she voted to increase the minimum wage in 2007 and "millions" of jobs were created. She neglected to mention that the only way the 2007 minimum wage bill was approved by the Senate was by offsetting the cost to businesses by providing additional tax breaks over the next 10 years. Then she went on to say that corporations and businesses *don't* create jobs. Really? If people like arrogance over competence in their leaders, vote for Hillary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nbFYP3xB6k 1. Indeed, she voted to raise the minimum wage. 2. Her point was that raising the minimum wage didn't cost jobs, as opponents of such raises like to claim. 3. Her comment about corproations and businesses was directed at the Republican idea that "trickle down" economics works, and of course, it doesn't. But, hey, nice try. The righties here will snap it up. The House version of that bill passed with *all* Democrats voting for it along with 86 of the Republicans. It died in the Senate though until it was modified to include the tax breaks for businesses to offset the cost of higher wages. *That's* what she voted for. (of course a year later the whole thing didn't matter anymore). Two sentences later though she reminds the Boston audience that corporations and businesses don't create jobs. Why give them a tax break then? The minimum wage thing is always the issue that Democrats rely upon to garner votes. They are focusing on it again now. Then they bitch about corporations not paying their share of taxes after passing the bill that created tax breaks. More of note though: Hillary is adopting the party line BS along with the tones of sarcasm and arrogance that liberals apparently find so appealing. We've had over 6 years of arrogant leadership. Do we need more? As time goes by I am convinced more and more that only those who are verifiable US citizens and who are 25 to 55 should be able to vote in any election in the USA. If you are under 25 you haven't really got a clue as to what is going on in the world and how it affects you and once you are over 55 all you want to do is make the rest of your life comfortable on someone else's back. As far as non-US citizens go I really don't care what they think, what they want or whether they are happy. Be careful of expressing any rational thoughts. They are not welcome by some here. My brother's favorite saying: "Republican while you work and a Democrat when you retire". You think disenfranchising tens of millions of American voters is a good thing, eh? How very Republican of you. Where did I say that? Ahh, you stated that Bertbrain's idea to disenfranchise millions of coters was a "rational thought," or at least you implied that. Voters, of course, not "coters." -- This Halloween, I知 dressing up as a Republican to answer the doorbell. I値l give one rich white kid an entire bag of expensive imported chocolate and make the other 100 kids split a Tootsie Roll. |
#7
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Good GAWD
On 10/25/2014 3:04 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/25/14 2:55 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/25/2014 10:43 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/25/14 10:26 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/25/2014 10:14 AM, BAR wrote: In article , says... On 10/25/2014 7:34 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/25/14 5:59 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Hillary in Boston on Friday: Now she's claiming that as a senator she voted to increase the minimum wage in 2007 and "millions" of jobs were created. She neglected to mention that the only way the 2007 minimum wage bill was approved by the Senate was by offsetting the cost to businesses by providing additional tax breaks over the next 10 years. Then she went on to say that corporations and businesses *don't* create jobs. Really? If people like arrogance over competence in their leaders, vote for Hillary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nbFYP3xB6k 1. Indeed, she voted to raise the minimum wage. 2. Her point was that raising the minimum wage didn't cost jobs, as opponents of such raises like to claim. 3. Her comment about corproations and businesses was directed at the Republican idea that "trickle down" economics works, and of course, it doesn't. But, hey, nice try. The righties here will snap it up. The House version of that bill passed with *all* Democrats voting for it along with 86 of the Republicans. It died in the Senate though until it was modified to include the tax breaks for businesses to offset the cost of higher wages. *That's* what she voted for. (of course a year later the whole thing didn't matter anymore). Two sentences later though she reminds the Boston audience that corporations and businesses don't create jobs. Why give them a tax break then? The minimum wage thing is always the issue that Democrats rely upon to garner votes. They are focusing on it again now. Then they bitch about corporations not paying their share of taxes after passing the bill that created tax breaks. More of note though: Hillary is adopting the party line BS along with the tones of sarcasm and arrogance that liberals apparently find so appealing. We've had over 6 years of arrogant leadership. Do we need more? As time goes by I am convinced more and more that only those who are verifiable US citizens and who are 25 to 55 should be able to vote in any election in the USA. If you are under 25 you haven't really got a clue as to what is going on in the world and how it affects you and once you are over 55 all you want to do is make the rest of your life comfortable on someone else's back. As far as non-US citizens go I really don't care what they think, what they want or whether they are happy. Be careful of expressing any rational thoughts. They are not welcome by some here. My brother's favorite saying: "Republican while you work and a Democrat when you retire". You think disenfranchising tens of millions of American voters is a good thing, eh? How very Republican of you. Where did I say that? Ahh, you stated that Bertbrain's idea to disenfranchise millions of coters was a "rational thought," or at least you implied that. You need to learn to stop putting lies into the mouths of others. |
#8
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Good GAWD
On 10/25/2014 3:04 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/25/14 2:55 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/25/2014 10:43 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/25/14 10:26 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/25/2014 10:14 AM, BAR wrote: In article , says... On 10/25/2014 7:34 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/25/14 5:59 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Hillary in Boston on Friday: Now she's claiming that as a senator she voted to increase the minimum wage in 2007 and "millions" of jobs were created. She neglected to mention that the only way the 2007 minimum wage bill was approved by the Senate was by offsetting the cost to businesses by providing additional tax breaks over the next 10 years. Then she went on to say that corporations and businesses *don't* create jobs. Really? If people like arrogance over competence in their leaders, vote for Hillary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nbFYP3xB6k 1. Indeed, she voted to raise the minimum wage. 2. Her point was that raising the minimum wage didn't cost jobs, as opponents of such raises like to claim. 3. Her comment about corproations and businesses was directed at the Republican idea that "trickle down" economics works, and of course, it doesn't. But, hey, nice try. The righties here will snap it up. The House version of that bill passed with *all* Democrats voting for it along with 86 of the Republicans. It died in the Senate though until it was modified to include the tax breaks for businesses to offset the cost of higher wages. *That's* what she voted for. (of course a year later the whole thing didn't matter anymore). Two sentences later though she reminds the Boston audience that corporations and businesses don't create jobs. Why give them a tax break then? The minimum wage thing is always the issue that Democrats rely upon to garner votes. They are focusing on it again now. Then they bitch about corporations not paying their share of taxes after passing the bill that created tax breaks. More of note though: Hillary is adopting the party line BS along with the tones of sarcasm and arrogance that liberals apparently find so appealing. We've had over 6 years of arrogant leadership. Do we need more? As time goes by I am convinced more and more that only those who are verifiable US citizens and who are 25 to 55 should be able to vote in any election in the USA. If you are under 25 you haven't really got a clue as to what is going on in the world and how it affects you and once you are over 55 all you want to do is make the rest of your life comfortable on someone else's back. As far as non-US citizens go I really don't care what they think, what they want or whether they are happy. Be careful of expressing any rational thoughts. They are not welcome by some here. My brother's favorite saying: "Republican while you work and a Democrat when you retire". You think disenfranchising tens of millions of American voters is a good thing, eh? How very Republican of you. Where did I say that? Ahh, you stated that Bertbrain's idea to disenfranchise millions of coters was a "rational thought," or at least you implied that. I don't agree with it but that doesn't mean it's not a rational thought. This country spends trillions (about 15 trillion since LBJ declared war on poverty in 1964) to fight poverty and reduce reliance on welfare programs. The results? The poverty level is the same as it was in 1964 and the payouts in welfare has risen over 700 percent. It can't go on like this forever Harry. Greg pointed out that people 62 or over have "paid in" most of what they are going to and are likely to vote for the person who "gives" them the most in benefits. Maybe. Maybe not. One thing is for sure though. We have a growing number in our society who adopt that lifestyle at 18 years old. They never "pay in". You can spend all the money in the world and provide all the opportunities you want and there will always be a reason it's not enough. |
#9
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Good GAWD
On 10/25/14 3:26 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/25/2014 3:04 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/25/14 2:55 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/25/2014 10:43 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/25/14 10:26 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/25/2014 10:14 AM, BAR wrote: In article , says... On 10/25/2014 7:34 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/25/14 5:59 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Hillary in Boston on Friday: Now she's claiming that as a senator she voted to increase the minimum wage in 2007 and "millions" of jobs were created. She neglected to mention that the only way the 2007 minimum wage bill was approved by the Senate was by offsetting the cost to businesses by providing additional tax breaks over the next 10 years. Then she went on to say that corporations and businesses *don't* create jobs. Really? If people like arrogance over competence in their leaders, vote for Hillary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nbFYP3xB6k 1. Indeed, she voted to raise the minimum wage. 2. Her point was that raising the minimum wage didn't cost jobs, as opponents of such raises like to claim. 3. Her comment about corproations and businesses was directed at the Republican idea that "trickle down" economics works, and of course, it doesn't. But, hey, nice try. The righties here will snap it up. The House version of that bill passed with *all* Democrats voting for it along with 86 of the Republicans. It died in the Senate though until it was modified to include the tax breaks for businesses to offset the cost of higher wages. *That's* what she voted for. (of course a year later the whole thing didn't matter anymore). Two sentences later though she reminds the Boston audience that corporations and businesses don't create jobs. Why give them a tax break then? The minimum wage thing is always the issue that Democrats rely upon to garner votes. They are focusing on it again now. Then they bitch about corporations not paying their share of taxes after passing the bill that created tax breaks. More of note though: Hillary is adopting the party line BS along with the tones of sarcasm and arrogance that liberals apparently find so appealing. We've had over 6 years of arrogant leadership. Do we need more? As time goes by I am convinced more and more that only those who are verifiable US citizens and who are 25 to 55 should be able to vote in any election in the USA. If you are under 25 you haven't really got a clue as to what is going on in the world and how it affects you and once you are over 55 all you want to do is make the rest of your life comfortable on someone else's back. As far as non-US citizens go I really don't care what they think, what they want or whether they are happy. Be careful of expressing any rational thoughts. They are not welcome by some here. My brother's favorite saying: "Republican while you work and a Democrat when you retire". You think disenfranchising tens of millions of American voters is a good thing, eh? How very Republican of you. Where did I say that? Ahh, you stated that Bertbrain's idea to disenfranchise millions of coters was a "rational thought," or at least you implied that. I don't agree with it but that doesn't mean it's not a rational thought. This country spends trillions (about 15 trillion since LBJ declared war on poverty in 1964) to fight poverty and reduce reliance on welfare programs. The results? The poverty level is the same as it was in 1964 and the payouts in welfare has risen over 700 percent. It can't go on like this forever Harry. Greg pointed out that people 62 or over have "paid in" most of what they are going to and are likely to vote for the person who "gives" them the most in benefits. Maybe. Maybe not. One thing is for sure though. We have a growing number in our society who adopt that lifestyle at 18 years old. They never "pay in". You can spend all the money in the world and provide all the opportunities you want and there will always be a reason it's not enough. I don't think it is "rational" to disenfranchise huge groups of voters. -- This Halloween, I知 dressing up as a Republican to answer the doorbell. I値l give one rich white kid an entire bag of expensive imported chocolate and make the other 100 kids split a Tootsie Roll. |
#10
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Good GAWD
On 10/25/2014 3:29 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/25/14 3:26 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/25/2014 3:04 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/25/14 2:55 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/25/2014 10:43 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/25/14 10:26 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/25/2014 10:14 AM, BAR wrote: In article , says... On 10/25/2014 7:34 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/25/14 5:59 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Hillary in Boston on Friday: Now she's claiming that as a senator she voted to increase the minimum wage in 2007 and "millions" of jobs were created. She neglected to mention that the only way the 2007 minimum wage bill was approved by the Senate was by offsetting the cost to businesses by providing additional tax breaks over the next 10 years. Then she went on to say that corporations and businesses *don't* create jobs. Really? If people like arrogance over competence in their leaders, vote for Hillary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nbFYP3xB6k 1. Indeed, she voted to raise the minimum wage. 2. Her point was that raising the minimum wage didn't cost jobs, as opponents of such raises like to claim. 3. Her comment about corproations and businesses was directed at the Republican idea that "trickle down" economics works, and of course, it doesn't. But, hey, nice try. The righties here will snap it up. The House version of that bill passed with *all* Democrats voting for it along with 86 of the Republicans. It died in the Senate though until it was modified to include the tax breaks for businesses to offset the cost of higher wages. *That's* what she voted for. (of course a year later the whole thing didn't matter anymore). Two sentences later though she reminds the Boston audience that corporations and businesses don't create jobs. Why give them a tax break then? The minimum wage thing is always the issue that Democrats rely upon to garner votes. They are focusing on it again now. Then they bitch about corporations not paying their share of taxes after passing the bill that created tax breaks. More of note though: Hillary is adopting the party line BS along with the tones of sarcasm and arrogance that liberals apparently find so appealing. We've had over 6 years of arrogant leadership. Do we need more? As time goes by I am convinced more and more that only those who are verifiable US citizens and who are 25 to 55 should be able to vote in any election in the USA. If you are under 25 you haven't really got a clue as to what is going on in the world and how it affects you and once you are over 55 all you want to do is make the rest of your life comfortable on someone else's back. As far as non-US citizens go I really don't care what they think, what they want or whether they are happy. Be careful of expressing any rational thoughts. They are not welcome by some here. My brother's favorite saying: "Republican while you work and a Democrat when you retire". You think disenfranchising tens of millions of American voters is a good thing, eh? How very Republican of you. Where did I say that? Ahh, you stated that Bertbrain's idea to disenfranchise millions of coters was a "rational thought," or at least you implied that. I don't agree with it but that doesn't mean it's not a rational thought. This country spends trillions (about 15 trillion since LBJ declared war on poverty in 1964) to fight poverty and reduce reliance on welfare programs. The results? The poverty level is the same as it was in 1964 and the payouts in welfare has risen over 700 percent. It can't go on like this forever Harry. Greg pointed out that people 62 or over have "paid in" most of what they are going to and are likely to vote for the person who "gives" them the most in benefits. Maybe. Maybe not. One thing is for sure though. We have a growing number in our society who adopt that lifestyle at 18 years old. They never "pay in". You can spend all the money in the world and provide all the opportunities you want and there will always be a reason it's not enough. I don't think it is "rational" to disenfranchise huge groups of voters. How would you acomplish " not disenfranchising huge groups of voters" |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Fer the Luv of Gawd!!!.... | ASA | |||
gawd, pools walk towards short monoliths, unless they're good | ASA | |||
gawd, it dines a pool too good with her humble stable | ASA | |||
gawd, wrinkles clean below empty stations, unless they're good | ASA |