|
How...
....Fox News ramps up its "watchers"...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jxEy6TWLNI -- A vote for any Republican is a vote AGAINST: Social Security, Medicare, Minimum Wage, Fair Pay, Food Stamps, Clean Air and Water, Modest Gun Regulations, Public Schools, Rebuilding Infrastructure and Good Jobs, Women's Rights, Veterans’ Rights, LGBT Rights, and, of course, Your Right to Vote. |
Positions
On 10/27/2014 9:25 AM, F*O*A*D erroneously repeats (over and over):
-- A vote for any Republican is a vote AGAINST: Social Security, Medicare, Minimum Wage, Fair Pay, Food Stamps, Clean Air and Water, Modest Gun Regulations, Public Schools, Rebuilding Infrastructure and Good Jobs, Women's Rights, Veterans’ Rights, LGBT Rights, and, of course, Your Right to Vote. Let's see what the actual GOP Platform says about these, shall we? The first two in your laundry list: Social Security "While no changes should adversely affect any current or near-retiree, comprehensive reform should address our society's remarkable medical advances in longevity and allow younger workers the option of creating their own personal investment accounts as *supplements to the system* (emphasis mine). Younger Americans have lost all faith in the Social Security system, which is understandable when they read the non- partisan actuary's reports about its future funding status. Born in an old industrial era beyond the memory of most Americans, it is long overdue for major change, not just another legislative stopgap that postpones a day of reckoning. To restore public trust in the system, Republicans are committed to setting it on a sound fiscal basis that will give workers control over, and a sound return on, their investments. The sooner we act, the sooner those close to retirement can be reassured of their benefits and younger workers can take responsibility for planning their own retirement decades from now." Source: 2012 Republican Party Platform , Aug 27, 2012 Medicare "Give older Americans access to the insurance plan Congress has, including medical savings accounts. Build on the strengths of the free market system, offer seniors real choices, and make sure there are incentives for the private sector to develop drugs. No more one-size-fits-all. Medicare also needs new measures of solvency. We must reduce the administrative complexities. A reformed Medicare program will provide reimbursement at levels that will permit providers to continue to care for patients." Source: Republican Platform adopted at GOP National Convention , Aug 12, 2000 So, you see, the GOP is not *against* Social Security and/or Medicare. They recognize that both programs are dated, heading for insolvency and something must be done to continue the best in retirement security and medical care. Sounds sorta "progressive" to me. More when I feel like looking them up ............. |
Positions
On 10/27/14 10:06 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/27/2014 9:25 AM, F*O*A*D erroneously repeats (over and over): The "changes" the GOP wants will destroy all these programs. Some of them certainly need modification, but not the way the GOPers want. Thank you for participating. -- A vote for any Republican is a vote AGAINST: Social Security, Medicare, Minimum Wage, Fair Pay, Food Stamps, Clean Air and Water, Modest Gun Regulations, Public Schools, Rebuilding Infrastructure and Good Jobs, Women's Rights, Veterans’ Rights, LGBT Rights, and, of course, Your Right to Vote. |
Positions
On 10/27/2014 10:21 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/27/14 10:06 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/27/2014 9:25 AM, F*O*A*D erroneously repeats (over and over): The "changes" the GOP wants will destroy all these programs. Some of them certainly need modification, but not the way the GOPers want. Thank you for participating. How do you figure that? You agree that they need "modification" (so does the GOP) yet you say they will be destroyed if anyone other than the Democrats present ideas to improve them. But, that's not what motivated me to post the positions. You just made a big deal about some Fox News journalist who "made up" a story about printing ballots at home in Colorado. I agree, it was stupid. Yet, you do the same thing in your signature line. What makes you different than the Fox News gal other than the fact that she has nicer legs? |
Positions
On 10/27/14 10:29 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/27/2014 10:21 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/27/14 10:06 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/27/2014 9:25 AM, F*O*A*D erroneously repeats (over and over): The "changes" the GOP wants will destroy all these programs. Some of them certainly need modification, but not the way the GOPers want. Thank you for participating. How do you figure that? You agree that they need "modification" (so does the GOP) yet you say they will be destroyed if anyone other than the Democrats present ideas to improve them. But, that's not what motivated me to post the positions. You just made a big deal about some Fox News journalist who "made up" a story about printing ballots at home in Colorado. I agree, it was stupid. Yet, you do the same thing in your signature line. What makes you different than the Fox News gal other than the fact that she has nicer legs? It is only your unsubstantiated opinion that her legs are nicer than mine. -- A vote for any Republican is a vote AGAINST: Social Security, Medicare, Minimum Wage, Fair Pay, Food Stamps, Clean Air and Water, Modest Gun Regulations, Public Schools, Rebuilding Infrastructure and Good Jobs, Women's Rights, Veterans’ Rights, LGBT Rights, and, of course, Your Right to Vote. |
Positions
On 10/27/2014 10:56 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/27/14 10:29 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/27/2014 10:21 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/27/14 10:06 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/27/2014 9:25 AM, F*O*A*D erroneously repeats (over and over): The "changes" the GOP wants will destroy all these programs. Some of them certainly need modification, but not the way the GOPers want. Thank you for participating. How do you figure that? You agree that they need "modification" (so does the GOP) yet you say they will be destroyed if anyone other than the Democrats present ideas to improve them. But, that's not what motivated me to post the positions. You just made a big deal about some Fox News journalist who "made up" a story about printing ballots at home in Colorado. I agree, it was stupid. Yet, you do the same thing in your signature line. What makes you different than the Fox News gal other than the fact that she has nicer legs? It is only your unsubstantiated opinion that her legs are nicer than mine. I'll bet a $900 rifle scope on it. :-) |
Positions
On 10/27/14 11:46 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/27/2014 10:56 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/27/14 10:29 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/27/2014 10:21 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/27/14 10:06 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/27/2014 9:25 AM, F*O*A*D erroneously repeats (over and over): The "changes" the GOP wants will destroy all these programs. Some of them certainly need modification, but not the way the GOPers want. Thank you for participating. How do you figure that? You agree that they need "modification" (so does the GOP) yet you say they will be destroyed if anyone other than the Democrats present ideas to improve them. But, that's not what motivated me to post the positions. You just made a big deal about some Fox News journalist who "made up" a story about printing ballots at home in Colorado. I agree, it was stupid. Yet, you do the same thing in your signature line. What makes you different than the Fox News gal other than the fact that she has nicer legs? It is only your unsubstantiated opinion that her legs are nicer than mine. I'll bet a $900 rifle scope on it. :-) I'll have you know that my 100 year old grandmother in law, a prim and proper Southern Baptist lady, said I had "nice legs" when she first saw me in Bermuda shorts. -- A vote for any Republican is a vote AGAINST: Social Security, Medicare, Minimum Wage, Fair Pay, Food Stamps, Clean Air and Water, Modest Gun Regulations, Public Schools, Rebuilding Infrastructure and Good Jobs, Women's Rights, Veterans’ Rights, LGBT Rights, and, of course, Your Right to Vote. |
Positions
|
Positions
|
Positions
wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 10:06:45 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/27/2014 9:25 AM, F*O*A*D erroneously repeats (over and over): Don't confuse Harry with facts. He can't assimilate them. He is "Factose Intolerant" Very good. |
Positions
On 10/27/2014 11:55 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/27/14 11:46 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/27/2014 10:56 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/27/14 10:29 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/27/2014 10:21 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/27/14 10:06 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/27/2014 9:25 AM, F*O*A*D erroneously repeats (over and over): The "changes" the GOP wants will destroy all these programs. Some of them certainly need modification, but not the way the GOPers want. Thank you for participating. How do you figure that? You agree that they need "modification" (so does the GOP) yet you say they will be destroyed if anyone other than the Democrats present ideas to improve them. But, that's not what motivated me to post the positions. You just made a big deal about some Fox News journalist who "made up" a story about printing ballots at home in Colorado. I agree, it was stupid. Yet, you do the same thing in your signature line. What makes you different than the Fox News gal other than the fact that she has nicer legs? It is only your unsubstantiated opinion that her legs are nicer than mine. I'll bet a $900 rifle scope on it. :-) I'll have you know that my 100 year old grandmother in law, a prim and proper Southern Baptist lady, said I had "nice legs" when she first saw me in Bermuda shorts. 100 year olds aren't choosy. |
Positions
On 10/27/14 12:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/27/2014 11:55 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/27/14 11:46 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/27/2014 10:56 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/27/14 10:29 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/27/2014 10:21 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/27/14 10:06 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/27/2014 9:25 AM, F*O*A*D erroneously repeats (over and over): The "changes" the GOP wants will destroy all these programs. Some of them certainly need modification, but not the way the GOPers want. Thank you for participating. How do you figure that? You agree that they need "modification" (so does the GOP) yet you say they will be destroyed if anyone other than the Democrats present ideas to improve them. But, that's not what motivated me to post the positions. You just made a big deal about some Fox News journalist who "made up" a story about printing ballots at home in Colorado. I agree, it was stupid. Yet, you do the same thing in your signature line. What makes you different than the Fox News gal other than the fact that she has nicer legs? It is only your unsubstantiated opinion that her legs are nicer than mine. I'll bet a $900 rifle scope on it. :-) I'll have you know that my 100 year old grandmother in law, a prim and proper Southern Baptist lady, said I had "nice legs" when she first saw me in Bermuda shorts. 100 year olds aren't choosy. You're hurting my feelings! I had this delusion of being the Designated Hunkie for Old Biddies. :) -- A vote for any Republican is a vote AGAINST: Social Security, Medicare, Minimum Wage, Fair Pay, Food Stamps, Clean Air and Water, Modest Gun Regulations, Public Schools, Rebuilding Infrastructure and Good Jobs, Women's Rights, Veterans’ Rights, LGBT Rights, and, of course, Your Right to Vote. |
Positions
On 10/27/2014 12:35 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/27/14 12:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/27/2014 11:55 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: I'll have you know that my 100 year old grandmother in law, a prim and proper Southern Baptist lady, said I had "nice legs" when she first saw me in Bermuda shorts. 100 year olds aren't choosy. You're hurting my feelings! I had this delusion of being the Designated Hunkie for Old Biddies. :) My father was a very tall and distinguished looking guy. My wife's 90 something year old Italian grandmother (who immigrated to the USA just prior to WWII) used to swoon all over him when they met at any family gatherings. She'd clasp her hands together in classic Italian style and start babbling away in Italian while fluttering her eyelids at him. I remember asking my wife's father and mother (who both spoke Italian) what she was saying. They always answered, "Never mind, you don't want to know". |
Positions
On 10/27/14 12:56 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/27/2014 12:35 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/27/14 12:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/27/2014 11:55 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: I'll have you know that my 100 year old grandmother in law, a prim and proper Southern Baptist lady, said I had "nice legs" when she first saw me in Bermuda shorts. 100 year olds aren't choosy. You're hurting my feelings! I had this delusion of being the Designated Hunkie for Old Biddies. :) My father was a very tall and distinguished looking guy. My wife's 90 something year old Italian grandmother (who immigrated to the USA just prior to WWII) used to swoon all over him when they met at any family gatherings. She'd clasp her hands together in classic Italian style and start babbling away in Italian while fluttering her eyelids at him. I remember asking my wife's father and mother (who both spoke Italian) what she was saying. They always answered, "Never mind, you don't want to know". Ahh. Delightful. Maybe I'll get invited to pose for "Ancient Hottie Monthly." :) Title works for me and hopefully my female admirers. -- A vote for any Republican is a vote AGAINST: Social Security, Medicare, Minimum Wage, Fair Pay, Food Stamps, Clean Air and Water, Modest Gun Regulations, Public Schools, Rebuilding Infrastructure and Good Jobs, Women's Rights, Veterans’ Rights, LGBT Rights, and, of course, Your Right to Vote. |
Positions
On 10/27/2014 11:55 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/27/14 11:46 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/27/2014 10:56 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/27/14 10:29 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/27/2014 10:21 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/27/14 10:06 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/27/2014 9:25 AM, F*O*A*D erroneously repeats (over and over): The "changes" the GOP wants will destroy all these programs. Some of them certainly need modification, but not the way the GOPers want. Thank you for participating. How do you figure that? You agree that they need "modification" (so does the GOP) yet you say they will be destroyed if anyone other than the Democrats present ideas to improve them. But, that's not what motivated me to post the positions. You just made a big deal about some Fox News journalist who "made up" a story about printing ballots at home in Colorado. I agree, it was stupid. Yet, you do the same thing in your signature line. What makes you different than the Fox News gal other than the fact that she has nicer legs? It is only your unsubstantiated opinion that her legs are nicer than mine. I'll bet a $900 rifle scope on it. :-) I'll have you know that my 100 year old grandmother in law, a prim and proper Southern Baptist lady, said I had "nice legs" when she first saw me in Bermuda shorts. Is she one of those blind Linotype operators? |
Positions
On 10/27/2014 12:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/27/2014 11:55 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/27/14 11:46 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/27/2014 10:56 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/27/14 10:29 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/27/2014 10:21 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/27/14 10:06 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/27/2014 9:25 AM, F*O*A*D erroneously repeats (over and over): The "changes" the GOP wants will destroy all these programs. Some of them certainly need modification, but not the way the GOPers want. Thank you for participating. How do you figure that? You agree that they need "modification" (so does the GOP) yet you say they will be destroyed if anyone other than the Democrats present ideas to improve them. But, that's not what motivated me to post the positions. You just made a big deal about some Fox News journalist who "made up" a story about printing ballots at home in Colorado. I agree, it was stupid. Yet, you do the same thing in your signature line. What makes you different than the Fox News gal other than the fact that she has nicer legs? It is only your unsubstantiated opinion that her legs are nicer than mine. I'll bet a $900 rifle scope on it. :-) I'll have you know that my 100 year old grandmother in law, a prim and proper Southern Baptist lady, said I had "nice legs" when she first saw me in Bermuda shorts. 100 year olds aren't choosy. Krause has been banned from family reunions and gatherings. Doncha just love it? |
Positions
On 10/27/2014 9:56 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/27/14 10:29 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/27/2014 10:21 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/27/14 10:06 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/27/2014 9:25 AM, F*O*A*D erroneously repeats (over and over): The "changes" the GOP wants will destroy all these programs. Some of them certainly need modification, but not the way the GOPers want. Thank you for participating. How do you figure that? You agree that they need "modification" (so does the GOP) yet you say they will be destroyed if anyone other than the Democrats present ideas to improve them. But, that's not what motivated me to post the positions. You just made a big deal about some Fox News journalist who "made up" a story about printing ballots at home in Colorado. I agree, it was stupid. Yet, you do the same thing in your signature line. What makes you different than the Fox News gal other than the fact that she has nicer legs? It is only your unsubstantiated opinion that her legs are nicer than mine. Yes, let's talk about legs rather than the topic because you can't defend your position. But that's just more of the usual. Mikek --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com |
Positions
On 10/27/14 1:16 PM, amdx wrote:
On 10/27/2014 9:56 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/27/14 10:29 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/27/2014 10:21 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/27/14 10:06 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/27/2014 9:25 AM, F*O*A*D erroneously repeats (over and over): The "changes" the GOP wants will destroy all these programs. Some of them certainly need modification, but not the way the GOPers want. Thank you for participating. How do you figure that? You agree that they need "modification" (so does the GOP) yet you say they will be destroyed if anyone other than the Democrats present ideas to improve them. But, that's not what motivated me to post the positions. You just made a big deal about some Fox News journalist who "made up" a story about printing ballots at home in Colorado. I agree, it was stupid. Yet, you do the same thing in your signature line. What makes you different than the Fox News gal other than the fact that she has nicer legs? It is only your unsubstantiated opinion that her legs are nicer than mine. Yes, let's talk about legs rather than the topic because you can't defend your position. But that's just more of the usual. Mikek --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com What is the point of debating "positions" with a guy who believes Jimmy Carter was president in 1984? -- A vote for any Republican is a vote AGAINST: Social Security, Medicare, Minimum Wage, Fair Pay, Food Stamps, Clean Air and Water, Modest Gun Regulations, Public Schools, Rebuilding Infrastructure and Good Jobs, Women's Rights, Veterans’ Rights, LGBT Rights, and, of course, Your Right to Vote. |
Positions
On 10/27/2014 12:47 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/27/14 1:16 PM, amdx wrote: On 10/27/2014 9:56 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/27/14 10:29 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/27/2014 10:21 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/27/14 10:06 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/27/2014 9:25 AM, F*O*A*D erroneously repeats (over and over): The "changes" the GOP wants will destroy all these programs. Some of them certainly need modification, but not the way the GOPers want. Thank you for participating. How do you figure that? You agree that they need "modification" (so does the GOP) yet you say they will be destroyed if anyone other than the Democrats present ideas to improve them. But, that's not what motivated me to post the positions. You just made a big deal about some Fox News journalist who "made up" a story about printing ballots at home in Colorado. I agree, it was stupid. Yet, you do the same thing in your signature line. What makes you different than the Fox News gal other than the fact that she has nicer legs? It is only your unsubstantiated opinion that her legs are nicer than mine. Yes, let's talk about legs rather than the topic because you can't defend your position. But that's just more of the usual. Mikek --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com What is the point of debating "positions" with a guy who believes Jimmy Carter was president in 1984? Nice job, you found I made an error. I tied the high interest rates of the Carter years to when I got my first house. When Carter became president in Jan of 1977 the prime rate was 6.5%, when he was not reelected in 1981 the prime rate was 20.5%, with the rate having peaked at 21.5% just a month earlier. Reagan's policies brought it down to 10.5% before he left office. So the rates were high from Carters ineffective policies, but he was out of office when I bought my home. I also got laid off, because of Carters high interest rates. The company I worked for borrowed money at Prime plus 2%, the high rates became to costly and they had to cut back. By 1986 Reagan's economy had me making more money than I ever did, or have since, inflation adjusted. But again, you changed the subject instead of showing evidence upholding your position. Mikek --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com |
Positions
On 10/27/14 2:21 PM, amdx wrote:
On 10/27/2014 12:47 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/27/14 1:16 PM, amdx wrote: On 10/27/2014 9:56 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/27/14 10:29 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/27/2014 10:21 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/27/14 10:06 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/27/2014 9:25 AM, F*O*A*D erroneously repeats (over and over): The "changes" the GOP wants will destroy all these programs. Some of them certainly need modification, but not the way the GOPers want. Thank you for participating. How do you figure that? You agree that they need "modification" (so does the GOP) yet you say they will be destroyed if anyone other than the Democrats present ideas to improve them. But, that's not what motivated me to post the positions. You just made a big deal about some Fox News journalist who "made up" a story about printing ballots at home in Colorado. I agree, it was stupid. Yet, you do the same thing in your signature line. What makes you different than the Fox News gal other than the fact that she has nicer legs? It is only your unsubstantiated opinion that her legs are nicer than mine. Yes, let's talk about legs rather than the topic because you can't defend your position. But that's just more of the usual. Mikek --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com What is the point of debating "positions" with a guy who believes Jimmy Carter was president in 1984? Nice job, you found I made an error. I tied the high interest rates of the Carter years to when I got my first house. When Carter became president in Jan of 1977 the prime rate was 6.5%, when he was not reelected in 1981 the prime rate was 20.5%, with the rate having peaked at 21.5% just a month earlier. Reagan's policies brought it down to 10.5% before he left office. So the rates were high from Carters ineffective policies, but he was out of office when I bought my home. I also got laid off, because of Carters high interest rates. The company I worked for borrowed money at Prime plus 2%, the high rates became to costly and they had to cut back. By 1986 Reagan's economy had me making more money than I ever did, or have since, inflation adjusted. But again, you changed the subject instead of showing evidence upholding your position. Mikek Sure, Mikey, whatever you say. Perhaps you need a new set of pedals. -- A vote for any Republican is a vote AGAINST: Social Security, Medicare, Minimum Wage, Fair Pay, Food Stamps, Clean Air and Water, Modest Gun Regulations, Public Schools, Rebuilding Infrastructure and Good Jobs, Women's Rights, Veterans’ Rights, LGBT Rights, and, of course, Your Right to Vote. |
Positions
On 10/27/2014 1:24 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/27/14 2:21 PM, amdx wrote: On 10/27/2014 12:47 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/27/14 1:16 PM, amdx wrote: On 10/27/2014 9:56 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/27/14 10:29 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/27/2014 10:21 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/27/14 10:06 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/27/2014 9:25 AM, F*O*A*D erroneously repeats (over and over): The "changes" the GOP wants will destroy all these programs. Some of them certainly need modification, but not the way the GOPers want. Thank you for participating. How do you figure that? You agree that they need "modification" (so does the GOP) yet you say they will be destroyed if anyone other than the Democrats present ideas to improve them. But, that's not what motivated me to post the positions. You just made a big deal about some Fox News journalist who "made up" a story about printing ballots at home in Colorado. I agree, it was stupid. Yet, you do the same thing in your signature line. What makes you different than the Fox News gal other than the fact that she has nicer legs? It is only your unsubstantiated opinion that her legs are nicer than mine. Yes, let's talk about legs rather than the topic because you can't defend your position. But that's just more of the usual. Mikek --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com What is the point of debating "positions" with a guy who believes Jimmy Carter was president in 1984? Nice job, you found I made an error. I tied the high interest rates of the Carter years to when I got my first house. When Carter became president in Jan of 1977 the prime rate was 6.5%, when he was not reelected in 1981 the prime rate was 20.5%, with the rate having peaked at 21.5% just a month earlier. Reagan's policies brought it down to 10.5% before he left office. So the rates were high from Carters ineffective policies, but he was out of office when I bought my home. I also got laid off, because of Carters high interest rates. The company I worked for borrowed money at Prime plus 2%, the high rates became to costly and they had to cut back. By 1986 Reagan's economy had me making more money than I ever did, or have since, inflation adjusted. But again, you changed the subject instead of showing evidence upholding your position. Mikek Sure, Mikey, whatever you say. Perhaps you need a new set of pedals. I have been shopping for a bike, but, "there you go again", changing the subject. Mikek --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com |
Positions
On 10/27/2014 2:24 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/27/14 2:21 PM, amdx wrote: On 10/27/2014 12:47 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/27/14 1:16 PM, amdx wrote: On 10/27/2014 9:56 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/27/14 10:29 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/27/2014 10:21 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/27/14 10:06 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/27/2014 9:25 AM, F*O*A*D erroneously repeats (over and over): The "changes" the GOP wants will destroy all these programs. Some of them certainly need modification, but not the way the GOPers want. Thank you for participating. How do you figure that? You agree that they need "modification" (so does the GOP) yet you say they will be destroyed if anyone other than the Democrats present ideas to improve them. But, that's not what motivated me to post the positions. You just made a big deal about some Fox News journalist who "made up" a story about printing ballots at home in Colorado. I agree, it was stupid. Yet, you do the same thing in your signature line. What makes you different than the Fox News gal other than the fact that she has nicer legs? It is only your unsubstantiated opinion that her legs are nicer than mine. Yes, let's talk about legs rather than the topic because you can't defend your position. But that's just more of the usual. Mikek --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com What is the point of debating "positions" with a guy who believes Jimmy Carter was president in 1984? Nice job, you found I made an error. I tied the high interest rates of the Carter years to when I got my first house. When Carter became president in Jan of 1977 the prime rate was 6.5%, when he was not reelected in 1981 the prime rate was 20.5%, with the rate having peaked at 21.5% just a month earlier. Reagan's policies brought it down to 10.5% before he left office. So the rates were high from Carters ineffective policies, but he was out of office when I bought my home. I also got laid off, because of Carters high interest rates. The company I worked for borrowed money at Prime plus 2%, the high rates became to costly and they had to cut back. By 1986 Reagan's economy had me making more money than I ever did, or have since, inflation adjusted. But again, you changed the subject instead of showing evidence upholding your position. Mikek Sure, Mikey, whatever you say. Perhaps you need a new set of pedals. We bought our first house in 1978 not long after leaving the Navy. I've forgotten the interest rate on the loan but I know it was very high compared to today's rates. The house was basically a winterized cottage because it was all we could afford at the time. Paid $28K for it. :-) In 1983 we bought our second home due to a growing family. I used the GI bill to get a VA guarantied loan. IIRC, the interest rate was 12.5 percent with 2 "points". I remember it was slightly lower than the going rates at the time because 12.5 percent was the most the VA would approve and guarantee. Seems ridiculous now. |
Positions
On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 13:21:13 -0500, amdx wrote:
But again, you changed the subject instead of showing evidence upholding your position. === Debating Harry is like arguing with a woman. |
Positions
On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 11:48:20 -0400, wrote:
Don't confuse Harry with facts. He can't assimilate them. He is "Factose Intolerant" === Heh, good one. |
Positions
On 10/27/2014 4:42 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 13:21:13 -0500, amdx wrote: But again, you changed the subject instead of showing evidence upholding your position. === Debating Harry is like arguing with a woman. LOL That thought has occurred to me several times but I never dared say it. Debating with my wife is exhausting enough. |
Positions
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 10/27/2014 2:24 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/27/14 2:21 PM, amdx wrote: On 10/27/2014 12:47 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/27/14 1:16 PM, amdx wrote: On 10/27/2014 9:56 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/27/14 10:29 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/27/2014 10:21 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/27/14 10:06 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/27/2014 9:25 AM, F*O*A*D erroneously repeats (over and over): The "changes" the GOP wants will destroy all these programs. Some of them certainly need modification, but not the way the GOPers want. Thank you for participating. How do you figure that? You agree that they need "modification" (so does the GOP) yet you say they will be destroyed if anyone other than the Democrats present ideas to improve them. But, that's not what motivated me to post the positions. You just made a big deal about some Fox News journalist who "made up" a story about printing ballots at home in Colorado. I agree, it was stupid. Yet, you do the same thing in your signature line. What makes you different than the Fox News gal other than the fact that she has nicer legs? It is only your unsubstantiated opinion that her legs are nicer than mine. Yes, let's talk about legs rather than the topic because you can't defend your position. But that's just more of the usual. Mikek --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com What is the point of debating "positions" with a guy who believes Jimmy Carter was president in 1984? Nice job, you found I made an error. I tied the high interest rates of the Carter years to when I got my first house. When Carter became president in Jan of 1977 the prime rate was 6.5%, when he was not reelected in 1981 the prime rate was 20.5%, with the rate having peaked at 21.5% just a month earlier. Reagan's policies brought it down to 10.5% before he left office. So the rates were high from Carters ineffective policies, but he was out of office when I bought my home. I also got laid off, because of Carters high interest rates. The company I worked for borrowed money at Prime plus 2%, the high rates became to costly and they had to cut back. By 1986 Reagan's economy had me making more money than I ever did, or have since, inflation adjusted. But again, you changed the subject instead of showing evidence upholding your position. Mikek Sure, Mikey, whatever you say. Perhaps you need a new set of pedals. We bought our first house in 1978 not long after leaving the Navy. I've forgotten the interest rate on the loan but I know it was very high compared to today's rates. The house was basically a winterized cottage because it was all we could afford at the time. Paid $28K for it. :-) In 1983 we bought our second home due to a growing family. I used the GI bill to get a VA guarantied loan. IIRC, the interest rate was 12.5 percent with 2 "points". I remember it was slightly lower than the going rates at the time because 12.5 percent was the most the VA would approve and guarantee. Seems ridiculous now. I bought my present house in 1979. $138.5k Assumed a 9% variable loan with a 1/2% change cap a year. Interest rates were 13.5%. First house in 1969 was I think 6.5%. $25k house. |
Positions
On 10/27/14 4:47 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/27/2014 4:42 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 13:21:13 -0500, amdx wrote: But again, you changed the subject instead of showing evidence upholding your position. === Debating Harry is like arguing with a woman. LOL That thought has occurred to me several times but I never dared say it. Debating with my wife is exhausting enough. There's very little "debating" going on here. -- A vote for any Republican is a vote AGAINST: Social Security, Medicare, Minimum Wage, Fair Pay, Food Stamps, Clean Air and Water, Modest Gun Regulations, Public Schools, Rebuilding Infrastructure and Good Jobs, Women's Rights, Veterans’ Rights, LGBT Rights, and, of course, Your Right to Vote. |
Positions
On 10/27/14 4:42 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 13:21:13 -0500, amdx wrote: But again, you changed the subject instead of showing evidence upholding your position. === Debating Harry is like arguing with a woman. You suck at both. -- A vote for any Republican is a vote AGAINST: Social Security, Medicare, Minimum Wage, Fair Pay, Food Stamps, Clean Air and Water, Modest Gun Regulations, Public Schools, Rebuilding Infrastructure and Good Jobs, Women's Rights, Veterans’ Rights, LGBT Rights, and, of course, Your Right to Vote. |
Positions
|
Positions
On 10/27/2014 4:42 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 13:21:13 -0500, amdx wrote: But again, you changed the subject instead of showing evidence upholding your position. === Debating Harry is like arguing with a woman. More like arguing with Debbie Wasserman Schults, but she is no woman... |
Positions
On Monday, October 27, 2014 6:01:28 PM UTC-7, wrote:
When my wife adds in her cell phone bill it is almost a grand a month. WOW! a thousand a month??? |
Positions
|
Positions
Wife and I are now on prepaid Virgin Mobile service.
We pay $100.00 per year upfront. If we get chatty, we can go online and add more on our accounts. On the other hand, my wife hasn't used her hundred dollars the last couple of years so Virgin allows you to carry the balance to the new year if you top up the new hundred by the anniversary date. Our Internet/cable tv/home phone add $158.00 per month.....and we feel that is expensive. |
Positions
On 10/28/14 7:46 AM, True North wrote:
Wife and I are now on prepaid Virgin Mobile service. We pay $100.00 per year upfront. If we get chatty, we can go online and add more on our accounts. On the other hand, my wife hasn't used her hundred dollars the last couple of years so Virgin allows you to carry the balance to the new year if you top up the new hundred by the anniversary date. Our Internet/cable tv/home phone add $158.00 per month.....and we feel that is expensive. So that's where all those Virgins went...they became *Mobile* :) Cable is a huge rip off. In most markets, the cable companies have bribed their way into being sole providers for an entire city or large parts of it, and in this era of non-regulation, charge whatever the hell they want. It's the 'Merican way, and apparently the Canadian way, too. -- A vote for any Republican is a vote AGAINST: Social Security, Medicare, Minimum Wage, Fair Pay, Food Stamps, Clean Air and Water, Modest Gun Regulations, Public Schools, Rebuilding Infrastructure and Good Jobs, Women's Rights, Veterans’ Rights, LGBT Rights, and, of course, Your Right to Vote. |
Positions
On 10/28/2014 8:51 AM, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 10:06:45 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/27/2014 9:25 AM, F*O*A*D erroneously repeats (over and over): Don't confuse Harry with facts. He can't assimilate them. He is "Factose Intolerant" I am going to steal that phrase. Mee too... |
The city that I live in we have access to ATT Uverse, WOW, Comcast, Dish, Direct TV so there are choices at least in my home city.
|
How...
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:19 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com