Teddy Roosevelt and the Donald
 

On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 20:13:01 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 19:00:42 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 15:56:13 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 13:24:48 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 3/2/16 12:56 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 11:31:17 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 3/2/16 10:40 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 10:19:54 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 3/2/16 10:09 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 14:21:17 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

I vote but I vote for someone who reflects my views, not someone in a
given party


None of the GOP "frontrunners" reflect my views on any issue of
importance to me. I certainly wouldn't want any of the Republithugs
nominating to the Supreme Court.

I suppose that all depends on what you expect out of the court.
Liberals want to court to do social engineering and bypass the
legislative process. True conservatives simply want the court to
defend the constitution.


True conservatives... gosh, what is the litmus test for that these days?

It is not what passes for the current test,
I would say a person who respects the text of the constitution,
defends the individual rights of the population against an oppressive
government and someone who wants a sustainable fiscal policy.


Gosh, what national politicians meet your standards? Preferably name
those who hold or who have held national office.

At least you and BAO recognize my frustration with the weasels we have
been presented with. Those do not seem to be unreasonable things to
ask for


I'm simply indulging your fantasies...

What? the fantasy of someone who wants to protect our rights and the
value of our money?
Is that really too much to ask?
If they can't provide that, maybe we should be stocking up on gold,
ammo and MREs


Thank you, mr. Beck

Another brain fart from Harry

Deal with the points I state or shut the **** up.

If the candidates are not going to actually give you your individual
freedoms and a money you can trust, what would you suggest?

Borrowing 3 trillion more money than the markets are willing to lend
you and printing the rest in the basement (aka monetary easing) is not
sound fiscal policy. Nobody wants to talk about that.
There is not much argument about the loss of individual freedoms
whether it is guns, abortion or drugs, legal and illegal. (the only
things they will talk about)
That doesn't even touch privacy, property rights and the trampling of
the 4th 5th 6th 9th and 10th amendments.

When a candidate is willing to talk about that, I will pay attention.
Otherwise I am going to vote for someone who will.

Please tell when the hell Krause has ever dealt with the points you've made!

Pretty much never. He doesn't mind posting a 30 line cut and paste but
his actual contributions to the conversation tend to be insulting one
liners. That is how Trump "debates".

A person who's debeate points are limited to restating their
credentials, calls into question just how questionable those
credentials are.

Teddy Roosevelt and the Donald
 

On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 23:35:43 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 20:13:01 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 19:00:42 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 15:56:13 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 13:24:48 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 3/2/16 12:56 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 11:31:17 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 3/2/16 10:40 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 10:19:54 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 3/2/16 10:09 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 14:21:17 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

I vote but I vote for someone who reflects my views, not someone in a
given party


None of the GOP "frontrunners" reflect my views on any issue of
importance to me. I certainly wouldn't want any of the Republithugs
nominating to the Supreme Court.

I suppose that all depends on what you expect out of the court.
Liberals want to court to do social engineering and bypass the
legislative process. True conservatives simply want the court to
defend the constitution.


True conservatives... gosh, what is the litmus test for that these days?

It is not what passes for the current test,
I would say a person who respects the text of the constitution,
defends the individual rights of the population against an oppressive
government and someone who wants a sustainable fiscal policy.


Gosh, what national politicians meet your standards? Preferably name
those who hold or who have held national office.

At least you and BAO recognize my frustration with the weasels we have
been presented with. Those do not seem to be unreasonable things to
ask for


I'm simply indulging your fantasies...

What? the fantasy of someone who wants to protect our rights and the
value of our money?
Is that really too much to ask?
If they can't provide that, maybe we should be stocking up on gold,
ammo and MREs


Thank you, mr. Beck

Another brain fart from Harry

Deal with the points I state or shut the **** up.

If the candidates are not going to actually give you your individual
freedoms and a money you can trust, what would you suggest?

Borrowing 3 trillion more money than the markets are willing to lend
you and printing the rest in the basement (aka monetary easing) is not
sound fiscal policy. Nobody wants to talk about that.
There is not much argument about the loss of individual freedoms
whether it is guns, abortion or drugs, legal and illegal. (the only
things they will talk about)
That doesn't even touch privacy, property rights and the trampling of
the 4th 5th 6th 9th and 10th amendments.

When a candidate is willing to talk about that, I will pay attention.
Otherwise I am going to vote for someone who will.

Please tell when the hell Krause has ever dealt with the points you've made!

Pretty much never. He doesn't mind posting a 30 line cut and paste but
his actual contributions to the conversation tend to be insulting one
liners. That is how Trump "debates".

A person who's debeate points are limited to restating their
credentials, calls into question just how questionable those
credentials are.

Then why continue to feed his narcissism by giving him a forum to spew his crap? It
doesn't bother me that you do so, but I can't understand the rationale for presenting
a cogent argument only to have, "Thank you Mr. Beck" thrown in your face - over, and
over, and over.
--

Ban liars, tax cheats, idiots, audiophools, and narcissists...not guns!

Teddy Roosevelt and the Donald
 

On 3/2/16 7:00 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 15:56:13 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 13:24:48 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 3/2/16 12:56 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 11:31:17 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 3/2/16 10:40 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 10:19:54 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 3/2/16 10:09 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 14:21:17 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

I vote but I vote for someone who reflects my views, not someone in a
given party


None of the GOP "frontrunners" reflect my views on any issue of
importance to me. I certainly wouldn't want any of the Republithugs
nominating to the Supreme Court.

I suppose that all depends on what you expect out of the court.
Liberals want to court to do social engineering and bypass the
legislative process. True conservatives simply want the court to
defend the constitution.


True conservatives... gosh, what is the litmus test for that these days?

It is not what passes for the current test,
I would say a person who respects the text of the constitution,
defends the individual rights of the population against an oppressive
government and someone who wants a sustainable fiscal policy.


Gosh, what national politicians meet your standards? Preferably name
those who hold or who have held national office.

At least you and BAO recognize my frustration with the weasels we have
been presented with. Those do not seem to be unreasonable things to
ask for


I'm simply indulging your fantasies...

What? the fantasy of someone who wants to protect our rights and the
value of our money?
Is that really too much to ask?
If they can't provide that, maybe we should be stocking up on gold,
ammo and MREs


Thank you, mr. Beck

Another brain fart from Harry

Deal with the points I state or shut the **** up.


Sorry, but I'm just not into political nihilism. And you seem unwilling
or unable to name any national politicians who meet your standards. Oh,
and I don't buy into "survivalism," either.

Teddy Roosevelt and the Donald
 

On 3/2/16 8:13 PM, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 19:00:42 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 15:56:13 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 13:24:48 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 3/2/16 12:56 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 11:31:17 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 3/2/16 10:40 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 10:19:54 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 3/2/16 10:09 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 14:21:17 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

I vote but I vote for someone who reflects my views, not someone in a
given party


None of the GOP "frontrunners" reflect my views on any issue of
importance to me. I certainly wouldn't want any of the Republithugs
nominating to the Supreme Court.

I suppose that all depends on what you expect out of the court.
Liberals want to court to do social engineering and bypass the
legislative process. True conservatives simply want the court to
defend the constitution.


True conservatives... gosh, what is the litmus test for that these days?

It is not what passes for the current test,
I would say a person who respects the text of the constitution,
defends the individual rights of the population against an oppressive
government and someone who wants a sustainable fiscal policy.


Gosh, what national politicians meet your standards? Preferably name
those who hold or who have held national office.

At least you and BAO recognize my frustration with the weasels we have
been presented with. Those do not seem to be unreasonable things to
ask for


I'm simply indulging your fantasies...

What? the fantasy of someone who wants to protect our rights and the
value of our money?
Is that really too much to ask?
If they can't provide that, maybe we should be stocking up on gold,
ammo and MREs


Thank you, mr. Beck

Another brain fart from Harry

Deal with the points I state or shut the **** up.

If the candidates are not going to actually give you your individual
freedoms and a money you can trust, what would you suggest?

Borrowing 3 trillion more money than the markets are willing to lend
you and printing the rest in the basement (aka monetary easing) is not
sound fiscal policy. Nobody wants to talk about that.
There is not much argument about the loss of individual freedoms
whether it is guns, abortion or drugs, legal and illegal. (the only
things they will talk about)
That doesn't even touch privacy, property rights and the trampling of
the 4th 5th 6th 9th and 10th amendments.

When a candidate is willing to talk about that, I will pay attention.
Otherwise I am going to vote for someone who will.

Please tell when the hell Krause has ever dealt with the points you've made!
--


JohnnyRancorous...once again, there is no requirement here to respond to
any particular posts. I simply do not buy into Fretwell's doom and gloom
scenarios, political nihilism, and survivalism, and feel no need to try
to talk him out of them.

Teddy Roosevelt and the Donald
 

On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 07:50:16 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

Sorry, but I'm just not into political nihilism. And you seem unwilling
or unable to name any national politicians who meet your standards. Oh,
and I don't buy into "survivalism," either.

===

It has been said that a stopped clock is right twice a day. Sooner or
later the preppers and survivalists will be right also.

Teddy Roosevelt and the Donald
 

On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 8:29:36 AM UTC-6, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 07:50:16 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

Sorry, but I'm just not into political nihilism. And you seem unwilling
or unable to name any national politicians who meet your standards. Oh,
and I don't buy into "survivalism," either.

===

It has been said that a stopped clock is right twice a day. Sooner or
later the preppers and survivalists will be right also.

Thats the way i see it. 1928 was a great year. Then.....

Teddy Roosevelt and the Donald
 

On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 8:29:36 AM UTC-6, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 07:50:16 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

Sorry, but I'm just not into political nihilism. And you seem unwilling
or unable to name any national politicians who meet your standards. Oh,
and I don't buy into "survivalism," either.

===

It has been said that a stopped clock is right twice a day. Sooner or
later the preppers and survivalists will be right also.

Teddy Roosevelt and the Donald
 

On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 6:50:20 AM UTC-6, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 3/2/16 7:00 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 15:56:13 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 13:24:48 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 3/2/16 12:56 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 11:31:17 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 3/2/16 10:40 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 10:19:54 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 3/2/16 10:09 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 14:21:17 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

I vote but I vote for someone who reflects my views, not someone in a
given party


None of the GOP "frontrunners" reflect my views on any issue of
importance to me. I certainly wouldn't want any of the Republithugs
nominating to the Supreme Court.

I suppose that all depends on what you expect out of the court.
Liberals want to court to do social engineering and bypass the
legislative process. True conservatives simply want the court to
defend the constitution.


True conservatives... gosh, what is the litmus test for that these days?

It is not what passes for the current test,
I would say a person who respects the text of the constitution,
defends the individual rights of the population against an oppressive
government and someone who wants a sustainable fiscal policy.


Gosh, what national politicians meet your standards? Preferably name
those who hold or who have held national office.

At least you and BAO recognize my frustration with the weasels we have
been presented with. Those do not seem to be unreasonable things to
ask for


I'm simply indulging your fantasies...

What? the fantasy of someone who wants to protect our rights and the
value of our money?
Is that really too much to ask?
If they can't provide that, maybe we should be stocking up on gold,
ammo and MREs


Thank you, mr. Beck

Another brain fart from Harry

Deal with the points I state or shut the **** up.


Sorry, but I'm just not into political nihilism. And you seem unwilling
or unable to name any national politicians who meet your standards. Oh,
and I don't buy into "survivalism," either.

And who says he has to? Rec.boats isn't a political science course.

Teddy Roosevelt and the Donald
 

On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 7:21:59 AM UTC-6, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 3/2/16 8:13 PM, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 19:00:42 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 15:56:13 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 13:24:48 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 3/2/16 12:56 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 11:31:17 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 3/2/16 10:40 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 10:19:54 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 3/2/16 10:09 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 14:21:17 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

I vote but I vote for someone who reflects my views, not someone in a
given party


None of the GOP "frontrunners" reflect my views on any issue of
importance to me. I certainly wouldn't want any of the Republithugs
nominating to the Supreme Court.

I suppose that all depends on what you expect out of the court..
Liberals want to court to do social engineering and bypass the
legislative process. True conservatives simply want the court to
defend the constitution.


True conservatives... gosh, what is the litmus test for that these days?

It is not what passes for the current test,
I would say a person who respects the text of the constitution,
defends the individual rights of the population against an oppressive
government and someone who wants a sustainable fiscal policy.


Gosh, what national politicians meet your standards? Preferably name
those who hold or who have held national office.

At least you and BAO recognize my frustration with the weasels we have
been presented with. Those do not seem to be unreasonable things to
ask for


I'm simply indulging your fantasies...

What? the fantasy of someone who wants to protect our rights and the
value of our money?
Is that really too much to ask?
If they can't provide that, maybe we should be stocking up on gold,
ammo and MREs


Thank you, mr. Beck

Another brain fart from Harry

Deal with the points I state or shut the **** up.

If the candidates are not going to actually give you your individual
freedoms and a money you can trust, what would you suggest?

Borrowing 3 trillion more money than the markets are willing to lend
you and printing the rest in the basement (aka monetary easing) is not
sound fiscal policy. Nobody wants to talk about that.
There is not much argument about the loss of individual freedoms
whether it is guns, abortion or drugs, legal and illegal. (the only
things they will talk about)
That doesn't even touch privacy, property rights and the trampling of
the 4th 5th 6th 9th and 10th amendments.

When a candidate is willing to talk about that, I will pay attention.
Otherwise I am going to vote for someone who will.

Please tell when the hell Krause has ever dealt with the points you've made!
--


JohnnyRancorous...once again, there is no requirement here to respond to
any particular posts. I simply do not buy into Fretwell's doom and gloom
scenarios, political nihilism, and survivalism, and feel no need to try
to talk him out of them.

hmmm, throwing insults. Just like Trump, Harry will you run as his VP?

Teddy Roosevelt and the Donald
 

On Thu, 03 Mar 2016 07:12:28 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 23:35:43 -0500, wrote:

Pretty much never. He doesn't mind posting a 30 line cut and paste but
his actual contributions to the conversation tend to be insulting one
liners. That is how Trump "debates".

A person who's debeate points are limited to restating their
credentials, calls into question just how questionable those
credentials are.

Then why continue to feed his narcissism by giving him a forum to spew his crap? It
doesn't bother me that you do so, but I can't understand the rationale for presenting
a cogent argument only to have, "Thank you Mr. Beck" thrown in your face - over, and
over, and over.

Just practice and intellectual curiosity.