|
Teddy Roosevelt and the Donald
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 |
Teddy Roosevelt and the Donald
2:39
- show quoted text - 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 ...... Doesn't hurt to have some of that anyhow... |
Teddy Roosevelt and the Donald
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 -- Sent from my iPhone 6+ |
Teddy Roosevelt and the Donald
On 3/2/16 3:47 PM, Tim wrote:
2:39 - show quoted text - 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 ..... Doesn't hurt to have some of that anyhow... IGA in your town closing? |
Teddy Roosevelt and the Donald
On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 12:47:48 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote:
2:39 - show quoted text - 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 ..... Doesn't hurt to have some of that anyhow... Ammo and gold, OK, but these are much better than MREs: http://www.bushbeans.com/en_US/product/texas-rancheror -- Ban liars, tax cheats, idiots, audiophools, and narcissists...not guns! |
Teddy Roosevelt and the Donald
On 3/2/16 4:56 PM, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 12:47:48 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: 2:39 - show quoted text - 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 ..... Doesn't hurt to have some of that anyhow... Ammo and gold, OK, but these are much better than MREs: http://www.bushbeans.com/en_US/product/texas-rancheror -- Johnny and his rec.boats hillbilly camping buddies enjoying dinner: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXHkFZ-nG4Y |
Teddy Roosevelt and the Donald
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. |
Teddy Roosevelt and the Donald
On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 16:07:44 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 3/2/16 3:47 PM, Tim wrote: 2:39 - show quoted text - 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 ..... Doesn't hurt to have some of that anyhow... IGA in your town closing? If people stop thinking the dollar is worth much. it might. |
Teddy Roosevelt and the Donald
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! -- Ban liars, tax cheats, idiots, audiophools, and narcissists...not guns! |
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. |
Teddy Roosevelt and the Donald
On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 07:50:16 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 3/2/16 7:00 PM, wrote: 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. That is fine until the government will not be able to support all of the programs you are dependent on. Right now an increasing amount of government spending is simply a wealth transfer from the young to the old and if the kids ever wake up and start voting, that will stop. |
Teddy Roosevelt and the Donald
|
Teddy Roosevelt and the Donald
On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 08:23:39 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote: 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..... 1929 and 2007 were just bumps in the road compared to what will happen when people start demanding that the central banks have to stop simply printing money to plug the holes in the economy. The whole world is in a debt bubble and when that pops, they will have lost the biggest tool in the box to fix it. We lied to ourselves for years saying China was stealing all of our prosperity and now it turns out, they are broke too. Europe, South America and Japan are basket cases. Even the Saudis and the emirates are feeling the pinch. It will not take much to push over this house of cards we have built. At that point funding the entitlements will come after keeping the lights on and the water flowing. |
Teddy Roosevelt and the Donald
On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 08:26:46 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote: On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 7:21:59 AM UTC-6, Keyser Söze wrote: 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? Harry is like those people in the late 90s and early 2000s who argued with me that the American home mortgage was the safest investment on the planet. He may have even been one of them. |
Teddy Roosevelt and the Donald
On 3/3/16 1:59 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 03 Mar 2016 09:29:34 -0500, 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. Preppers and survivalists are right here just about every time a named storm goes over our head. Florida people do seem to be more self reliant in that 3 or 4 day period after the storm passes than most places. That was particularly true in New Orleans where the people immediately needed a government bailout for things FEMA (or Civil Defense before that) has been telling they should have for decades. |
Teddy Roosevelt and the Donald
On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 14:26:19 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 3/3/16 1:59 PM, wrote: On Thu, 03 Mar 2016 09:29:34 -0500, 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. Preppers and survivalists are right here just about every time a named storm goes over our head. Florida people do seem to be more self reliant in that 3 or 4 day period after the storm passes than most places. That was particularly true in New Orleans where the people immediately needed a government bailout for things FEMA (or Civil Defense before that) has been telling they should have for decades. Most informative post you've made in months, Krause. -- Ban liars, tax cheats, idiots, audiophools, and narcissists...not guns! |
Teddy Roosevelt and the Donald
On 3/3/16 4:37 PM, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 14:26:19 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 3/3/16 1:59 PM, wrote: On Thu, 03 Mar 2016 09:29:34 -0500, 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. Preppers and survivalists are right here just about every time a named storm goes over our head. Florida people do seem to be more self reliant in that 3 or 4 day period after the storm passes than most places. That was particularly true in New Orleans where the people immediately needed a government bailout for things FEMA (or Civil Defense before that) has been telling they should have for decades. Most informative post you've made in months, Krause. -- The moron is big in you, JohnnyRacist. |
Teddy Roosevelt and the Donald
On Thu, 03 Mar 2016 16:37:14 -0500, John H.
wrote: On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 14:26:19 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 3/3/16 1:59 PM, wrote: On Thu, 03 Mar 2016 09:29:34 -0500, 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. Preppers and survivalists are right here just about every time a named storm goes over our head. Florida people do seem to be more self reliant in that 3 or 4 day period after the storm passes than most places. That was particularly true in New Orleans where the people immediately needed a government bailout for things FEMA (or Civil Defense before that) has been telling they should have for decades. Most informative post you've made in months, Krause. That is one of those silent farts |
Teddy Roosevelt and the Donald
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 1:51:19 PM UTC-5, wrote:
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. Well, I'll admit that seeing Harry continuously made the fool doesn't bother me a whole lot. Feel a bit sorry for him, but not much. |
Teddy Roosevelt and the Donald
On 3/3/16 5:09 PM, John H. wrote:
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 1:51:19 PM UTC-5, wrote: 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. Well, I'll admit that seeing Harry continuously made the fool doesn't bother me a whole lot. Feel a bit sorry for him, but not much. Uh, you're planning to vote for Trump, and you're a racist fool. |
Teddy Roosevelt and the Donald
|
Teddy Roosevelt and the Donald
6:39 PMKeyser Söze
- show quoted text - Shouldn't you be stashing MRE's in anticipation of world collapse? I don't take your libertarian/doomsday politics seriously, and therefore I don't often engage you in debate about them. As I have stated here several times, we have some libertarians up here who set up roadside booths and I have talked a couple of times to the guys running the booths and handing out flyers. I concluded they were nutso, and not just because they were also "birthers." ---- In other words if you don't bow down to mainline liberal thinking, you're "nutso." Atta boy Harry! |
Teddy Roosevelt and the Donald
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 6:39:22 PM UTC-6, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 3/3/16 2:22 PM, wrote: On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 08:26:46 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 7:21:59 AM UTC-6, Keyser Söze wrote: 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? Harry is like those people in the late 90s and early 2000s who argued with me that the American home mortgage was the safest investment on the planet. He may have even been one of them. Shouldn't you be stashing MRE's in anticipation of world collapse? I don't take your libertarian/doomsday politics seriously, and therefore I don't often engage you in debate about them. As I have stated here several times, we have some libertarians up here who set up roadside booths and I have talked a couple of times to the guys running the booths and handing out flyers. I concluded they were nutso, and not just because they were also "birthers." http://d1g4sq00ps2bp3.cloudfront.net/images/12757.jpg |
Teddy Roosevelt and the Donald
On 3/3/16 8:30 PM, Tim wrote:
6:39 PMKeyser Söze - show quoted text - Shouldn't you be stashing MRE's in anticipation of world collapse? I don't take your libertarian/doomsday politics seriously, and therefore I don't often engage you in debate about them. As I have stated here several times, we have some libertarians up here who set up roadside booths and I have talked a couple of times to the guys running the booths and handing out flyers. I concluded they were nutso, and not just because they were also "birthers." ---- In other words if you don't bow down to mainline liberal thinking, you're "nutso." Atta boy Harry! Those boys were into branch line crazy thinking. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:27 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com