On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 08:35:17 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 12/2/17 12:19 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 23:00:55 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 16:05:34 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 13:28:51 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:


This tax bill is going to pass without any Dem buy in.
Done in secret without any Dem input.
The U.S. Senate no is longer run by compromise.
It's interesting watching the government devolve.
It will only get worse from here.

The fact that the dems want to impeach Trump and refuse to work with
him at all is definitely not helping quell that divide. I certainly
agree we are about as close to a civil war as any time in the last 150
years tho. Putin sure is winning this one.

Pelosi and Schumer haven't talked of impeachment, and in fact
have quelled that kind of talk.
They know it's a non-starter.

That is pretty much a new opinion since they know in is not going to
be a winner, no matter how hard the big money like Steyer, big
entertainment (all of them) and big news (everyone but Fox), want to
push it.
They haven't even convinced a lot of people in their delegation to
STFU.

Trump didn't want their input. He tweeted as much.
Besides, McConnel wants no part of compromise.
That predates Trump

I agree that it was a boon to Putin when Trump was elected.
That why he helped Trump.
Crooked authoritarian rulers love each other.

Putin didn't really care who won, he wanted to discredit the process
and democracy in general. He won either way. We are fractured either
way.
I do think it is funny that you democrats ignore the "fake news" they
were planting on social media but you are upset about facts that were
revealed in the Email leaks. That is why you all deny the leaker might
have been Seth Rich because he would have just been a whistle blower.
We will never know because he was killed by an unknown assailant under
mysterious circumstances. After all, the Clintons were at risk. ****
happens.

You shouldn't drink and post.
Come on Harry, what part was wrong?


You have no knowledge of Putin's concerns. You've posted your same
speculation about Putin 20 times here with no backup.

And you've posted no speculation about Trump?

On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 08:35:17 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 12/2/17 12:19 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 23:00:55 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 16:05:34 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 13:28:51 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:


This tax bill is going to pass without any Dem buy in.
Done in secret without any Dem input.
The U.S. Senate no is longer run by compromise.
It's interesting watching the government devolve.
It will only get worse from here.

The fact that the dems want to impeach Trump and refuse to work with
him at all is definitely not helping quell that divide. I certainly
agree we are about as close to a civil war as any time in the last 150
years tho. Putin sure is winning this one.

Pelosi and Schumer haven't talked of impeachment, and in fact
have quelled that kind of talk.
They know it's a non-starter.

That is pretty much a new opinion since they know in is not going to
be a winner, no matter how hard the big money like Steyer, big
entertainment (all of them) and big news (everyone but Fox), want to
push it.
They haven't even convinced a lot of people in their delegation to
STFU.

Trump didn't want their input. He tweeted as much.
Besides, McConnel wants no part of compromise.
That predates Trump

I agree that it was a boon to Putin when Trump was elected.
That why he helped Trump.
Crooked authoritarian rulers love each other.

Putin didn't really care who won, he wanted to discredit the process
and democracy in general. He won either way. We are fractured either
way.
I do think it is funny that you democrats ignore the "fake news" they
were planting on social media but you are upset about facts that were
revealed in the Email leaks. That is why you all deny the leaker might
have been Seth Rich because he would have just been a whistle blower.
We will never know because he was killed by an unknown assailant under
mysterious circumstances. After all, the Clintons were at risk. ****
happens.

You shouldn't drink and post.
Come on Harry, what part was wrong?


You have no knowledge of Putin's concerns. You've posted your same
speculation about Putin 20 times here with no backup.

People with far more knowledge on the subject than any of us have said
it.
If you really believe the only motive the russians had was screwing
Hillary, you are naive.
I agree if she had won, weakening her was advantageous but Trump won
and weakening him is just as important to them.
What part of that is hard to believe for you? ... or BAO?

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 08:35:17 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 12/2/17 12:19 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 23:00:55 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:
You shouldn't drink and post.
Come on Harry, what part was wrong?


You have no knowledge of Putin's concerns. You've posted your same
speculation about Putin 20 times here with no backup.

People with far more knowledge on the subject than any of us have said
it.
If you really believe the only motive the russians had was screwing
Hillary, you are naive.
I agree if she had won, weakening her was advantageous but Trump won
and weakening him is just as important to them.
What part of that is hard to believe for you? ... or BAO?

If the Trump clown-show had any brains at all, they wouldn't
have advertised this love of Russia and Putin until he was
President. Then Putin would have had an effective friend in
the White House.
Trump was too much an arrogant putz for that.
Now Trump and Putin are ****ed.
Trump can't do **** for Putin. Just talking to him raises
suspicion, as it should.
A weak Trump is the worst thing from the Russian viewpoint.
Trump is asshole enough to admire Putin.
Of course even the Russians didn't believe we'd be stupid
enough to elect Trump.
What part of that is hard to believe for you?
You should quit pimping for Trump and Putin.

On 12/2/17 9:04 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 08:35:17 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 12/2/17 12:19 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 23:00:55 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:
You shouldn't drink and post.
Come on Harry, what part was wrong?


You have no knowledge of Putin's concerns. You've posted your same
speculation about Putin 20 times here with no backup.

People with far more knowledge on the subject than any of us have said
it.
If you really believe the only motive the russians had was screwing
Hillary, you are naive.
I agree if she had won, weakening her was advantageous but Trump won
and weakening him is just as important to them.
What part of that is hard to believe for you? ... or BAO?

If the Trump clown-show had any brains at all, they wouldn't
have advertised this love of Russia and Putin until he was
President. Then Putin would have had an effective friend in
the White House.
Trump was too much an arrogant putz for that.
Now Trump and Putin are ****ed.
Trump can't do **** for Putin. Just talking to him raises
suspicion, as it should.
A weak Trump is the worst thing from the Russian viewpoint.
Trump is asshole enough to admire Putin.
Of course even the Russians didn't believe we'd be stupid
enough to elect Trump.
What part of that is hard to believe for you?
You should quit pimping for Trump and Putin.



And forget not that Trump knew Flynn lied to the veep and the FBI before
he pressured Comey to go easy on his former national security director.
Smells like obstruction of justice.

On 12/2/2017 9:09 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/2/17 9:04 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 08:35:17 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 12/2/17 12:19 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 23:00:55 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:
You shouldn't drink and post.
Come on Harry, what part was wrong?


You have no knowledge of Putin's concerns. You've posted your same
speculation about Putin 20 times here with no backup.

People with far more knowledge on the subject than any of us have said
it.
If you really believe the only motive the russians had was screwing
Hillary, you are naive.
I agree if she had won, weakening her was advantageous but Trump won
and weakening him is just as important to them.
What part of that is hard to believe for you? ... or BAO?

If the Trump clown-show had any brains at all, they wouldn't
have advertised this love of Russia and Putin until he was
President.Â* Then Putin would have had an effective friend in
the White House.
Trump was too much an arrogant putz for that.
Now Trump and Putin are ****ed.
Trump can't do **** for Putin.Â* Just talking to him raises
suspicion, as it should.
A weak Trump is the worst thing from the Russian viewpoint.
Trump is asshole enough to admire Putin.
Of course even the Russians didn't believe we'd be stupid
enough to elect Trump.
What part of that is hard to believe for you?
You should quit pimping for Trump and Putin.


And forget not that Trump knew Flynn lied to the veep and the FBI before
he pressured Comey to go easy on his former national security director.
Smells like obstruction of justice.


Meanwhile, the economy is booming and only getting better, wages are
going up, consumer confidence is at an all-time high, the stock market
is setting records daily and the general mood of half the nation is
optimistic about the future. And that's all before the tax act is
signed into law.

The other half of the nation are still dwelling in Hillary's loss,
"Russia, Russia, Russia" (ad nauseam) and consumed by deep, dark
conspiracy theories perpetuated by those who work to control their minds.

Not healthy for the mind and soul Harry (and BAO).

On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 21:09:20 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 12/2/17 9:04 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 08:35:17 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 12/2/17 12:19 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 23:00:55 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:
You shouldn't drink and post.
Come on Harry, what part was wrong?


You have no knowledge of Putin's concerns. You've posted your same
speculation about Putin 20 times here with no backup.

People with far more knowledge on the subject than any of us have said
it.
If you really believe the only motive the russians had was screwing
Hillary, you are naive.
I agree if she had won, weakening her was advantageous but Trump won
and weakening him is just as important to them.
What part of that is hard to believe for you? ... or BAO?

If the Trump clown-show had any brains at all, they wouldn't
have advertised this love of Russia and Putin until he was
President. Then Putin would have had an effective friend in
the White House.
Trump was too much an arrogant putz for that.
Now Trump and Putin are ****ed.
Trump can't do **** for Putin. Just talking to him raises
suspicion, as it should.
A weak Trump is the worst thing from the Russian viewpoint.
Trump is asshole enough to admire Putin.
Of course even the Russians didn't believe we'd be stupid
enough to elect Trump.
What part of that is hard to believe for you?
You should quit pimping for Trump and Putin.



And forget not that Trump knew Flynn lied to the veep and the FBI before
he pressured Comey to go easy on his former national security director.
Smells like obstruction of justice.

How did he obstruct justice? Flynn talking to Russia after the
election, during the transition, has not been proven to be illegal.
Trump can easily say that was all he meant.
If this is all they have, they don't have much. Flynn may have been
dumb not assuming the FBI was asking a question they did not already
know the answer to, just hoping he would say the wrong thing but the
underlying act has not been proven to be illegal.
The other smoking gun, Manafort, was not pointed anywhere near Trump.
It was just a money case involving a deal that Trump was not involved
in.

wrote:
On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 23:00:55 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 16:05:34 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 13:28:51 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

This tax bill is going to pass without any Dem buy in.
Done in secret without any Dem input.
The U.S. Senate no is longer run by compromise.
It's interesting watching the government devolve.
It will only get worse from here.
The fact that the dems want to impeach Trump and refuse to work with
him at all is definitely not helping quell that divide. I certainly
agree we are about as close to a civil war as any time in the last 150
years tho. Putin sure is winning this one.
Pelosi and Schumer haven't talked of impeachment, and in fact
have quelled that kind of talk.
They know it's a non-starter.
That is pretty much a new opinion since they know in is not going to
be a winner, no matter how hard the big money like Steyer, big
entertainment (all of them) and big news (everyone but Fox), want to
push it.
They haven't even convinced a lot of people in their delegation to
STFU.

Trump didn't want their input. He tweeted as much.
Besides, McConnel wants no part of compromise.
That predates Trump

I agree that it was a boon to Putin when Trump was elected.
That why he helped Trump.
Crooked authoritarian rulers love each other.
Putin didn't really care who won, he wanted to discredit the process
and democracy in general. He won either way. We are fractured either
way.
I do think it is funny that you democrats ignore the "fake news" they
were planting on social media but you are upset about facts that were
revealed in the Email leaks. That is why you all deny the leaker might
have been Seth Rich because he would have just been a whistle blower.
We will never know because he was killed by an unknown assailant under
mysterious circumstances. After all, the Clintons were at risk. ****
happens.
You shouldn't drink and post.
Come on Harry, what part was wrong?

That's Kevin Noble, not Harry Krause.

On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 9:08:38 AM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:

In fact, most corporate leaders queried have said they plan to use
the cuts to further enrich themselves, buy back their stock, and
payoff their shareholders.

Bull****. The only "corporate leaders" who would say that are the liberals who want to discredit anything that Republicans do. They are the blood-sucking leeches on society.

You're one lying sack-o-****, krause.

On 12/3/17 12:50 PM, Its Me wrote:
On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 9:08:38 AM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:

In fact, most corporate leaders queried have said they plan to use
the cuts to further enrich themselves, buy back their stock, and
payoff their shareholders.

Bull****. The only "corporate leaders" who would say that are the liberals who want to discredit anything that Republicans do. They are the blood-sucking leeches on society.

You're one lying sack-o-****, krause.


Indeed, the Republicans are the blood-sucking leeches on society. The
rich, in their opinion, don't control enough of the nation's
wealth...they want it all. There have been several focus groups of
corporate leaders and also surveys...and the overwhelming majority have
no plans to build new factories, add lots of new hires, or raise wages.

Here's one such article:

"Major companies including Cisco Systems Inc., Pfizer Inc. and Coca-Cola
Co. say they’ll turn over most gains from proposed corporate tax cuts to
their shareholders, undercutting President Donald Trump’s promise that
his plan will create jobs and boost wages for the middle class."

https://is.gd/GcU25z

There are many such articles.

Here's one from Forbes, well-known liberal publication.

Poor little JackOff...knows nothing, proud of it.

On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 13:15:19 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 12/3/17 12:50 PM, Its Me wrote:
On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 9:08:38 AM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:

In fact, most corporate leaders queried have said they plan to use
the cuts to further enrich themselves, buy back their stock, and
payoff their shareholders.

Bull****. The only "corporate leaders" who would say that are the liberals who want to discredit anything that Republicans do. They are the blood-sucking leeches on society.

You're one lying sack-o-****, krause.


Indeed, the Republicans are the blood-sucking leeches on society. The
rich, in their opinion, don't control enough of the nation's
wealth...they want it all. There have been several focus groups of
corporate leaders and also surveys...and the overwhelming majority have
no plans to build new factories, add lots of new hires, or raise wages.

Here's one such article:

"Major companies including Cisco Systems Inc., Pfizer Inc. and Coca-Cola
Co. say they’ll turn over most gains from proposed corporate tax cuts to
their shareholders, undercutting President Donald Trump’s promise that
his plan will create jobs and boost wages for the middle class."

https://is.gd/GcU25z

There are many such articles.

Here's one from Forbes, well-known liberal publication.

Poor little JackOff...knows nothing, proud of it.


===

The purpose of a business, any business, is to generate profits for
the owners. Even you should know that from your failed attempts at
being successful. As a by product, increased profits can be spent on
business expansion, research and development, plant modernization, or
returned to shareholders (owners). All of that benefits the overall
economy sooner or later.

Increased wages are a function of supply and demand, nothing else.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com