![]() |
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 09:30:37 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote: On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:51:07 -0500, DSK wrote: I'd like you to attempt to explain this, if you can. Which government services are in more demand from "rich" people? How about the Park Service? The gov't owns huge tracts of land which are very nice to visit... poor people can't afford to retire & tour the countryside in motor homes. Oh please! You are really reaching. The parks are free. Anyone can visit them, rich and poor alike. Dave, have you been to Yellowstone lately? I doubt many poor people could afford to spend a couple days there seeing the place. John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 08:59:00 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: Dave Hall wrote: On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 12:26:21 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: JohnH wrote: On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 07:41:17 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: Dave Hall wrote: Do rich people need section 8 housing? Public schools? Healthcare subsidies? Welfare? W.I.C.? Planned parenthood? Social security? Of course...these programs help keep the poor folks "in their place," so they don't ride out to the suburbs in dump trucks and string whitey up on the nearest available trees. Just ask Rush. You really are a piece of work, Dave. They keep the poor folks in their place by removing any incentive to become educated and get gainfully employed. (No, drug dealing doesn't count.) John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! You know, John, you ought to be more careful. As a public employee working for a county school system in a fairly progressive community, your covertly and overtly racist remarks in this newsgroup might haunt you. Someone who wanted to get even could simply print out 20 or 30 of your posts that put down blacks and Hispanics, present them to an official with the super's office, and you'd be out on your butt. This isn't a threat or a warning...just an observation. I don't make trouble for people. But someone else you've offended might. It's interesting that when someone mentions the lazy and unmotivated, you automatically connect that with blacks and hispanics. Do you really feel that the terms "lazy and unmotivated" are mutually exchangeable with "blacks and hispanics"? Who's REALLY the racist here? Dave Ahhh, you've missed all of John's direct and indirect comments about blacks and Hispanics. As an example, he talks about sub teaching in a school with a mostly black student body, then in another post talks negatively about the students without necessarily mentioning their race. Tricky, eh? He also puts down hard-working Hispanics in his neigbhorhood because their lifestyle is different than his. They work hard... I have never subbed in a school with a mostly black student body. It would probably be hard to find one in Fairfax County. I've never mentioned 'hard-working' Hispanics in my neighborhood. I've mentioned a house in which ten or twelve Hispanics lived, parked cars in the lawn, partied much or the night (outside), and left trash in the yard and around the house. This was bringing down the looks and peacefulness of the neighborhood. John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 09:40:34 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: Dave Hall wrote: In Harry's mind every poor welfare slacker is either black or hispanic. Actually, Harry is knowledgeable enough to know that general welfare is a thing of the past, and that most of those receiving assistance are children. I don't know what the current stats are, but some years ago, most of those receiving AFDC were white. It's almost impossible to get general welfare these days if you are an able-bodied, able-minded adult, and there's very little available for the physically or mentally challenged, either, other than the pittance from Social Security disability. We're a nation that doesn't give a crap about those of us in trouble. - - - Embarrassed to be an American So where are my 20-30 racially biased posts, Harry? You made the accusation, follow it up please. John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
"JohnH" wrote in message ... On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 08:59:00 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: Dave Hall wrote: On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 12:26:21 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: JohnH wrote: On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 07:41:17 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: Dave Hall wrote: Do rich people need section 8 housing? Public schools? Healthcare subsidies? Welfare? W.I.C.? Planned parenthood? Social security? Of course...these programs help keep the poor folks "in their place," so they don't ride out to the suburbs in dump trucks and string whitey up on the nearest available trees. Just ask Rush. You really are a piece of work, Dave. They keep the poor folks in their place by removing any incentive to become educated and get gainfully employed. (No, drug dealing doesn't count.) John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! You know, John, you ought to be more careful. As a public employee working for a county school system in a fairly progressive community, your covertly and overtly racist remarks in this newsgroup might haunt you. Someone who wanted to get even could simply print out 20 or 30 of your posts that put down blacks and Hispanics, present them to an official with the super's office, and you'd be out on your butt. This isn't a threat or a warning...just an observation. I don't make trouble for people. But someone else you've offended might. It's interesting that when someone mentions the lazy and unmotivated, you automatically connect that with blacks and hispanics. Do you really feel that the terms "lazy and unmotivated" are mutually exchangeable with "blacks and hispanics"? Who's REALLY the racist here? Dave Ahhh, you've missed all of John's direct and indirect comments about blacks and Hispanics. As an example, he talks about sub teaching in a school with a mostly black student body, then in another post talks negatively about the students without necessarily mentioning their race. Tricky, eh? He also puts down hard-working Hispanics in his neigbhorhood because their lifestyle is different than his. They work hard... I have never subbed in a school with a mostly black student body. It would probably be hard to find one in Fairfax County. I've never mentioned 'hard-working' Hispanics in my neighborhood. I've mentioned a house in which ten or twelve Hispanics lived, parked cars in the lawn, partied much or the night (outside), and left trash in the yard and around the house. This was bringing down the looks and peacefulness of the neighborhood. Look now for krause to do alot of backpeddling to cover his racisim. John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Dave Hall wrote: On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:51:07 -0500, DSK wrote: I'd like you to attempt to explain this, if you can. Which government services are in more demand from "rich" people? How about the Park Service? The gov't owns huge tracts of land which are very nice to visit... poor people can't afford to retire & tour the countryside in motor homes. Oh please! You are really reaching. The parks are free. Anyone can visit them, rich and poor alike. The parks are free, eh? Simpleton. No, they are not anymore. The government is making it a cash cow. Under Clinton and the Park Service. (I mention Clinton, to blunt you putting it on the current administration) they raised the fees at Yosemite to $20 entry. This did price out the single mom from Madera, or other nearby areas from a day trip. And most of the people who go to Yosemite are not driving motor homes. It is a local park to a lot of California. Is only 150 miles from San Francisco. But a lot of the subsidized transportation directly benefits the poor. They can now jump on BART and head to the burb's to rob and jump back on the train to home. Jesus. Even when there wasn't an admittance charge, the parks were not free. Can't you understand the concept? If there is no specific user fee, but it is a public facility, the cost of operating and maintaining it is buried in a budget somewhere. There is no free lunch. Are you upset that poor folks can hop on "subsidized" transportation and get to work? How about the rich lawyers who ride to work on public transportation Are they not subsidized, too? If you are caught offshore in your boat and have to be rescued by the Coast Guard, is that service not subsidized? I love your line about the poor riding BART so they can commit robbery in the suburbs. How about the defense contractor employees who ride BART and once they get to their office, rob the public's treasury? Who do you think steals more? Probably you Harry. Charging your clients for lots of billable hours while on the internet. You a corporation? I guess then you are allowed to steal in your thinking. |
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 20:25:43 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: Calif Bill wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Dave Hall wrote: On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:51:07 -0500, DSK wrote: I'd like you to attempt to explain this, if you can. Which government services are in more demand from "rich" people? How about the Park Service? The gov't owns huge tracts of land which are very nice to visit... poor people can't afford to retire & tour the countryside in motor homes. Oh please! You are really reaching. The parks are free. Anyone can visit them, rich and poor alike. The parks are free, eh? Simpleton. No, they are not anymore. The government is making it a cash cow. Under Clinton and the Park Service. (I mention Clinton, to blunt you putting it on the current administration) they raised the fees at Yosemite to $20 entry. This did price out the single mom from Madera, or other nearby areas from a day trip. And most of the people who go to Yosemite are not driving motor homes. It is a local park to a lot of California. Is only 150 miles from San Francisco. But a lot of the subsidized transportation directly benefits the poor. They can now jump on BART and head to the burb's to rob and jump back on the train to home. Jesus. Even when there wasn't an admittance charge, the parks were not free. Can't you understand the concept? If there is no specific user fee, but it is a public facility, the cost of operating and maintaining it is buried in a budget somewhere. There is no free lunch. Are you upset that poor folks can hop on "subsidized" transportation and get to work? How about the rich lawyers who ride to work on public transportation Are they not subsidized, too? If you are caught offshore in your boat and have to be rescued by the Coast Guard, is that service not subsidized? I love your line about the poor riding BART so they can commit robbery in the suburbs. How about the defense contractor employees who ride BART and once they get to their office, rob the public's treasury? Who do you think steals more? Probably you Harry. Charging your clients for lots of billable hours while on the internet. You a corporation? I guess then you are allowed to steal in your thinking. Sorry, but I only charge for billable hours when I am doing billable work. Harry, are you going to back up your allegations? Where are the 20-30 racist posts you saw? Or was that just another Krausism? John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
Dave Hall wrote: Oh please! You are really reaching. The parks are free. Wrong again, Dave. Many many parks are no longer free. ... Anyone can visit them, rich and poor alike. JohnH wrote: Dave, have you been to Yellowstone lately? I doubt many poor people could afford to spend a couple days there seeing the place. Thank you , JohnH. And it's for certain that very few poor people are visiting national parks in huge motor homes, such as the ones lining up for miles around Yellowstone. In any event, that was just *one* example. Besides, it's a basic credo of the American principles that our system encourages people to work & improve their lot in life. If that's not true, as many of the right-wingers are insisting, then what's wrong with the picture? Why aren't Bush & Cheney fixing it? Make up your minds, you can't have it both ways. DSK |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Dave Hall wrote: On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:51:07 -0500, DSK wrote: I'd like you to attempt to explain this, if you can. Which government services are in more demand from "rich" people? How about the Park Service? The gov't owns huge tracts of land which are very nice to visit... poor people can't afford to retire & tour the countryside in motor homes. Oh please! You are really reaching. The parks are free. Anyone can visit them, rich and poor alike. The parks are free, eh? Simpleton. No, they are not anymore. The government is making it a cash cow. Under Clinton and the Park Service. (I mention Clinton, to blunt you putting it on the current administration) they raised the fees at Yosemite to $20 entry. This did price out the single mom from Madera, or other nearby areas from a day trip. And most of the people who go to Yosemite are not driving motor homes. It is a local park to a lot of California. Is only 150 miles from San Francisco. But a lot of the subsidized transportation directly benefits the poor. They can now jump on BART and head to the burb's to rob and jump back on the train to home. Jesus. Even when there wasn't an admittance charge, the parks were not free. Can't you understand the concept? If there is no specific user fee, but it is a public facility, the cost of operating and maintaining it is buried in a budget somewhere. There is no free lunch. Are you upset that poor folks can hop on "subsidized" transportation and get to work? How about the rich lawyers who ride to work on public transportation Are they not subsidized, too? If you are caught offshore in your boat and have to be rescued by the Coast Guard, is that service not subsidized? I love your line about the poor riding BART so they can commit robbery in the suburbs. How about the defense contractor employees who ride BART and once they get to their office, rob the public's treasury? Who do you think steals more? Probably you Harry. Charging your clients for lots of billable hours while on the internet. You a corporation? I guess then you are allowed to steal in your thinking. Sorry, but I only charge for billable hours when I am doing billable work. While on the internet. |
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 21:24:58 -0500, DSK wrote:
Dave Hall wrote: Oh please! You are really reaching. The parks are free. Wrong again, Dave. Many many parks are no longer free. ... Anyone can visit them, rich and poor alike. JohnH wrote: Dave, have you been to Yellowstone lately? I doubt many poor people could afford to spend a couple days there seeing the place. Thank you , JohnH. And it's for certain that very few poor people are visiting national parks in huge motor homes, such as the ones lining up for miles around Yellowstone. In any event, that was just *one* example. Besides, it's a basic credo of the American principles that our system encourages people to work & improve their lot in life. If that's not true, as many of the right-wingers are insisting, then what's wrong with the picture? Why aren't Bush & Cheney fixing it? Make up your minds, you can't have it both ways. DSK The "American system" does encourage people to work and improve their lot in life. This is the system that let's a Pakistani immigrate, buy a clunker, paint it yellow, and start a cab business making $30,000 a year. But it's also the system that allows 59% of the babies born in DC to be born out of wedlock. (Ironically, this rate is exceeded only by the Virgin Islands, in the TANF data.) Many of us 'right-wingers' (if it's necessary to call names) understand that personal responsibility *does* fall both ways - some folks have it, some don't. John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 20:37:48 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: JohnH wrote: On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 20:25:43 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: Calif Bill wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Dave Hall wrote: On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:51:07 -0500, DSK wrote: I'd like you to attempt to explain this, if you can. Which government services are in more demand from "rich" people? How about the Park Service? The gov't owns huge tracts of land which are very nice to visit... poor people can't afford to retire & tour the countryside in motor homes. Oh please! You are really reaching. The parks are free. Anyone can visit them, rich and poor alike. The parks are free, eh? Simpleton. No, they are not anymore. The government is making it a cash cow. Under Clinton and the Park Service. (I mention Clinton, to blunt you putting it on the current administration) they raised the fees at Yosemite to $20 entry. This did price out the single mom from Madera, or other nearby areas from a day trip. And most of the people who go to Yosemite are not driving motor homes. It is a local park to a lot of California. Is only 150 miles from San Francisco. But a lot of the subsidized transportation directly benefits the poor. They can now jump on BART and head to the burb's to rob and jump back on the train to home. Jesus. Even when there wasn't an admittance charge, the parks were not free. Can't you understand the concept? If there is no specific user fee, but it is a public facility, the cost of operating and maintaining it is buried in a budget somewhere. There is no free lunch. Are you upset that poor folks can hop on "subsidized" transportation and get to work? How about the rich lawyers who ride to work on public transportation Are they not subsidized, too? If you are caught offshore in your boat and have to be rescued by the Coast Guard, is that service not subsidized? I love your line about the poor riding BART so they can commit robbery in the suburbs. How about the defense contractor employees who ride BART and once they get to their office, rob the public's treasury? Who do you think steals more? Probably you Harry. Charging your clients for lots of billable hours while on the internet. You a corporation? I guess then you are allowed to steal in your thinking. Sorry, but I only charge for billable hours when I am doing billable work. Harry, are you going to back up your allegations? Where are the 20-30 racist posts you saw? Or was that just another Krausism? John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! I have no interest in watching your d.f. posts regurgitate through my news reader. Well Harry, I guess you've just proven again that you really *aren't* worthy of any civility. You can't seem to handle it. You "have no interest" because you are, quite simply, a liar. John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:29 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com