BoatBanter.com

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)
-   General (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/)
-   -   O.T. CUT UP THE REPUBLICANS CREDIT CARDS (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/24902-o-t-cut-up-republicans-credit-cards.html)

JohnH November 11th 04 08:09 PM

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!

JohnH November 11th 04 08:14 PM

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!

JohnH November 11th 04 08:15 PM

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!

P.Fritz November 11th 04 08:22 PM


"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!




Calif Bill November 11th 04 09:02 PM


"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.



JohnH November 12th 04 01:35 AM

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!

DSK November 12th 04 02:24 AM



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


Calif Bill November 12th 04 05:39 AM


"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.



JohnH November 12th 04 12:22 PM

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!

JohnH November 12th 04 12:25 PM

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