| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
wrote in message .....The most extreme behavior by self described Republicans or Democrats does not define or even characterize the majority of the group. You have to laugh at a refusal to name a road after Willie Nelson Bear in mind, these two are a couple of small-time, small-minded state senators whose meteoric political careers likely hit their zenith some time ago. Shame -- Willie ought to have his own highway. |
( OT ) Unfait politics
I never thought the republicans would stoop so low as to attack Willie
Nelson. When you attack Willie, you attack everything good about America! Texas Repubs curb Willie Nelson honor - - - - - - - - - - - - May 1, 2005 | AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- Willie Nelson's name is off the road again. A state legislator had proposed naming a 49-mile stretch of Texas Highway 130 being built around Austin in honor of the Texas country music singer. But two Republican senators, Steve Odgen of Bryan and Jeff Wentworth of San Antonio, said they didn't want Nelson's name on the road that crosses their districts, citing the musician's fondness for drinking and smoking, and active campaigning for Democratic candidates. "It's frustrating, and sad in a way, but at this point, there is no reason to make this an unpleasant experience for anyone, especially Willie, so I'll take no further action on the bill,'' said state Sen. Gonzalo Barrientos, an Austin Democrat and the bill's author. Barrientos said he wanted to honor Nelson "for so much good music and so many good works.'' |
Many modern-day Republicans are soulless, honorless, herd animals
********** But not all. It is possible to be an independent, critical thinker willing to look beyond rhetoric and stereotype and still be a Republican. The most extreme behavior by self described Republicans or Democrats does not define or even characterize the majority of the group. You have to laugh at a refusal to name a road after Willie Nelson because campaigning for Democrats has made him, somehow, "unfit". It's almost as funny as it is sad. I guess everybody has already fogotten "Farm Aid" where Willie devoted a lot of time, energy, and talent to bring attention to the economic plight of the small family farms in Texas and elsewhere.......(or maybe that's one of the things that has some corporate level right wingers upset with him....) |
wrote in message oups.com... Many modern-day Republicans are soulless, honorless, herd animals ********** But not all. It is possible to be an independent, critical thinker willing to look beyond rhetoric and stereotype and still be a Republican. The most extreme behavior by self described Republicans or Democrats does not define or even characterize the majority of the group. You have to laugh at a refusal to name a road after Willie Nelson because campaigning for Democrats has made him, somehow, "unfit". It's almost as funny as it is sad. I guess everybody has already fogotten "Farm Aid" where Willie devoted a lot of time, energy, and talent to bring attention to the economic plight of the small family farms in Texas and elsewhere.......(or maybe that's one of the things that has some corporate level right wingers upset with him....) Perhaps it had more to do with the fact that he is a tax cheat and drug addict. |
|
JimH wrote: Perhaps it had more to do with the fact that he is a tax cheat and drug addict. He's paid for his tax problems. So that is a non-issue. Please show what evidence you have the Willy is a "drug addict". Surely you aren't confusing his free and open stance on legalization of pot as an addiction, are you? |
wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: Perhaps it had more to do with the fact that he is a tax cheat and drug addict. He's paid for his tax problems. So that is a non-issue. No it isn't. He cheated and got caught. He is a tax cheat. Please show what evidence you have the Willy is a "drug addict". Surely you aren't confusing his free and open stance on legalization of pot as an addiction, are you? The guy is constantly stoned on weed. I would call that an addiction. Pot is a drug...ergo drug addict. Comprendo? |
Perhaps it had more to do with the fact that he is a tax cheat and drug
addict. *************** Just as the most extreme behavior by members of any group doesn't characterize the group in general, it's unfair to characterize an entire person by his or her worst weaknesses or mistakes. If there are not going to be any roads named after persons with current or previous drug problems, we can safely assume there will be no Rush Limbaugh Tunnel or George Bush Business By-Pass. Rush Limbaugh will be "old news" 20 minutes after he's dead, of course, but GWB has earned a place in history. It would be nice to see his name carved on something, somewere.......and of course opinions will differ regarding exactly what that something, somewhere, should be. :-) |
wrote in message ups.com... Perhaps it had more to do with the fact that he is a tax cheat and drug addict. *************** Just as the most extreme behavior by members of any group doesn't characterize the group in general, it's unfair to characterize an entire person by his or her worst weaknesses or mistakes. If there are not going to be any roads named after persons with current or previous drug problems, we can safely assume there will be no Rush Limbaugh Tunnel or George Bush Business By-Pass. Rush Limbaugh will be "old news" 20 minutes after he's dead, of course, but GWB has earned a place in history. It would be nice to see his name carved on something, somewere.......and of course opinions will differ regarding exactly what that something, somewhere, should be. :-) Mount Rushmore |
On Tue, 03 May 2005 14:26:10 GMT, "Jim," wrote:
I never thought the republicans would stoop so low as to attack Willie Nelson. When you attack Willie, you attack everything good about America! Texas Repubs curb Willie Nelson honor - - - - - - - - - - - - May 1, 2005 | AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- Willie Nelson's name is off the road again. A state legislator had proposed naming a 49-mile stretch of Texas Highway 130 being built around Austin in honor of the Texas country music singer. But two Republican senators, Steve Odgen of Bryan and Jeff Wentworth of San Antonio, said they didn't want Nelson's name on the road that crosses their districts, citing the musician's fondness for drinking and smoking, and active campaigning for Democratic candidates. "It's frustrating, and sad in a way, but at this point, there is no reason to make this an unpleasant experience for anyone, especially Willie, so I'll take no further action on the bill,'' said state Sen. Gonzalo Barrientos, an Austin Democrat and the bill's author. Barrientos said he wanted to honor Nelson "for so much good music and so many good works.'' By not naming a road after someone, they are attacking him? How many roads have been named after Laura Bush? Why is she continuously under attack? -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
|
Mount Rushmore
********* Oh dear. You must not have heard....... There's been oil discovered under Mt. Rushmore. Sources say it's enough to supply the domestic needs of the entire United States for 4-6 months. It's coming down, of course. Some company that Dick Cheney used to to head has been awarded a non-bid, no-limit, off-budget contract to demolish Rushmore. Rumor has it that they will employ a couple of thousand non-union "guest workers" with hispanic surnames to do the job with picks and shovel, and bill out the time at $250.00 an hour. Additional rumors that the INS will haul away the entire workforce each week, exactly half an hour before payday, are probably unfounded. Next on the agenda will be Yellowstone Park. Some good ol' Texas oil boys have an exclusive contract to tap all that geothermal energy currently "going to waste". They will be given access the the taxpayer's park free of charge, of course, and then allowed to charge us all through the nostrils for the energy they "recover" from our publicly owned natural resources. Maybe then we can rename Old Faithful the George W. Bush Fountain of Truth. It would seem appropriate: blows a lot of hot air on a regular basis, but once the sound and fury has subsided very little else in the immediate vicinity has actually changed. And even if the reports of oil under Mt Rushmore should prove to be false, there's one more reason that GWB could never join the other presidents depicted there.......there isn't enough room remaining on the mountain for the sculptor to put GWB's image an appropriate distance (half a mile?) to the right. |
|
On Tue, 03 May 2005 16:47:45 -0400, Harry.Krause wrote:
The recent polls regarding the tanking of the Bush Administration in so many areas are very interesting. It is possible the American people have awakened and now realize they simply cannot trust Bush on important issues. Besides 9/11 and the start of the Iraq War, Bush's polls have only gone in one direction. This site hasn't been updated in close to a year, but you get the idea. http://photos1.blogger.com/img/227/9...ert_graph2.jpg |
On Tue, 03 May 2005 19:36:56 -0400, thunder wrote:
On Tue, 03 May 2005 16:47:45 -0400, Harry.Krause wrote: The recent polls regarding the tanking of the Bush Administration in so many areas are very interesting. It is possible the American people have awakened and now realize they simply cannot trust Bush on important issues. Besides 9/11 and the start of the Iraq War, Bush's polls have only gone in one direction. This site hasn't been updated in close to a year, but you get the idea. http://photos1.blogger.com/img/227/9...ert_graph2.jpg I'm hoping to break the boat record of 38 3/4 ". Thursday is going to be the day to catch a 40" plus striper. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
"John Gaquin" wrote in message ... wrote in message .....The most extreme behavior by self described Republicans or Democrats does not define or even characterize the majority of the group. You have to laugh at a refusal to name a road after Willie Nelson Bear in mind, these two are a couple of small-time, small-minded state senators whose meteoric political careers likely hit their zenith some time ago. Shame -- Willie ought to have his own highway. But, these two state senators are elected representatives of their districts. There opinions and positions are more valued than yours. |
well krause
you worked for unions your whole life, you carry two union cards. Now on social assistance. You lost your own family business immediately after successions, and you have the nuts to say,,,, """'Many modern-day Republicans are soulless, honorless, herd animals. Just read some of their posts here. They care only about themselves, they're foul-mouthed in the extreme, they behave like jackals, and they don't dare step over the line drawn by their leaders."''''' lol,, krause are you on drugs krause?? "Harry.Krause" wrote in message ... Jim, wrote: I never thought the republicans would stoop so low as to attack Willie Nelson. When you attack Willie, you attack everything good about America! Texas Repubs curb Willie Nelson honor - - - - - - - - - - - - May 1, 2005 | AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- Willie Nelson's name is off the road again. A state legislator had proposed naming a 49-mile stretch of Texas Highway 130 being built around Austin in honor of the Texas country music singer. But two Republican senators, Steve Odgen of Bryan and Jeff Wentworth of San Antonio, said they didn't want Nelson's name on the road that crosses their districts, citing the musician's fondness for drinking and smoking, and active campaigning for Democratic candidates. "It's frustrating, and sad in a way, but at this point, there is no reason to make this an unpleasant experience for anyone, especially Willie, so I'll take no further action on the bill,'' said state Sen. Gonzalo Barrientos, an Austin Democrat and the bill's author. Barrientos said he wanted to honor Nelson "for so much good music and so many good works.'' Many modern-day Republicans are soulless, honorless, herd animals. Just read some of their posts here. They care only about themselves, they're foul-mouthed in the extreme, they behave like jackals, and they don't dare step over the line drawn by their leaders. |
"""""George W. Bush cheated the taxpayers with some of his business deals in Texas and, of course, he's a drug addict, too.""'"'"" krause lol,,,, you are a real intelligent fella krause,,, Is this another of your lies or do you have evidence of this? I mean that Bush cheated the taxpayer and is a drug addict,, lol,, krause ,,, you are a senile old fool. Just because Bush was voted in by the people, to stop welfare slobs like you on social assistance, that is no reason to call him names,,, lol,,,, why don't you get your pride back, go get a job, or get off the unions krause,,, lol,,,ooo ,,,ooo that is funny,,, It is a good thing you are not in your home country of Germany krause,,, lol,,, oooo ,, "Harry.Krause" wrote in message ... wrote: JimH wrote: Perhaps it had more to do with the fact that he is a tax cheat and drug addict. He's paid for his tax problems. So that is a non-issue. Please show what evidence you have the Willy is a "drug addict". Surely you aren't confusing his free and open stance on legalization of pot as an addiction, are you? Hmmm. George W. Bush cheated the taxpayers with some of his business deals in Texas and, of course, he's a drug addict, too. But Hertvik still kisses Bush's butt. |
" Tuuk" wrote in message ... """""George W. Bush cheated the taxpayers with some of his business deals in Texas and, of course, he's a drug addict, too.""'"'"" krause lol,,,, you are a real intelligent fella krause,,, Is this another of your lies or do you have evidence of this? I mean that Bush cheated the taxpayer and is a drug addict,, lol,, krause ,,, you are a senile old fool. Just because Bush was voted in by the people, to stop welfare slobs like you on social assistance, that is no reason to call him names,,, lol,,,, why don't you get your pride back, go get a job, or get off the unions krause,,, lol,,,ooo ,,,ooo that is funny,,, It is a good thing you are not in your home country of Germany krause,,, lol,,, oooo ,, "Harry.Krause" wrote in message ... wrote: JimH wrote: Perhaps it had more to do with the fact that he is a tax cheat and drug addict. He's paid for his tax problems. So that is a non-issue. Please show what evidence you have the Willy is a "drug addict". Surely you aren't confusing his free and open stance on legalization of pot as an addiction, are you? Hmmm. George W. Bush cheated the taxpayers with some of his business deals in Texas and, of course, he's a drug addict, too. But Hertvik still kisses Bush's butt. So where do you boat and fish Mr Tuuk, or is coming up with one outrageaous post after another your fulltime work? |
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message ... wrote: JimH wrote: Perhaps it had more to do with the fact that he is a tax cheat and drug addict. He's paid for his tax problems. So that is a non-issue. Please show what evidence you have the Willy is a "drug addict". Surely you aren't confusing his free and open stance on legalization of pot as an addiction, are you? Hmmm. George W. Bush cheated the taxpayers with some of his business deals in Texas and, of course, he's a drug addict, too. But Hertv still kisses Bush's butt. What does my statement about Willie Nelson have to do with GWB asshole? But since we are on the subject of cheating please tell us how your company Ullico cheated it's customers (unions) out of millions of dollars. Here is the story in case you forgot it: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/au...ulli-a29.shtml http://www.labornotes.org/archives/2003/01/c.html |
JimH wrote: wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: Perhaps it had more to do with the fact that he is a tax cheat and drug addict. He's paid for his tax problems. So that is a non-issue. No it isn't. He cheated and got caught. He is a tax cheat. What evidence do you have that he "is a tax cheat"? Better call the IRS on that one, Jim. He's a FORMER tax cheat. I'll bet YOU have broken laws before. Are you still guilty of any and all of those, including traffic violations? Please show what evidence you have the Willy is a "drug addict". Surely you aren't confusing his free and open stance on legalization of pot as an addiction, are you? The guy is constantly stoned on weed. I would call that an addiction. Pot is a drug...ergo drug addict. Comprendo? Nope, I don't. What evidence do you have that he is "constantly stoned on weed"? Just because he is open and direct about the fact that he does smoke the stuff, you think that he's constantly stoned????? That's just like me saying that because you've said here that you like beer, that you're an alcoholic! |
wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: Perhaps it had more to do with the fact that he is a tax cheat and drug addict. He's paid for his tax problems. So that is a non-issue. No it isn't. He cheated and got caught. He is a tax cheat. What evidence do you have that he "is a tax cheat"? Better call the IRS on that one, Jim. He's a FORMER tax cheat. I'll bet YOU have broken laws before. Are you still guilty of any and all of those, including traffic violations? ZOOOM - ZOOOOMMM-ZOOOOOMMMMMMM Please show what evidence you have the Willy is a "drug addict". Surely you aren't confusing his free and open stance on legalization of pot as an addiction, are you? The guy is constantly stoned on weed. I would call that an addiction. Pot is a drug...ergo drug addict. Comprendo? Nope, I don't. Why am I not surprised? |
|
wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: Perhaps it had more to do with the fact that he is a tax cheat and drug addict. He's paid for his tax problems. So that is a non-issue. No it isn't. He cheated and got caught. He is a tax cheat. What evidence do you have that he "is a tax cheat"? Better call the IRS on that one, Jim. He's a FORMER tax cheat. I'll bet YOU have broken laws before. Are you still guilty of any and all of those, including traffic violations? Please show what evidence you have the Willy is a "drug addict". Surely you aren't confusing his free and open stance on legalization of pot as an addiction, are you? The guy is constantly stoned on weed. I would call that an addiction. Pot is a drug...ergo drug addict. Comprendo? Nope, I don't. What evidence do you have that he is "constantly stoned on weed"? Just because he is open and direct about the fact that he does smoke the stuff, you think that he's constantly stoned????? That's just like me saying that because you've said here that you like beer, that you're an alcoholic! Your logic is severely flawed. Yes I drink beer and wine once in a while.....but I am not drunk or intoxicated every living hour of the day....in fact I rarely am. Do you know the definition of an alcoholic Kevin? Celebrities hanging out with Willie have stated that he is stoned every minute they are with him. But I am not the one casting any judgment on the man. All I did was make an observation...that Willie Nelson is a drug addict and a tax cheat. Comprendo? |
On Wed, 4 May 2005 11:22:28 -0400, "JimH" wrote:
wrote in message roups.com... JimH wrote: wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: Perhaps it had more to do with the fact that he is a tax cheat and drug addict. He's paid for his tax problems. So that is a non-issue. No it isn't. He cheated and got caught. He is a tax cheat. What evidence do you have that he "is a tax cheat"? Better call the IRS on that one, Jim. He's a FORMER tax cheat. I'll bet YOU have broken laws before. Are you still guilty of any and all of those, including traffic violations? Please show what evidence you have the Willy is a "drug addict". Surely you aren't confusing his free and open stance on legalization of pot as an addiction, are you? The guy is constantly stoned on weed. I would call that an addiction. Pot is a drug...ergo drug addict. Comprendo? Nope, I don't. What evidence do you have that he is "constantly stoned on weed"? Just because he is open and direct about the fact that he does smoke the stuff, you think that he's constantly stoned????? That's just like me saying that because you've said here that you like beer, that you're an alcoholic! Your logic is severely flawed. Yes I drink beer and wine once in a while.....but I am not drunk or intoxicated every living hour of the day....in fact I rarely am. Doesn't matter. The fact that you use/partake/imbibe a mood altering substance at any time disqualifies you from making any moral judgement of another. |
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Wed, 4 May 2005 11:22:28 -0400, "JimH" wrote: wrote in message groups.com... JimH wrote: wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: Perhaps it had more to do with the fact that he is a tax cheat and drug addict. He's paid for his tax problems. So that is a non-issue. No it isn't. He cheated and got caught. He is a tax cheat. What evidence do you have that he "is a tax cheat"? Better call the IRS on that one, Jim. He's a FORMER tax cheat. I'll bet YOU have broken laws before. Are you still guilty of any and all of those, including traffic violations? Please show what evidence you have the Willy is a "drug addict". Surely you aren't confusing his free and open stance on legalization of pot as an addiction, are you? The guy is constantly stoned on weed. I would call that an addiction. Pot is a drug...ergo drug addict. Comprendo? Nope, I don't. What evidence do you have that he is "constantly stoned on weed"? Just because he is open and direct about the fact that he does smoke the stuff, you think that he's constantly stoned????? That's just like me saying that because you've said here that you like beer, that you're an alcoholic! Your logic is severely flawed. Yes I drink beer and wine once in a while.....but I am not drunk or intoxicated every living hour of the day....in fact I rarely am. Doesn't matter. The fact that you use/partake/imbibe a mood altering substance at any time disqualifies you from making any moral judgement of another. Remind me again when I made a moral judgement of the man. |
On Wed, 4 May 2005 12:15:24 -0400, "JimH" wrote:
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 4 May 2005 11:22:28 -0400, "JimH" wrote: wrote in message egroups.com... JimH wrote: wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: Perhaps it had more to do with the fact that he is a tax cheat and drug addict. He's paid for his tax problems. So that is a non-issue. No it isn't. He cheated and got caught. He is a tax cheat. What evidence do you have that he "is a tax cheat"? Better call the IRS on that one, Jim. He's a FORMER tax cheat. I'll bet YOU have broken laws before. Are you still guilty of any and all of those, including traffic violations? Please show what evidence you have the Willy is a "drug addict". Surely you aren't confusing his free and open stance on legalization of pot as an addiction, are you? The guy is constantly stoned on weed. I would call that an addiction. Pot is a drug...ergo drug addict. Comprendo? Nope, I don't. What evidence do you have that he is "constantly stoned on weed"? Just because he is open and direct about the fact that he does smoke the stuff, you think that he's constantly stoned????? That's just like me saying that because you've said here that you like beer, that you're an alcoholic! Your logic is severely flawed. Yes I drink beer and wine once in a while.....but I am not drunk or intoxicated every living hour of the day....in fact I rarely am. Doesn't matter. The fact that you use/partake/imbibe a mood altering substance at any time disqualifies you from making any moral judgement of another. Remind me again when I made a moral judgement of the man. "Perhaps it had more to do with the fact that he is a tax cheat and drug addict." I would say right off the top of my head that that is pretty much a moral judgement. :) |
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Wed, 4 May 2005 12:15:24 -0400, "JimH" wrote: "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message . .. On Wed, 4 May 2005 11:22:28 -0400, "JimH" wrote: wrote in message legroups.com... JimH wrote: wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: Perhaps it had more to do with the fact that he is a tax cheat and drug addict. He's paid for his tax problems. So that is a non-issue. No it isn't. He cheated and got caught. He is a tax cheat. What evidence do you have that he "is a tax cheat"? Better call the IRS on that one, Jim. He's a FORMER tax cheat. I'll bet YOU have broken laws before. Are you still guilty of any and all of those, including traffic violations? Please show what evidence you have the Willy is a "drug addict". Surely you aren't confusing his free and open stance on legalization of pot as an addiction, are you? The guy is constantly stoned on weed. I would call that an addiction. Pot is a drug...ergo drug addict. Comprendo? Nope, I don't. What evidence do you have that he is "constantly stoned on weed"? Just because he is open and direct about the fact that he does smoke the stuff, you think that he's constantly stoned????? That's just like me saying that because you've said here that you like beer, that you're an alcoholic! Your logic is severely flawed. Yes I drink beer and wine once in a while.....but I am not drunk or intoxicated every living hour of the day....in fact I rarely am. Doesn't matter. The fact that you use/partake/imbibe a mood altering substance at any time disqualifies you from making any moral judgement of another. Remind me again when I made a moral judgement of the man. "Perhaps it had more to do with the fact that he is a tax cheat and drug addict." I would say right off the top of my head that that is pretty much a moral judgement. :) Nope, it was a statement of fact. He is a tax cheat. He is a drug addict. I made no judgement on the man or his behavior. You are barking up the wrong tree. ;-) |
On Wed, 4 May 2005 17:39:02 -0400, "JimH" wrote:
~~ snippage ~~ Nope, it was a statement of fact. He is a tax cheat. Nope. He did owe taxes, but in fact, it was a long battle with the IRS which was settled out of court. He never cheated on his taxes - he had a disagreement on what was owed. He is a drug addict. No, he is not. He is the same as you. You partake, he partakes. Both just use different substances. I made no judgement on the man or his behavior. Yes you did. You are barking up the wrong tree. ;-) No I'm not. Later, Tom |
"JimH" wrote in message ... "Harry.Krause" wrote in message ... wrote: JimH wrote: Perhaps it had more to do with the fact that he is a tax cheat and drug addict. He's paid for his tax problems. So that is a non-issue. Please show what evidence you have the Willy is a "drug addict". Surely you aren't confusing his free and open stance on legalization of pot as an addiction, are you? Hmmm. George W. Bush cheated the taxpayers with some of his business deals in Texas and, of course, he's a drug addict, too. But Hertv still kisses Bush's butt. What does my statement about Willie Nelson have to do with GWB asshole? But since we are on the subject of cheating please tell us how your company Ullico cheated it's customers (unions) out of millions of dollars. Here is the story in case you forgot it: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/au...ulli-a29.shtml http://www.labornotes.org/archives/2003/01/c.html I'll bet Ullico's legal counsel has instructed Harry not to talk about this "issue" unless they approve of what he is saying. Ullico management saw that they could get rich off the backs of the little man, they were supposed to protect, and they did it and got caught. Harry wount' chime in on this issue. |
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Wed, 4 May 2005 17:39:02 -0400, "JimH" wrote: ~~ snippage ~~ Nope, it was a statement of fact. He is a tax cheat. Nope. He did owe taxes, but in fact, it was a long battle with the IRS which was settled out of court. He never cheated on his taxes - he had a disagreement on what was owed. He is a drug addict. No, he is not. He is the same as you. You partake, he partakes. Both just use different substances. I made no judgement on the man or his behavior. Yes you did. You are barking up the wrong tree. ;-) No I'm not. Later, Tom Did you ever admit when you were wrong Tom? If not, this is a good time to start. ;-) Jim |
On Wed, 4 May 2005 19:23:46 -0400, "Bert Robbins" wrote:
"JimH" wrote in message ... "Harry.Krause" wrote in message ... wrote: JimH wrote: Perhaps it had more to do with the fact that he is a tax cheat and drug addict. He's paid for his tax problems. So that is a non-issue. Please show what evidence you have the Willy is a "drug addict". Surely you aren't confusing his free and open stance on legalization of pot as an addiction, are you? Hmmm. George W. Bush cheated the taxpayers with some of his business deals in Texas and, of course, he's a drug addict, too. But Hertv still kisses Bush's butt. What does my statement about Willie Nelson have to do with GWB asshole? But since we are on the subject of cheating please tell us how your company Ullico cheated it's customers (unions) out of millions of dollars. Here is the story in case you forgot it: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/au...ulli-a29.shtml http://www.labornotes.org/archives/2003/01/c.html I'll bet Ullico's legal counsel has instructed Harry not to talk about this "issue" unless they approve of what he is saying. Ullico management saw that they could get rich off the backs of the little man, they were supposed to protect, and they did it and got caught. Harry wount' chime in on this issue. No, but he'll make a big deal of two soldiers who screw up, acting as though the entire military is corrupt. Of course, if someone calls him on it he is quick to say how much 'respect' he has for them. Thank God for filters and that fact that he is seldom quoted. Either he is posting much less or he is being answered very seldom. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message ... Bert Robbins wrote: I'll bet Ullico's legal counsel has instructed Harry not to talk about this "issue" unless they approve of what he is saying. Ullico management saw that they could get rich off the backs of the little man, they were supposed to protect, and they did it and got caught. Harry wount' chime in on this issue. Yeah, I will. As usual, you are full of crap. None of your three posits here is true. So, you are willing to talk about Ullico management and its board of directors screwing over the clients by enriching their pockets on the backs of the working man? It doesn't matter how you try to sugar coat it the facts are out and your patron saint of the laborers was ****ing the laborers. |
Bert,
Harry has delivered the ultimate threat. Clean up your act or he will ignore you. I am sure you are running for the hills in fear. "Harry.Krause" wrote in message ... Bert Robbins wrote: "Harry.Krause" wrote in message ... Bert Robbins wrote: I'll bet Ullico's legal counsel has instructed Harry not to talk about this "issue" unless they approve of what he is saying. Ullico management saw that they could get rich off the backs of the little man, they were supposed to protect, and they did it and got caught. Harry wount' chime in on this issue. Yeah, I will. As usual, you are full of crap. None of your three posits here is true. So, you are willing to talk about Ullico management and its board of directors screwing over the clients by enriching their pockets on the backs of the working man? It doesn't matter how you try to sugar coat it the facts are out and your patron saint of the laborers was ****ing the laborers. As I stated, none of your posits is true. You said: I wouldn't "chime in" on this issue. I have. You said I had been instructed by legal counsel not to talk about this issue. I haven't. No one got rich off the backs of anyone. The deals you reference had to do with the buying and selling of privately held stock. As far as I know, no one has been indicted in connection with the deals, and no working men or women lost a penny or any insurance coverage because of them. Those who bought and sold back their shares as individuals shouldn't have done so, and the profits they made have been paid back to the company, so far as I know, except in one case, which I believe is being pursued as a civil matter. So, you were "wrong" on that, too. End of discussion. Now, if it gives you a woody to keep bring this up, go for it, but, as I stated, you were wrong on all your posits. So, Bert, when are you going to stop posting as our anonymous intruder here? You're on the edge of the infamous bozo bin, Bert. As I stated last week, I only keep you out of it because there is a requirement tbat I keep at least one asshole out of it. You are the designee. But that can change. Go play with one of your low-brain output buddies here, like Hertvik or Fritz. They're more your style and speed. |
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message ... Bert Robbins wrote: "Harry.Krause" wrote in message ... Bert Robbins wrote: I'll bet Ullico's legal counsel has instructed Harry not to talk about this "issue" unless they approve of what he is saying. Ullico management saw that they could get rich off the backs of the little man, they were supposed to protect, and they did it and got caught. Harry wount' chime in on this issue. Yeah, I will. As usual, you are full of crap. None of your three posits here is true. So, you are willing to talk about Ullico management and its board of directors screwing over the clients by enriching their pockets on the backs of the working man? It doesn't matter how you try to sugar coat it the facts are out and your patron saint of the laborers was ****ing the laborers. As I stated, none of your posits is true. You said: I wouldn't "chime in" on this issue. I have. You said I had been instructed by legal counsel not to talk about this issue. I haven't. But, you have been sat down and told what you can say, what you cannot say and what questions to avoid altogether. No one got rich off the backs of anyone. The deals you reference had to do with the buying and selling of privately held stock. As far as I know, no one has been indicted in connection with the deals, and no working men or women lost a penny or any insurance coverage because of them. Those who bought and sold back their shares as individuals shouldn't have done so, and the profits they made have been paid back to the company, so far as I know, except in one case, which I believe is being pursued as a civil matter. So, you were "wrong" on that, too. That's because they got caught and had to disgourge their ill gotten gains. End of discussion. Now, if it gives you a woody to keep bring this up, go for it, but, as I stated, you were wrong on all your posits. No, the stain of this affair will forever haunt Ullico and taint its image. So, Bert, when are you going to stop posting as our anonymous intruder here? Annoymous intruder? You refer to me by name and then say I am an anonymous intruder. You're on the edge of the infamous bozo bin, Bert. As I stated last week, I only keep you out of it because there is a requirement tbat I keep at least one asshole out of it. You are the designee. But that can change. Go ahead and put me in your infamous bozo bin. I would be the first person you ever put in the "bozo" bin. Go play with one of your low-brain output buddies here, like Hertvik or Fritz. They're more your style and speed. Pathetic, try again! |
I am not now and never have been afraid of Harry.
"Dr. Dr. K.aren Smithers" Call180bucme@foragoodtime wrote in message ... Bert, Harry has delivered the ultimate threat. Clean up your act or he will ignore you. I am sure you are running for the hills in fear. "Harry.Krause" wrote in message ... Bert Robbins wrote: "Harry.Krause" wrote in message ... Bert Robbins wrote: I'll bet Ullico's legal counsel has instructed Harry not to talk about this "issue" unless they approve of what he is saying. Ullico management saw that they could get rich off the backs of the little man, they were supposed to protect, and they did it and got caught. Harry wount' chime in on this issue. Yeah, I will. As usual, you are full of crap. None of your three posits here is true. So, you are willing to talk about Ullico management and its board of directors screwing over the clients by enriching their pockets on the backs of the working man? It doesn't matter how you try to sugar coat it the facts are out and your patron saint of the laborers was ****ing the laborers. As I stated, none of your posits is true. You said: I wouldn't "chime in" on this issue. I have. You said I had been instructed by legal counsel not to talk about this issue. I haven't. No one got rich off the backs of anyone. The deals you reference had to do with the buying and selling of privately held stock. As far as I know, no one has been indicted in connection with the deals, and no working men or women lost a penny or any insurance coverage because of them. Those who bought and sold back their shares as individuals shouldn't have done so, and the profits they made have been paid back to the company, so far as I know, except in one case, which I believe is being pursued as a civil matter. So, you were "wrong" on that, too. End of discussion. Now, if it gives you a woody to keep bring this up, go for it, but, as I stated, you were wrong on all your posits. So, Bert, when are you going to stop posting as our anonymous intruder here? You're on the edge of the infamous bozo bin, Bert. As I stated last week, I only keep you out of it because there is a requirement tbat I keep at least one asshole out of it. You are the designee. But that can change. Go play with one of your low-brain output buddies here, like Hertvik or Fritz. They're more your style and speed. |
On Wed, 4 May 2005 21:18:31 -0400, "Dr. Dr. K.aren Smithers"
Call180bucme@foragoodtime wrote: Bert, Harry has delivered the ultimate threat. Clean up your act or he will ignore you. I am sure you are running for the hills in fear. "Harry.Krause" wrote in message ... Bert Robbins wrote: "Harry.Krause" wrote in message ... Bert Robbins wrote: I'll bet Ullico's legal counsel has instructed Harry not to talk about this "issue" unless they approve of what he is saying. Ullico management saw that they could get rich off the backs of the little man, they were supposed to protect, and they did it and got caught. Harry wount' chime in on this issue. Yeah, I will. As usual, you are full of crap. None of your three posits here is true. So, you are willing to talk about Ullico management and its board of directors screwing over the clients by enriching their pockets on the backs of the working man? It doesn't matter how you try to sugar coat it the facts are out and your patron saint of the laborers was ****ing the laborers. As I stated, none of your posits is true. You said: I wouldn't "chime in" on this issue. I have. You said I had been instructed by legal counsel not to talk about this issue. I haven't. No one got rich off the backs of anyone. The deals you reference had to do with the buying and selling of privately held stock. As far as I know, no one has been indicted in connection with the deals, and no working men or women lost a penny or any insurance coverage because of them. Those who bought and sold back their shares as individuals shouldn't have done so, and the profits they made have been paid back to the company, so far as I know, except in one case, which I believe is being pursued as a civil matter. So, you were "wrong" on that, too. End of discussion. Now, if it gives you a woody to keep bring this up, go for it, but, as I stated, you were wrong on all your posits. So, Bert, when are you going to stop posting as our anonymous intruder here? You're on the edge of the infamous bozo bin, Bert. As I stated last week, I only keep you out of it because there is a requirement tbat I keep at least one asshole out of it. You are the designee. But that can change. Go play with one of your low-brain output buddies here, like Hertvik or Fritz. They're more your style and speed. If you get filtered by Harry, you'll have a lot of his posts to answer. He seems to respond mostly to those he's filtered, from what I see. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message ... Bert Robbins wrote: "Harry.Krause" wrote in message As I stated, none of your posits is true. You said: I wouldn't "chime in" on this issue. I have. You said I had been instructed by legal counsel not to talk about this issue. I haven't. But, you have been sat down and told what you can say, what you cannot say and what questions to avoid altogether. Nope. Never. No one got rich off the backs of anyone. The deals you reference had to do with the buying and selling of privately held stock. As far as I know, no one has been indicted in connection with the deals, and no working men or women lost a penny or any insurance coverage because of them. Those who bought and sold back their shares as individuals shouldn't have done so, and the profits they made have been paid back to the company, so far as I know, except in one case, which I believe is being pursued as a civil matter. So, you were "wrong" on that, too. That's because they got caught and had to disgourge their ill gotten gains. Yes, the new management team forced the issue, and the money was returned. Too bad that doesn't happen at other US corporations, eh? End of discussion. Now, if it gives you a woody to keep bring this up, go for it, but, as I stated, you were wrong on all your posits. No, the stain of this affair will forever haunt Ullico and taint its image. Naw. The company has recovered, and its primary investment vehicle is doing better than ever. It is divesting itself of many of its insurance offerings, though, but that is unrelated. By the way, I stopped consulting at Ullico a year ago. I have no business relationship whatsoever with that company. The investment company I consult for now is much larger. Maintaining a relationship with both would have been a conflict of interest. You got thrown out with the dirty water. I guess you were stained. |
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
Doesn't matter. The fact that you use/partake/imbibe a mood altering substance at any time disqualifies you from making any moral judgement of another. Food is a mood altering substance. |
On Wed, 04 May 2005 23:18:25 -0700, -rick- wrote:
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: Doesn't matter. The fact that you use/partake/imbibe a mood altering substance at any time disqualifies you from making any moral judgement of another. Food is a mood altering substance. Yes it is. However, the difference is that you need food to survive and function. Later, Tom |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:28 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com