|
"P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "*JimH*" wrote in message ... "P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message hlink.net... "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: Why would you join the military if there was no chance to see combat? Because you can't find a decent job anywhere. Then you're not looking. I just hired a 21 year old woman with absolutely no experience in the dental field at $12/hr. plus health insurance and pension plan. She's interested in training to become a dental assistant, but needs the money, so will do it as OTJ training rather than attending the one-year formal program. $30,000/year is a helluva lot of money for someone with no skills. Expanded function certified dental assistants earn $18-20/hr (or more). There are at least 5-10 ads running in the local paper at any given time looking for assistants and/or hygienists. Hygienists, by the way, earn $35-40/hour. Every business owner I know has trouble finding employees. It doesn't matter what field of employment they're looking to fill. I just went to get my haircut the other day and the wait was 2 hours because there was only 1 lady working. All she did was bitch the entire time that nobody wants to work. The jobs are there. Except in Michigan...(7% unemployment)..with our worthless democrat govenor who thinks she can tax her way to prosperity. I visited with a potential customer this week....a manufacturer of large injection molding machines, extruders, die cast machines and hydraulic presses and are only on of 3 major US manufacturer of injection molding and hydraulic presses. They are expanding and hiring new employees (skilled machinist) as they cannot keep up with demand for their equipment. It seems their customers (other manufacturing companies) are now buying more equipment as they are seeing an increase in sales and demand for their products. The same has been reported with other manufacturing customers of mine...expanding and hiring. One has to have their head in the sand if they think that there are not good jobs out there or that the US economy is hurting. I talk with other professional in my field all the time, buisness is booming around the country........except in Michigan.......right now it has one of the worst economies in the country, with one of the highest unemployment rates. It is localized due to the faltering auto companies, high cost of labor due to the entrenched union mentality, high taxes, high social costs (the cesspool known as the City of Detroit), and a govenor who thinks she can tax her way to prosperity. We have been thinking of uprooting our business and relocating elsewhere in the country. ************************************************** ************************** ******* Last month the state legislature buried the Democratic Governor's top legislative priority, a grandiose proposal to raise taxes on insurance companies, banks and thousands of small businesses that private studies said would have cost up to 20,000 jobs. Ms. Granholm's plan was widely criticized, including in these columns in March and in an op-ed article on the opposite page last Thursday by state legislator Rick Baxter, a Republican, and Hillsdale College Professor Gary Wolfram. Ms. Granholm was not pleased, going so far as to denounce the op-ed as "treasonous for the state of Michigan." The authors' high crime? Exposing Michigan as a high tax state and criticizing Ms. Granholm for wanting to raise taxes. Her choice of words was no inadvertent slip of the tongue, by the way--a Howard Dean-like temporary loss of sanity. The Governor has used the "t" word repeatedly and has even suggested that Mr. Baxter "should be removed from office." ************************************************** ************************** ******* |
John H. wrote: On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:43:07 -0400, HarryKrause wrote: John H. wrote: On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:37:10 -0400, HarryKrause wrote: *JimH* wrote: "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... Stories From the Front by Cindy Sheehan Lisa from Washington State writes: My son in law in Iraq said they are being pressured round the clock to re-enlist or face stop loss. snip Not true according to my friends who both have sons in the Marines, including one presently stationed in Baghdad and one who is soon to go to Iraq. How valid is this story you cut and pasted off the internet Harry? Do you really believe everything you read on the net? (I guess you do). I have no reason to doubt the veracity of "Lisa" from Washington State. I have no reason to believe anything you post. PS, "Stop Loss" is not something that is at the discretion of the local company commander. Individuals are not stop-lossed, units or military occupational specialties may be. No commander has the ability to 'stop loss' someone for not reenlisting. One would not expect you to know better. Doesn't mean an unsophisticated grunt at the front would know that. You've never been there, Harry, so how do you know what they know? Those 'unsophisticated grunts' (as you call them), have a lot more intelligence and 'sophistication' than you give them credit for. Stop putting down those whose shoes you don't fit, let alone have ever walked in. I love it! This is the typical response when there is no other. To say that someone had to have been there to understand and know what goes on is absurd. An analogy: My wife just turned someone in to DFACS for child abuse. This child came to school with welts on her legs, my wife asked what happened. The child said her dad beat her with a belt. Well, DFACS gets there, and they tell my wife that this isn't the first time for this girl. It's bad enough that the cops are called. Now, using YOUR foolish analogy, perhaps my wife shouldn't have called, because no matter what evidence and facts, she wasn't there...... |
"P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message hlink.net... "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: Why would you join the military if there was no chance to see combat? Because you can't find a decent job anywhere. Then you're not looking. I just hired a 21 year old woman with absolutely no experience in the dental field at $12/hr. plus health insurance and pension plan. She's interested in training to become a dental assistant, but needs the money, so will do it as OTJ training rather than attending the one-year formal program. $30,000/year is a helluva lot of money for someone with no skills. Expanded function certified dental assistants earn $18-20/hr (or more). There are at least 5-10 ads running in the local paper at any given time looking for assistants and/or hygienists. Hygienists, by the way, earn $35-40/hour. Every business owner I know has trouble finding employees. It doesn't matter what field of employment they're looking to fill. I just went to get my haircut the other day and the wait was 2 hours because there was only 1 lady working. All she did was bitch the entire time that nobody wants to work. The jobs are there. Except in Michigan...(7% unemployment)..with our worthless democrat govenor who thinks she can tax her way to prosperity. I'd like to see a breakdown of the unemployment rate in states with Democratic governors vs. states with Republican governors. |
"*JimH*" wrote in message ... One has to have their head in the sand if they think that there are not good jobs out there or that the US economy is hurting. The sand isn't the place where I figured Harry's head was in. |
wrote in message oups.com... My wife just turned someone in to DFACS for child abuse. But I thought a wife can't be compelled to testify against her husband? |
"NOYB" wrote in message hlink.net... "*JimH*" wrote in message ... One has to have their head in the sand if they think that there are not good jobs out there or that the US economy is hurting. The sand isn't the place where I figured Harry's head was in. A recent picture of harry http://www.funnyjunk.com/p/0363-jpg.html |
"P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message hlink.net... "*JimH*" wrote in message ... One has to have their head in the sand if they think that there are not good jobs out there or that the US economy is hurting. The sand isn't the place where I figured Harry's head was in. A recent picture of harry http://www.funnyjunk.com/p/0363-jpg.html That was the pic that I had in mind when I wrote my response. By chance, can you find one with another person's head up the same ass? Then my gallery will be complete with a pic of Harry *and* Kevin. |
|
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 09:21:50 -0400, HarryKrause wrote:
John H. wrote: On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 08:21:08 -0400, HarryKrause wrote: John H. wrote: Harry Krause wrote: You were a draftee, right? Yup. I got my letter and went. No excuses, no running to Canada, no fake injuries, and none of the other gimmicks to escape boot camp. Some had more imagination. Some were cowards. Pick your group. You're entitled to say whatever you want to justify your military participation in one of the dumbest foreign misadventures in this nation's history. A huge number of young men, however, realized the war against the Vietnamese was immoral and was only serving to prop up a corrupt right-wing dictatorship. When you have Buddhist monks setting themselves on fire to protest US actions in Da Nang and US support for completely corrupt generals like Ky and Thieu, you should realize by then, at least, that you're not on the side of the angels. What did I say that was a 'justification'? What I said implied that I wasn't cowardly. Do you understand? It wasn't cowardly and it wasn't brave. It just was. You were drafted and you showed up. BFD. Guess I didn't have your imagination. -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD |
John H. wrote: On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 16:09:57 -0400, HarryKrause wrote: NOYB wrote: Why would you join the military if there was no chance to see combat? Because you can't find a decent job anywhere. This from one who tells Tom he has the highest respect for the military! Harry, you're a card. -- John H. Learn to follow a thread, John. Need a hint? |
*JimH* wrote: Why aren't you out on your custom made 36 foot lobster boat Krause? Heck, even when we had our modest 32 footer we would spend every summer weekend (and vacation days) on it cruising around. But you seem to post here 24 x 7. Go figure. Why aren't you out on your boat, Jim? But you seem to post here 24 x 7 Go figure. |
wrote in message ups.com... *JimH* wrote: Why aren't you out on your custom made 36 foot lobster boat Krause? Heck, even when we had our modest 32 footer we would spend every summer weekend (and vacation days) on it cruising around. But you seem to post here 24 x 7. Go figure. Why aren't you out on your boat, Jim? But you seem to post here 24 x 7 Go figure. Hey dummy, I don't have one at the moment. That has been stated many times here. You really are an idiot. |
"*JimH*" wrote in message ... wrote in message ups.com... *JimH* wrote: Why aren't you out on your custom made 36 foot lobster boat Krause? Heck, even when we had our modest 32 footer we would spend every summer weekend (and vacation days) on it cruising around. But you seem to post here 24 x 7. Go figure. Why aren't you out on your boat, Jim? But you seem to post here 24 x 7 Go figure. Hey dummy, I don't have one at the moment. That has been stated many times here. You really are an idiot. What else would you expect from someone that only has access to a computer through his employer? |
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 13:25:46 +0000, NOYB wrote:
earn $18-20/hr (or more). There are at least 5-10 ads running in the local paper at any given time looking for assistants and/or hygienists. Hygienists, by the way, earn $35-40/hour. Every business owner I know has trouble finding employees. It doesn't matter what field of employment they're looking to fill. I just went to get my haircut the other day and the wait was 2 hours because there was only 1 lady working. All she did was bitch the entire time that nobody wants to work. The jobs are there. But are there places to live? Just curious, can a $35-40 wage afford to live in Naples, with it's rapidly escalating real estate prices? Some of that help finding employees may be local. |
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 14:38:58 +0000, NOYB wrote:
I'd like to see a breakdown of the unemployment rate in states with Democratic governors vs. states with Republican governors. Lowest unemployment to Highest unemployment (May, 2005) R Hawaii 2.7% R Vermont 3.1% R North Dakota 3.5% D New Hampshire 3.6% D Virginia 3.6% R Idaho 3.9% D New Jersey 3.9% R Florida 4.0% R Nebraska 4.0% R Nevada 4.0% R South Dakota 4.0% D Wyoming 4.0% D Delaware 4.1% R Maryland 4.2% R Minnesota 4.3% R Alabama 4.4% D Montana 4.5% D Oklahoma 4.5% R Rhode Island 4.5% D West Virginia 4.5% D Wisconsin 4.7% D Arizona 4.8% R Indiana 4.8% D Iowa 4.8% R Massachusetts 4.8% D Pennsylvania 4.8% R Utah 4.9% R Arkansas 5.0% D Maine 5.0% R New York 5.0% D North Carolina 5.1% R Georgia 5.2% R California 5.3% R Colorado 5.3% R Connecticut 5.3% D Kansas 5.3% D Louisiana 5.4% R Texas 5.5% R Missouri 5.6% R Kentucky 5.7% D Washington 5.7% D Illinois 6.8% D New Mexico 6.0% R Ohio 6.1% D Tennessee 6.2% R South Carolina 6.3% R Alaska 6.4% D Oregon 6.5% D Michigan 7.1% R Mississippi 7.1% Looks pretty evenly balanced. My guess is differences can be attributed more to regional/agricultural, variances, than to Dem/Rep differences. http://www.multistate.com/Site.nsf/E...4Maps?OpenPage http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lis..._unemployment/ So, on a national level, any guesses on who does better with unemployment, or the economy, for that matter. Dems or Reps? http://www.eriposte.com/economy/other/demovsrep.htm |
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:07:38 -0400, HarryKrause wrote:
John H. wrote: On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 16:09:57 -0400, HarryKrause wrote: NOYB wrote: Why would you join the military if there was no chance to see combat? Because you can't find a decent job anywhere. This from one who tells Tom he has the highest respect for the military! Harry, you're a card. Sorry, Herring, but what I said was I have respect for individual members of the military (but certainly not all of them). I have no respect whatsoever for the military establishment. Harry, we all know what you've said. That's my point! PS. If you're going to ask other's to pray, you should be setting a good example. Your name-calling and general anti-social behavior are not doing so. -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD |
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 14:38:58 +0000, NOYB wrote: I'd like to see a breakdown of the unemployment rate in states with Democratic governors vs. states with Republican governors. Lowest unemployment to Highest unemployment (May, 2005) R Hawaii 2.7% R Vermont 3.1% R North Dakota 3.5% D New Hampshire 3.6% D Virginia 3.6% R Idaho 3.9% D New Jersey 3.9% R Florida 4.0% R Nebraska 4.0% R Nevada 4.0% R South Dakota 4.0% D Wyoming 4.0% D Delaware 4.1% R Maryland 4.2% R Minnesota 4.3% R Alabama 4.4% D Montana 4.5% D Oklahoma 4.5% R Rhode Island 4.5% D West Virginia 4.5% D Wisconsin 4.7% D Arizona 4.8% R Indiana 4.8% D Iowa 4.8% R Massachusetts 4.8% D Pennsylvania 4.8% R Utah 4.9% R Arkansas 5.0% D Maine 5.0% R New York 5.0% D North Carolina 5.1% R Georgia 5.2% R California 5.3% R Colorado 5.3% R Connecticut 5.3% D Kansas 5.3% D Louisiana 5.4% R Texas 5.5% R Missouri 5.6% R Kentucky 5.7% D Washington 5.7% D Illinois 6.8% D New Mexico 6.0% R Ohio 6.1% D Tennessee 6.2% R South Carolina 6.3% R Alaska 6.4% D Oregon 6.5% D Michigan 7.1% R Mississippi 7.1% So the Democrats control the Governor's house in 60% of the 10 states with the worst unemployment numbers, and in only 30% of the 10 states with the best unemployment numbers. That doesn't sound "evenly balanced" to me. That's a huge disproportion skewed against the Dems. |
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 13:25:46 +0000, NOYB wrote: earn $18-20/hr (or more). There are at least 5-10 ads running in the local paper at any given time looking for assistants and/or hygienists. Hygienists, by the way, earn $35-40/hour. Every business owner I know has trouble finding employees. It doesn't matter what field of employment they're looking to fill. I just went to get my haircut the other day and the wait was 2 hours because there was only 1 lady working. All she did was bitch the entire time that nobody wants to work. The jobs are there. But are there places to live? Just curious, can a $35-40 wage afford to live in Naples, with it's rapidly escalating real estate prices? Some of that help finding employees may be local. Yes, but barely. A single income household earning $12-20/hour would have to rent. Unfortunately, they have to compete with many dual-income households *and* the baby boomer retirees. |
"HarryKrause" wrote in message ... thunder wrote: On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 13:25:46 +0000, NOYB wrote: earn $18-20/hr (or more). There are at least 5-10 ads running in the local paper at any given time looking for assistants and/or hygienists. Hygienists, by the way, earn $35-40/hour. Every business owner I know has trouble finding employees. It doesn't matter what field of employment they're looking to fill. I just went to get my haircut the other day and the wait was 2 hours because there was only 1 lady working. All she did was bitch the entire time that nobody wants to work. The jobs are there. But are there places to live? Just curious, can a $35-40 wage afford to live in Naples, with it's rapidly escalating real estate prices? Some of that help finding employees may be local. They commute in by floating bus from Haiti each day. LOL. The Cubans should have patented the design. |
"NOYB" wrote in message hlink.net... "P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message hlink.net... "*JimH*" wrote in message ... One has to have their head in the sand if they think that there are not good jobs out there or that the US economy is hurting. The sand isn't the place where I figured Harry's head was in. A recent picture of harry http://www.funnyjunk.com/p/0363-jpg.html That was the pic that I had in mind when I wrote my response. By chance, can you find one with another person's head up the same ass? Then my gallery will be complete with a pic of Harry *and* Kevin. A picture of harry and kevin's last meeting http://www.ucd.ie/tramp/gallery/cavan04/target70.html |
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 14:51:24 -0400, HarryKrause wrote:
John H. wrote: On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:07:38 -0400, HarryKrause wrote: John H. wrote: On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 16:09:57 -0400, HarryKrause wrote: NOYB wrote: Why would you join the military if there was no chance to see combat? Because you can't find a decent job anywhere. This from one who tells Tom he has the highest respect for the military! Harry, you're a card. Sorry, Herring, but what I said was I have respect for individual members of the military (but certainly not all of them). I have no respect whatsoever for the military establishment. Harry, we all know what you've said. That's my point! PS. If you're going to ask other's to pray, you should be setting a good example. Your name-calling and general anti-social behavior are not doing so. Aim your castigating at the members of Assholes United. You are the one asking for prayer. Are you saying your behavior is above reproach? Do you think Chuck would approve of your behavior? -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD |
Harry,
Are you talking about your imaginary buddies, playing on your imaginary driveway? If they are good will you take them out on your imaginary boat? "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... Aim your castigating at the members of Assholes United. -- Let's pray the United States survives the rest of Bush's term. |
Harry,
I guess if you need some friends you can use us as your "imaginary" buddies. Can we play soccer on your imaginary lawn? "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... Real Name wrote: Harry, Are you talking about your imaginary buddies, playing on your imaginary driveway? No, ****head; the members of the imaginary online Assholes United Soccer Team (AUST) team consist of people like you, Hertvik, Fritz, Robbins, Charles, Jackoff. You know, the non-boating, non-fishing ejaculates who post here only to disrupt and annoy. The funny thing is that I suspect none of you would last two minutes in an actual soccer game. -- Let's pray the United States survives the rest of Bush's term. |
Harry,
Why would I need balls to play on your "imaginary" lawn? Do you want to make it one of your special games? "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... Real Name wrote: Harry, I guess if you need some friends you can use us as your "imaginary" buddies. Can we play soccer on your imaginary lawn? I''ve got the room, but you don't have the balls. -- Let's pray the United States survives the rest of Bush's term. |
Harry,
I know you want to play with my balls, but I play on a different team. Let's just agree not to play with each other balls, I know you would enjoy it, but I would not. "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... Real Name wrote: Harry, Why would I need balls to play on your "imaginary" lawn? Let's just say you wouldn't enjoy the outcome and leave it at that. -- Let's pray the United States survives the rest of Bush's term. |
Harry,
Are you flirting with me? Please ..... I am not interested. "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... Real Name wrote: Harry, I know you want to play with my balls, but I play on a different team. Let's just agree not to play with each other balls, I know you would enjoy it, but I would not. Let's just say you'd not get very far onto my lawn, and leave it at that. -- Let's pray the United States survives the rest of Bush's term. |
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 17:37:39 +0000, NOYB wrote:
R Hawaii 2.7% R Vermont 3.1% R North Dakota 3.5% D New Hampshire 3.6% D Virginia 3.6% R Idaho 3.9% D New Jersey 3.9% R Florida 4.0% R Nebraska 4.0% R Nevada 4.0% R South Dakota 4.0% D Wyoming 4.0% D Delaware 4.1% R Maryland 4.2% R Minnesota 4.3% R Alabama 4.4% D Montana 4.5% D Oklahoma 4.5% R Rhode Island 4.5% D West Virginia 4.5% D Wisconsin 4.7% D Arizona 4.8% R Indiana 4.8% D Iowa 4.8% R Massachusetts 4.8% D Pennsylvania 4.8% R Utah 4.9% R Arkansas 5.0% D Maine 5.0% R New York 5.0% D North Carolina 5.1% R Georgia 5.2% R California 5.3% R Colorado 5.3% R Connecticut 5.3% D Kansas 5.3% D Louisiana 5.4% R Texas 5.5% R Missouri 5.6% R Kentucky 5.7% D Washington 5.7% D Illinois 6.8% D New Mexico 6.0% R Ohio 6.1% D Tennessee 6.2% R South Carolina 6.3% R Alaska 6.4% D Oregon 6.5% D Michigan 7.1% R Mississippi 7.1% So the Democrats control the Governor's house in 60% of the 10 states with the worst unemployment numbers, and in only 30% of the 10 states with the best unemployment numbers. LOL. Not that fast. There aren't 10 states with the worst unemployment, nor 10 states with the best. Don't forget the ties, then figure in 28 of the Governors are Republicans, 22 are Democrats. That doesn't sound "evenly balanced" to me. That's a huge disproportion skewed against the Dems. Didn't like the link that showed the economy runs better under a Democrat President? Here, read another: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2005Apr1.html |
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 17:37:39 +0000, NOYB wrote: R Hawaii 2.7% R Vermont 3.1% R North Dakota 3.5% D New Hampshire 3.6% D Virginia 3.6% R Idaho 3.9% D New Jersey 3.9% R Florida 4.0% R Nebraska 4.0% R Nevada 4.0% R South Dakota 4.0% D Wyoming 4.0% D Delaware 4.1% R Maryland 4.2% R Minnesota 4.3% R Alabama 4.4% D Montana 4.5% D Oklahoma 4.5% R Rhode Island 4.5% D West Virginia 4.5% D Wisconsin 4.7% D Arizona 4.8% R Indiana 4.8% D Iowa 4.8% R Massachusetts 4.8% D Pennsylvania 4.8% R Utah 4.9% R Arkansas 5.0% D Maine 5.0% R New York 5.0% D North Carolina 5.1% R Georgia 5.2% R California 5.3% R Colorado 5.3% R Connecticut 5.3% D Kansas 5.3% D Louisiana 5.4% R Texas 5.5% R Missouri 5.6% R Kentucky 5.7% D Washington 5.7% D Illinois 6.8% D New Mexico 6.0% R Ohio 6.1% D Tennessee 6.2% R South Carolina 6.3% R Alaska 6.4% D Oregon 6.5% D Michigan 7.1% R Mississippi 7.1% So the Democrats control the Governor's house in 60% of the 10 states with the worst unemployment numbers, and in only 30% of the 10 states with the best unemployment numbers. LOL. Not that fast. There aren't 10 states with the worst unemployment, nor 10 states with the best. Don't forget the ties Huh? Just because there's a tie, doesn't mean that there aren't 10 at the bottom and 10 at the top. Of the ten at the bottom, 6 are Democrat-controlled. Of the ten at the top, 7 are Republican-controlled. then figure in 28 of the Governors are Republicans, 22 are Democrats. So then if it were truly balanced, the dems should make up roughly 40% of the top 10, and 40% of the bottom ten...but that's not the case. They make up only 30% of the top 10, and a whopping 60% of the bottom 10! That doesn't sound "evenly balanced" to me. That's a huge disproportion skewed against the Dems. Didn't like the link that showed the economy runs better under a Democrat President? Here, read another: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2005Apr1.html The link was not relevant to the question I posed. I asked about unemployment rates relative to which party controlled the governor's house. When you compare Presidential administrations, you're not comparing apples to apples since you're comparing two completely separate periods of time. There are too many factors to consider when comparing the time periods of two different Presidents. Technologies change. Oil Prices change. World economic conditions change. Wars cause change. With the governor comparison, you're comparing head to head while each is in power at the same exact time period...under the same economic conditions at the federal level. |
"NOBBY" wrote..
Why would you join the military if there was no chance to see combat? Isn't it a soldier's role to kill the enemy? You're younger than 37, right? Actually, they give waivers for age anyway. You can enlist. Go ahead, you appear to believe in the cause... or are you just a chicken**** coward? P. Fritz wrote: Can you imagine what the world would be like if the military of WWII was filled with whiners like that? You can wait in line to enlist right behind NOBBY... if there is a line, which I doubt. You can send your kids too. If not, then shut yer yaps. Neither have the balls to back up your beliefs, just a lot of hot air... and no soldier ever won a battle by loud-mouthing the enemy to death. DSK |
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 22:36:05 -0400, DSK wrote:
"NOBBY" wrote.. Why would you join the military if there was no chance to see combat? Isn't it a soldier's role to kill the enemy? You're younger than 37, right? Actually, they give waivers for age anyway. You can enlist. Go ahead, you appear to believe in the cause... or are you just a chicken**** coward? P. Fritz wrote: Can you imagine what the world would be like if the military of WWII was filled with whiners like that? You can wait in line to enlist right behind NOBBY... if there is a line, which I doubt. You can send your kids too. If not, then shut yer yaps. Neither have the balls to back up your beliefs, just a lot of hot air... and no soldier ever won a battle by loud-mouthing the enemy to death. DSK Did someone **** in your beer? You're sounding much like Kevin. -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD |
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 22:09:37 -0400, NOYB wrote:
So then if it were truly balanced, the dems should make up roughly 40% of the top 10, and 40% of the bottom ten...but that's not the case. They make up only 30% of the top 10, and a whopping 60% of the bottom 10! Interesting what one can do if they cherry pick the data, isn't it? If one were looking for balance, one would expect 11 dems and 14 reps in the bottom half, and 11 dems and 14 reps in the top half. Damn, if it ain't so, must be balanced. Or let's look at the Dems median, 4.8, then the Reps. median, 4.8. Damn, it must be balanced. Now, if we look at averages, well the Reps do a whopping .4 better, but if we check for population . . . Well, I haven't the time. I still say other factors besides the governors party will weigh heavier in unemployment rates. The link was not relevant to the question I posed. I asked about unemployment rates relative to which party controlled the governor's house. When you compare Presidential administrations, you're not comparing apples to apples since you're comparing two completely separate periods of time. There are too many factors to consider when comparing the time periods of two different Presidents. Technologies change. Oil Prices change. World economic conditions change. Wars cause change. With the governor comparison, you're comparing head to head while each is in power at the same exact time period...under the same economic conditions at the federal level. True, but it's interesting to note that the good times roll more frequently under a Democratic President, than a Republican one. |
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 22:09:37 -0400, NOYB wrote: So then if it were truly balanced, the dems should make up roughly 40% of the top 10, and 40% of the bottom ten...but that's not the case. They make up only 30% of the top 10, and a whopping 60% of the bottom 10! Interesting what one can do if they cherry pick the data, isn't it? If one were looking for balance, one would expect 11 dems and 14 reps in the bottom half, and 11 dems and 14 reps in the top half. Damn, if it ain't so, must be balanced. Or let's look at the Dems median, 4.8, then the Reps. median, 4.8. Damn, it must be balanced. Now, if we look at averages, well the Reps do a whopping .4 better, but if we check for population . . . Well, I haven't the time. I still say other factors besides the governors party will weigh heavier in unemployment rates. The link was not relevant to the question I posed. I asked about unemployment rates relative to which party controlled the governor's house. When you compare Presidential administrations, you're not comparing apples to apples since you're comparing two completely separate periods of time. There are too many factors to consider when comparing the time periods of two different Presidents. Technologies change. Oil Prices change. World economic conditions change. Wars cause change. With the governor comparison, you're comparing head to head while each is in power at the same exact time period...under the same economic conditions at the federal level. True, but it's interesting to note that the good times roll more frequently under a Democratic President, than a Republican one. Perhaps the electorate can sense when troubled times from outside threats are on the horizon, and elect Republicans to guide them safely through those times. Then when safety returns, people feel a stronger sense of community and want to give back to society in the way of higher taxes. ;-) |
*JimH* wrote: wrote in message ups.com... *JimH* wrote: Why aren't you out on your custom made 36 foot lobster boat Krause? Heck, even when we had our modest 32 footer we would spend every summer weekend (and vacation days) on it cruising around. But you seem to post here 24 x 7. Go figure. Why aren't you out on your boat, Jim? But you seem to post here 24 x 7 Go figure. Hey dummy, I don't have one at the moment. That has been stated many times here. You really are an idiot. Remember, we'll be meeting Aug. 13 or so, I look forward to showing you my driver's license, and having you call me childish names to my face, okay? I'll bet you'll stop, IF you show up, little punk. |
wrote in message oups.com... *JimH* wrote: wrote in message ups.com... *JimH* wrote: Why aren't you out on your custom made 36 foot lobster boat Krause? Heck, even when we had our modest 32 footer we would spend every summer weekend (and vacation days) on it cruising around. But you seem to post here 24 x 7. Go figure. Why aren't you out on your boat, Jim? But you seem to post here 24 x 7 Go figure. Hey dummy, I don't have one at the moment. That has been stated many times here. You really are an idiot. Remember, we'll be meeting Aug. 13 or so, I look forward to showing you my driver's license, and having you call me childish names to my face, okay? I'll bet you'll stop, IF you show up, little punk. Wow, I am scared Kevin. You are really one tough guy on the internet. Idiot. |
wrote in message oups.com... *JimH* wrote: wrote in message ups.com... *JimH* wrote: Why aren't you out on your custom made 36 foot lobster boat Krause? Heck, even when we had our modest 32 footer we would spend every summer weekend (and vacation days) on it cruising around. But you seem to post here 24 x 7. Go figure. Why aren't you out on your boat, Jim? But you seem to post here 24 x 7 Go figure. Hey dummy, I don't have one at the moment. That has been stated many times here. You really are an idiot. Remember, we'll be meeting Aug. 13 or so, I look forward to showing you my driver's license, and having you call me childish names to my face, okay? I'll bet you'll stop, IF you show up, little punk. BTW: I will be on Kelley's Island on vacation from August 7-13.....I guess I will not have the honor of meeting with you.....and I so looked forward to seeing you in person. And I would have no problem finding you.....your picture is next to the word "idiot" in the dictionary. |
"DSK" wrote in message .. . "NOBBY" wrote.. Why would you join the military if there was no chance to see combat? Isn't it a soldier's role to kill the enemy? You're younger than 37, right? Actually, they give waivers for age anyway. You can enlist. Go ahead, you appear to believe in the cause... or are you just a chicken**** coward? You really are a putz. I'm not advocating that everybody should immediately go sign up with the military. I'm pointing out that it's idiotic for someone to join the military with the presumption that they won't see combat...just as it's idiotic for a cop to presume that he won't ever have to draw his gun, or a dentist to presume that he won't be exposed to a patient with hepatitis or HIV, or... ...and no soldier ever won a battle by loud-mouthing the enemy to death. But a certain CIC named Ronald Reagan did. |
"NOYB" wrote in message ... "thunder" wrote in message ... On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 22:09:37 -0400, NOYB wrote: So then if it were truly balanced, the dems should make up roughly 40% of the top 10, and 40% of the bottom ten...but that's not the case. They make up only 30% of the top 10, and a whopping 60% of the bottom 10! Interesting what one can do if they cherry pick the data, isn't it? If one were looking for balance, one would expect 11 dems and 14 reps in the bottom half, and 11 dems and 14 reps in the top half. Damn, if it ain't so, must be balanced. Or let's look at the Dems median, 4.8, then the Reps. median, 4.8. Damn, it must be balanced. Now, if we look at averages, well the Reps do a whopping .4 better, but if we check for population . . . Well, I haven't the time. I still say other factors besides the governors party will weigh heavier in unemployment rates. The link was not relevant to the question I posed. I asked about unemployment rates relative to which party controlled the governor's house. When you compare Presidential administrations, you're not comparing apples to apples since you're comparing two completely separate periods of time. There are too many factors to consider when comparing the time periods of two different Presidents. Technologies change. Oil Prices change. World economic conditions change. Wars cause change. With the governor comparison, you're comparing head to head while each is in power at the same exact time period...under the same economic conditions at the federal level. True, but it's interesting to note that the good times roll more frequently under a Democratic President, than a Republican one. Perhaps the electorate can sense when troubled times from outside threats are on the horizon, and elect Republicans to guide them safely through those times. Then when safety returns, people feel a stronger sense of community and want to give back to society in the way of higher taxes. ;-) Actually, it is due to the lack effect on the economy.....a tax cut does not immediately create a good economy, it takes years to build, then a liebral gets in office screws the economy and leaves it to a conservative to correct. |
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 13:41:09 -0400, HarryKrause wrote:
*JimH* wrote: Wow, I am scared Kevin. You are really one tough guy on the internet. Idiot. Mext month, Hertvik will be whining about another "threat." Uh...alliteration? -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD |
"John H." wrote in message ... On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 13:41:09 -0400, HarryKrause wrote: *JimH* wrote: Wow, I am scared Kevin. You are really one tough guy on the internet. Idiot. Mext month, Hert will be whining about another "threat." Uh...alliteration? -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD Krause is referring to me bringing up the threats he made to me and my wife. |
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 13:45:53 -0400, P. Fritz wrote:
Actually, it is due to the lack effect on the economy.....a tax cut does not immediately create a good economy, it takes years to build, then a liebral gets in office screws the economy and leaves it to a conservative to correct. Yeah, that's why the data on the following link has a 3, 4 ,and 5 year lag. Sorry, Republicans still suck when it comes to managing the economy. http://www.eriposte.com/economy/other/demovsrep.htm Ah, all this talk about tax cuts, it's interesting to note that since 1980 and until recently, federal tax receipts have held remarkably constant at @19%+-1%.GDP I noted, "until recently" because under Bush federal tax receipts have dropped to 16.3%. Unfortunately, expenditures are still over 19%, down from Reagan's 23%.. It's clearly true, that Democrats are tax and spent, unfortunately Republicans spend just as freely, or more so. They just don't tax as heavily. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFa....cfm?Docid=200 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:31 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com