I sent you an email with the links.


"Gael Wind" wrote in message
om...
Jim,

Could you just post the names of those forums? Your email address doesn't work.

Gael


"Jim" wrote in message
news:I5d4b.310030$o%2.142074@sccrnsc02...
Find a real boating forum. This NG is a joke and nothing more than cheap
entertainment.

Harry, Gould, bb, jps, Jim Dandy, ignoramus and the group have turned this into
nothing
more than a political chat room full of childish name calling and intolerance for
opposing opinions.

Don't blame me for what it is now. I came on board when the NG was already
screwed up
thanks to the members I mentioned above. I only joined in the fun.

Email me if you want some serious boating forums.


"noah" wrote in message
...
When I first found rec.boats, I was thrilled (it doesn't take much
anymore) at the idea of "fellow boaters" to talk with.

Soon after, after wading through the political and personal bashing, I
mentioned this in the group, and was told (about 3:1), to "get used to
it". I have.

I have researched the rec.boats Charter and,basically, the founders
never anticipated that the group would be used for anything *but*
boating posts, therefore did not include any language concerning OT
posts. C'est dommage.

I admit to joining the OT posts now and then. It's like a "free
brunch". How can you resist? ) Sometimes, they are interesting.

As regular posters to this group, would you support an amendment to
the FAQ requiring that the letters "OT" precede any off-topic post?
This would not limit any discussion, but would enable the boating
purists to filter the background noise. The political warriors would
remain free to eviscerate each other.

As it stands, some do, some don't, "OT". Some posters have left the
group, or have become "lurkers", because they are annoyed and
frustrated with the OT postings. Perhaps a compromise is appropriate?

I can appreciate the idea that rec.boats is like "the bar at the yacht
club". I can also understand the plight of the weekend boater who
comes here looking for boating info, and finds reps and dems ripping
each others viscerals out. Viscerals are good, especially with garlic
and wine sauce, but this isn't a cooking newsgroup.

Is it worth the minimal effort to try to resolve these differences? I
think so, but then again, I married my ex-wife. My judgement is
suspect.

I would appreciate the comments of the entire group on this issue.

Regards,
noah

On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 10:48:13 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Chris wrote:

"Jim" is a horse's ass.


And you're a piece of ****.

Make that a lying piece of ****.
In fact, the only time I know for sure you've told the truth is when you
admitted to being a socialist.



I don't recall "admitting" to being a socialist, feces-for-brains. I'm
actually a moderate, yellow-dog Democrat. But I certainly find very
little wrong with the brand of democratic socialism practiced in some
northern European nations.


You *did* admit that you're a socialist. You just didn't use the exact
words "I'm a Socialist". Maybe this will jar your memory:

Do you believe that the income tax system in the United States should be
used
for redistribution of the wealth?


Harry's answer: "Yup"


And, indeed, our progressive tax system does redistribute wealth.






Let me elaborate here, should the government in effect transfer money via
the income tax system directly from one group of people to another?

Harry's answer: "Yup"


And that is what it does.




Or to further clarify it, should folks that DON"T PAY ANY INCOME TAXES
receive money from the income tax system from others that do pay?

Harry's answer: "Yup"

So, you would cut off all the millions of retired social security
recipients, eh?





If it talks like a duck, and walks like a duck...


Then it must be an American who supports the system.

Sorry, bad-breath-for-brains, but you are, as usual, dead wrong.

Next time you give yourself a root canal, stop before you hit your
brain, eh?

Harry, do you understand the difference between social security payments and
income tax? If you'll read carefully, you'll see that NOYB uses the phrase
'income tax' repeatedly. The fact that redistribution occurs now doesn't mean
it's not a socialist concept. If you, and other socialists, had your way the
redistribution would approach equality across the board. But then again, why
shouldn't a high school dropout receive the same income as you or I do? After
all, he/she is making plenty of babies, so they're obviously doing something!

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 10:58:24 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Chris wrote:

"Jim" is a horse's ass.


And you're a piece of ****.

Make that a lying piece of ****.
In fact, the only time I know for sure you've told the truth is when
you
admitted to being a socialist.



I don't recall "admitting" to being a socialist, feces-for-brains. I'm
actually a moderate, yellow-dog Democrat. But I certainly find very
little wrong with the brand of democratic socialism practiced in some
northern European nations.


You *did* admit that you're a socialist. You just didn't use the exact
words "I'm a Socialist". Maybe this will jar your memory:

Do you believe that the income tax system in the United States should be
used
for redistribution of the wealth?


Harry's answer: "Yup"


And, indeed, our progressive tax system does redistribute wealth.


But awhile ago you defined "Socialism" as the "forced redistribution of
wealth". Now, you say you support such a system. That makes you a
Socialist. You fit your very own definition!




K-ripes, are you really as simple-minded as you come across here, or is
it an act? I never defined socialism as "forced redistribution of
wealth." The current income tax system in the USA "forces"
redistribution of wealth. Are you claiming the USA is socialist?

Idiots like you should be forced to take an exam before being allowed to
vote. Or speak.

Harry, I hate to say it, 'cause I try to remain neutral, but you've been 'got'
by NYOB!

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

On 1 Sep 2003 10:56:09 -0700, (Gael Wind) wrote:

Jim,

Could you just post the names of those forums? Your email address doesn't work.

Gael



John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

JohnH wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 10:58:24 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Chris wrote:

"Jim" is a horse's ass.


And you're a piece of ****.

Make that a lying piece of ****.
In fact, the only time I know for sure you've told the truth is when
you
admitted to being a socialist.



I don't recall "admitting" to being a socialist, feces-for-brains. I'm
actually a moderate, yellow-dog Democrat. But I certainly find very
little wrong with the brand of democratic socialism practiced in some
northern European nations.


You *did* admit that you're a socialist. You just didn't use the exact
words "I'm a Socialist". Maybe this will jar your memory:

Do you believe that the income tax system in the United States should be
used
for redistribution of the wealth?


Harry's answer: "Yup"


And, indeed, our progressive tax system does redistribute wealth.


But awhile ago you defined "Socialism" as the "forced redistribution of
wealth". Now, you say you support such a system. That makes you a
Socialist. You fit your very own definition!




K-ripes, are you really as simple-minded as you come across here, or is
it an act? I never defined socialism as "forced redistribution of
wealth." The current income tax system in the USA "forces"
redistribution of wealth. Are you claiming the USA is socialist?

Idiots like you should be forced to take an exam before being allowed to
vote. Or speak.

Harry, I hate to say it, 'cause I try to remain neutral, but you've been 'got'
by NYOB!

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD


Yeah, sure, John...as if any of you righties individually or
collectively had the ability...




--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 17:58:42 -0400, JohnH
wrote:

The fact that redistribution occurs now doesn't mean
it's not a socialist concept. If you, and other socialists, had your way the
redistribution would approach equality across the board.

Isn't the distribution of wealth going the other way, fast? I think
we've got a situation where a larger percentage of the wealth is
getting concentrated into fewer and fewer individuals.

bb

bb wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 17:58:42 -0400, JohnH
wrote:

The fact that redistribution occurs now doesn't mean
it's not a socialist concept. If you, and other socialists, had your way the
redistribution would approach equality across the board.

Isn't the distribution of wealth going the other way, fast? I think
we've got a situation where a larger percentage of the wealth is
getting concentrated into fewer and fewer individuals.

bb


Indeed it is.

BTW, I'm helping in a survey to find any manufacturing or service
companies around the nation that have done any significant amounts of
recent entry-level hiring at decent wages (at least twice minimum wage)
that can be directly related to Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy.

The survey has been ongoing for three weeks. There's not much to report.

--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

NOYB wrote:

That's the beauty of the internet.. Your words are preserved for history
and can come back to bite you. Of course, if you always tell the truth, you
don't have to worry about what might be in the archives. You should try it
sometimes...that is, telling the truth.




"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JohnH wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 10:58:24 -0400, Harry Krause

wrote:

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Chris wrote:

"Jim" is a horse's ass.


And you're a piece of ****.

Make that a lying piece of ****.
In fact, the only time I know for sure you've told the truth is
when
you
admitted to being a socialist.



I don't recall "admitting" to being a socialist, feces-for-brains.
I'm
actually a moderate, yellow-dog Democrat. But I certainly find
very
little wrong with the brand of democratic socialism practiced in
some
northern European nations.


You *did* admit that you're a socialist. You just didn't use the
exact
words "I'm a Socialist". Maybe this will jar your memory:

Do you believe that the income tax system in the United States
should be
used
for redistribution of the wealth?


Harry's answer: "Yup"


And, indeed, our progressive tax system does redistribute wealth.


But awhile ago you defined "Socialism" as the "forced redistribution
of
wealth". Now, you say you support such a system. That makes you a
Socialist. You fit your very own definition!




K-ripes, are you really as simple-minded as you come across here, or is
it an act? I never defined socialism as "forced redistribution of
wealth." The current income tax system in the USA "forces"
redistribution of wealth. Are you claiming the USA is socialist?

Idiots like you should be forced to take an exam before being allowed to
vote. Or speak.

Harry, I hate to say it, 'cause I try to remain neutral, but you've been
'got'
by NYOB!

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD


Yeah, sure, John...as if any of you righties individually or
collectively had the ability...




--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.





Oh, Puh-lease...why would you think I give a rat's butt what a fripping
no-name dentist and his gang of right-wing hooligans think about anything?

You're all trash, and gutless trash at that.



--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
bb wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 17:58:42 -0400, JohnH
wrote:

The fact that redistribution occurs now doesn't mean
it's not a socialist concept. If you, and other socialists, had your way the
redistribution would approach equality across the board.

Isn't the distribution of wealth going the other way, fast? I think
we've got a situation where a larger percentage of the wealth is
getting concentrated into fewer and fewer individuals.

bb


Indeed it is.

BTW, I'm helping in a survey to find any manufacturing or service
companies around the nation that have done any significant amounts of
recent entry-level hiring at decent wages (at least twice minimum wage)
that can be directly related to Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy.

The survey has been ongoing for three weeks. There's not much to report.


And you would have found even less to report when BJ Clinton reported tremendous
increases in new jobs. as they were all minimum wage.

But of course, that did not bother you then, did it?

On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 22:52:46 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

Social security and medicare are the only *fair* taxes...'cause the rate is
the same for all income levels.

Isn't there a cap on the amount of income that's taxed for SS
purposes?

bb