Gould, jps, NOYB, Jim, Harry, and a cast of thousands
 

On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 22:54:18 GMT, "Jim"
wrote:


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

All?

bb

Gould, jps, NOYB, Jim, Harry, and a cast of thousands
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
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.

That seems to be your only retort when cornered in an debate.

But it is getting old. It is childish. And it only shows you are defeated.

Gould, jps, NOYB, Jim, Harry, and a cast of thousands
 

Jim wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
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.

That seems to be your only retort when cornered in an debate.

But it is getting old. It is childish. And it only shows you are defeated.


Naw, it simply shows I don't give a crap what you gutless wonders think
about anything, and that your "points" aren't worth a reasoned response.
You are mostly talking to each other, like the dittoheads you are. Only
one or two of you even have the cojones to use your real names. NOYB is
scared crapless that he might be outed.


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

Gould, jps, NOYB, Jim, Harry, and a cast of thousands
 

Why would you give a rat's butt about telling the truth? Perhaps because
*what* you say is a reflection of your character...or lack thereof in your
case.


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
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.

Gould, jps, NOYB, Jim, Harry, and a cast of thousands
 

On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 23:00:33 GMT, "Jim"
wrote:

That seems to be your only retort when cornered in an debate.

I seem to recall most others bringing something to the debate, other
than you, Jim. Your sole purpose here seems to be personally
attacking anyone you don't agree with. Do you have a position on
anything?

bb

Gould, jps, NOYB, Jim, Harry, and a cast of thousands
 

NOYB wrote:

"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.


I have a service company and I recently increased the number of employees by
more than 30%. The average pay for the new hires is $14. Why don't you
interview me?



Sure, Supply me with your name and phone number, and documentation that
you were able to increase your work force by one because of the Bush tax
cut.



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

Gould, jps, NOYB, Jim, Harry, and a cast of thousands
 

Ahhh, it's a *regressive* tax then! How unfair! Perhaps we should
eliminate the phase out, but cut the income tax rate?


"bb" wrote in message
...
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

Gould, jps, NOYB, Jim, Harry, and a cast of thousands
 

bb wrote:

On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 23:00:33 GMT, "Jim"
wrote:

That seems to be your only retort when cornered in an debate.

I seem to recall most others bringing something to the debate, other
than you, Jim. Your sole purpose here seems to be personally
attacking anyone you don't agree with. Do you have a position on
anything?

bb


His position is " so he can hide behind his
skirts.

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

Gould, jps, NOYB, Jim, Harry, and a cast of thousands
 

On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 23:06:23 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

Ahhh, it's a *regressive* tax then! How unfair! Perhaps we should
eliminate the phase out, but cut the income tax rate?


Ohhh, touchy. Sorry I pointed that out. What does the income tax
rate have to do with social security?

bb

Gould, jps, NOYB, Jim, Harry, and a cast of thousands
 

Actually, Harry, I credit the tax cut for a very recent increase in
patients' disposable income...leading to a sharp increase in spending on
dental care vs. last summer. The increase in productivity is the reason I
needed to expand my staff.

As for me supplying my name and phone number, here are my terms:

1) I get at least 3 paragraphs of space in your article to share my views
(in full, and unedited of course)
2) I get a chance to review the entire article, and *OK* any portion dealing
with me and my practice, prior to publication
3) You contact the Collier County Dental Association with a synopsis about
the theme of your article, and they'll pass it along to me. The contact
should be made on official letterhead of the organization that will do the
publishing, and should be signed by you. This would mean you are who you say
you are and you're acting in good faith.

Sound fair?



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

"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.


I have a service company and I recently increased the number of
employees by
more than 30%. The average pay for the new hires is $14. Why don't you
interview me?



Sure, Supply me with your name and phone number, and documentation that
you were able to increase your work force by one because of the Bush tax
cut.



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