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

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? :o) 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

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

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 02:31:04 GMT, "Jim"
wrote:

Find a real boating forum. This NG is a joke and nothing more than cheap
entertainment.

I often find good advice in this group. But then, I own six boats,
and read the on-topic posts.

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.

....and you had no part?

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.

OK. I won't blame you. Mom wasn't looking anyway.
You could, however, improve it.

Email me if you want some serious boating forums.

Sounds like you're more interested in wrecked.boats than rec.boats.
To each his own.

Thanks for the response.
noah


"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? :o) 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

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

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 02:31:04 GMT, "Jim"
wrote:

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.

So the problem in this group, according you, is clearly caused by
those who happen to be left of center, and those right of center don't
contribute to the problem? Interesting you would be accusing others
of intolerance.

bb

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

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 14:15:54 -0400, "Paul Schilter"
paulschilter@comcast,dot,net wrote:

I think the OT designation is a good idea, I just find it ironic that
you didn't in this post.

You don't think a post about rec.boats, in rec.boats, is on topic?

bb

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

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 13:02:20 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

bb wrote:

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 02:31:04 GMT, "Jim"
wrote:

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.

So the problem in this group, according you, is clearly caused by
those who happen to be left of center, and those right of center don't
contribute to the problem? Interesting you would be accusing others
of intolerance.

bb



Jim is a flaming ass, and nothing he posts is worth more than a
throwaway response. Don't waste your time. I don't.

Whoops, missed this one. Now it must be about 13 personal attacks in 2 days.
Somewhat remarkable.

The slope of my respect curve is getting more and more to the left of zero.
John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

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

JohnH wrote:

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 13:02:20 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

bb wrote:

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 02:31:04 GMT, "Jim"
wrote:

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.

So the problem in this group, according you, is clearly caused by
those who happen to be left of center, and those right of center don't
contribute to the problem? Interesting you would be accusing others
of intolerance.

bb



Jim is a flaming ass, and nothing he posts is worth more than a
throwaway response. Don't waste your time. I don't.

Whoops, missed this one. Now it must be about 13 personal attacks in 2 days.
Somewhat remarkable.

The slope of my respect curve is getting more and more to the left of zero.
John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD


There is no reason to get involved in any sort of discussion with
right-wingers. It's like fighting with a pig. You get muddy, you end up
smelling bad and...the right-wing pig is still...a pig.

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

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

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

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 02:31:04 GMT, "Jim"
wrote:

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.

Another typical newsgroup whiner.

Capt. Bill

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

LaBomba182 wrote:
Subject: Gould, jps, NOYB, Jim, Harry, and a cast of thousands

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 02:31:04 GMT, "Jim"
wrote:

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.

Another typical newsgroup whiner.

Capt. Bill

"Jim" is a horse's ass.


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

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

"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.

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

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.




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

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

"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"



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"



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"


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

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

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?



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

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

"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.

In case you forgot, here's how you defined "Socialism":

"In it's simplest form, socialism is forced distribution of wealth." (Harry
Krause, February 2000)

Then you answered "YUP" to the following questions:

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

2)Should the government in effect transfer money via
the income tax system directly from one group of people to another?

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

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.

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

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

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:-J-dnVHsWMANwc6iU-


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


No. But I would definitely privatize social security so this
Democrat-created blackhole dies a much-deserved death.

The funny thing about Social Security is that it was a Democrat-founded
socialistic policy that is now seen to have failed miserably. Yet, the Dems
make it their number one scare-tactic issue. That's the foundation of your
party, however. Get enough people hooked on the Government's tit, and then
blame the big ol' bad Republicans for taking it away. You guys are like the
corner drug dealers...but you're pushing economic handouts rather than
drugs.

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

"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.

In case you forgot, here's how you defined "Socialism":

"In it's simplest form, socialism is forced distribution of wealth."
(Harry
Krause, February 2000)

Then you answered "YUP" to the following questions:

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

2)Should the government in effect transfer money via
the income tax system directly from one group of people to another?




Indeed, that is what we do here in the US of A.

And that's what most conservatives would like to see eliminated...or at
least modified. A progressive tax is Socialism. A flat tax is fair.

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

"Harry Krause" wrote in message

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."

"In it's simplest form, socialism is forced distribution of wealth." (Harry
Krause, February 2000)

Old age getting to your memory?

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

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

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:-J-dnVHsWMANwc6iU-


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


No. But I would definitely privatize social security so this
Democrat-created blackhole dies a much-deserved death.

The funny thing about Social Security is that it was a Democrat-founded
socialistic policy that is now seen to have failed miserably. Yet, the
Dems
make it their number one scare-tactic issue. That's the foundation of
your
party, however. Get enough people hooked on the Government's tit, and
then
blame the big ol' bad Republicans for taking it away. You guys are like
the
corner drug dealers...but you're pushing economic handouts rather than
drugs.


Awww, poor baby.

I'm not poor, but if I were, it'd most likely be because of today's unfair
progressive tax system.

I find it mildly amusing that your d.f. accusations
about me being a "socialist" are based upon my support of the present
system of taxation in this country.

....which, according to your own definition, is socialism.


Not that I find the tag of
"socialist" in any way offensive

Of course not. That's most people's beef with Democrats. They think there
is nothing wrong with Socialism.

as I find very little to dislike about
the systems of modern democratic socialism practiced in, say, Norway, or
some of the other northern European nations.

As for our tax rates, I don't believe they are "progressive" enough
against the truly wealthy. Above certain levels of income, I'd support a
50% tax rate, and I'd tax *all* income. Every bit of it.

I believe in taxing *all* income as well...at an *equal* rate across the
board. Do away with exemptions and tax it all...but at a flat tax.

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

So you believe that individuals should have to take a test before they vote
or even to speak. Sounds like the old Jim Crow laws.

Scary that anyone would make a suggestion like that in 2003.


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
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.

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

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

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? :o) 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

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

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? :o) 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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
 

"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?

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

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
 

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.