How many banks...
 

On Jul 18, 8:49*am, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 07:02:10 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 23:04:06 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is
Here wrote:

HK wrote:

We don't keep any significant liquid assets in any U.S. financial
institutions.

Harry, we all know you don't have any significant liquid assets, so it
is very easy for you to keep them out of US financial institutions.

I was surprised no one else picked up on that.

Some of us did, but that wasn't Harry's point, was it?

Think about this. *In the past 14 years or so that Harry has been here,
broadcasting his political garbage and anti-business rhetoric, do you ever
recall him saying anything positive or respectful of his country of choice?
Has he ever offered any sense of appreciation of the opportunities and
freedom afforded him as a US citizen and resident?

I don't.

He lives to pick on the warts.

Eisboch

Harry's point is to do what he can, with the aid of his two buddies, to
make this group untenable. 'Discourse' with him simply encourages him.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

SW doesn't care, he just likes chasing WAFA.. And WAFA only cares
about being chased... Why bother? We had this cut and paste bull****
all but eliminated until a few weaker posters came back from over
there and gave him a platform again. Sucks, but hey, we tried.

Like I said, remember how it was only a few weeks ago when we all
ignored WAFA. Even many of the lurkers and old poster were coming back
in? Remember? But if you all feel you need to prove yourselves by one
upping WAFA, then so be it. Personally, I don't see any glory in that
but some more fragile ego's might...

Later.. still not talking to trolls...

How many banks...
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 06:56:15 -0400, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 20:54:29 -0400, HK wrote:

Larry wrote:
JR North wrote in
:

What's this got to do with boating?
JR


Boats take vast sums of money to buy, or just sit there rotting away at the
$600/month marina slip. In order to HAVE boats, some boaters have invested
vast sums of money in securities with various, previously-stable, banking
institutions now on the verge of collapse.

The solvency of the bank the "Boat Fund" is stored in is VERY on-topic to a
discussion about boat....unless you're Donald Trump and sold your little
house in Florida for $95,000,000 this morning to one of the Russian
billionaires. Don wanted $120,000,000 but had to take less to dump it.

By the way, the REAL ESTATE TAXES on Don's old house was quoted on the
radio at $16,830,000 PER YEAR....as of 2006. A "small tax increase" could
put the Russian's property taxes above the GDP of several small African
countries!

I think he screwed up....
We don't keep any significant liquid assets in any U.S. financial
institutions.
Harry, you are so full crap sometimes.

Honest to pete - do you even realise how stupid that statement is?

Or improbable?
Really? Please explain the "stupidity" or "improbability."
Be as specific as you can.

Thanks.

I can be as specific as you want, but if you have ANY major liquid
assets in a non-US based bank, you automatically fall under
anti-terrorism quidelines for the movement of said funds and/or
interest in said funds that you claim every year on your tax return.

Assuming you file one that is.

I'd be very curious as to what "non-US" bank you think is financially
sound where you don't get killed in exchange rates in moving "liguid"
assets around to make more money.

Which is the whole point of having liquid assets - to make more liguid
assets.

And I'm already tired of this discussion.

Sometimes Harry, words just can't define how stupid you sound.




You're a bit quick jumping to conclusions about facts you don't have.

Your assumption is that because we don't put most of our liquid eggs in
U.S. financial institutions, we must be putting them in foreign
financial institutions. That assumption is...wrong.

How many banks...
 

HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 06:56:15 -0400, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 20:54:29 -0400, HK wrote:

Larry wrote:
JR North wrote in
:

What's this got to do with boating?
JR


Boats take vast sums of money to buy, or just sit there rotting
away at the $600/month marina slip. In order to HAVE boats, some
boaters have invested vast sums of money in securities with
various, previously-stable, banking institutions now on the verge
of collapse.

The solvency of the bank the "Boat Fund" is stored in is VERY
on-topic to a discussion about boat....unless you're Donald Trump
and sold your little house in Florida for $95,000,000 this morning
to one of the Russian billionaires. Don wanted $120,000,000 but
had to take less to dump it.

By the way, the REAL ESTATE TAXES on Don's old house was quoted on
the radio at $16,830,000 PER YEAR....as of 2006. A "small tax
increase" could put the Russian's property taxes above the GDP of
several small African countries!

I think he screwed up....
We don't keep any significant liquid assets in any U.S. financial
institutions.
Harry, you are so full crap sometimes.

Honest to pete - do you even realise how stupid that statement is?

Or improbable?
Really? Please explain the "stupidity" or "improbability."
Be as specific as you can.

Thanks.

I can be as specific as you want, but if you have ANY major liquid
assets in a non-US based bank, you automatically fall under
anti-terrorism quidelines for the movement of said funds and/or
interest in said funds that you claim every year on your tax return.

Assuming you file one that is.

I'd be very curious as to what "non-US" bank you think is financially
sound where you don't get killed in exchange rates in moving "liguid"
assets around to make more money.

Which is the whole point of having liquid assets - to make more liguid
assets.

And I'm already tired of this discussion.

Sometimes Harry, words just can't define how stupid you sound.




You're a bit quick jumping to conclusions about facts you don't have.

Your assumption is that because we don't put most of our liquid eggs in
U.S. financial institutions, we must be putting them in foreign
financial institutions. That assumption is...wrong.

If it isn't a US financial institution it has to be a foreign financial
institution. Unless your definition of a financial institution is
different than 99.99999999% of the rest of the world.

How many banks...
 

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 06:06:38 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Jul 18, 8:49 am, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 07:02:10 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 23:04:06 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
"Reggie is
Here wrote:

HK wrote:

We don't keep any significant liquid assets in any U.S. financial
institutions.

Harry, we all know you don't have any significant liquid assets, so
it
is very easy for you to keep them out of US financial institutions.

I was surprised no one else picked up on that.

Some of us did, but that wasn't Harry's point, was it?

Think about this. In the past 14 years or so that Harry has been here,
broadcasting his political garbage and anti-business rhetoric, do you
ever
recall him saying anything positive or respectful of his country of
choice?
Has he ever offered any sense of appreciation of the opportunities and
freedom afforded him as a US citizen and resident?

I don't.

He lives to pick on the warts.

Eisboch

Harry's point is to do what he can, with the aid of his two buddies, to
make this group untenable. 'Discourse' with him simply encourages him.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

SW doesn't care, he just likes chasing WAFA.. And WAFA only cares
about being chased... Why bother? We had this cut and paste bull****
all but eliminated until a few weaker posters came back from over
there and gave him a platform again. Sucks, but hey, we tried.

Like I said, remember how it was only a few weeks ago when we all
ignored WAFA. Even many of the lurkers and old poster were coming back
in? Remember? But if you all feel you need to prove yourselves by one
upping WAFA, then so be it. Personally, I don't see any glory in that
but some more fragile ego's might...

Later.. still not talking to trolls...


Yes, but you are still talking incessantly ABOUT them which is just as
problematic if you really want to starve them out.



My my! You guys are unbelievable.
We don't have to say or do anything and yet certain posters can't leave us
alone.

How many banks...
 

BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 06:56:15 -0400, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 20:54:29 -0400, HK wrote:

Larry wrote:
JR North wrote in
:

What's this got to do with boating?
JR


Boats take vast sums of money to buy, or just sit there rotting
away at the $600/month marina slip. In order to HAVE boats, some
boaters have invested vast sums of money in securities with
various, previously-stable, banking institutions now on the verge
of collapse.

The solvency of the bank the "Boat Fund" is stored in is VERY
on-topic to a discussion about boat....unless you're Donald Trump
and sold your little house in Florida for $95,000,000 this
morning to one of the Russian billionaires. Don wanted
$120,000,000 but had to take less to dump it.

By the way, the REAL ESTATE TAXES on Don's old house was quoted
on the radio at $16,830,000 PER YEAR....as of 2006. A "small tax
increase" could put the Russian's property taxes above the GDP of
several small African countries!

I think he screwed up....
We don't keep any significant liquid assets in any U.S. financial
institutions.
Harry, you are so full crap sometimes.

Honest to pete - do you even realise how stupid that statement is?

Or improbable?
Really? Please explain the "stupidity" or "improbability."
Be as specific as you can.

Thanks.

I can be as specific as you want, but if you have ANY major liquid
assets in a non-US based bank, you automatically fall under
anti-terrorism quidelines for the movement of said funds and/or
interest in said funds that you claim every year on your tax return.

Assuming you file one that is.

I'd be very curious as to what "non-US" bank you think is financially
sound where you don't get killed in exchange rates in moving "liguid"
assets around to make more money.

Which is the whole point of having liquid assets - to make more liguid
assets.

And I'm already tired of this discussion.

Sometimes Harry, words just can't define how stupid you sound.




You're a bit quick jumping to conclusions about facts you don't have.

Your assumption is that because we don't put most of our liquid eggs
in U.S. financial institutions, we must be putting them in foreign
financial institutions. That assumption is...wrong.

If it isn't a US financial institution it has to be a foreign financial
institution. Unless your definition of a financial institution is
different than 99.99999999% of the rest of the world.



One of the joys of this newsgroup is that so many of the "rightie"
posters here are so damned binary, and get so tied up by it.

This is the sentence under consideration:

"We don't keep any significant liquid assets in any U.S. financial
institutions."


All that sentence says is...what it says. It doesn't say an iota more
than what it says, yet several righties here have jumped to all manner
of conclusions based upon information not in play.

Typical for righties.

My wife and I have individual insured accounts up to the FDIC max, and I
have several PODs insured up to the FDIC max. Other than those
relatively minor sums and cash for ongoing household expenses,
everything else we have that might be considered "liquid" is NOT in any
U.S. financial institution. We both have liquid assets that can be sold
quickly and at appreciated values, and some "semi-liquid" assets that
take a bit longer to dispose of but also have increased greatly in value.

Thus, so long as the U.S. government doesn't collapse (and that is a
possibility), our cash in insured institutions is safe, and our other
liquid assets are accessible.

How many banks...
 

Don White wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 06:06:38 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Jul 18, 8:49 am, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 07:02:10 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 23:04:06 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
"Reggie is
Here wrote:
HK wrote:
We don't keep any significant liquid assets in any U.S. financial
institutions.
Harry, we all know you don't have any significant liquid assets, so
it
is very easy for you to keep them out of US financial institutions.
I was surprised no one else picked up on that.
Some of us did, but that wasn't Harry's point, was it?
Think about this. In the past 14 years or so that Harry has been here,
broadcasting his political garbage and anti-business rhetoric, do you
ever
recall him saying anything positive or respectful of his country of
choice?
Has he ever offered any sense of appreciation of the opportunities and
freedom afforded him as a US citizen and resident?
I don't.
He lives to pick on the warts.
Eisboch
Harry's point is to do what he can, with the aid of his two buddies, to
make this group untenable. 'Discourse' with him simply encourages him.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
SW doesn't care, he just likes chasing WAFA.. And WAFA only cares
about being chased... Why bother? We had this cut and paste bull****
all but eliminated until a few weaker posters came back from over
there and gave him a platform again. Sucks, but hey, we tried.

Like I said, remember how it was only a few weeks ago when we all
ignored WAFA. Even many of the lurkers and old poster were coming back
in? Remember? But if you all feel you need to prove yourselves by one
upping WAFA, then so be it. Personally, I don't see any glory in that
but some more fragile ego's might...

Later.. still not talking to trolls...

Yes, but you are still talking incessantly ABOUT them which is just as
problematic if you really want to starve them out.



My my! You guys are unbelievable.
We don't have to say or do anything and yet certain posters can't leave us
alone.




The Seven Dwarfs are incapable of having on-topic discussions with any
meat on the bone.

How many banks...
 

hk wrote:
BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 06:56:15 -0400, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 20:54:29 -0400, HK
wrote:

Larry wrote:
JR North wrote in
:

What's this got to do with boating?
JR


Boats take vast sums of money to buy, or just sit there rotting
away at the $600/month marina slip. In order to HAVE boats,
some boaters have invested vast sums of money in securities with
various, previously-stable, banking institutions now on the
verge of collapse.

The solvency of the bank the "Boat Fund" is stored in is VERY
on-topic to a discussion about boat....unless you're Donald
Trump and sold your little house in Florida for $95,000,000 this
morning to one of the Russian billionaires. Don wanted
$120,000,000 but had to take less to dump it.

By the way, the REAL ESTATE TAXES on Don's old house was quoted
on the radio at $16,830,000 PER YEAR....as of 2006. A "small
tax increase" could put the Russian's property taxes above the
GDP of several small African countries!

I think he screwed up....
We don't keep any significant liquid assets in any U.S. financial
institutions.
Harry, you are so full crap sometimes.

Honest to pete - do you even realise how stupid that statement is?

Or improbable?
Really? Please explain the "stupidity" or "improbability."
Be as specific as you can.

Thanks.

I can be as specific as you want, but if you have ANY major liquid
assets in a non-US based bank, you automatically fall under
anti-terrorism quidelines for the movement of said funds and/or
interest in said funds that you claim every year on your tax return.

Assuming you file one that is.

I'd be very curious as to what "non-US" bank you think is financially
sound where you don't get killed in exchange rates in moving "liguid"
assets around to make more money.

Which is the whole point of having liquid assets - to make more liguid
assets.

And I'm already tired of this discussion.

Sometimes Harry, words just can't define how stupid you sound.




You're a bit quick jumping to conclusions about facts you don't have.

Your assumption is that because we don't put most of our liquid eggs
in U.S. financial institutions, we must be putting them in foreign
financial institutions. That assumption is...wrong.

If it isn't a US financial institution it has to be a foreign
financial institution. Unless your definition of a financial
institution is different than 99.99999999% of the rest of the world.



One of the joys of this newsgroup is that so many of the "rightie"
posters here are so damned binary, and get so tied up by it.

This is the sentence under consideration:

"We don't keep any significant liquid assets in any U.S. financial
institutions."


All that sentence says is...what it says. It doesn't say an iota more
than what it says, yet several righties here have jumped to all manner
of conclusions based upon information not in play.

Typical for righties.

My wife and I have individual insured accounts up to the FDIC max, and I
have several PODs insured up to the FDIC max. Other than those
relatively minor sums and cash for ongoing household expenses,
everything else we have that might be considered "liquid" is NOT in any
U.S. financial institution. We both have liquid assets that can be sold
quickly and at appreciated values, and some "semi-liquid" assets that
take a bit longer to dispose of but also have increased greatly in value.

Thus, so long as the U.S. government doesn't collapse (and that is a
possibility), our cash in insured institutions is safe, and our other
liquid assets are accessible.

You can't have an account insured up to the FDIC max. You account is
insured up to $100,000 or the accounts balance whichever is lower. If
you have more thank $100,000 in any one back you are not too smart.

You have stated previously that you don't own assets that are traded on
stock markets or commodities markets. How can your assets be liquid?

The fact that you have your money on deposit in FDIC covered accounts
means that you have money in US financial institutions. And, if you hold
bonds than you have money invested in a US financial institution, the US
treasury.

Nice try.

How many banks...
 

HK wrote in news:6eb76qF65rdqU2
@mid.individual.net:

Yes, it is, and it is my fervent wish the GOP and its supporters take it
right up a certain portion of their anatomy this fall, in every way
possible.



Substitute Freemasons and Council On Foreign Relations for GOP above. That
would be good for America but it cannot happen when ALL THE CANDIDATES ARE
ALL MEMBERS!

Harry still thinks Demoplicans and Republicrats are different.

How many banks...
 

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..

HK wrote:


If it isn't a US financial institution it has to be a foreign financial
institution. Unless your definition of a financial institution is
different than 99.99999999% of the rest of the world.


He hides his money in a mattress.

Harry's playing word games. What's a "significant" liquid asset?
To some it might be 20k. To others, 100k. To others it could be millions.

Eisboch

How many banks...
 

HK wrote in news:6eb7mqF695h1U1
@mid.individual.net:

Pretty funny talk...since if you served in Vietnam, nothing you did
there was in anyway related to "saving" my butt.



Hey! We made the bankers and contractors filthy rich at your expense!

.....same as Iraq and Afghanistan....

How many banks...
 

BAR wrote:
hk wrote:
BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 06:56:15 -0400, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 20:54:29 -0400, HK
wrote:

Larry wrote:
JR North wrote in
:

What's this got to do with boating?
JR


Boats take vast sums of money to buy, or just sit there rotting
away at the $600/month marina slip. In order to HAVE boats,
some boaters have invested vast sums of money in securities
with various, previously-stable, banking institutions now on
the verge of collapse.

The solvency of the bank the "Boat Fund" is stored in is VERY
on-topic to a discussion about boat....unless you're Donald
Trump and sold your little house in Florida for $95,000,000
this morning to one of the Russian billionaires. Don wanted
$120,000,000 but had to take less to dump it.

By the way, the REAL ESTATE TAXES on Don's old house was quoted
on the radio at $16,830,000 PER YEAR....as of 2006. A "small
tax increase" could put the Russian's property taxes above the
GDP of several small African countries!

I think he screwed up....
We don't keep any significant liquid assets in any U.S.
financial institutions.
Harry, you are so full crap sometimes.

Honest to pete - do you even realise how stupid that statement is?

Or improbable?
Really? Please explain the "stupidity" or "improbability."
Be as specific as you can.

Thanks.

I can be as specific as you want, but if you have ANY major liquid
assets in a non-US based bank, you automatically fall under
anti-terrorism quidelines for the movement of said funds and/or
interest in said funds that you claim every year on your tax return.

Assuming you file one that is.

I'd be very curious as to what "non-US" bank you think is financially
sound where you don't get killed in exchange rates in moving "liguid"
assets around to make more money.

Which is the whole point of having liquid assets - to make more liguid
assets.

And I'm already tired of this discussion.

Sometimes Harry, words just can't define how stupid you sound.




You're a bit quick jumping to conclusions about facts you don't have.

Your assumption is that because we don't put most of our liquid eggs
in U.S. financial institutions, we must be putting them in foreign
financial institutions. That assumption is...wrong.

If it isn't a US financial institution it has to be a foreign
financial institution. Unless your definition of a financial
institution is different than 99.99999999% of the rest of the world.



One of the joys of this newsgroup is that so many of the "rightie"
posters here are so damned binary, and get so tied up by it.

This is the sentence under consideration:

"We don't keep any significant liquid assets in any U.S. financial
institutions."


All that sentence says is...what it says. It doesn't say an iota more
than what it says, yet several righties here have jumped to all manner
of conclusions based upon information not in play.

Typical for righties.

My wife and I have individual insured accounts up to the FDIC max, and
I have several PODs insured up to the FDIC max. Other than those
relatively minor sums and cash for ongoing household expenses,
everything else we have that might be considered "liquid" is NOT in
any U.S. financial institution. We both have liquid assets that can be
sold quickly and at appreciated values, and some "semi-liquid" assets
that take a bit longer to dispose of but also have increased greatly
in value.

Thus, so long as the U.S. government doesn't collapse (and that is a
possibility), our cash in insured institutions is safe, and our other
liquid assets are accessible.

You can't have an account insured up to the FDIC max. You account is
insured up to $100,000 or the accounts balance whichever is lower. If
you have more thank $100,000 in any one back you are not too smart.

You have stated previously that you don't own assets that are traded on
stock markets or commodities markets. How can your assets be liquid?

The fact that you have your money on deposit in FDIC covered accounts
means that you have money in US financial institutions. And, if you hold
bonds than you have money invested in a US financial institution, the US
treasury.

Nice try.


D'oh. Read for content, dipschitt.

How many banks...
 

Eisboch wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
. ..

HK wrote:

If it isn't a US financial institution it has to be a foreign financial
institution. Unless your definition of a financial institution is
different than 99.99999999% of the rest of the world.


He hides his money in a mattress.

Harry's playing word games. What's a "significant" liquid asset?
To some it might be 20k. To others, 100k. To others it could be millions.

Eisboch




To say nothing of the definition of "liquid asset."

How many banks...
 

HK wrote in news:6ebsu7F6cmllU1
@mid.individual.net:

I really had hoped we had learned a lesson from our debacle there, but
apparently George W. Bush did not.



Harry, once again, you're blaming the EMPLOYEES for the government's
action! George is just an EMPLOYEE of the bankers and freemasons who run
the country. He was told to go to war so the BANKERS and CONTRACTORS could
bet filthy rich, just like Kennedy and Johnson EMPLOYEES were in Vietnam.

There's no difference in the lies and deceit running the country now...and
the SAME Council on Foreign Relations that was running the country when
Dicky Cheney was its chairman! They are ALL working for the same
ROCKEFELLERS!

How many banks...
 

Larry wrote:
HK wrote in news:6eb7mqF695h1U1
@mid.individual.net:

Pretty funny talk...since if you served in Vietnam, nothing you did
there was in anyway related to "saving" my butt.



Hey! We made the bankers and contractors filthy rich at your expense!

....same as Iraq and Afghanistan....



When the government your nation is supporting in South Vietnam has
Buddhist monks protesting against it by setting themselves on fire, then
you really need to ask your government what the hell it is doing there.

I really had hoped we had learned a lesson from our debacle there, but
apparently George W. Bush did not.

How many banks...
 

"Larry" wrote in message
...
HK wrote in news:6ebsu7F6cmllU1
@mid.individual.net:

I really had hoped we had learned a lesson from our debacle there, but
apparently George W. Bush did not.



Harry, once again, you're blaming the EMPLOYEES for the government's
action! George is just an EMPLOYEE of the bankers and freemasons who run
the country. He was told to go to war so the BANKERS and CONTRACTORS
could
bet filthy rich, just like Kennedy and Johnson EMPLOYEES were in Vietnam.

There's no difference in the lies and deceit running the country now...and
the SAME Council on Foreign Relations that was running the country when
Dicky Cheney was its chairman! They are ALL working for the same
ROCKEFELLERS!


Tin hat time.

Eisboch

How many banks...
 

Eisboch wrote:
"Larry" wrote in message
...
HK wrote in news:6ebsu7F6cmllU1
@mid.individual.net:

I really had hoped we had learned a lesson from our debacle there, but
apparently George W. Bush did not.


Harry, once again, you're blaming the EMPLOYEES for the government's
action! George is just an EMPLOYEE of the bankers and freemasons who run
the country. He was told to go to war so the BANKERS and CONTRACTORS
could
bet filthy rich, just like Kennedy and Johnson EMPLOYEES were in Vietnam.

There's no difference in the lies and deceit running the country now...and
the SAME Council on Foreign Relations that was running the country when
Dicky Cheney was its chairman! They are ALL working for the same
ROCKEFELLERS!


Tin hat time.

Eisboch




Larry is a little over the top here, but I have no doubts that the
defense contractors have played a big role in our decisions to go to war
since the end of hostilities in Korea. Defense contractors have cashed
in big time in our latest lunacy in Iraq.

How many banks...
 

"HK" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Larry" wrote in message
...
HK wrote in news:6ebsu7F6cmllU1
@mid.individual.net:

I really had hoped we had learned a lesson from our debacle there, but
apparently George W. Bush did not.


Harry, once again, you're blaming the EMPLOYEES for the government's
action! George is just an EMPLOYEE of the bankers and freemasons who
run
the country. He was told to go to war so the BANKERS and CONTRACTORS
could
bet filthy rich, just like Kennedy and Johnson EMPLOYEES were in
Vietnam.

There's no difference in the lies and deceit running the country
now...and
the SAME Council on Foreign Relations that was running the country when
Dicky Cheney was its chairman! They are ALL working for the same
ROCKEFELLERS!


Tin hat time.

Eisboch


Larry is a little over the top here, but I have no doubts that the defense
contractors have played a big role in our decisions to go to war since the
end of hostilities in Korea. Defense contractors have cashed in big time
in our latest lunacy in Iraq.

You have no doubts, what's your proof?

How many banks...
 

hk wrote:
BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 06:56:15 -0400, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 20:54:29 -0400, HK
wrote:

Larry wrote:
JR North wrote in
:

What's this got to do with boating?
JR


Boats take vast sums of money to buy, or just sit there rotting
away at the $600/month marina slip. In order to HAVE boats,
some boaters have invested vast sums of money in securities with
various, previously-stable, banking institutions now on the
verge of collapse.

The solvency of the bank the "Boat Fund" is stored in is VERY
on-topic to a discussion about boat....unless you're Donald
Trump and sold your little house in Florida for $95,000,000 this
morning to one of the Russian billionaires. Don wanted
$120,000,000 but had to take less to dump it.

By the way, the REAL ESTATE TAXES on Don's old house was quoted
on the radio at $16,830,000 PER YEAR....as of 2006. A "small
tax increase" could put the Russian's property taxes above the
GDP of several small African countries!

I think he screwed up....
We don't keep any significant liquid assets in any U.S. financial
institutions.
Harry, you are so full crap sometimes.

Honest to pete - do you even realise how stupid that statement is?

Or improbable?
Really? Please explain the "stupidity" or "improbability."
Be as specific as you can.

Thanks.

I can be as specific as you want, but if you have ANY major liquid
assets in a non-US based bank, you automatically fall under
anti-terrorism quidelines for the movement of said funds and/or
interest in said funds that you claim every year on your tax return.

Assuming you file one that is.

I'd be very curious as to what "non-US" bank you think is financially
sound where you don't get killed in exchange rates in moving "liguid"
assets around to make more money.

Which is the whole point of having liquid assets - to make more liguid
assets.

And I'm already tired of this discussion.

Sometimes Harry, words just can't define how stupid you sound.




You're a bit quick jumping to conclusions about facts you don't have.

Your assumption is that because we don't put most of our liquid eggs
in U.S. financial institutions, we must be putting them in foreign
financial institutions. That assumption is...wrong.

If it isn't a US financial institution it has to be a foreign
financial institution. Unless your definition of a financial
institution is different than 99.99999999% of the rest of the world.



One of the joys of this newsgroup is that so many of the "rightie"
posters here are so damned binary, and get so tied up by it.

This is the sentence under consideration:

"We don't keep any significant liquid assets in any U.S. financial
institutions."


All that sentence says is...what it says. It doesn't say an iota more
than what it says, yet several righties here have jumped to all manner
of conclusions based upon information not in play.

Typical for righties.

My wife and I have individual insured accounts up to the FDIC max, and I
have several PODs insured up to the FDIC max.

Harry,
If you really had any idea what you were talking about, you would
realize there are tens of thousands of different institutions you could
put $100,000 in, and ALL of them would be insured 100%. Your knowledge
of investments is about as accurate as your knowlege of macro economics.
Didn't you Daddy give you a hug when you were a kid? Is that why you
search so desperately for attention on the Internet?



Other than those
relatively minor sums and cash for ongoing household expenses,
everything else we have that might be considered "liquid" is NOT in any
U.S. financial institution. We both have liquid assets that can be sold
quickly and at appreciated values, and some "semi-liquid" assets that
take a bit longer to dispose of but also have increased greatly in value.

Thus, so long as the U.S. government doesn't collapse (and that is a
possibility), our cash in insured institutions is safe, and our other
liquid assets are accessible.

How many banks...BAIT !
 

"John H." wrote

Harry's point is to do what he can, with the aid of his two buddies, to
make this group untenable. 'Discourse' with him simply encourages him.

And you think that extending this thread, quoting his drivel doesn't ?

I think you guys should change the name of the Group to FISHING because no
one here can apparently resist going for the BAIT.

How many banks...BAIT !
 

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 17:29:10 GMT, "Rudy" wrote:


"John H." wrote

Harry's point is to do what he can, with the aid of his two buddies, to
make this group untenable. 'Discourse' with him simply encourages him.

And you think that extending this thread, quoting his drivel doesn't ?

I think you guys should change the name of the Group to FISHING because no
one here can apparently resist going for the BAIT.


Obviously you're correct. This is the only place he's posting.

How many banks...BAIT !
 

On Jul 18, 1:29*pm, "Rudy" wrote:
"John H." wrote

Harry's point is to do what he can, with the aid of his two buddies, to
make this group untenable. 'Discourse' with him simply encourages him.

And you think that extending this thread, quoting his drivel doesn't ?

I think you guys should change the name of the Group to FISHING because no
one here can apparently resist going for the BAIT.

ROTF!

How many banks...
 

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Larry wrote:
JR North wrote in
:

What's this got to do with boating?
JR



Boats take vast sums of money to buy, or just sit there rotting away
at the $600/month marina slip. In order to HAVE boats, some boaters
have invested vast sums of money in securities with various,
previously-stable, banking institutions now on the verge of collapse.

The solvency of the bank the "Boat Fund" is stored in is VERY
on-topic to a discussion about boat....unless you're Donald Trump and
sold your little house in Florida for $95,000,000 this morning to one
of the Russian billionaires. Don wanted $120,000,000 but had to take
less to dump it.

By the way, the REAL ESTATE TAXES on Don's old house was quoted on
the radio at $16,830,000 PER YEAR....as of 2006. A "small tax
increase" could put the Russian's property taxes above the GDP of
several small African countries!

I think he screwed up....



We don't keep any significant liquid assets in any U.S. financial
institutions.

Harry, we all know you don't have any significant liquid assets, so it
is very easy for you to keep them out of US financial institutions.

Twenty bucks - under his mattress. That's high finance for the narcissist.

How many banks...
 

BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 06:56:15 -0400, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 20:54:29 -0400, HK wrote:

Larry wrote:
JR North wrote in
:

What's this got to do with boating?
JR


Boats take vast sums of money to buy, or just sit there rotting
away at the $600/month marina slip. In order to HAVE boats, some
boaters have invested vast sums of money in securities with
various, previously-stable, banking institutions now on the verge
of collapse.

The solvency of the bank the "Boat Fund" is stored in is VERY
on-topic to a discussion about boat....unless you're Donald Trump
and sold your little house in Florida for $95,000,000 this
morning to one of the Russian billionaires. Don wanted
$120,000,000 but had to take less to dump it.

By the way, the REAL ESTATE TAXES on Don's old house was quoted
on the radio at $16,830,000 PER YEAR....as of 2006. A "small tax
increase" could put the Russian's property taxes above the GDP of
several small African countries!

I think he screwed up....
We don't keep any significant liquid assets in any U.S. financial
institutions.
Harry, you are so full crap sometimes.

Honest to pete - do you even realise how stupid that statement is?

Or improbable?
Really? Please explain the "stupidity" or "improbability."
Be as specific as you can.

Thanks.

I can be as specific as you want, but if you have ANY major liquid
assets in a non-US based bank, you automatically fall under
anti-terrorism quidelines for the movement of said funds and/or
interest in said funds that you claim every year on your tax return.

Assuming you file one that is.

I'd be very curious as to what "non-US" bank you think is financially
sound where you don't get killed in exchange rates in moving "liguid"
assets around to make more money.

Which is the whole point of having liquid assets - to make more liguid
assets.

And I'm already tired of this discussion.

Sometimes Harry, words just can't define how stupid you sound.




You're a bit quick jumping to conclusions about facts you don't have.

Your assumption is that because we don't put most of our liquid eggs
in U.S. financial institutions, we must be putting them in foreign
financial institutions. That assumption is...wrong.

If it isn't a US financial institution it has to be a foreign financial
institution. Unless your definition of a financial institution is
different than 99.99999999% of the rest of the world.


WAFA's spin - coming soon...

How many banks...
 

BAR wrote:
hk wrote:
BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 06:56:15 -0400, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 20:54:29 -0400, HK
wrote:

Larry wrote:
JR North wrote in
:

What's this got to do with boating?
JR


Boats take vast sums of money to buy, or just sit there rotting
away at the $600/month marina slip. In order to HAVE boats,
some boaters have invested vast sums of money in securities
with various, previously-stable, banking institutions now on
the verge of collapse.

The solvency of the bank the "Boat Fund" is stored in is VERY
on-topic to a discussion about boat....unless you're Donald
Trump and sold your little house in Florida for $95,000,000
this morning to one of the Russian billionaires. Don wanted
$120,000,000 but had to take less to dump it.

By the way, the REAL ESTATE TAXES on Don's old house was quoted
on the radio at $16,830,000 PER YEAR....as of 2006. A "small
tax increase" could put the Russian's property taxes above the
GDP of several small African countries!

I think he screwed up....
We don't keep any significant liquid assets in any U.S.
financial institutions.
Harry, you are so full crap sometimes.

Honest to pete - do you even realise how stupid that statement is?

Or improbable?
Really? Please explain the "stupidity" or "improbability."
Be as specific as you can.

Thanks.

I can be as specific as you want, but if you have ANY major liquid
assets in a non-US based bank, you automatically fall under
anti-terrorism quidelines for the movement of said funds and/or
interest in said funds that you claim every year on your tax return.

Assuming you file one that is.

I'd be very curious as to what "non-US" bank you think is financially
sound where you don't get killed in exchange rates in moving "liguid"
assets around to make more money.

Which is the whole point of having liquid assets - to make more liguid
assets.

And I'm already tired of this discussion.

Sometimes Harry, words just can't define how stupid you sound.




You're a bit quick jumping to conclusions about facts you don't have.

Your assumption is that because we don't put most of our liquid eggs
in U.S. financial institutions, we must be putting them in foreign
financial institutions. That assumption is...wrong.

If it isn't a US financial institution it has to be a foreign
financial institution. Unless your definition of a financial
institution is different than 99.99999999% of the rest of the world.



One of the joys of this newsgroup is that so many of the "rightie"
posters here are so damned binary, and get so tied up by it.

This is the sentence under consideration:

"We don't keep any significant liquid assets in any U.S. financial
institutions."


All that sentence says is...what it says. It doesn't say an iota more
than what it says, yet several righties here have jumped to all manner
of conclusions based upon information not in play.

Typical for righties.

My wife and I have individual insured accounts up to the FDIC max, and
I have several PODs insured up to the FDIC max. Other than those
relatively minor sums and cash for ongoing household expenses,
everything else we have that might be considered "liquid" is NOT in
any U.S. financial institution. We both have liquid assets that can be
sold quickly and at appreciated values, and some "semi-liquid" assets
that take a bit longer to dispose of but also have increased greatly
in value.

Thus, so long as the U.S. government doesn't collapse (and that is a
possibility), our cash in insured institutions is safe, and our other
liquid assets are accessible.

You can't have an account insured up to the FDIC max. You account is
insured up to $100,000 or the accounts balance whichever is lower. If
you have more thank $100,000 in any one back you are not too smart.

You have stated previously that you don't own assets that are traded on
stock markets or commodities markets. How can your assets be liquid?

The fact that you have your money on deposit in FDIC covered accounts
means that you have money in US financial institutions. And, if you hold
bonds than you have money invested in a US financial institution, the US
treasury.

Nice try.

WAFA is clearly full of **** as his narcissism has taken him to another
level. His wife would puke if she read this ****.

How many banks...
 

Eisboch wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
. ..

HK wrote:

If it isn't a US financial institution it has to be a foreign financial
institution. Unless your definition of a financial institution is
different than 99.99999999% of the rest of the world.


He hides his money in a mattress.

Harry's playing word games. What's a "significant" liquid asset?
To some it might be 20k. To others, 100k. To others it could be millions.

Eisboch



He's got a $1 lottery ticket that he's yet to "scratch off".

How many banks...
 

"DK" wrote in message
...
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Larry wrote:
JR North wrote in
:

What's this got to do with boating?
JR



Boats take vast sums of money to buy, or just sit there rotting away at
the $600/month marina slip. In order to HAVE boats, some boaters have
invested vast sums of money in securities with various,
previously-stable, banking institutions now on the verge of collapse.

The solvency of the bank the "Boat Fund" is stored in is VERY on-topic
to a discussion about boat....unless you're Donald Trump and sold your
little house in Florida for $95,000,000 this morning to one of the
Russian billionaires. Don wanted $120,000,000 but had to take less to
dump it.

By the way, the REAL ESTATE TAXES on Don's old house was quoted on the
radio at $16,830,000 PER YEAR....as of 2006. A "small tax increase"
could put the Russian's property taxes above the GDP of several small
African countries!

I think he screwed up....



We don't keep any significant liquid assets in any U.S. financial
institutions.

Harry, we all know you don't have any significant liquid assets, so it is
very easy for you to keep them out of US financial institutions.

Twenty bucks - under his mattress. That's high finance for the
narcissist.

Thought you feeble minded goofballs were ignoring Harry, JimH & myself.
What a joke!

How many banks...
 

On Jul 18, 8:42*pm, DK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
...

HK wrote:

If it isn't a US financial institution it has to be a foreign financial
institution. Unless your definition of a financial institution is
different than 99.99999999% of the rest of the world.

He hides his money in a mattress.

Harry's playing word games. * What's a "significant" liquid asset?
To some it might be 20k. * To others, 100k. *To others it could be millions.

Eisboch

He's got a $1 lottery ticket that he's yet to "scratch off".

More examples of folks here trying to improve the tone and quality of
rec.boats.