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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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

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....