On 8/9/15 9:30 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 18:50:05 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 8/9/15 1:55 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 11:21:29 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

Trump is a "sensitive" guy when it comes to personal
criticism. This time he's right.
How the hell do his opponents get his reference to
blood being about a womens period?
What, you can't mention blood if there's a woman in
the room?
I agree with Trump that these people are deviants.
Reminds me of Scotty taking offense to the word
"teabaggers." To him that means "ball sucker."
Only to a deviant.
Nasty, nasty people projecting their deviance upon
others. Probably have tattoos on their dicks.
I just don't get it. Oh, wait....politics.
I get it now. Nasty, nasty.

You really don't think Trump was referencing a hormonal rage?

It is right in line with the insults he slings at people, male or
female, all the time.
I will be happy when he goes back to hustling real estate.
He is going to run out of money and I doubt the GOP is going to help
him much.



Run out of money? Are you serious? I *love* what he is doing to the GOP
brand. He simply says what they all think.

Trump probably has less that $100 million in liquid assets that he is
willing to spend and that is chump change in a $2 billion cycle.
His $10 billion, is roundly rejected by people who count other
people's money for a living and even that is not really very liquid.



You have no way of knowing what Trump's "liquid assets" are, other than
wild-assed guessing, nor what he is willing to spend to upset the
political process. Further, he doesn't seem to have to spend a lot of
his own cash to get the results he wants, whatever they may be.

More power to Trump...I think he is doing a terrific job of ****ing over
the GOP's 2016 chances, regardless of whether he wins the GOP
nomination. He's showing the party's true colors...hate, rage, no idea,
nothing but bluster.

On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 09:12:18 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 8/9/15 9:30 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 18:50:05 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 8/9/15 1:55 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 11:21:29 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

Trump is a "sensitive" guy when it comes to personal
criticism. This time he's right.
How the hell do his opponents get his reference to
blood being about a womens period?
What, you can't mention blood if there's a woman in
the room?
I agree with Trump that these people are deviants.
Reminds me of Scotty taking offense to the word
"teabaggers." To him that means "ball sucker."
Only to a deviant.
Nasty, nasty people projecting their deviance upon
others. Probably have tattoos on their dicks.
I just don't get it. Oh, wait....politics.
I get it now. Nasty, nasty.

You really don't think Trump was referencing a hormonal rage?

It is right in line with the insults he slings at people, male or
female, all the time.
I will be happy when he goes back to hustling real estate.
He is going to run out of money and I doubt the GOP is going to help
him much.



Run out of money? Are you serious? I *love* what he is doing to the GOP
brand. He simply says what they all think.

Trump probably has less that $100 million in liquid assets that he is
willing to spend and that is chump change in a $2 billion cycle.
His $10 billion, is roundly rejected by people who count other
people's money for a living and even that is not really very liquid.



You have no way of knowing what Trump's "liquid assets" are, other than
wild-assed guessing, nor what he is willing to spend to upset the
political process. Further, he doesn't seem to have to spend a lot of
his own cash to get the results he wants, whatever they may be.

I know what is reported.
So far he has not collected very much money from others and when you
look at his claimed "assets' there is a lot of real estate and "blue
sky" in there, not a lot of cash. Financial analysts are saying that
most of that $9-10 billion he is claiming is an inflated value on
things, simply because he put "trump" on them. He had "trump" on the
ones that went bankrupt too so it is not magic..



More power to Trump...I think he is doing a terrific job of ****ing over
the GOP's 2016 chances, regardless of whether he wins the GOP
nomination. He's showing the party's true colors...hate, rage, no idea,
nothing but bluster.

The democrats have nothing but unrealistic "soak the rich" schemes and
spending borrowed money on programs that are going to bankrupt the
country so I am not really happy about the future of my kids either
way.
You folks like to say the GOP does not have a plan. Can you explain
the democratic plan to keep us from going down the road Greece took?
I agree we should raise taxes but if you are only going to do it on
the 1%, you are not going to get the three quarters of a trillion
extra we need.
By the end of FY15 the US debt will be over $18 trillion and total
state and federal debt will be over $21 trillion.
That does not include the unfunded liability of SS and Medicare.
I have not seen anyone but Rand Paul even mention it and nobody is
taking it seriously.

On 8/10/15 11:32 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 09:12:18 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 8/9/15 9:30 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 18:50:05 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 8/9/15 1:55 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 11:21:29 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

Trump is a "sensitive" guy when it comes to personal
criticism. This time he's right.
How the hell do his opponents get his reference to
blood being about a womens period?
What, you can't mention blood if there's a woman in
the room?
I agree with Trump that these people are deviants.
Reminds me of Scotty taking offense to the word
"teabaggers." To him that means "ball sucker."
Only to a deviant.
Nasty, nasty people projecting their deviance upon
others. Probably have tattoos on their dicks.
I just don't get it. Oh, wait....politics.
I get it now. Nasty, nasty.

You really don't think Trump was referencing a hormonal rage?

It is right in line with the insults he slings at people, male or
female, all the time.
I will be happy when he goes back to hustling real estate.
He is going to run out of money and I doubt the GOP is going to help
him much.



Run out of money? Are you serious? I *love* what he is doing to the GOP
brand. He simply says what they all think.

Trump probably has less that $100 million in liquid assets that he is
willing to spend and that is chump change in a $2 billion cycle.
His $10 billion, is roundly rejected by people who count other
people's money for a living and even that is not really very liquid.



You have no way of knowing what Trump's "liquid assets" are, other than
wild-assed guessing, nor what he is willing to spend to upset the
political process. Further, he doesn't seem to have to spend a lot of
his own cash to get the results he wants, whatever they may be.

I know what is reported.
So far he has not collected very much money from others and when you
look at his claimed "assets' there is a lot of real estate and "blue
sky" in there, not a lot of cash. Financial analysts are saying that
most of that $9-10 billion he is claiming is an inflated value on
things, simply because he put "trump" on them. He had "trump" on the
ones that went bankrupt too so it is not magic..



More power to Trump...I think he is doing a terrific job of ****ing over
the GOP's 2016 chances, regardless of whether he wins the GOP
nomination. He's showing the party's true colors...hate, rage, no idea,
nothing but bluster.

The democrats have nothing but unrealistic "soak the rich" schemes and
spending borrowed money on programs that are going to bankrupt the
country so I am not really happy about the future of my kids either
way.
You folks like to say the GOP does not have a plan. Can you explain
the democratic plan to keep us from going down the road Greece took?
I agree we should raise taxes but if you are only going to do it on
the 1%, you are not going to get the three quarters of a trillion
extra we need.
By the end of FY15 the US debt will be over $18 trillion and total
state and federal debt will be over $21 trillion.
That does not include the unfunded liability of SS and Medicare.
I have not seen anyone but Rand Paul even mention it and nobody is
taking it seriously.



We spend $600 billion annually on the books for the military and who
knows how many billions hidden and off the books. We should make serious
efforts to transition military personnel to non-defense military jobs,
and cutting at least $50 billion a year off that bloated budget with
half earmarked for debt reduction and half earmarked for needed programs
that rebuild out country and put people to work.

In article lbfhsalja6q820nsig8sp603clep44oblf@
4ax.com, says...


The democrats have nothing but unrealistic "soak the rich" schemes and
spending borrowed money on programs that are going to bankrupt the
country so I am not really happy about the future of my kids either
way.
You folks like to say the GOP does not have a plan. Can you explain
the democratic plan to keep us from going down the road Greece took?
I agree we should raise taxes but if you are only going to do it on
the 1%, you are not going to get the three quarters of a trillion
extra we need.
By the end of FY15 the US debt will be over $18 trillion and total
state and federal debt will be over $21 trillion.
That does not include the unfunded liability of SS and Medicare.
I have not seen anyone but Rand Paul even mention it and nobody is
taking it seriously.

Who says raise taxes only on the top 1%?
That's ridiculous. Try top 50%. The bottom 50% are
turnips, so to speak.
Then you've got cap gains, inheritance, etc, etc.
The deficit - and national debt - is easily handled
with no suffering.
Won't stop people from crying like stuck pigs.
You can start now.

On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 11:36:07 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

The democrats have nothing but unrealistic "soak the rich" schemes and
spending borrowed money on programs that are going to bankrupt the
country so I am not really happy about the future of my kids either
way.
You folks like to say the GOP does not have a plan. Can you explain
the democratic plan to keep us from going down the road Greece took?
I agree we should raise taxes but if you are only going to do it on
the 1%, you are not going to get the three quarters of a trillion
extra we need.
By the end of FY15 the US debt will be over $18 trillion and total
state and federal debt will be over $21 trillion.
That does not include the unfunded liability of SS and Medicare.
I have not seen anyone but Rand Paul even mention it and nobody is
taking it seriously.



We spend $600 billion annually on the books for the military and who
knows how many billions hidden and off the books. We should make serious
efforts to transition military personnel to non-defense military jobs,
and cutting at least $50 billion a year off that bloated budget with
half earmarked for debt reduction and half earmarked for needed programs
that rebuild out country and put people to work.


So you are voting for Bernie? He is the only one with a plan anywhere
close to that.
I have no problem with pivoting some of the defense budget to other
things but it is the biggest "jobs" program in the federal government
so you can't just cut it. (politically)
It is one industry that is not likely to be moved offshore., Every
military contract ends up being a jobs plan for as many districts as
they can ram in there. That is why military appropriations bills are
thousands of pages long with hundreds of seemingly unrelated pork
barrel amendments. A very large part of "defense" is really just
defending incumbent congressmen.
Even "foreign aid" is largely a jobs program since most of the aid is
actually military hardware made here and sent there.

On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 11:22:47 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article lbfhsalja6q820nsig8sp603clep44oblf@
4ax.com, says...


The democrats have nothing but unrealistic "soak the rich" schemes and
spending borrowed money on programs that are going to bankrupt the
country so I am not really happy about the future of my kids either
way.
You folks like to say the GOP does not have a plan. Can you explain
the democratic plan to keep us from going down the road Greece took?
I agree we should raise taxes but if you are only going to do it on
the 1%, you are not going to get the three quarters of a trillion
extra we need.
By the end of FY15 the US debt will be over $18 trillion and total
state and federal debt will be over $21 trillion.
That does not include the unfunded liability of SS and Medicare.
I have not seen anyone but Rand Paul even mention it and nobody is
taking it seriously.

Who says raise taxes only on the top 1%?
That's ridiculous. Try top 50%. The bottom 50% are
turnips, so to speak.
Then you've got cap gains, inheritance, etc, etc.
The deficit - and national debt - is easily handled
with no suffering.
Won't stop people from crying like stuck pigs.
You can start now.

If you say the top 50% you are basically just saying an across the
board tax hike. I am OK with that.
We might even try to get some money from those in the lower 50% who
pay virtually no income tax now.

On 8/10/15 2:27 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 11:36:07 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

The democrats have nothing but unrealistic "soak the rich" schemes and
spending borrowed money on programs that are going to bankrupt the
country so I am not really happy about the future of my kids either
way.
You folks like to say the GOP does not have a plan. Can you explain
the democratic plan to keep us from going down the road Greece took?
I agree we should raise taxes but if you are only going to do it on
the 1%, you are not going to get the three quarters of a trillion
extra we need.
By the end of FY15 the US debt will be over $18 trillion and total
state and federal debt will be over $21 trillion.
That does not include the unfunded liability of SS and Medicare.
I have not seen anyone but Rand Paul even mention it and nobody is
taking it seriously.



We spend $600 billion annually on the books for the military and who
knows how many billions hidden and off the books. We should make serious
efforts to transition military personnel to non-defense military jobs,
and cutting at least $50 billion a year off that bloated budget with
half earmarked for debt reduction and half earmarked for needed programs
that rebuild out country and put people to work.


So you are voting for Bernie? He is the only one with a plan anywhere
close to that.
I have no problem with pivoting some of the defense budget to other
things but it is the biggest "jobs" program in the federal government
so you can't just cut it. (politically)
It is one industry that is not likely to be moved offshore., Every
military contract ends up being a jobs plan for as many districts as
they can ram in there. That is why military appropriations bills are
thousands of pages long with hundreds of seemingly unrelated pork
barrel amendments. A very large part of "defense" is really just
defending incumbent congressmen.
Even "foreign aid" is largely a jobs program since most of the aid is
actually military hardware made here and sent there.



Sure, it can be done, if you earmark half the savings for needed
programs that rebuild the country and put people to work.

On 8/10/2015 11:36 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 8/10/15 11:32 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 09:12:18 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 8/9/15 9:30 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 18:50:05 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 8/9/15 1:55 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 11:21:29 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

Trump is a "sensitive" guy when it comes to personal
criticism. This time he's right.
How the hell do his opponents get his reference to
blood being about a womens period?
What, you can't mention blood if there's a woman in
the room?
I agree with Trump that these people are deviants.
Reminds me of Scotty taking offense to the word
"teabaggers." To him that means "ball sucker."
Only to a deviant.
Nasty, nasty people projecting their deviance upon
others. Probably have tattoos on their dicks.
I just don't get it. Oh, wait....politics.
I get it now. Nasty, nasty.

You really don't think Trump was referencing a hormonal rage?

It is right in line with the insults he slings at people, male or
female, all the time.
I will be happy when he goes back to hustling real estate.
He is going to run out of money and I doubt the GOP is going to help
him much.



Run out of money? Are you serious? I *love* what he is doing to the
GOP
brand. He simply says what they all think.

Trump probably has less that $100 million in liquid assets that he is
willing to spend and that is chump change in a $2 billion cycle.
His $10 billion, is roundly rejected by people who count other
people's money for a living and even that is not really very liquid.



You have no way of knowing what Trump's "liquid assets" are, other than
wild-assed guessing, nor what he is willing to spend to upset the
political process. Further, he doesn't seem to have to spend a lot of
his own cash to get the results he wants, whatever they may be.

I know what is reported.
So far he has not collected very much money from others and when you
look at his claimed "assets' there is a lot of real estate and "blue
sky" in there, not a lot of cash. Financial analysts are saying that
most of that $9-10 billion he is claiming is an inflated value on
things, simply because he put "trump" on them. He had "trump" on the
ones that went bankrupt too so it is not magic..



More power to Trump...I think he is doing a terrific job of ****ing over
the GOP's 2016 chances, regardless of whether he wins the GOP
nomination. He's showing the party's true colors...hate, rage, no idea,
nothing but bluster.

The democrats have nothing but unrealistic "soak the rich" schemes and
spending borrowed money on programs that are going to bankrupt the
country so I am not really happy about the future of my kids either
way.
You folks like to say the GOP does not have a plan. Can you explain
the democratic plan to keep us from going down the road Greece took?
I agree we should raise taxes but if you are only going to do it on
the 1%, you are not going to get the three quarters of a trillion
extra we need.
By the end of FY15 the US debt will be over $18 trillion and total
state and federal debt will be over $21 trillion.
That does not include the unfunded liability of SS and Medicare.
I have not seen anyone but Rand Paul even mention it and nobody is
taking it seriously.



We spend $600 billion annually on the books for the military and who
knows how many billions hidden and off the books. We should make serious
efforts to transition military personnel to non-defense military jobs,
and cutting at least $50 billion a year off that bloated budget with
half earmarked for debt reduction and half earmarked for needed programs
that rebuild out country and put people to work.



Is this the meltdown we are eagerly awaiting? Hope so. Good riddance
Harry Krause.

--

Respectfully submitted by Justan

Laugh of the day from Krause

"I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here.
I've been "born again" as a nice guy."

On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 11:22:47 -0500, Boating All Out wrote:

In article lbfhsalja6q820nsig8sp603clep44oblf@
4ax.com, says...


The democrats have nothing but unrealistic "soak the rich" schemes and
spending borrowed money on programs that are going to bankrupt the
country so I am not really happy about the future of my kids either
way.
You folks like to say the GOP does not have a plan. Can you explain
the democratic plan to keep us from going down the road Greece took?
I agree we should raise taxes but if you are only going to do it on
the 1%, you are not going to get the three quarters of a trillion
extra we need.
By the end of FY15 the US debt will be over $18 trillion and total
state and federal debt will be over $21 trillion.
That does not include the unfunded liability of SS and Medicare.
I have not seen anyone but Rand Paul even mention it and nobody is
taking it seriously.

Who says raise taxes only on the top 1%?
That's ridiculous. Try top 50%. The bottom 50% are
turnips, so to speak.
Then you've got cap gains, inheritance, etc, etc.
The deficit - and national debt - is easily handled
with no suffering.
Won't stop people from crying like stuck pigs.
You can start now.

Maybe reducing payouts to the bottom 50% could reduce the burden on the top 50%?
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 14:30:06 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 11:22:47 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article lbfhsalja6q820nsig8sp603clep44oblf@
4ax.com, says...


The democrats have nothing but unrealistic "soak the rich" schemes and
spending borrowed money on programs that are going to bankrupt the
country so I am not really happy about the future of my kids either
way.
You folks like to say the GOP does not have a plan. Can you explain
the democratic plan to keep us from going down the road Greece took?
I agree we should raise taxes but if you are only going to do it on
the 1%, you are not going to get the three quarters of a trillion
extra we need.
By the end of FY15 the US debt will be over $18 trillion and total
state and federal debt will be over $21 trillion.
That does not include the unfunded liability of SS and Medicare.
I have not seen anyone but Rand Paul even mention it and nobody is
taking it seriously.

Who says raise taxes only on the top 1%?
That's ridiculous. Try top 50%. The bottom 50% are
turnips, so to speak.
Then you've got cap gains, inheritance, etc, etc.
The deficit - and national debt - is easily handled
with no suffering.
Won't stop people from crying like stuck pigs.
You can start now.

If you say the top 50% you are basically just saying an across the
board tax hike. I am OK with that.
We might even try to get some money from those in the lower 50% who
pay virtually no income tax now.


GMTA!
--

Ban idiots, not guns!