On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 10:45:04 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 21:34:17 -0600, Muggles
wrote:

On 2/28/2017 8:59 PM, wrote:
55 minutes into his address to congress, and for the first time he is,
in my opinion, coming across as not only sane but presidential.
Not sure what he's on, but make sure he has an uninterupted supply!!!!
He has stayed on topic without any "raving" and divisiveness.
Mabee I've misjudged the man -
Let's hope so.
We'll see.


There is not one thing different about Trump. That's who he is and he
was that same man on the campaign trial.
Not at ALL the same man as on the campaign trail. Not even close.

+1

Trump still is the same man, but he put on a good act, covering it up
last night. But, he'd done it before. People said the same thing
when he gave his speech at the convention, that didn't last.

On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 5:10:32 AM UTC-5, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 11:58:46 PM UTC-6, rbowman wrote:
On 02/28/2017 08:44 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 21:34:17 -0600, Muggles
wrote:

On 2/28/2017 8:59 PM, wrote:
55 minutes into his address to congress, and for the first time he is,
in my opinion, coming across as not only sane but presidential.
Not sure what he's on, but make sure he has an uninterupted supply!!!!
He has stayed on topic without any "raving" and divisiveness.
Mabee I've misjudged the man -
Let's hope so.
We'll see.

There is not one thing different about Trump. That's who he is and he
was that same man on the campaign trial.
Not at ALL the same man as on the campaign trail. Not even close.

Horses for courses... He tied the Republican establishment in knots,
took the primary, and beat the Wonk Queen at her own game. Now he will
govern.

Most presidents have a honeymoon period to get their act together; he
has had nothing but animosity from the pundits, press, and two bit
'celebrities' since day one.

Our system of government was established so that those elected would serve the people not govern or rule. Trump believes good management, putting the right people into jobs and delegating authority is the key to success. The Commiecrats are howling about billionaires being put into cabinet positions not because they will serve special interests but because like President Trump, they can't be bought. I'm so entertained by howling Commiecrats. ヽ(ヅ)ノ

[8~{} Uncle Amused Monster

Stay tuned, we may yet learn that Trump was bought and paid for by
Russian Intel. Even people like Darrell Issa are calling for a special
prosecutor.

On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 1:18:04 PM UTC-6, wrote:
On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 10:24:28 -0600, Muggles
wrote:

On 3/1/2017 6:29 AM, philo wrote:
On 03/01/2017 04:10 AM, Uncle Monster wrote:





snip
Trump believes good management, putting the right people into jobs and
delegating authority is the key to success. The Commiecrats are howling
about billionaires being put into cabinet positions not because they
will serve special interests but because like President Trump, they
can't be bought. I'm so entertained by howling Commiecrats. ?(?)?

[8~{} Uncle Amused Monster




Rich people of course can be bought, it just takes more money.


That is not the real problem.

It's illegal and immoral I suppose, the rich are simply looking out for
their best interests and those of their buddies,
if any of us small people are helped on the way, it's incidental.


Still too early to tell what's going to happen, I'm not making any bets.

The rich can put a lot of people to work!
And like in the early days of the south, they can work them to death
for peanuts.
Slavery
Sharecroppers
Nobody was without a job
They all worked "for the rich"

Typical Liberal Leftist howling. ヽ(€¢€¿€¢)ノ

[8~{} Uncle Conservative Monster

On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 11:21:04 AM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 2/28/2017 11:59 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 02/28/2017 08:44 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 21:34:17 -0600, Muggles
wrote:

On 2/28/2017 8:59 PM, wrote:
55 minutes into his address to congress, and for the first time he is,
in my opinion, coming across as not only sane but presidential.
Not sure what he's on, but make sure he has an uninterupted supply!!!!
He has stayed on topic without any "raving" and divisiveness.
Mabee I've misjudged the man -
Let's hope so.
We'll see.


There is not one thing different about Trump. That's who he is and he
was that same man on the campaign trial.
Not at ALL the same man as on the campaign trail. Not even close.


Horses for courses... He tied the Republican establishment in knots,
took the primary, and beat the Wonk Queen at her own game. Now he will
govern.

Most presidents have a honeymoon period to get their act together; he
has had nothing but animosity from the pundits, press, and two bit
'celebrities' since day one.

Why does anyone give credence to celebrities political viewpoints?

--
Maggie

You seem to think a certain TV reality star is hot stuff and
liked his viewpoints from day one.

On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 3:22:43 PM UTC-5, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 1:38:57 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 3/1/2017 12:16 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 10:21:00 -0600, Muggles
wrote:

On 2/28/2017 11:59 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 02/28/2017 08:44 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 21:34:17 -0600, Muggles
wrote:

On 2/28/2017 8:59 PM, wrote:
55 minutes into his address to congress, and for the first time he is,
in my opinion, coming across as not only sane but presidential.
Not sure what he's on, but make sure he has an uninterupted supply!!!!
He has stayed on topic without any "raving" and divisiveness.
Mabee I've misjudged the man -
Let's hope so.
We'll see.


There is not one thing different about Trump. That's who he is and he
was that same man on the campaign trial.
Not at ALL the same man as on the campaign trail. Not even close.


Horses for courses... He tied the Republican establishment in knots,
took the primary, and beat the Wonk Queen at her own game. Now he will
govern.


Most presidents have a honeymoon period to get their act together; he
has had nothing but animosity from the pundits, press, and two bit
'celebrities' since day one.


Why does anyone give credence to celebrities political viewpoints?


...insanity and idolatry.


I don't care what some famous person has to say. They're not any more
important than the rest of us.

You're right. Donald Trump is a perfect example.

Cindy Hamilton

+1 x1000

On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 1:20:12 PM UTC-5, Meanie wrote:
On 2/28/2017 9:59 PM, wrote:
55 minutes into his address to congress, and for the first time he is,
in my opinion, coming across as not only sane but presidential.
Not sure what he's on, but make sure he has an uninterupted supply!!!!
He has stayed on topic without any "raving" and divisiveness.
Mabee I've misjudged the man -
Let's hope so.
We'll see.



I'm sure it must be driving Trader insane.

Not at all. He did the same thing with his convention speech. Everyone
said, wow, there's a whole new Trump. Within hours, the very next
morning, he called a news conference to attack Ted Cruz and his father,
all over again, including the lunacy about the JFK assassination.
I have confidence that the real buffoon is still with us.

On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 1:18:04 PM UTC-6, wrote:
On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 10:24:28 -0600, Muggles
wrote:

On 3/1/2017 6:29 AM, philo wrote:
On 03/01/2017 04:10 AM, Uncle Monster wrote:





snip
Trump believes good management, putting the right people into jobs and
delegating authority is the key to success. The Commiecrats are howling
about billionaires being put into cabinet positions not because they
will serve special interests but because like President Trump, they
can't be bought. I'm so entertained by howling Commiecrats. ?(?)?

[8~{} Uncle Amused Monster




Rich people of course can be bought, it just takes more money.


That is not the real problem.

It's illegal and immoral I suppose, the rich are simply looking out for
their best interests and those of their buddies,
if any of us small people are helped on the way, it's incidental.


Still too early to tell what's going to happen, I'm not making any bets.

The rich can put a lot of people to work!
And like in the early days of the south, they can work them to death
for peanuts.
Slavery
Sharecroppers
Nobody was without a job
They all worked "for the rich"

Oh I forgot, the plantation owners and slave owners were Democrats. The KKK is the enforcement arm of the Democrat Party and they hated the Republicans who were anti-slavery. You must remember, it was a Republican President who freed the slaves. Something Liberal Leftists refuse to acknowledge. ヽ(€¢€¿€¢)ノ

[8~{} Uncle Smug Monster

On Wed, 01 Mar 2017 11:23:02 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 01 Mar 2017 14:06:09 -0500, wrote:

Not at ALL the same man as on the campaign trail. Not even close.

Why not? A man has many sides to him, don't you think?

But as two sided as Trump has been indicates schizophrenic tendencies

It's unethical to diagnose a person without first doing an in-office
examination.

Aside, I have an old book, small, but funny as all git-out about the
"Faces of Communications". It goes through numerous types of people
and how to deal with their personalities. Then there is the One
Minute Manager Meets the Monkey and another, the Monkey Meets the One
Minute Manager. What a hoot. Good stuff when dealing with others on
the job.
I didn't say he was scitziphrenic, did I? I didn't make a diagnosis.
I made an observation.
Anyway -appearances.

On 03/01/2017 01:18 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 10:24:28 -0600, Muggles
wrote:



snip



Rich people of course can be bought, it just takes more money.


That is not the real problem.

It's illegal and immoral I suppose, the rich are simply looking out for
their best interests and those of their buddies,
if any of us small people are helped on the way, it's incidental.


Still too early to tell what's going to happen, I'm not making any bets.

The rich can put a lot of people to work!
And like in the early days of the south, they can work them to death
for peanuts.
Slavery
Sharecroppers
Nobody was without a job
They all worked "for the rich"




Yep. That's exactly it.

On 03/01/2017 02:28 PM, David B. wrote:



snip

they had hoped for. Despite the rhetoric, it's still going to be
business as usual. (Just a little bit worse.)

I've now watched most of his speech.

I'm hoping he will be a GREAT president of the USA! :-)




It would be nice but I don't see that as much of a possibility
In American elections there are always those idiots who are too lazy to
vote and I'm sure there were a few million in this last election that
fit that category.

However out of the 60 million or so who did not vote, a large percentage
HATED both Trump and Clinton.

Coupled to the 3 million majority votes that Clinton got, Trump has
started out with the majority of voters HATING him.


George Bush may not have been liked by some...but I know few people who
outright hated him.


Right from the start Trump is facing a huge handicap.


Had he started out by saying something to the effect that he knows not
everyone was in favor of him but he would work for all Americans, he
might have gotten some mileage with that.

Instead he whined like a 3 year old and complained about a rigged
election...even though he won it.


Additionally, since it's know he is friendly toward Putin, since when is
it fashionable to be a commie sympathizer?


Trump has done way more that simply having shot himself in the foot.

On 03/01/2017 02:37 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 12:30:20 PM UTC-5, philo wrote:


After his speech last night it seems he is using his brains to fit in a
little better with the mainstream and unstoppable American political
system. He may be learning that he is little more than an ant in the
powerful juggernaut.


I would not put much faith in one speech. Trump has done it before.
After he gave his speech at the convention, most people said it was
the best so far, that he had turned a corner and would now act
differently. The very next morning, after the convention, Trump called
a news conference and instead of basking in the glow of receiving the
nomination and his good speech, he used the news conference to attack
Ted Cruz, including bringing up the Kennedy assassination BS again.
Stay tuned, I have confidence in Trump, he has yet to disappoint.




We all know that the only thing that's important are actions.

On 3/1/2017 3:53 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 1:20:12 PM UTC-5, Meanie wrote:
On 2/28/2017 9:59 PM, wrote:
55 minutes into his address to congress, and for the first time he is,
in my opinion, coming across as not only sane but presidential.
Not sure what he's on, but make sure he has an uninterupted supply!!!!
He has stayed on topic without any "raving" and divisiveness.
Mabee I've misjudged the man -
Let's hope so.
We'll see.



I'm sure it must be driving Trader insane.

Not at all. He did the same thing with his convention speech. Everyone
said, wow, there's a whole new Trump. Within hours, the very next
morning, he called a news conference to attack Ted Cruz and his father,
all over again, including the lunacy about the JFK assassination.
I have confidence that the real buffoon is still with us.



No, you will simply find the negative regardless of how well someone
does. Whining is your forte.

On 03/01/2017 03:22 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 1:18:04 PM UTC-6, wrote:



snip
job
They all worked "for the rich"

Oh I forgot, the plantation owners and slave owners were Democrats. The KKK is the enforcement arm of the Democrat Party and they hated the Republicans who were anti-slavery. You must remember, it was a Republican President who freed the slaves. Something Liberal Leftists refuse to acknowledge. ヽ(€¢€¿€¢)ノ



That kind of idiocy is the same as saying that Eisenhower and Trump both
being Republicans are politically pretty much the same.

Goalposts move and you know your argument is invalid.



The goalposts have moved to the point that the Democrat, Hillary Clinton
has moved to the right of where Eisenhower was.




During the administration of Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower,
a 92 percent marginal income tax rate for top earners in the United
States remained from the previous administration of Harry S. Truman. At
the time, the highest tax bracket was for income over $400,000.

On 3/1/2017 1:23 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 01 Mar 2017 14:06:09 -0500, wrote:

Not at ALL the same man as on the campaign trail. Not even close.

Why not? A man has many sides to him, don't you think?

But as two sided as Trump has been indicates schizophrenic tendencies

It's unethical to diagnose a person without first doing an in-office
examination.

Aside, I have an old book, small, but funny as all git-out about the
"Faces of Communications". It goes through numerous types of people
and how to deal with their personalities. Then there is the One
Minute Manager Meets the Monkey and another, the Monkey Meets the One
Minute Manager. What a hoot. Good stuff when dealing with others on
the job.


Sounds like some interesting reading!

--
Maggie

On 3/1/2017 2:22 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 1:38:57 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 3/1/2017 12:16 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 10:21:00 -0600, Muggles
wrote:

On 2/28/2017 11:59 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 02/28/2017 08:44 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 21:34:17 -0600, Muggles
wrote:

On 2/28/2017 8:59 PM, wrote:
55 minutes into his address to congress, and for the first time he is,
in my opinion, coming across as not only sane but presidential.
Not sure what he's on, but make sure he has an uninterupted supply!!!!
He has stayed on topic without any "raving" and divisiveness.
Mabee I've misjudged the man -
Let's hope so.
We'll see.


There is not one thing different about Trump. That's who he is and he
was that same man on the campaign trial.
Not at ALL the same man as on the campaign trail. Not even close.


Horses for courses... He tied the Republican establishment in knots,
took the primary, and beat the Wonk Queen at her own game. Now he will
govern.


Most presidents have a honeymoon period to get their act together; he
has had nothing but animosity from the pundits, press, and two bit
'celebrities' since day one.


Why does anyone give credence to celebrities political viewpoints?


...insanity and idolatry.

I don't care what some famous person has to say. They're not any more
important than the rest of us.

You're right. Donald Trump is a perfect example.


One big difference is Trump is our President vs. celebrities hold no
position of authority.

--
Maggie

On 3/1/2017 2:37 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 12:30:20 PM UTC-5, philo wrote:


After his speech last night it seems he is using his brains to fit in a
little better with the mainstream and unstoppable American political
system. He may be learning that he is little more than an ant in the
powerful juggernaut.


I would not put much faith in one speech. Trump has done it before.

You still don't get it.

Trump REALLY does love this country. He wants to make it great again. He
wants all those things he promised in his campaign because he believes
they will help this country be safer, stronger, more secure, and more
prosperous with jobs.

He cares, and how he expresses that comes out in many different ways.

--
Maggie

On 3/1/2017 2:38 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 10:34:16 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 2/28/2017 8:59 PM, wrote:
55 minutes into his address to congress, and for the first time he is,
in my opinion, coming across as not only sane but presidential.
Not sure what he's on, but make sure he has an uninterupted supply!!!!
He has stayed on topic without any "raving" and divisiveness.
Mabee I've misjudged the man -
Let's hope so.
We'll see.

There is not one thing different about Trump. That's who he is and he
was that same man on the campaign trial.



ROFL. Trump wasn't even the same man hours before the speech.

Maybe you need it broken down in simpler terms for you?

Imagine ... a man ... he's a son, a brother, a father, a businessman, a
husband, a sport's fan, an alpha male, likes sarcasm, is a practical
joker, feels pain at someone elses loss... etc....

They are all the same man, but you don't see all he is every time he speaks.


--
Maggie

On 3/1/2017 2:40 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 10:45:04 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 21:34:17 -0600, Muggles
wrote:

On 2/28/2017 8:59 PM, wrote:
55 minutes into his address to congress, and for the first time he is,
in my opinion, coming across as not only sane but presidential.
Not sure what he's on, but make sure he has an uninterupted supply!!!!
He has stayed on topic without any "raving" and divisiveness.
Mabee I've misjudged the man -
Let's hope so.
We'll see.


There is not one thing different about Trump. That's who he is and he
was that same man on the campaign trial.
Not at ALL the same man as on the campaign trail. Not even close.


+1

Trump still is the same man, but he put on a good act, covering it up

WRONG! The man he was last night is the man he was during the campaign
is the man he was before he got the nomination .... etc.



--
Maggie

On 3/1/2017 2:46 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 1:18:04 PM UTC-6, wrote:
On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 10:24:28 -0600, Muggles
wrote:

On 3/1/2017 6:29 AM, philo wrote:
On 03/01/2017 04:10 AM, Uncle Monster wrote:





snip
Trump believes good management, putting the right people into jobs and
delegating authority is the key to success. The Commiecrats are howling
about billionaires being put into cabinet positions not because they
will serve special interests but because like President Trump, they
can't be bought. I'm so entertained by howling Commiecrats. ?(?)?

[8~{} Uncle Amused Monster




Rich people of course can be bought, it just takes more money.


That is not the real problem.

It's illegal and immoral I suppose, the rich are simply looking out for
their best interests and those of their buddies,
if any of us small people are helped on the way, it's incidental.


Still too early to tell what's going to happen, I'm not making any bets.

The rich can put a lot of people to work!
And like in the early days of the south, they can work them to death
for peanuts.
Slavery
Sharecroppers
Nobody was without a job
They all worked "for the rich"

Typical Liberal Leftist howling. ヽ(€¢€¿€¢)ノ

[8~{} Uncle Conservative Monster


Going back to slavery and sharecroppers is almost as bad as using Hitler
as the go-to slam.

--
Maggie

On 3/1/2017 3:22 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 1:18:04 PM UTC-6, wrote:
On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 10:24:28 -0600, Muggles
wrote:

On 3/1/2017 6:29 AM, philo wrote:
On 03/01/2017 04:10 AM, Uncle Monster wrote:





snip
Trump believes good management, putting the right people into jobs and
delegating authority is the key to success. The Commiecrats are howling
about billionaires being put into cabinet positions not because they
will serve special interests but because like President Trump, they
can't be bought. I'm so entertained by howling Commiecrats. ?(?)?

[8~{} Uncle Amused Monster




Rich people of course can be bought, it just takes more money.


That is not the real problem.

It's illegal and immoral I suppose, the rich are simply looking out for
their best interests and those of their buddies,
if any of us small people are helped on the way, it's incidental.


Still too early to tell what's going to happen, I'm not making any bets.

The rich can put a lot of people to work!
And like in the early days of the south, they can work them to death
for peanuts.
Slavery
Sharecroppers
Nobody was without a job
They all worked "for the rich"

Oh I forgot, the plantation owners and slave owners were Democrats. The KKK is the enforcement arm of the Democrat Party and they hated the Republicans who were anti-slavery. You must remember, it was a Republican President who freed the slaves. Something Liberal Leftists refuse to acknowledge. ヽ(€¢€¿€¢)ノ

[8~{} Uncle Smug Monster


yep!

--
Maggie

On 1 Mar 2017 19:14:30 GMT, notbob wrote:

On 2017-03-01, wrote:

But as two sided as Trump has been indicates schizophrenic tendencies

Ahhhh geez! ....now clare is an expert on psychology!

Is there anything (s)he does not know absolutely everything --in the
entire world!-- about?

nb

Learned it on the Internet, don't ya know.

On Wed, 01 Mar 2017 14:18:02 -0500, wrote:

The rich can put a lot of people to work!
And like in the early days of the south, they can work them to death
for peanuts.
Slavery
Sharecroppers
Nobody was without a job
They all worked "for the rich"

Did you get hired or ever work for a poor man?

On Wed, 01 Mar 2017 13:49:11 -0600, Muggles
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Mar 2017 14:15:54 -0500, wrote:
Why does anyone give credence to celebrities
political viewpoints?

Who was trump, other than a celebrity??

Well, he was a man who wanted to run for president, won the
republican nomination, and then won the presidency. He put his money
where his mouth is, unlike the majority of celebrities who swore
they'd leave the country if Trump won! Did any of them actually
leave?

I hear Canada is nice this time of year.

On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 12:22:39 -0800 (PST), Cindy Hamilton
wrote:

Why does anyone give credence to celebrities political viewpoints?


...insanity and idolatry.


I don't care what some famous person has to say. They're not any more
important than the rest of us.

You're right. Donald Trump is a perfect example.

Cindy Hamilton

Did he ever claim otherwise?

On Wed, 01 Mar 2017 16:14:16 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 01 Mar 2017 14:18:02 -0500, wrote:

The rich can put a lot of people to work!
And like in the early days of the south, they can work them to death
for peanuts.
Slavery
Sharecroppers
Nobody was without a job
They all worked "for the rich"

Did you get hired or ever work for a poor man?
Actually, yes.

On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 12:46:21 -0800 (PST), Uncle Monster
wrote:

The rich can put a lot of people to work!
And like in the early days of the south, they can work them to death
for peanuts.
Slavery
Sharecroppers
Nobody was without a job
They all worked "for the rich"

Typical Liberal Leftist howling. ?(•?•)?

[8~{} Uncle Conservative Monster

+1 He never lived in the South. never saw what happened. Clare is a
keyboard do gooder from Canukistain.

--
Cousin Yes We lived through it.

On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 5:08:12 PM UTC-6, philo wrote:
On 03/01/2017 03:22 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 1:18:04 PM UTC-6, wrote:

They all worked "for the rich"

Oh I forgot, the plantation owners and slave owners were Democrats. The KKK is the enforcement arm of the Democrat Party and they hated the Republicans who were anti-slavery. You must remember, it was a Republican President who freed the slaves. Something Liberal Leftists refuse to acknowledge. ヽ(€¢€¿€¢)ノ

That kind of idiocy is the same as saying that Eisenhower and Trump both
being Republicans are politically pretty much the same.

Goalposts move and you know your argument is invalid.

The goalposts have moved to the point that the Democrat, Hillary Clinton
has moved to the right of where Eisenhower was.

During the administration of Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower,
a 92 percent marginal income tax rate for top earners in the United
States remained from the previous administration of Harry S. Truman. At
the time, the highest tax bracket was for income over $400,000.

President Eisenhower didn't have to Tweet in order to bypass the lying Liberal Leftist news media. The infestation of of the news media by Commiecrats wasn't as extensive during Eisenhower's Presidency. I never mentioned President Eisenhower in the post you're responding to. I was responding to a Liberal Leftist Socialist non-American who insanely equated President Trump and his plans to slavery and has some bizarre belief that American workers will be paid in peanuts instead of dollars. So I believe it is you sir who are the idiot because you went even farther off the rails. ヽ(ヅ)ノ

[8~{} Uncle Deplorable Monster

On 03/01/2017 06:57 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:

During the administration of Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower,
a 92 percent marginal income tax rate for top earners in the United
States remained from the previous administration of Harry S. Truman. At
the time, the highest tax bracket was for income over $400,000.

President Eisenhower didn't have to Tweet in order to bypass the lying Liberal Leftist news media. The infestation of of the news media by Commiecrats wasn't as extensive during Eisenhower's Presidency. I never mentioned President Eisenhower in the post you're responding to. I was responding to a Liberal Leftist Socialist non-American who insanely equated President Trump and his plans to slavery and has some bizarre belief that American workers will be paid in peanuts instead of dollars. So I believe it is you sir who are the idiot because you went even farther off the rails. ヽ(ヅ)ノ

[8~{} Uncle Deplorable Monster




Going back to Lincoln...he did not give a damn one way or other about
slavery. His only concern was to keep the Union together.

Hindsight says it was a bad move as all that happened was about 620,000
people died and a lot of property was destroyed.

Top this day there is still animosity between the North and South...plus,
with industrialization slavery would probably not have been around for
too much longer. It would probably have been better all around it
Lincoln just let the South go.

Per trader_4:
And just yesterday, Trump told
a bunch of governors, "who would have thought healthcare could be so
complicated".

Call me a cynic, but my reaction when hearing that quote was "Just about
everybody with an IQ above room temperature who had thought about the
subject for more than 20 minutes."...
--
Pete Cresswell

On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 6:14:20 PM UTC-6, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 01 Mar 2017 14:18:02 -0500, wrote:

The rich can put a lot of people to work!
And like in the early days of the south, they can work them to death
for peanuts.
Slavery
Sharecroppers
Nobody was without a job
They all worked "for the rich"

Did you get hired or ever work for a poor man?

When I was able bodied, me and my friends did work for poor people for little or no money, especially if they were elderly, disabled or on a fixed income. You won't find Hitlery Clinton supporters doing that sort of thing, especially the elite Commiecrats. They want to use the power of government to point a gun at you, take your money and give it away. ヽ(ヅ)ノ

[8~{} Uncle Deplorable Monster

On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 7:12:46 PM UTC-6, philo wrote:
On 03/01/2017 06:57 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:

During the administration of Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower,
a 92 percent marginal income tax rate for top earners in the United
States remained from the previous administration of Harry S. Truman. At
the time, the highest tax bracket was for income over $400,000.

President Eisenhower didn't have to Tweet in order to bypass the lying Liberal Leftist news media. The infestation of of the news media by Commiecrats wasn't as extensive during Eisenhower's Presidency. I never mentioned President Eisenhower in the post you're responding to. I was responding to a Liberal Leftist Socialist non-American who insanely equated President Trump and his plans to slavery and has some bizarre belief that American workers will be paid in peanuts instead of dollars. So I believe it is you sir who are the idiot because you went even farther off the rails. ヽ(ヅ)ノ

[8~{} Uncle Deplorable Monster

Going back to Lincoln...he did not give a damn one way or other about
slavery. His only concern was to keep the Union together.

Hindsight says it was a bad move as all that happened was about 620,000
people died and a lot of property was destroyed.

Top this day there is still animosity between the North and South...plus,
with industrialization slavery would probably not have been around for
too much longer. It would probably have been better all around it
Lincoln just let the South go.


Half my relatives are in The North and I had ancestors who fought for both sides. So family fighting amongst ourselves is nothing new. When it's all over we're still family but the Democrats simply found another underhanded way to enslave Negroes all over again. Democrats are racist *******s. ”Œ( à²*_à²*)”˜

http://clashdaily.com/2014/03/allen-...ext-200-years/

http://tinyurl.com/pbfeuk9

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-re..._b_933995.html

http://tinyurl.com/nwp9z6b

[8~{} Uncle Abolitionist Monster

On 03/01/2017 08:19 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 7:12:46 PM UTC-6, philo wrote:
On 03/01/2017 06:57 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:

During the administration of Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower,
a 92 percent marginal income tax rate for top earners in the United
States remained from the previous administration of Harry S. Truman. At
the time, the highest tax bracket was for income over $400,000.

President Eisenhower didn't have to Tweet in order to bypass the lying Liberal Leftist news media. The infestation of of the news media by Commiecrats wasn't as extensive during Eisenhower's Presidency. I never mentioned President Eisenhower in the post you're responding to. I was responding to a Liberal Leftist Socialist non-American who insanely equated President Trump and his plans to slavery and has some bizarre belief that American workers will be paid in peanuts instead of dollars. So I believe it is you sir who are the idiot because you went even farther off the rails. ヽ(ヅ)ノ

[8~{} Uncle Deplorable Monster


Half my relatives are in The North and I had ancestors who fought for both sides. So family fighting amongst ourselves is nothing new. When it's all over we're still family but the Democrats simply found another underhanded way to enslave Negroes all over again. Democrats are racist *******s. ”Œ( à²*_à²*)”˜



You know damn well that's bull****

On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 17:08:06 -0600, philo wrote:

The goalposts have moved to the point that the Democrat, Hillary Clinton
has moved to the right of where Eisenhower was.

Horse hockey.

On 03/01/2017 08:40 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 17:08:06 -0600, philo wrote:

The goalposts have moved to the point that the Democrat, Hillary Clinton
has moved to the right of where Eisenhower was.

Horse hockey.




If you want to say horse ****, say horse ****.


Horse hockey is too polite for me.

On Wed, 01 Mar 2017 17:20:26 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 01 Mar 2017 11:23:02 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 01 Mar 2017 14:06:09 -0500, wrote:

Not at ALL the same man as on the campaign trail. Not even close.

Why not? A man has many sides to him, don't you think?

But as two sided as Trump has been indicates schizophrenic tendencies

It's unethical to diagnose a person without first doing an in-office
examination.

Aside, I have an old book, small, but funny as all git-out about the
"Faces of Communications". It goes through numerous types of people
and how to deal with their personalities. Then there is the One
Minute Manager Meets the Monkey and another, the Monkey Meets the One
Minute Manager. What a hoot. Good stuff when dealing with others on
the job.
I didn't say he was scitziphrenic, did I? I didn't make a diagnosis.
I made an observation.
Anyway -appearances.

You made the implications without evidence.

Specifically: "But as two sided as Trump has been indicates
schizophrenic tendencies"

Are you a brain doctor? Have a special hat like the hat doctors I sent
convicts to see? I sent some to see the spin doctor. When they left
his office they forgot why the went there.

On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 17:10:59 -0600, Muggles
wrote:

Aside, I have an old book, small, but funny as all git-out about the
"Faces of Communications". It goes through numerous types of people
and how to deal with their personalities. Then there is the One
Minute Manager Meets the Monkey and another, the Monkey Meets the One
Minute Manager. What a hoot. Good stuff when dealing with others on
the job.


Sounds like some interesting reading!

Basically they are about management. Another good one, and I have it,
is What Would Machiavelli Do. Now that one is a hoot.

Surround your enemies like a shark and destroy them. :-)

On 02/28/2017 06:59 PM, wrote:
55 minutes into his address to congress, and for the first time he is,
in my opinion, coming across as not only sane but presidential.
Not sure what he's on, but make sure he has an uninterupted supply!!!!
He has stayed on topic without any "raving" and divisiveness.
Mabee I've misjudged the man -
Let's hope so.
We'll see.


That is because during the campaign you listened to American Pravda.
Think of there stuff as "weaponize print". Not to borrow
their phraseology, but American Pravda are truly "Enemies of
the People".

This time you got to actually listen to him. Night and day
difference.

On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 18:05:45 -0800 (PST), Uncle Monster
wrote:

On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 6:14:20 PM UTC-6, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 01 Mar 2017 14:18:02 -0500, wrote:

The rich can put a lot of people to work!
And like in the early days of the south, they can work them to death
for peanuts.
Slavery
Sharecroppers
Nobody was without a job
They all worked "for the rich"

Did you get hired or ever work for a poor man?

When I was able bodied, me and my friends did work for poor people for little or no money, especially if they were elderly, disabled or on a fixed income. You won't find Hitlery Clinton supporters doing that sort of thing, especially the elite Commiecrats. They want to use the power of government to point a gun at you, take your money and give it away. ?(?)?

[8~{} Uncle Deplorable Monster

I'm more deplorable than you are -- neener Neener :-)

On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 17:51:31 -0600, philo wrote:

My point is that anyone who trusts Putin would be a fool.


Revoke Ford's Executive Order about killing foreign dignitaries and
shoot that sum beach. A few Army Rangers could do it.

On 03/01/2017 05:17 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 01 Mar 2017 13:49:11 -0600, Muggles
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Mar 2017 14:15:54 -0500, wrote:
Why does anyone give credence to celebrities
political viewpoints?

Who was trump, other than a celebrity??

Well, he was a man who wanted to run for president, won the
republican nomination, and then won the presidency. He put his money
where his mouth is, unlike the majority of celebrities who swore
they'd leave the country if Trump won! Did any of them actually
leave?

I hear Canada is nice this time of year.


Fake news...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kb1tcVxi34Y