On 8/25/17 12:11 PM, Oren wrote:
Aug. 25, 2017 - 4:35 - Janice Dean reports on the latest track

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5551544866001/?#sp=show-clips

Seven Things Trump Shouldn't do After Harvey. From Reason:
http://reason.com/blog/2017/08/25/after-hurricane-harvey-hits-lets-try-to
or http://alturl.com/jfapv

A good share of their advice is cut bureaucracy and let people help.

In alt.home.repair, on Sat, 26 Aug 2017 16:19:38 -0400, Ed
wrote:

On 8/26/2017 3:25 PM, micky wrote:
Voting is a right for every citizen subject only to category based
exceptions, such as youth.


The problem is that we have too many lazy ****ing voters in this country.* These lazy slugs vote for the candidate that promises the most welfare benefits.

As opposed to the hardworking crapheads who voted for the guy who lies
all the time, molests women, is crude and vulgar in public, who offered
at one of his rallies to pay the legal fees of someone who was hitting a
heckler who was being kicked out and who was leaving peacefully, and who
has nazi sympathies, who promotes racist hate groups. (Plus many
other serious failings, a list so long I can't remember them all.)

(Look at Bannon and Gorka, who just left. They didn't leave becuase
Rump disliked their views, (Bannon was a trouble maker and I dont' know
why Gorka got kicked out.)

What right does a lazy person have to expect part of an ambitious person's paycheck?

If they want money and food they should go earn it like millions of other taxpayers do.* Democrats suck bigly!

You can't compare your money problems to hate promotion by Rump and his
gang, someone you are probably still suppoorting.

It's taken 150 years and the Civil War it seems is still not over. it
will take about 40 years before the humiliation of supporters of Rump
and the Republican Party will be (almost) forgotten.

On 8/26/17 1:43 PM, Stormin' Norman wrote:

Actually, I would be in favor of ONLY combat veterans having the right
to vote. A good argument can be made that combat vets have sacrificed
the most for our nation. Bet you guys don't like that idea.... ;-)

Few women could vote then. How about them running for office?

On 8/26/2017 11:23 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 8/26/17 1:43 PM, Stormin' Norman wrote:

Actually, I would be in favor of ONLY combat veterans having the right
to vote.Â* A good argument can be made that combat vets have sacrificed
the most for our nation.Â* Bet you guys don't like that idea.... ;-)

Â*Â*Â*Â* Few women could vote then.Â*Â* How about them running for office?


If only combat vets could vote many servicemen would be out too. Only a
nut job would think it is a sensible law. I served out country for four
years, my brother for more, neither of us was in combat and yet we can't
vote? Why should I serve then?

On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 00:58:32 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

Your reply just shows how your ****ed up brain works I don't think she
ver voted democrat and does not watch soaps. Staying home is a decision
we made together. Our kids turned out ok with a stay at home mom to
raise them, not put them in a day care warehouse while she makes money.
I make enough to cover both of us.

Cool! I've got a fake! Mr Wilkinson Sordid! Real name Pounder most likely.

Again, like he just said: Your reply just shows how your ****ed up brain
works!

--
Sociopath Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) about his use of the
pronoun "its":
"I use "it's". The thing belongs to it. Giraffe's. Mr Smith's. The
car's. It's. Just because the it isn't specified absolutely, doesn't mean
there shouldn't be a possessive apostrophe. The English language is
evolving, get used to it."
MID:

On 08/26/2017 11:23 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
Few women could vote then. How about them running for office?


Do you want voters like this?

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documen...e-model-628491

On 08/26/2017 09:59 PM, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Sat, 26 Aug 2017 16:19:38 -0400,
wrote:

On 8/26/2017 3:25 PM, micky wrote:
Voting is a right for every citizen subject only to category based
exceptions, such as youth.
The problem is that we have too many lazy ****ing voters in this country. These lazy slugs vote for the candidate that promises the most welfare benefits.
As opposed to the hardworking crapheads who voted for the guy who lies
all the time, molests women, is crude and vulgar in public, who offered
at one of his rallies to pay the legal fees of someone who was hitting a
heckler who was being kicked out and who was leaving peacefully, and who
has nazi sympathies, who promotes racist hate groups. (Plus many
other serious failings, a list so long I can't remember them all.)


The problem is that Hillary voters think that working taxpayers owe them free food, free housing, free energy assistance, and now free health care.

If democrats want something they should roll up their ****ing sleeves and go earn it...like millions of US taxpayers do. Democrats should stop expecting taxpayers to buy it for them.

On 8/27/2017 9:10 AM, Wally wrote:
On 08/26/2017 11:23 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
Few women could vote then.Â*Â* How about them running for office?


Do you want voters like this?

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documen...e-model-628491


As a convicted felon she may not be able to vote. Chances are, Trump
won't pardon her either.

Still raining and i still do not have a newsreader.

On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 10:23:35 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

Personally, I served because I love my country and, when I
enlisted, our very existence, as a nation, was being threatened.

That ,makes you about 90?

On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 10:43:52 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 10:23:35 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

Personally, I served because I love my country and, when I
enlisted, our very existence, as a nation, was being threatened.

That ,makes you about 90?

90 *minimum* by my math.

On 8/27/2017 10:55 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 10:43:52 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 10:23:35 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

Personally, I served because I love my country and, when I
enlisted, our very existence, as a nation, was being threatened.

That ,makes you about 90?

90 *minimum* by my math.


Nah, only since inauguration day.

On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 11:27:30 AM UTC-4, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 15:23:19 +0100, Thomas wrote:

Still raining and i still do not have a newsreader.

You're wrong, it isn't raining.

--
Why do tourists go to the top of tall buildings and then put money in telescopes so they can see things on the ground in close-up?

For the topic, it is. Trump will decide when to stop it.

Heck with the Salvation army. Where is Jihad army when needed?

On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 16:27:21 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:


Still raining and i still do not have a newsreader.

You're wrong, it isn't raining.

You still have no brain, Birdbrain!

--
More of Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) sociopathic "wisdom":
"But there's no such thing as "American accent", just like there's no such
thing as "British accent"."
MID:

On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 18:55:26 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

FLUSH idiot's drivel

--
More of Scottish ****** Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL)
sociopathic "insight":
"The USA is so far behind in technology."
MID:

On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 17:04:17 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 10:43:32 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 10:23:35 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

Personally, I served because I love my country and, when I
enlisted, our very existence, as a nation, was being threatened.

That ,makes you about 90?

I am in my 90's, yes. How old are you?
70s

52 still raining,
Keeping it real.

On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 21:02:05 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 15:25:45 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 17:04:17 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 10:43:32 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 10:23:35 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

Personally, I served because I love my country and, when I
enlisted, our very existence, as a nation, was being threatened.

That ,makes you about 90?

I am in my 90's, yes. How old are you?
70s


Don't worry, I will not hold your youth and inexperience against
you...... ;-)

(with apologies to the late Ronald Reagan.)

I was just curious because we have had 2 major wars and about a dozen
minor ones in my 70 years and none of them were because there was a
real threat to the US.

On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 2:26:02 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 17:04:17 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 10:43:32 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 10:23:35 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

Personally, I served because I love my country and, when I
enlisted, our very existence, as a nation, was being threatened.

That ,makes you about 90?

I am in my 90's, yes. How old are you?
70s

I believe the fake general is suffering from dementia if he's really in his 90's. ヽ(ヅ)ノ

[8~{} Uncle Observant Monster

Ed Pawlowski posted for all of us...



On 8/26/2017 12:13 PM, Willy wrote:
On 8/26/2017 11:38 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 8/26/2017 11:27 AM, Wally wrote:


Voting is a privilege that should only be granted to taxpayers and
retired taxpayers.

Why would you want to let people vote if they are too stupid to find
and keep a job?


How about a woman that has no job and is supported by her husband?

Is she currently a taxPAYER or a taxSUCKER?

Neither. Has no income, pays no taxes. In the 51 years we've been
married my wife worked a total of two of them. She was home for the
kids though. big help to the grandkids too. Do you want to stop her
from voting?





At what point can they opt out of the job market and still work?

If someone has payed income taxes for 40 years, they should have the
right to vote in retirement.


Some may view this as a bit harsh but is it fair to expect working
taxpayers to support lazy democrats?


Some may view this as you being ****ed up with some of your
restrictions. This is not to say ther should not be some but having a
job is not one of them.

Well Ed, I disagree with you about not working during those years. She is a
homemaker. You can thank her for raising your kids and all the meals etc.
Due to the govt a RARE commodity today.

--
Tekkie

On 8/28/2017 3:50 PM, Tekkie® wrote:
Ed Pawlowski posted for all of us...



On 8/26/2017 12:13 PM, Willy wrote:
On 8/26/2017 11:38 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 8/26/2017 11:27 AM, Wally wrote:


Voting is a privilege that should only be granted to taxpayers and
retired taxpayers.

Why would you want to let people vote if they are too stupid to find
and keep a job?


How about a woman that has no job and is supported by her husband?

Is she currently a taxPAYER or a taxSUCKER?

Neither. Has no income, pays no taxes. In the 51 years we've been
married my wife worked a total of two of them. She was home for the
kids though. big help to the grandkids too. Do you want to stop her
from voting?





At what point can they opt out of the job market and still work?

If someone has payed income taxes for 40 years, they should have the
right to vote in retirement.


Some may view this as a bit harsh but is it fair to expect working
taxpayers to support lazy democrats?


Some may view this as you being ****ed up with some of your
restrictions. This is not to say ther should not be some but having a
job is not one of them.

Well Ed, I disagree with you about not working during those years. She is a
homemaker. You can thank her for raising your kids and all the meals etc.
Due to the govt a RARE commodity today.

Correct. She did not earn a paycheck but worked as hard as anyone. She
helped out at school and things like that too. I earned enough that we
had a decent life. Some families with mom working were going to Disney
World while we went to the local beach. Our choice, our priorities.

On 08/28/2017 03:50 PM, Tekkie® wrote:
Ed Pawlowski posted for all of us...


On 8/26/2017 12:13 PM, Willy wrote:
On 8/26/2017 11:38 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 8/26/2017 11:27 AM, Wally wrote:

Voting is a privilege that should only be granted to taxpayers and
retired taxpayers.

Why would you want to let people vote if they are too stupid to find
and keep a job?

How about a woman that has no job and is supported by her husband?
Is she currently a taxPAYER or a taxSUCKER?
Neither. Has no income, pays no taxes. In the 51 years we've been
married my wife worked a total of two of them. She was home for the
kids though. big help to the grandkids too. Do you want to stop her
from voting?




At what point can they opt out of the job market and still work?
If someone has payed income taxes for 40 years, they should have the
right to vote in retirement.


Some may view this as a bit harsh but is it fair to expect working
taxpayers to support lazy democrats?


Some may view this as you being ****ed up with some of your
restrictions. This is not to say ther should not be some but having a
job is not one of them.
Well Ed, I disagree with you about not working during those years. She is a
homemaker. You can thank her for raising your kids and all the meals etc.
Due to the govt a RARE commodity today.

No! Unless she received a W2 or 1099 and paid some taxes, we have no idea if she really worked.

On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 16:15:23 -0400, voter nazi wrote:

No! Unless she received a W2 or 1099 and paid some taxes, we have no idea if she really worked.

If she showed up as a dependent on somebody's return who did work and
pay taxes, I am OK with it. It is the family where nobody works, they
pay no taxes and the only time the government sees them is when they
come for their welfare payments that bothers me.