On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 8:35:10 AM UTC-5, Frank wrote:
On 3/3/2019 8:05 AM, wrote:
On Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 11:01:15 PM UTC-5, rbowman wrote:
On 03/02/2019 01:32 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
That's the sad part - the"asshole in charge" doesn't realise he is
to govern for the good of ALL the people, not just his small crime
family inner circle, or his "chearleaders" (ever notice inhigh school
the "chear leaders" were generally not "the sharpest knives in the
block" but more likely the good-looking airheads????)

Do you think the pant-suited bitch who referred to half the electorate
as deplorables would govern for ALL the people? Do you think Romney
would make it past 47% of the people?

The US government. from its inception, has not governed for the benefit
of ALL the people.

Just out of curiosity, what do you have against pant suits? I haven't worn
a skirt in more than 20 years.

Cindy Hamilton


I suspect he has nothing against pant suits but is against this
particular wearer.

Then why mention the pants suit?

Cindy Hamilton

On 3/3/2019 5:58 AM, devnull wrote:


Lefties keep ignoring the facts. President Trump altruistically donates
his entire paycheck to charity.

That's the best you can do? I often put my loose change in a charity
collection box too. It amounts to about the same as Trump is doing. It
is nothing more than a publicity stunt.

On 3/3/2019 8:57 AM, wrote:
On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 8:37:51 AM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 3/3/2019 8:35 AM, Frank wrote:
On 3/3/2019 8:05 AM, wrote:
On Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 11:01:15 PM UTC-5, rbowman wrote:
On 03/02/2019 01:32 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
Â*Â* That's the sad part - the"asshole in charge" doesn't realise he is
to govern for the good of ALL the people, not just his small crime
family inner circle, or his "chearleaders" (ever notice inhigh school
the "chear leaders" were generally not "the sharpest knives in the
block" but more likely the good-looking airheads????)

Do you think the pant-suited bitch who referred to half the electorate
as deplorables would govern for ALL the people? Do you think Romney
would make it past 47% of the people?

The US government. from its inception, has not governed for the benefit
of ALL the people.

Just out of curiosity, what do you have against pant suits?Â* I haven't
worn
a skirt in more than 20 years.

Cindy Hamilton


I suspect he has nothing against pant suits but is against this
particular wearer.

FYI, I have never worn a skirt.

Why not? They look like they could be comfortable in warm weather.

If you don't feel you need panty hose, perhaps. Wearing panty hose in
warm weather is like wearing longjohns.

Cindy Hamilton

Ugh! That had to be a terrible invention. My wife will wear a skirt at
times for comfort but has not worn pantyhose in 30 years. We have
strange dress codes, both men and women. Things like neckties and high
heels should be eliminated.

Since moving south, nothing but shorts and T-shirts for me.

On Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 4:47:58 PM UTC-5, Rod Speed wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 12:42:05 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 1:41:35 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 11:33:35 -0600, Mark Lloyd
wrote:

On 3/1/19 7:48 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:

[snip]

Whatever happened to "government of the people, by the people, and
for the people" - I might have gotten the order wrong but - - - -

There is NO "the people". Some will always be left out, like all those
who did NOT vote for Trump.

I didn't vote for Trump (Gary) but I wasn't left out of the tax cut.
It saved me about $600 compared to running the same return on the 2017
tax code.

Yes, and now the budget deficit, which was down to just $580 bil when
Trump
took office, is on track to be ~$1 tril this year, with total debt
exceeding
$22 tril. Trillion dollar deficits in a decent, expanding economy.
Nice work by Trump and I hope you enjoy your tax cut that someone
will have to pay for before too much longer. I'm sure Trump is enjoying
his
tax cut and doesn't give a damn. Cohen related how in 2008 as Trump was
cutting staff salaries by half, he was enjoying his $10 mil tax refund and
commenting on how stupid the govt was to give it to him. So much for
today's
"conservatives" too. Obviously deficits only matter when Democrats run
them.


You never heard me say the tax cut was a good idea, I am just pointing
out it actually was a cut for a lot of working class people. Too bad
if you live in one of those high SALT states that didn't vote for Trump.

Personally I would go for an across the board 2%
surtax on EVERYONE's taxes (based on your gross),

Basing on the gross has real downsides particularly with
small business that isnt operating as a corporate. They
end up paying a lot more than the average wage slave
and many of them don't necessarily have a higher
living standard than the average employee.

That's pure BS. A small business today that isn't a corporation
isn't taxed on it's gross. It's taxed on it's net INCOME, which
is passed through to the owner. Business grosses $300K, has
expenses of $200K, owner has unadjusted taxable income of $100K.
Then it's adjusted for exemptions, deductions, etc. Final adjusted
taxable income is $75K. A new additional 2% income tax like Fretwell
is proposing would hit them with a new tax of $1500, just like it
would someone who earns $75K from a job.



meaning a lot of people who don't
pay any at all would have to chip in.

But its far from clear if it makes any sense to be making
those whose entire income is benefits or the aged pension
to be handing back 2% of what the govt has just given them.

I would only stipulate that every dime go to paying down the debt.

That doesn't necessarily make sense either in times of
severe recession when the govt has to pay out a lot
more to those who are temporarily between jobs etc.

It doesn't make any sense right now. The current deficit is ~$1 tril.
To pay down the debt, this new small tax increase would have to
generate over $1 tril in new revenue, which it can't. All it would
do is slightly lower the horrific deficits, the national debt would
keep increasing. Again, just the simplest of facts.

On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 7:16:05 AM UTC-5, Frank wrote:
On 3/2/2019 10:53 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 03/02/2019 11:41 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 11:33:35 -0600, Mark Lloyd
wrote:

On 3/1/19 7:48 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:

[snip]

Â* Whatever happened to "government of the people, by the people, and
for the people" - I might have gotten the order wrong but - - - -

There is NO "the people". Some will always be left out, like all those
who did NOT vote for Trump.

I didn't vote for Trump (Gary) but I wasn't left out of the tax cut.
It saved me about $600 compared to running the same return on the 2017
tax code.


I'm planning on doing my taxes and I anticipate BOHICA particularly for
the state. Many states don't tax SS but this one does.

I'm getting about a federal $700 surplus back. Last year I paid them.
State does not tax SS or first $15,000 of pension or 401k. We are
getting inundated by retirees from NJ moving here.

Another trumpet voter that doesn't understand the difference between a
refund and actually paying less in taxes. But overall, this year the
average refund is down anyway by about $800.

In article , says...

Ugh! That had to be a terrible invention. My wife will wear a skirt at
times for comfort but has not worn pantyhose in 30 years. We have
strange dress codes, both men and women. Things like neckties and high
heels should be eliminated.

Since moving south, nothing but shorts and T-shirts for me.



Living in the South, I just can not see why people want to wear the
suits and ties all year long.

I think in one of my past lifes (not that I really believe in it) that I
must have been hung as a horse thief as I can not stand anything tight
around my neck. I often leave the top two buttons of a shirt open.

Women in paints suits is fine with me, but I do liike to see a good
looking pair of womens legs.

On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 9:38:11 AM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 3/3/2019 5:58 AM, devnull wrote:


Lefties keep ignoring the facts. President Trump altruistically donates
his entire paycheck to charity.

That's the best you can do? I often put my loose change in a charity
collection box too. It amounts to about the same as Trump is doing. It
is nothing more than a publicity stunt.

More probative is what he did with charities BEFORE he was elected.
Where are the Trump hospital wings? Orphanages? Instead he has a
record of minimal donations to charities and instead using his charities
for his personal benefit. Two cases, he used his charity foundation
funds to settle his personal legal suits. Another case, we have him
using $60K of his charity money to buy a painting that he has hanging
at one of his properties. And in six or seven years prior to that,
he had not contributed any money to his foundation himself! He was
using money others had donated. Or how about the vets having to camp
out on Fifth Ave, at his home during the primaries, to get the money
that he raised for them in Iowa? They had been asking for months,
where is the money? There is a photo of him presenting a giant
check from his foundation
to charity in Iowa just weeks before the Iowa primary. On the check
it says "MAke America Great Again". All that is being looked at by
prosecutors right now. Trump of course says there was no connection
between that donation and his campaign. Pretty amazing then that a
charity check has MAGA on it at a public event in Iowa.

On Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 4:00:44 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 3 Mar 2019 07:02:36 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message


and most of my lights are on dimmers,

All the Hues have dimming built in.

just for that reason.

Why just for dirty yellow ?

Exactly. That is the problem with dimmable LED and CFL. the intensity
changes but not the color, although by popular demand I understand
they now have color shifting LEDs.

I have a dimable flood LED like that, I think it's made by Philips,
maybe called WarmGlow? Anyway, it's great. It dims just like a regular
flood light, it goes warm orange. I still have it installed where there
are incandescent ones and you can't tell the difference. Regular LEDs
are horrible when dimmed more than a little. Instead of the warm glow
effect, those are cold and harsh.

wrote in message
...
On Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 11:01:15 PM UTC-5, rbowman wrote:
On 03/02/2019 01:32 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
That's the sad part - the"asshole in charge" doesn't realise he is
to govern for the good of ALL the people, not just his small crime
family inner circle, or his "chearleaders" (ever notice inhigh school
the "chear leaders" were generally not "the sharpest knives in the
block" but more likely the good-looking airheads????)

Do you think the pant-suited bitch who referred to half the electorate
as deplorables would govern for ALL the people? Do you think Romney
would make it past 47% of the people?

The US government. from its inception, has not governed for the benefit
of ALL the people.

Just out of curiosity, what do you have against pant suits?

Stupid way to dress. Same with a suit and tie for men.

I haven't worn a skirt in more than 20 years.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On 3/3/2019 8:35 AM, Frank wrote:
On 3/3/2019 8:05 AM, wrote:
On Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 11:01:15 PM UTC-5, rbowman wrote:
On 03/02/2019 01:32 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
That's the sad part - the"asshole in charge" doesn't realise he is
to govern for the good of ALL the people, not just his small crime
family inner circle, or his "chearleaders" (ever notice inhigh school
the "chear leaders" were generally not "the sharpest knives in the
block" but more likely the good-looking airheads????)

Do you think the pant-suited bitch who referred to half the electorate
as deplorables would govern for ALL the people? Do you think Romney
would make it past 47% of the people?

The US government. from its inception, has not governed for the benefit
of ALL the people.

Just out of curiosity, what do you have against pant suits? I haven't
worn
a skirt in more than 20 years.

Cindy Hamilton


I suspect he has nothing against pant suits but is against this
particular wearer.

FYI, I have never worn a skirt.

Why not? They look like they could be comfortable in warm weather.

Dont buy that. Some of our islanders do wear skirts, mostly on sundays.
Not clear to me where they come from. The skirts are quite long, down
below the knees.

Then there are the hairy legged cross dressers in scotland. Those arent
ideal in hot weather either.

Around here, in the hot weather, most of the most sensible women
wear shorts.

"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 4:47:58 PM UTC-5, Rod Speed wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 12:42:05 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 1:41:35 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 11:33:35 -0600, Mark Lloyd
wrote:

On 3/1/19 7:48 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:

[snip]

Whatever happened to "government of the people, by the people,
and
for the people" - I might have gotten the order wrong but - - - -

There is NO "the people". Some will always be left out, like all
those
who did NOT vote for Trump.

I didn't vote for Trump (Gary) but I wasn't left out of the tax cut.
It saved me about $600 compared to running the same return on the
2017
tax code.

Yes, and now the budget deficit, which was down to just $580 bil when
Trump
took office, is on track to be ~$1 tril this year, with total debt
exceeding
$22 tril. Trillion dollar deficits in a decent, expanding economy.
Nice work by Trump and I hope you enjoy your tax cut that someone
will have to pay for before too much longer. I'm sure Trump is
enjoying
his
tax cut and doesn't give a damn. Cohen related how in 2008 as Trump
was
cutting staff salaries by half, he was enjoying his $10 mil tax refund
and
commenting on how stupid the govt was to give it to him. So much for
today's
"conservatives" too. Obviously deficits only matter when Democrats run
them.


You never heard me say the tax cut was a good idea, I am just pointing
out it actually was a cut for a lot of working class people. Too bad
if you live in one of those high SALT states that didn't vote for
Trump.

Personally I would go for an across the board 2%
surtax on EVERYONE's taxes (based on your gross),

Basing on the gross has real downsides particularly with
small business that isnt operating as a corporate. They
end up paying a lot more than the average wage slave
and many of them don't necessarily have a higher
living standard than the average employee.

That's pure BS.

We'll see...

A small business today that isn't a
corporation isn't taxed on it's gross.

Thats what he was proposing the 2% surtax on, stupid.

It's taxed on it's net INCOME, which is passed through to the
owner. Business grosses $300K, has expenses of $200K, owner
has unadjusted taxable income of $100K. Then it's adjusted for
exemptions, deductions, etc. Final adjusted taxable income is $75K.

Thats not his GROSS, stupid.

A new additional 2% income tax like Fretwell is
proposing would hit them with a new tax of $1500,

Nope, $60K, thats 2% of his GROSS, stupid.

just like it would someone who earns $75K from a job.

Nope, because that wage slave has a gross of $75K, stupid.

meaning a lot of people who don't
pay any at all would have to chip in.

But its far from clear if it makes any sense to be making
those whose entire income is benefits or the aged pension
to be handing back 2% of what the govt has just given them.

I would only stipulate that every dime go to paying down the debt.

That doesn't necessarily make sense either in times of
severe recession when the govt has to pay out a lot
more to those who are temporarily between jobs etc.

It doesn't make any sense right now. The current deficit is ~$1 tril.
To pay down the debt, this new small tax increase would have to
generate over $1 tril in new revenue, which it can't. All it would
do is slightly lower the horrific deficits, the national debt would
keep increasing.

Again, just the simplest of facts.

You couldnt even work out what the word GROSS means.

"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 4:00:44 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 3 Mar 2019 07:02:36 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message


and most of my lights are on dimmers,

All the Hues have dimming built in.

just for that reason.

Why just for dirty yellow ?

Exactly. That is the problem with dimmable LED and CFL. the intensity
changes but not the color, although by popular demand I understand
they now have color shifting LEDs.

I have a dimable flood LED like that, I think it's made by Philips,
maybe called WarmGlow? Anyway, it's great. It dims just like a regular
flood light, it goes warm orange. I still have it installed where there
are incandescent ones and you can't tell the difference.

Regular LEDs are horrible when dimmed more than a little.
Instead of the warm glow effect, those are cold and harsh.

Bull****.

On 03/03/2019 16:56, Rod Speed wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 11:01:15 PM UTC-5, rbowman wrote:
On 03/02/2019 01:32 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
Â*Â* That's the sad part - the"asshole in charge" doesn't realise he is
to govern for the good of ALL the people, not just his small crime
family inner circle, or his "chearleaders" (ever notice inhigh school
the "chear leaders" were generally not "the sharpest knives in the
block" but more likely the good-looking airheads????)

Do you think the pant-suited bitch who referred to half the electorate
as deplorables would govern for ALL the people? Do you think Romney
would make it past 47% of the people?

The US government. from its inception, has not governed for the benefit
of ALL the people.

Just out of curiosity, what do you have against pant suits?

Stupid way to dress. Same with a suit and tie for men.

I haven't worn a skirt in more than 20 years.


And I've never worn any knickers.

--
Bod

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 03/03/2019 16:56, Rod Speed wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 11:01:15 PM UTC-5, rbowman wrote:
On 03/02/2019 01:32 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
That's the sad part - the"asshole in charge" doesn't realise he is
to govern for the good of ALL the people, not just his small crime
family inner circle, or his "chearleaders" (ever notice inhigh school
the "chear leaders" were generally not "the sharpest knives in the
block" but more likely the good-looking airheads????)

Do you think the pant-suited bitch who referred to half the electorate
as deplorables would govern for ALL the people? Do you think Romney
would make it past 47% of the people?

The US government. from its inception, has not governed for the benefit
of ALL the people.

Just out of curiosity, what do you have against pant suits?

Stupid way to dress. Same with a suit and tie for men.

I haven't worn a skirt in more than 20 years.

And I've never worn any knickers.

Thought you must have been one of those hairy legged cross dressers from
scotland.

We can smell the haggis on your breath from here, boy.

On Sun, 3 Mar 2019 08:05:24 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 7:16:05 AM UTC-5, Frank wrote:
On 3/2/2019 10:53 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 03/02/2019 11:41 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 11:33:35 -0600, Mark Lloyd
wrote:

On 3/1/19 7:48 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:

[snip]

Â* Whatever happened to "government of the people, by the people, and
for the people" - I might have gotten the order wrong but - - - -

There is NO "the people". Some will always be left out, like all those
who did NOT vote for Trump.

I didn't vote for Trump (Gary) but I wasn't left out of the tax cut.
It saved me about $600 compared to running the same return on the 2017
tax code.


I'm planning on doing my taxes and I anticipate BOHICA particularly for
the state. Many states don't tax SS but this one does.

I'm getting about a federal $700 surplus back. Last year I paid them.
State does not tax SS or first $15,000 of pension or 401k. We are
getting inundated by retirees from NJ moving here.

Another trumpet voter that doesn't understand the difference between a
refund and actually paying less in taxes. But overall, this year the
average refund is down anyway by about $800.


That is more about your withholding choices than the tax, as you said.
I didn't change my withholding at all and I am getting over $4k back.
What I haven't seen reported is what was the average tax rate compared
to last year.

On 3/2/19 12:47 PM, wrote:

[snip]

I guess that is a personal preference. For general lighting I prefer
the dirty yellow and most of my lights are on dimmers, just for that
reason. I agree for task lighting bright white may work better. I have
hot white LEDs over my work benches. I have "natural light" tubes in
the kitchen light tho.
I am one of those people who think too much light at night screws up
your circadian rhythm. Most people say I live in a dark house.

I think it can. I want it DARK at night. I even put my phone in a drawer
(it lights all the time while charging). Even a single small LED is
undesirable when I'm trying to get to sleep.

BTW, people would complain about CFLs taking too long to get bright. I
have one like that in my bedroom, where that is a good thing.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"I don't see any god up here." -- Yuri Gagarin (1934-1968), Soviet
cosmonaut

On 3/2/19 1:02 PM, Rod Speed wrote:

[snip]

The (LED) bulbs are also plastic, and less fragile.

Not all of them are. The Philips Hue bulbs are glass.

Yes, there are a few glass ones although most LED bulbs I see are
plastic. Do you know of any reason to prefer glass?

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"I don't see any god up here." -- Yuri Gagarin (1934-1968), Soviet
cosmonaut

On 03/03/2019 06:05 AM, wrote:
On Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 11:01:15 PM UTC-5, rbowman wrote:
On 03/02/2019 01:32 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
That's the sad part - the"asshole in charge" doesn't realise he is
to govern for the good of ALL the people, not just his small crime
family inner circle, or his "chearleaders" (ever notice inhigh school
the "chear leaders" were generally not "the sharpest knives in the
block" but more likely the good-looking airheads????)

Do you think the pant-suited bitch who referred to half the electorate
as deplorables would govern for ALL the people? Do you think Romney
would make it past 47% of the people?

The US government. from its inception, has not governed for the benefit
of ALL the people.

Just out of curiosity, what do you have against pant suits? I haven't worn
a skirt in more than 20 years.

Other than TV I haven't seen a pant suit in 20 years... I take that
back. We hired a woman who had been an Army officer and then some sort
of management job back east. She showed up in a suit on her first day.
The second day was jeans and a blouse like everybody else.

Around here the only people, male or female, that wear suits are Mormon
missionaries, lawyers, or other things you don't want to mess with. Add
a tie and you know you're really in trouble.

I've sometimes thought about cruising Goodwill for a suit just to mess
with peoples' minds. I suppose I could find a youtube video on the manly
art of tying a tie.

In any case Hillary the Screech Owl didn't do much for pant suit stock.
I went shopping yesterday to get some salad stuff and couldn't find my
preferred brand of salad dressing. They had Hilary's but that was too
close for me -- I went with Drew's Thai coconut sesame.

On 3/2/19 2:02 PM, Rod Speed wrote:

[snip]

But I now find that I don't even notice the dirty
yellow in the bedroom anymore. Not sure I'd
like it for the main room and kitchen tho.

You do get used to them. I had no problem with the light color until
recently when some people started using real white light.

[snip]

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"I don't see any god up here." -- Yuri Gagarin (1934-1968), Soviet
cosmonaut

On 03/03/2019 06:35 AM, Frank wrote:
On 3/3/2019 8:05 AM, wrote:
On Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 11:01:15 PM UTC-5, rbowman wrote:
On 03/02/2019 01:32 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
That's the sad part - the"asshole in charge" doesn't realise he is
to govern for the good of ALL the people, not just his small crime
family inner circle, or his "chearleaders" (ever notice inhigh school
the "chear leaders" were generally not "the sharpest knives in the
block" but more likely the good-looking airheads????)

Do you think the pant-suited bitch who referred to half the electorate
as deplorables would govern for ALL the people? Do you think Romney
would make it past 47% of the people?

The US government. from its inception, has not governed for the benefit
of ALL the people.

Just out of curiosity, what do you have against pant suits? I haven't
worn
a skirt in more than 20 years.

Cindy Hamilton


I suspect he has nothing against pant suits but is against this
particular wearer.

FYI, I have never worn a skirt.

A couple of guys at work wear skirts every now and then. According to
Tacitus, who wrote around 98 CE, the Germans had figured out how to make
trousers by then. I guess Scots are just naturally slow or they like
cold balls.

On 03/03/2019 06:37 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 3/3/2019 8:35 AM, Frank wrote:
On 3/3/2019 8:05 AM, wrote:
On Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 11:01:15 PM UTC-5, rbowman wrote:
On 03/02/2019 01:32 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
That's the sad part - the"asshole in charge" doesn't realise he is
to govern for the good of ALL the people, not just his small crime
family inner circle, or his "chearleaders" (ever notice inhigh school
the "chear leaders" were generally not "the sharpest knives in the
block" but more likely the good-looking airheads????)

Do you think the pant-suited bitch who referred to half the electorate
as deplorables would govern for ALL the people? Do you think Romney
would make it past 47% of the people?

The US government. from its inception, has not governed for the benefit
of ALL the people.

Just out of curiosity, what do you have against pant suits? I
haven't worn
a skirt in more than 20 years.

Cindy Hamilton


I suspect he has nothing against pant suits but is against this
particular wearer.

FYI, I have never worn a skirt.

Why not? They look like they could be comfortable in warm weather.

Skirt + motorcycle == disaster;

On 03/03/2019 06:57 AM, wrote:
On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 8:37:51 AM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 3/3/2019 8:35 AM, Frank wrote:
On 3/3/2019 8:05 AM, wrote:
On Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 11:01:15 PM UTC-5, rbowman wrote:
On 03/02/2019 01:32 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
That's the sad part - the"asshole in charge" doesn't realise he is
to govern for the good of ALL the people, not just his small crime
family inner circle, or his "chearleaders" (ever notice inhigh school
the "chear leaders" were generally not "the sharpest knives in the
block" but more likely the good-looking airheads????)

Do you think the pant-suited bitch who referred to half the electorate
as deplorables would govern for ALL the people? Do you think Romney
would make it past 47% of the people?

The US government. from its inception, has not governed for the benefit
of ALL the people.

Just out of curiosity, what do you have against pant suits? I haven't
worn
a skirt in more than 20 years.

Cindy Hamilton


I suspect he has nothing against pant suits but is against this
particular wearer.

FYI, I have never worn a skirt.

Why not? They look like they could be comfortable in warm weather.

If you don't feel you need panty hose, perhaps. Wearing panty hose in
warm weather is like wearing longjohns.

Another blast from the past. I equated panty hose with chastity belts.
Does anyone still wear those damn things?

On 3/2/19 3:11 PM, Bod F wrote:

[snip]

The only thing the democrats do is promise more welfare for their
constituents...but common sense dictates that welfare is not sustainable.

At some point you run out of other peoples money.

I remember something about a plan to require welfare recipients to work
for their money if they were able to. For some reason that was declared
unconstitutional.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"I don't see any god up here." -- Yuri Gagarin (1934-1968), Soviet
cosmonaut

On 03/03/2019 06:58 AM, wrote:
On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 8:35:10 AM UTC-5, Frank wrote:
On 3/3/2019 8:05 AM, wrote:
On Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 11:01:15 PM UTC-5, rbowman wrote:
On 03/02/2019 01:32 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
That's the sad part - the"asshole in charge" doesn't realise he is
to govern for the good of ALL the people, not just his small crime
family inner circle, or his "chearleaders" (ever notice inhigh school
the "chear leaders" were generally not "the sharpest knives in the
block" but more likely the good-looking airheads????)

Do you think the pant-suited bitch who referred to half the electorate
as deplorables would govern for ALL the people? Do you think Romney
would make it past 47% of the people?

The US government. from its inception, has not governed for the benefit
of ALL the people.

Just out of curiosity, what do you have against pant suits? I haven't worn
a skirt in more than 20 years.

Cindy Hamilton


I suspect he has nothing against pant suits but is against this
particular wearer.

Then why mention the pants suit?

Feeling triggered, are we? Clinton is the one who made pant suits a
cliche. Blame her.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/14/hill...-happened.html

"Clinton writes that during the presidential campaign, she wanted to
dress as she did when she wasn't running for president. This would also
help her "not overthink it."

That certainly didn't work well.

On 3/3/19 9:16 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

[snip]

Ugh!Â* That had to be a terrible invention.Â* My wife will wear a skirt at
times for comfort but has not worn pantyhose in 30 years.Â* We have
strange dress codes, both men and women.Â* Things like neckties and high
heels should be eliminated.

I have worn a necktie for about 3 seconds (lifetime total). I was
encouraged to try one in 5th grade and really don't like feeling is if
I'm being strangled.

Since moving south, nothing but shorts and T-shirts for me.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"I don't see any god up here." -- Yuri Gagarin (1934-1968), Soviet
cosmonaut

On Sun, 3 Mar 2019 08:02:25 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 4:47:58 PM UTC-5, Rod Speed wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 12:42:05 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 1:41:35 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 11:33:35 -0600, Mark Lloyd
wrote:

On 3/1/19 7:48 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:

[snip]

Whatever happened to "government of the people, by the people, and
for the people" - I might have gotten the order wrong but - - - -

There is NO "the people". Some will always be left out, like all those
who did NOT vote for Trump.

I didn't vote for Trump (Gary) but I wasn't left out of the tax cut.
It saved me about $600 compared to running the same return on the 2017
tax code.

Yes, and now the budget deficit, which was down to just $580 bil when
Trump
took office, is on track to be ~$1 tril this year, with total debt
exceeding
$22 tril. Trillion dollar deficits in a decent, expanding economy.
Nice work by Trump and I hope you enjoy your tax cut that someone
will have to pay for before too much longer. I'm sure Trump is enjoying
his
tax cut and doesn't give a damn. Cohen related how in 2008 as Trump was
cutting staff salaries by half, he was enjoying his $10 mil tax refund and
commenting on how stupid the govt was to give it to him. So much for
today's
"conservatives" too. Obviously deficits only matter when Democrats run
them.


You never heard me say the tax cut was a good idea, I am just pointing
out it actually was a cut for a lot of working class people. Too bad
if you live in one of those high SALT states that didn't vote for Trump.

Personally I would go for an across the board 2%
surtax on EVERYONE's taxes (based on your gross),

Basing on the gross has real downsides particularly with
small business that isnt operating as a corporate. They
end up paying a lot more than the average wage slave
and many of them don't necessarily have a higher
living standard than the average employee.

That's pure BS. A small business today that isn't a corporation
isn't taxed on it's gross. It's taxed on it's net INCOME, which
is passed through to the owner. Business grosses $300K, has
expenses of $200K, owner has unadjusted taxable income of $100K.
Then it's adjusted for exemptions, deductions, etc. Final adjusted
taxable income is $75K. A new additional 2% income tax like Fretwell
is proposing would hit them with a new tax of $1500, just like it
would someone who earns $75K from a job.



meaning a lot of people who don't
pay any at all would have to chip in.

But its far from clear if it makes any sense to be making
those whose entire income is benefits or the aged pension
to be handing back 2% of what the govt has just given them.

I would only stipulate that every dime go to paying down the debt.

That doesn't necessarily make sense either in times of
severe recession when the govt has to pay out a lot
more to those who are temporarily between jobs etc.

It doesn't make any sense right now. The current deficit is ~$1 tril.
To pay down the debt, this new small tax increase would have to
generate over $1 tril in new revenue, which it can't. All it would
do is slightly lower the horrific deficits, the national debt would
keep increasing. Again, just the simplest of facts.



You still have to admit raising taxes is necessary unless we radically
cut spending, including entitlements. The fact remains every nickel of
discretionary spending (everything but entitlements and interest on
the debt) is borrowed. That is totally unsustainable and we are just
burdening our kids with a debt that will crush them. When you tack
that on to their personal debts like 5 figure student loans we may
reach a point where they just revolt.

On 03/03/2019 18:32, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 3/2/19 2:02 PM, Rod Speed wrote:

[snip]

But I now find that I don't even notice the dirty
yellow in the bedroom anymore. Not sure I'd
like it for the main room and kitchen tho.

You do get used to them. I had no problem with the light color until
recently when some people started using real white light.

[snip]

I've changed all of our lights to the daylight spectrum type.
It actually feels pleasanter in the long dark evenings.

--
Bod

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 3/3/2019 1:53 PM, Bod wrote:
On 03/03/2019 18:32, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 3/2/19 2:02 PM, Rod Speed wrote:

[snip]

But I now find that I don't even notice the dirty
yellow in the bedroom anymore. Not sure I'd
like it for the main room and kitchen tho.

You do get used to them. I had no problem with the light color until
recently when some people started using real white light.

[snip]

I've changed all of our lights to the daylight spectrum type.
It actually feels pleasanter in the long dark evenings.

Same here. No reason to have dingy orange when you can have a truer
color.

On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 21:02:52 -0700, rbowman wrote:

On 03/02/2019 01:32 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
That's the sad part - the"asshole in charge" doesn't realise he is
to govern for the good of ALL the people, not just his small crime
family inner circle, or his "chearleaders" (ever notice inhigh school
the "chear leaders" were generally not "the sharpest knives in the
block" but more likely the good-looking airheads????)

Do you think the pant-suited bitch who referred to half the electorate
as deplorables would govern for ALL the people? Do you think Romney
would make it past 47% of the people?


No sense lying. It's on the net.
"You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trumps supporters into
what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?' Clinton said. "The racist, sexist,
homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic - you name it. And unfortunately there are people like
that. And he has lifted them up."
She was far too kind. 100% of Trump voters are deplorable.

The US government. from its inception, has not governed for the benefit
of ALL the people.

Certainly never truer than with Trump, who lost by 2.8 million votes.
But it is what it is.

On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 04:26:55 +1100, cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rot
Speed blabbered, again:


That's pure BS.

We'll see...

We'll see YOU psychopathic swine trolling here like there was no tomorrow.
And hopefully there won't be too many tomorrows left for you, you abnormal
85-year-old senile idiot!

--
Kerr-Mudd,John addressing senile Rot:
"Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)"
MID:

On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 04:01:30 +1100, cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rot
Speed blabbered, again:

Why not? They look like they could be comfortable in warm weather.

Don¢t buy that.

Was someone talking to you, senile idiot?

--
Bill Wright to Rot Speed:
"That confirms my opinion that you are a despicable little ****."
MID:

On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 03:56:57 +1100, cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rot
Speed blabbered, again:


Just out of curiosity, what do you have against pant suits?

Stupid way to dress. Same with a suit and tie for men.

Not as stupid like your getting up every day between 1 and 4 am just to be
able to continue with your psychopathic trolling without tool long a break,
senile psychopath!

--
Norman Wells addressing senile Rot:
"Ah, the voice of scum speaks."
MID:

On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 04:46:31 +1100, cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rot
Speed blabbered, again:Rod Speed wrote:

Thought you must have been one of those hairy legged cross dressers from
scotland.

We can smell the haggis on your breath from here, boy.

We can smell you rotting from here, you psychopathic 85-year-old senile
pest!

--
Sqwertz to Rot Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID:

On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 04:31:41 +1100, cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rot
Speed blabbered, again:



Bull****.

That word would make the perfect nym for you, you psychopathic 85-year-old
senile Ozzie cretin!

--
Bod addressing abnormal senile quarreller Rot:
"Do you practice arguing with yourself in an empty room?"
MID:

On Sun, 3 Mar 2019 12:49:27 -0600, Mark Lloyd
wrote:

On 3/3/19 9:16 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

[snip]

Ugh!Â* That had to be a terrible invention.Â* My wife will wear a skirt at
times for comfort but has not worn pantyhose in 30 years.Â* We have
strange dress codes, both men and women.Â* Things like neckties and high
heels should be eliminated.

I have worn a necktie for about 3 seconds (lifetime total). I was
encouraged to try one in 5th grade and really don't like feeling is if
I'm being strangled.

Since moving south, nothing but shorts and T-shirts for me.
I wore a tie all of high school am my working career although I
switched to clip on ties in the late 60s. That rotating machinery and
a tie just didn't seem right to me.
Get your tie caught in an offset printing press and they will have a
hard time getting your socks out.

"Mark Lloyd" wrote in message
...
On 3/2/19 12:47 PM, wrote:

[snip]

I guess that is a personal preference. For general lighting I prefer
the dirty yellow and most of my lights are on dimmers, just for that
reason. I agree for task lighting bright white may work better. I have
hot white LEDs over my work benches. I have "natural light" tubes in
the kitchen light tho.
I am one of those people who think too much light at night screws up
your circadian rhythm. Most people say I live in a dark house.

I think it can. I want it DARK at night. I even put my phone in a drawer
(it lights all the time while charging). Even a single small LED is
undesirable when I'm trying to get to sleep.

BTW, people would complain about CFLs taking too long to get bright. I
have one like that in my bedroom, where that is a good thing.

I used to have one there for that reason but now have a hue bulb
that is trivial to setup with a fade up when it is ever turned on by
anything and is a lot more flexible so you can have it just light
enough to see where you are going for a **** without waking
anyone else in the room too.

Mark Lloyd wrote
Rod Speed wrote

The (LED) bulbs are also plastic, and less fragile.

Not all of them are. The Philips Hue bulbs are glass.

Yes, there are a few glass ones although most LED bulbs I
see are plastic. Do you know of any reason to prefer glass?

Not obvious why Philips do it that way. Less likely to crack
with age but wont survive a drop onto a hard surface as well.

On Sun, 03 Mar 2019 13:59:29 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 21:02:52 -0700, rbowman wrote:

On 03/02/2019 01:32 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
That's the sad part - the"asshole in charge" doesn't realise he is
to govern for the good of ALL the people, not just his small crime
family inner circle, or his "chearleaders" (ever notice inhigh school
the "chear leaders" were generally not "the sharpest knives in the
block" but more likely the good-looking airheads????)

Do you think the pant-suited bitch who referred to half the electorate
as deplorables would govern for ALL the people? Do you think Romney
would make it past 47% of the people?


No sense lying. It's on the net.
"You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trumps supporters into
what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?' Clinton said. "The racist, sexist,
homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic - you name it. And unfortunately there are people like
that. And he has lifted them up."
She was far too kind. 100% of Trump voters are deplorable.

The US government. from its inception, has not governed for the benefit
of ALL the people.

Certainly never truer than with Trump, who lost by 2.8 million votes.
But it is what it is.

Too bad most of Hillary's votes were concentrated in a few states huh?
The founding fathers did not want a few big cities on the coast
dominating the whole country.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 Mar 2019 08:02:25 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 4:47:58 PM UTC-5, Rod Speed wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 12:42:05 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 1:41:35 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 11:33:35 -0600, Mark Lloyd
wrote:

On 3/1/19 7:48 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:

[snip]

Whatever happened to "government of the people, by the people,
and
for the people" - I might have gotten the order wrong but - - - -

There is NO "the people". Some will always be left out, like all
those
who did NOT vote for Trump.

I didn't vote for Trump (Gary) but I wasn't left out of the tax cut.
It saved me about $600 compared to running the same return on the
2017
tax code.

Yes, and now the budget deficit, which was down to just $580 bil when
Trump
took office, is on track to be ~$1 tril this year, with total debt
exceeding
$22 tril. Trillion dollar deficits in a decent, expanding economy.
Nice work by Trump and I hope you enjoy your tax cut that someone
will have to pay for before too much longer. I'm sure Trump is
enjoying
his
tax cut and doesn't give a damn. Cohen related how in 2008 as Trump
was
cutting staff salaries by half, he was enjoying his $10 mil tax refund
and
commenting on how stupid the govt was to give it to him. So much for
today's
"conservatives" too. Obviously deficits only matter when Democrats
run
them.


You never heard me say the tax cut was a good idea, I am just pointing
out it actually was a cut for a lot of working class people. Too bad
if you live in one of those high SALT states that didn't vote for
Trump.

Personally I would go for an across the board 2%
surtax on EVERYONE's taxes (based on your gross),

Basing on the gross has real downsides particularly with
small business that isnt operating as a corporate. They
end up paying a lot more than the average wage slave
and many of them don't necessarily have a higher
living standard than the average employee.

That's pure BS. A small business today that isn't a corporation
isn't taxed on it's gross. It's taxed on it's net INCOME, which
is passed through to the owner. Business grosses $300K, has
expenses of $200K, owner has unadjusted taxable income of $100K.
Then it's adjusted for exemptions, deductions, etc. Final adjusted
taxable income is $75K. A new additional 2% income tax like Fretwell
is proposing would hit them with a new tax of $1500, just like it
would someone who earns $75K from a job.



meaning a lot of people who don't
pay any at all would have to chip in.

But its far from clear if it makes any sense to be making
those whose entire income is benefits or the aged pension
to be handing back 2% of what the govt has just given them.

I would only stipulate that every dime go to paying down the debt.

That doesn't necessarily make sense either in times of
severe recession when the govt has to pay out a lot
more to those who are temporarily between jobs etc.

It doesn't make any sense right now. The current deficit is ~$1 tril.
To pay down the debt, this new small tax increase would have to
generate over $1 tril in new revenue, which it can't. All it would
do is slightly lower the horrific deficits, the national debt would
keep increasing. Again, just the simplest of facts.



You still have to admit raising taxes is necessary unless we radically
cut spending, including entitlements. The fact remains every nickel of
discretionary spending (everything but entitlements and interest on
the debt) is borrowed. That is totally unsustainable and we are just
burdening our kids with a debt that will crush them.

The WW2 debt was higher and didn't crush us.

When you tack that on to their personal debts like 5 figure
student loans we may reach a point where they just revolt.

The last time they tried that in the 60s it didn't work for them.

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 03/03/2019 18:32, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 3/2/19 2:02 PM, Rod Speed wrote:

[snip]

But I now find that I don't even notice the dirty
yellow in the bedroom anymore. Not sure I'd
like it for the main room and kitchen tho.

You do get used to them. I had no problem with the light color until
recently when some people started using real white light.

[snip]
I've changed all of our lights to the daylight spectrum type.

It actually feels pleasanter in the long dark evenings.

When I built the house in the very early 70s, I had fluorescents
everywhere. But then added 150W PAR38s because I preferred
the light from them in the main room.

But now I dont like the dirty yellow there and prefer a cool white.

Dunno why I changed.