Alec Baldwin Gives Parenting Lessons
Way Back Jack
Pig'
Friday, April 20, 2007
By Roger Friedman
Actor Alec Baldwin may be finding himself in very big trouble this
morning. I mean, big trouble.
Baldwin is caught on TMZ.com on an audiotape recording of a scalding
message he left for his 12-year-old daughter Ireland.
Click here to hear the message
Even though it’s obvious that Ireland’s mother, Kim Basinger, leaked
the tape to the TMZ Web site — either Basinger or her divorce lawyers
— it may not matter. Baldwin’s screamfest at his only child has
already caused a family court judge in Los Angeles to suspend his
visitation rights temporarily.
Baldwin and Basinger have been locked in a vicious custody and
visitation battle over Ireland for years.
Baldwin has regularly accused Basinger of playing games with
scheduling. It’s a sore point, since he lives in New York and she
lives in California.
But Baldwin’s scathing comments to his daughter on the phone message
may be indefensible. Listening to the tape, you actually think he’s
leaving a message for Basinger; there is hatred in his voice. Then you
realize it really is Ireland for whom he’s left the message. The worst
thing he calls her: “a rude, thoughtless pig.”
Baldwin is going to have to do some fast spinning to get out of this
situation, especially if the tape starts getting airplay. There will
likely be little tolerance for this kind of behavior, especially
toward a child — and his own child, at that.
It certainly is hard imagining telling one’s own kid how angry you are
because they — the child — has “humiliated” you by missing a phone
call.
More from the call: “Once again I’ve made an a-- of myself getting to
a phone to make a phone call … I’m tired of playing this game with
you. You have insulted me for the last time …You’ve made feel like
sh-- and you’ve made feel like a fool over and over again … I’m going
to straighten your a-- out … You are a rude, thoughtless little pig.”
It’s a sickening turn of events for Baldwin, who’s had a great year
career-wise between his supporting work in “The Departed” and his
awards for the comedy “30 Rock.”
But something tells me that with the latter, NBC is not going to be
very supportive of what sounds like a very abusive, not just
disciplinary, father.
moviePig
> 411: Caught on Tape: Alec Baldwin Calls Daughter a 'Rude, Thoughtless
> Pig'
> Friday, April 20, 2007
>
> By Roger Friedman
>
> Actor Alec Baldwin may be finding himself in very big trouble this
> morning. I mean, big trouble.
>
> Baldwin is caught on TMZ.com on an audiotape recording of a scalding
> message he left for his 12-year-old daughter Ireland.
>
> Click here to hear the message
>
> Even though it's obvious that Ireland's mother, Kim Basinger, leaked
> - it may not matter. Baldwin's screamfest at his only child has
> already caused a family court judge in Los Angeles to suspend his
> visitation rights temporarily.
>
> Baldwin and Basinger have been locked in a vicious custody and
> visitation battle over Ireland for years.
>
> Baldwin has regularly accused Basinger of playing games with
> scheduling. It's a sore point, since he lives in New York and she
> lives in California.
>
> But Baldwin's scathing comments to his daughter on the phone message
> may be indefensible. Listening to the tape, you actually think he's
> leaving a message for Basinger; there is hatred in his voice. Then you
> realize it really is Ireland for whom he's left the message. The worst
> thing he calls her: "a rude, thoughtless pig."
>
> Baldwin is going to have to do some fast spinning to get out of this
> situation, especially if the tape starts getting airplay. There will
> likely be little tolerance for this kind of behavior, especially
>
> It certainly is hard imagining telling one's own kid how angry you are
> call.
>
> More from the call: "Once again I've made an a-- of myself getting to
> you. You have insulted me for the last time ...You've made feel like
> sh-- and you've made feel like a fool over and over again ... I'm going
> to straighten your a-- out ... You are a rude, thoughtless little pig."
>
> It's a sickening turn of events for Baldwin, who's had a great year
> career-wise between his supporting work in "The Departed" and his
> awards for the comedy "30 Rock."
>
> But something tells me that with the latter, NBC is not going to be
> very supportive of what sounds like a very abusive, not just
> disciplinary, father.
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267302,00.html
All I know of this is what I've read here. (Specifically, I don't
intend to wallow in the audio link.) But here are a few alternative
inferences, open to any but scalphunters:
1) Baldwin may actually give a shit about his kid. (Not all parents
do.) Admittedly, he seems less than impressively mature about it, but
I doubt maturity in general is in long supply in Hollywood...
2) Nobody with the kid's interest at heart would've publicized the
tape. (There would've been other ways to leverage it.)
3) The kid doesn't live in terror of Baldwin. (E.g., she's apparently
not too rigorous about his phone calls.)
Still, I suppose it's nice that FOX gets to grab at a Gotcha on such a
loud leftie...
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Sean Walsh
A month or so ago, FOX (and others) were all over the fact that he was
paying for an Iraq soldier's college education, even though (as he
stated) he doesn't agree with the war.
As for the audio, which I heard on the radio this morning, it's pretty
vicious tonguelashing. He goes on about how she doesn't have her phone
on a few times - hey, as a 30-year old my phone isn't on all the time
either. And the "pig" part comes at the very end.
If you took out the parts where he mentions "daughter" and her age,
you'd swear he was verbally lashing out at a grown up. Considering the
ferociousness of his message, I can understand perfectly why she
wouldn't want to talk to him.
Oh, and he also doesn't seem to know how old his own daughter is. He
literally says "11 or 12" during the rant.
--
Sean
moviePig
Well... no, I wouldn't nominate him for Parent of the Year. But
neither would I phone Social Services to take his kid away... which is
the effect being sought here, it seems... (As it happens, I just
heard a broadcast also... and was reminded that he can sound like a
vicious sonofabitch better than almost anyone alive.)
When you say FOX was "all over" the Iraq-soldier scholarship, do you
mean they claimed it somehow showed Baldwin's hypocrisy? Or do you
mean they were being fair and balanced (TM) toward him?
Sean Walsh
He doesn't have custody, just visitation rights. And those have been
temporarily taken away because of this.
> (As it happens, I just
> heard a broadcast also... and was reminded that he can sound like a
> vicious sonofabitch better than almost anyone alive.)
Fine if we're just listening to it on the radio and have no personal
connection to him or his family. But if your dad just called you up
and lashed out at you like that over.....what, not answering phone
calls? Not wanting to talk to a dad you probably want little to do
with?
And then say "I'm gonna straighten your ass out, you ride little pig"
when she's got a court-appointed visit to him?
As we've all seen this week, you need to deal with people who flip out
over pretty much nothing before they "straighten your ass out."
> When you say FOX was "all over" the Iraq-soldier scholarship, do you
> mean they claimed it somehow showed Baldwin's hypocrisy? Or do you
> mean they were being fair and balanced (TM) toward him?
They covered it on a few of their shows, IIRC. Meaning they didn't
ignore it to prop up the image of him as a lefty looney...
--
Sean
moviePig
Well, I'm pretty sure the only way to absolutely prevent all sudden
interpersonal explosion is to wipe us all out. Meanwhile, no, I
wouldn't care to have anyone speak to me like Baldwin... but if I'd
been hearing it all my life, it might sound different. E.g., some
parents abuse their kids with silence ...and far more verbally
threaten their kids with death than actually make good on it.
Again, I certainly don't know the facts here --indeed, they may
ultimately prove to be unconscionable-- but I doubt that trials by
knee-jerk publicity are any wiser today than they've ever been.
Derek Janssen
Also, we've heard absolute zero about what call/s he was responding BACK
to, as he's clearly mentioning in the wording:
It's unfortunately common for hi-profile couples to use the kids as
well-propaganda'ed draftees in fighting custody-battle skirmishes, as
much as the low-profile couples do...
And even without forced mother-daughter ulterior motives, no 12-yo. girl
is exactly sweetness and light when it comes to showing off independence
in front of the parents.
Inspector Poirot offers this theory: Basinger tried to get daughter on
her side of the increasingly messy court battle, indoctrinated Ireland
leaves snotty-12-yo. messages on phone about parenting or visitation,
Baldwin blows up like any dad, ahem-ahem-SOMEBODY leaks the story to the
press, and gossip-obsessed celebrity-bashing jerks guffaw over the "hot"
side of the story out of all meaningful context because it came over the
newsfeed with Alec's name in it, and because they think the rest of us will.
Which explains why we can all drop the "name-only" troll x-groups off
the headers--Hey, even *I* didn't know there was an "alt.bitterness"!
Derek Janssen (what, do they discuss 60%-Cacao Chocolate?)
eja...@comcast.net
Thumper
>
>>
>> > But something tells me that with the latter, NBC is not going to be
>> > very supportive of what sounds like a very abusive, not just
>> > disciplinary, father.
>>
>> >http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267302,00.html
>>
We don't know all the story. His kid may viciously play games with
him.
Thumper
Maryann
> On 20 Apr 2007 09:08:17 -0700, Sean Walsh <seanoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >> > But something tells me that with the latter, NBC is not going to be
> >> > very supportive of what sounds like a very abusive, not just
> >> > disciplinary, father.
>
> >> >http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267302,00.html
>
> We don't know all the story. His kid may viciously play games with
> him.
> Thumper
Typical lefty - Baldwin at work, what a great role-model..maybe he
would like to send his kids to fight the war in Iraq, sounds like he
would gladly see them facing the enemy. mai
FDR
"Maryann" <mia...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:1177094207.3...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Well we sure as hell know the Bush twins aren't going to Iraq.
R. Steve Walz
You have no idea what went before, or who the phone message was
actually intended for. You should mind your own fucking business.
When normal people do this stuff, they have only their families
to answer to, but you want to make everyone famous accountable
to some broad audience for amateur and ill-informed criticism,
and that's nothing but an extension of nazi paparazziism. NBC
had no cause to even replay it, do they replay everything they
see on the fucking Inquirer?? Don't be so fucking stupid. If
this wasn't moronic trolling for a "pop" during sweeps week,
then what was it??
Should we REALLY be that cynical about these media whores?
It's the end of this quarter's sweeps. See below:
Steve
Nielsen 2007 "Sweeps" Dates:
February 1 - February 28
April 26 - May 23
July 5 - August 1
November 1 - November 28
R. Steve Walz
Gee, and we all wonder who THAT was, eh? Is her name Kim Basinger?
> Considering the
> ferociousness of his message, I can understand perfectly why she
> wouldn't want to talk to him.
>
> Oh, and he also doesn't seem to know how old his own daughter is. He
> literally says "11 or 12" during the rant.
> Sean
--------------
Almost 12 turns into 12 and 22 is forgotten, even by the best parent.
And if you had a tape recorder on you all the time, what would we
catch YOU saying to your kid, huh? Parenting isn't a moment's anger,
it's comprised of the whole pattern of day-to-day life for years if
not decades. Also, he may not actually have been talking to his
daughter, if he knows how nosy his ex-wife is about it. From what
I've heard from people who tried to work with her, Kim Basinger is
gorgeous, but an incrediblly vicious little bitch!
Remember, no matter how beautiful she is, someone somewhere is REALLY
tired of her shit.
Steve
R. Steve Walz
Where do you get all that delusional crap?
How do you mine this out of an angry phone call that may have been
to his wife, if he knew she was nosy and took all the phone messages,
and that he was paying the way of a soldier through college himself,
despite the fact that he disagreed with the war??
It sounds like you're just dishonestly fishing for something to use
for your partisan lies.
Steve
Juan F. Lara
moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>2) Nobody with the kid's interest at heart would've publicized the
>tape. (There would've been other ways to leverage it.)
Dead on there. This recording was a very private matter of the Baldwin
family. It's an incredible violation of their privacy to publickly air it,
without any context.
- Juan F. Lara
Derek Janssen
And, courtesy of IMDB:
---
30 Rock actor Alec Baldwin has addressed a leaked answering machine rant
he left for his 11-year-old daughter - by refusing to speak about it...
Baldwin's lawyer, Viki Roberts, told Tmz.com, "Whatever happened
yesterday was sealed and confidential. What you're telling me you've got
you shouldn't have." But now his spokesperson claims his ex-wife Kim
Basinger leaked the tape to the media. He says, "The mother and her
lawyer leaked this sealed material in violation of a court order.
Although Alec acknowledges that he should have used different language
in parenting his child, everyone who knows him privately knows what he
has been put through for the past six years." The spokesperson adds, "In
the best interest of the child, Alec will do what the mother is
pathologically incapable of doing - keeping his mouth shut and obeying
the court order."
---
(And so, on the subject of Keeping Our Big Mouths Shut, and letting a
legal case mind its own darn business...)
Derek Janssen (no, really--IS there an "alt.bitterness", or did the
original cross-troll just make that one up?)
eja...@comcast.net
Unique
46291A...@armory.com,
> From what
> I've heard from people who tried to work with her, Kim Basinger is
> gorgeous, but an incrediblly vicious little bitch!
She's a bitch. He's a bastard. Their divorce has been a war.
That kid hasn't got a chance.
--
DVDs for sale: http://unique-dvd.com
165 Banned Cartoons, The Unknown War, Centennial Miniseries,
Holocaust, Masada, Amerika, Space, George Washington, Anzacs,
Marco Polo, Captains and the Kings, Peter the Great, Noble House,
and more...
Tom Zielinski
"Thumper" <jayl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:sj1i23lotfb1kjq6d...@4ax.com...
I'm a divorced father of three, and I have a very bitter relationship with
my ex. (She's on her fourth husband.) I've felt great frustration at times
including towards my children during the fifteen years since the day I came
home from work to find my house empty of children and possessions. That
said, there is simply no excuse for the abusive language Baldwin used
towards his daughter.
I say that as a big fan of Baldwin's work. He is among my favorite
character actors working and his name in the credits increases greatly my
desire to see the film. "30 Rock" is a really funny show and he is great in
it.
I hope Baldwin/Basinger can get their shit straightened out.
Anim8rFSK
"R. Steve Walz" <rst...@armory.com> wrote:
> You have no idea what went before, or who the phone message was
> actually intended for.
Being as he says 'you' and says he doesn't care if she's 12 or 11 years
old, the message is pretty clearly intended for an 11 or 12 year old.
BTR1701
"R. Steve Walz" <rst...@armory.com> wrote:
> Almost 12 turns into 12 and 22 is forgotten, even by the best parent.
> And if you had a tape recorder on you all the time, what would we
> catch YOU saying to your kid, huh? Parenting isn't a moment's anger,
> it's comprised of the whole pattern of day-to-day life for years if
> not decades.
Yeah, I hate to defend Baldwin because (while he's a good actor) I think
he's a sanctimonious prick most of the time. But I can think of a few
times my own dad verbally lashed out at me like that when I was a kid
and screwed up, saying stuff very similar to "I'm gonna straighten you
out when I get home." And you know what? I deserved it. I needed to be
straightened out and now I'm grateful there was someone there who cared
enough to do it. The "pig" comment was a bit over the line but it's
nothing that couldn't be remedied with an apology. Parents say stuff
like that all time when they're angry and kids that age have a unique
ability to inspire fits of rage in their parents.
Trey Harlow
"Maryann" <mia...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:1177094207.3...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Anyone who brings up politics in this matter obviously already has a
prediposition to hate Baldwin and therefore can be ignored.
>
Marv
little daughter. While he's an asshole for doing it, the press should leave it
be. Obviously da wife and lawyer leaked the message.
Same old shit!
Kids bear the brunt of an ugly dissolution of marriage.
janos...@hotmail.com
He was driven to the limit by his ex-wife, Krazy Kim Basinger, who
once bought an entire town and once lived with rockstar Prince, with
whom she communicated telepathically. (She sat at his feet and when he
looked at her a certain way, she knew how to serve Him or service Him,
maybe by bringing Him macaroni & cheese). That's one sick person.
Too bad AB said these things to a little kid but I think he could be
forgiven in this case.
Besides, how did the news media get ahold of this message? Think KKB
and her lawyers.
JXStern
>> Even though it's obvious that Ireland's mother, Kim Basinger, leaked
>> the tape to the TMZ Web site - either Basinger or her divorce lawyers
>> - it may not matter. Baldwin's screamfest at his only child has
>> already caused a family court judge in Los Angeles to suspend his
>> visitation rights temporarily.
>>
>> Baldwin and Basinger have been locked in a vicious custody and
>> visitation battle over Ireland for years.
...
>All I know of this is what I've read here. (Specifically, I don't
>intend to wallow in the audio link.)
I've incidentally heard it on the radio about nine times now.
It may be par for the course for a contested divorce (and what other
kinds are there?), but if it is, it's par for the loser.
J.
trotsky
> "Thumper" <jayl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:sj1i23lotfb1kjq6d...@4ax.com...
>
>>On 20 Apr 2007 09:08:17 -0700, Sean Walsh <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>But something tells me that with the latter, NBC is not going to be
>>>>>very supportive of what sounds like a very abusive, not just
>>>>>disciplinary, father.
>>>>
>>>>>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267302,00.html
>>>>
>>
>>We don't know all the story. His kid may viciously play games with
>>him.
>
>
>
> I'm a divorced father of three, and I have a very bitter relationship with
> my ex. (She's on her fourth husband.) I've felt great frustration at times
> including towards my children during the fifteen years since the day I came
> home from work to find my house empty of children and possessions. That
> said, there is simply no excuse for the abusive language Baldwin used
> towards his daughter.
Wow, in the old days parents used to beat their kids with willow
switches, or at least administer spankings. Nowadays strong language is
enough for condemnation.
R. Steve Walz
Unless that's a posture and he's called Kim Basinger a 12 y/o before.
You just can't know. This is why such an invasion of privacy out of
context is inappropriate.
Steve
Tom Zielinski
"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in message
news:iueWh.67544$_c5.45116@attbi_s22...
Are you really defending Baldwin? Again, I UNDERSTAND the frustration, but
to take it out on a 12 YO with such abusive language? I don't know anyone
who has ever called their own daughter a pig. It's wrong and it's
indefensible, no matter what she did or didn't do. Adults should know
better.
That said, I just got the boxed set of "Not Just the Best of the Larry
Sanders Show", the best written and funniest show in television history. It
includes a recent interview with Baldwin. Highly recommended. (The Baldwin
interview aside.)
R. Steve Walz
It's just not that big of a deal or that unusual among parents,
and trying to crucify him for it is the pot calling the kettle black.
Anyone with kids has said things like that.
Steve
Victor Velazquez
news:FrmdneAclIFD5LTb...@comcast.com...
Absolutely true and it's completely unfair that the punishment for such poor
judgement may be never seeing your kid again. Without this potential
consequence, I don't think he'd be getting much support. And FWIW, I don't
give a rat's ass about Alec Baldwin but there are a shitload of dad's who
aren't him and can't afford fancy-pants lawyers and trips to the coast..
Anim8rFSK
"R. Steve Walz" <rst...@armory.com> wrote:
> Anim8rFSK wrote:
> >
> > In article <462918...@armory.com>,
> > "R. Steve Walz" <rst...@armory.com> wrote:
> >
> > > You have no idea what went before, or who the phone message was
> > > actually intended for.
> >
> > Being as he says 'you' and says he doesn't care if she's 12 or 11 years
> > old, the message is pretty clearly intended for an 11 or 12 year old.
> -----------------
> Unless that's a posture and he's called Kim Basinger a 12 y/o before.
You've got to be kidding.
trotsky
> "trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:iueWh.67544$_c5.45116@attbi_s22...
>
>>Tom Zielinski wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Thumper" <jayl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>news:sj1i23lotfb1kjq6d...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 20 Apr 2007 09:08:17 -0700, Sean Walsh <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>But something tells me that with the latter, NBC is not going to be
>>>>>>>very supportive of what sounds like a very abusive, not just
>>>>>>>disciplinary, father.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267302,00.html
>>>>>>
>>>>We don't know all the story. His kid may viciously play games with
>>>>him.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm a divorced father of three, and I have a very bitter relationship
>>>with my ex. (She's on her fourth husband.) I've felt great frustration
>>>at times including towards my children during the fifteen years since the
>>>day I came home from work to find my house empty of children and
>>>possessions. That said, there is simply no excuse for the abusive
>>>language Baldwin used towards his daughter.
>>
>>
>>Wow, in the old days parents used to beat their kids with willow switches,
>>or at least administer spankings. Nowadays strong language is enough for
>>condemnation.
>
>
>
>
> Are you really defending Baldwin?
Here's my take: I don't defend what he said, I would never say something
like that to a kid in almost any circumstance. There are kids that are
complete beatoffs that deserve some amount of tongue lashing, but we
have no idea if this is the case here, nor do we *deserve* to know.
What we need to start doing is ascribing blame in order of importance:
the fact that Basinger would allow her kid to be humiliated publically
by "leaking" this tape is FAR worse than what Baldwin said, and the
disgusting, filthy pandering media publicizing it is far worse to. We
didn't need to hear this just like we didn't need to know what was in
the package that Cho sent NBC.
Again, I UNDERSTAND the frustration, but
> to take it out on a 12 YO with such abusive language? I don't know anyone
> who has ever called their own daughter a pig. It's wrong and it's
> indefensible, no matter what she did or didn't do. Adults should know
> better.
>
> That said, I just got the boxed set of "Not Just the Best of the Larry
> Sanders Show", the best written and funniest show in television history. It
> includes a recent interview with Baldwin. Highly recommended. (The Baldwin
> interview aside.)
Don't worry, that's on my radar. I loved "The Larry Sanders Show" when
it was on, and there aren't a lot of shows I can say that about.
Way Back Jack
<rst...@armory.com> wrote:
>It's just not that big of a deal or that unusual among parents,
>and trying to crucify him for it is the pot calling the kettle black.
>Anyone with kids has said things like that.
>Steve
This from the guy who has stated on many occasions that sexual
relations between consenting kids and adults do not harm the kids.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
moviePig
> Tom Zielinski wrote:
> > "trotsky" <gmsi...@email.com> wrote in message
> >news:iueWh.67544$_c5.45116@attbi_s22...
>
> >>Tom Zielinski wrote:
>
> >>>news:sj1i23lotfb1kjq6d...@4ax.com...
...and if there were *really* some journalistic principle that
dictated against NBC's potentially paternalistic withholding of the
Cho legacy, then they could easily have popped it onto some out-of-the-
way but freely available web link. (This suggestion from the
snowball's-chance-in-hell dept....)
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Anim8rFSK
Where...@home.net (Way Back Jack) wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 19:48:59 -0700, "R. Steve Walz"
> <rst...@armory.com> wrote:
>
>
> >It's just not that big of a deal or that unusual among parents,
> >and trying to crucify him for it is the pot calling the kettle black.
> >Anyone with kids has said things like that.
> >Steve
>
> This from the guy who has stated on many occasions that sexual
> relations between consenting kids and adults do not harm the kids.
Aha. That would explain a lot.
Tom Zielinski
> Tom Zielinski wrote:
>> Are you really defending Baldwin?
>
>
> Here's my take: I don't defend what he said, I would never say something
> like that to a kid in almost any circumstance. There are kids that are
> complete beatoffs that deserve some amount of tongue lashing, but we have
> no idea if this is the case here, nor do we *deserve* to know. What we
> need to start doing is ascribing blame in order of importance: the fact
> that Basinger would allow her kid to be humiliated publically by "leaking"
> this tape is FAR worse than what Baldwin said, and the disgusting, filthy
> pandering media publicizing it is far worse to.
I absolutely agree. Doesn't change the fact that Baldwin said the words.
> We didn't need to hear this just like we didn't need to know what was in
> the package that Cho sent NBC.
I'm still pondering that. Perhaps it would have been best just to let the
FBI have the package. But I don't agree with those who say that covering
the shooting as a news story is wrong. Would it be better we not know?
> Again, I UNDERSTAND the frustration, but
>> to take it out on a 12 YO with such abusive language? I don't know
>> anyone who has ever called their own daughter a pig. It's wrong and it's
>> indefensible, no matter what she did or didn't do. Adults should know
>> better.
>>
>> That said, I just got the boxed set of "Not Just the Best of the Larry
>> Sanders Show", the best written and funniest show in television history.
>> It includes a recent interview with Baldwin. Highly recommended. (The
>> Baldwin interview aside.)
>
>
> Don't worry, that's on my radar. I loved "The Larry Sanders Show" when it
> was on, and there aren't a lot of shows I can say that about.
Best written and funniest comedy in the history of television. Rip Torn is
a national treasure. (As my good friend Paul used to say whenever we
discussed the show in the 1990's.)
auzerais v
> obviously already has a prediposition to hate
> Baldwin and therefore can be ignored.
Oh I see, if this had been Bruce Willis instead of Baldwin, the left
wouldn't dream of bringing his politics into it? and if they did, they
should also be ignored?
yeah, right.
R. Steve Walz
>
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 19:48:59 -0700, "R. Steve Walz"
> <rst...@armory.com> wrote:
>
> >It's just not that big of a deal or that unusual among parents,
> >and trying to crucify him for it is the pot calling the kettle black.
> >Anyone with kids has said things like that.
> >Steve
>
> This from the guy who has stated on many occasions that sexual
> relations between consenting kids and adults do not harm the kids.
Only because they don't. Of course, you're too stupid and brainwashed
ever to be able to discern that properly.
Steve
Victor Velazquez
news:462A63...@armory.com...
> Way Back Jack wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 19:48:59 -0700, "R. Steve Walz"
>> <rst...@armory.com> wrote:
>>
>> >It's just not that big of a deal or that unusual among parents,
>> >and trying to crucify him for it is the pot calling the kettle black.
>> >Anyone with kids has said things like that.
>>
>> relations between consenting kids and adults do not harm the kids.
> Only because they don't. Of course, you're too stupid and brainwashed
> ever to be able to discern that properly.
Whaaaaa? You can't possibly think that's true. How does a child consent to
something they know nothing about?
trotsky
> "trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:TSnWh.7057$n_.6240@attbi_s21...
>
>>Tom Zielinski wrote:
>
>
>>>Are you really defending Baldwin?
>>
>>
>>Here's my take: I don't defend what he said, I would never say something
>>like that to a kid in almost any circumstance. There are kids that are
>>complete beatoffs that deserve some amount of tongue lashing, but we have
>>no idea if this is the case here, nor do we *deserve* to know. What we
>>need to start doing is ascribing blame in order of importance: the fact
>>that Basinger would allow her kid to be humiliated publically by "leaking"
>>this tape is FAR worse than what Baldwin said, and the disgusting, filthy
>>pandering media publicizing it is far worse to.
>
>
>
> I absolutely agree. Doesn't change the fact that Baldwin said the words.
A far cry from having Basinger as a mother is my guess. Would you want
Baldwin to tell you how to raise your kids? It's his business, not ours.
>>We didn't need to hear this just like we didn't need to know what was in
>>the package that Cho sent NBC.
>
>
>
> I'm still pondering that. Perhaps it would have been best just to let the
> FBI have the package. But I don't agree with those who say that covering
> the shooting as a news story is wrong. Would it be better we not know?
It would be better if it wasn't a media circus giving incentive to the
next guy to "go out in a blaze of glory." They are encouraging that
behavior--what's good about that?
>> Again, I UNDERSTAND the frustration, but
>>
>>>to take it out on a 12 YO with such abusive language? I don't know
>>>anyone who has ever called their own daughter a pig. It's wrong and it's
>>>indefensible, no matter what she did or didn't do. Adults should know
>>>better.
>>>
>>>That said, I just got the boxed set of "Not Just the Best of the Larry
>>>Sanders Show", the best written and funniest show in television history.
>>>It includes a recent interview with Baldwin. Highly recommended. (The
>>>Baldwin interview aside.)
>>
>>
>>Don't worry, that's on my radar. I loved "The Larry Sanders Show" when it
>>was on, and there aren't a lot of shows I can say that about.
>
>
>
> Best written and funniest comedy in the history of television. Rip Torn is
> a national treasure. (As my good friend Paul used to say whenever we
> discussed the show in the 1990's.)
My favorite Artie line: Larry invites him to a party and says "Be there
or be square." Artie says, "I can be both."
Tom Zielinski
> Tom Zielinski wrote:
>>>>That said, I just got the boxed set of "Not Just the Best of the Larry
>>>>Sanders Show", the best written and funniest show in television history.
>>>>It includes a recent interview with Baldwin. Highly recommended. (The
>>>>Baldwin interview aside.)
>>>
>>>
>>>Don't worry, that's on my radar. I loved "The Larry Sanders Show" when
>>>it was on, and there aren't a lot of shows I can say that about.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best written and funniest comedy in the history of television. Rip Torn
>> is a national treasure. (As my good friend Paul used to say whenever we
>> discussed the show in the 1990's.)
>
>
> My favorite Artie line: Larry invites him to a party and says "Be there or
> be square." Artie says, "I can be both."
Larry, sharing with Artie that he is upset that Alec Baldwin (a guest on the
talk show) slept with his ex-wife while they were separated: "You were
right Artie. It was a mistake booking him on the show. All I do is picture
him fucking my wife. And she's always on top."
Artie: "Lazy bastard."
I love that show.
R. Steve Walz
Difference is, honestly, Left politics are good, Right politics are
evidence of extreme evil, racism, sexism, antisexuality, greed, etc.
Steve
R. Steve Walz
If you think that a child can consent WITHOUT knowing, or if you
think that all children know NOTHING ABOUT sex, then you really
are stupid. Lots of them know virtually EVERUTHING about sex,
especially the kids of people who are sexually liberal enough to
grasp the concept that kids may want sex too! I know that *I*
wanted it when I was 9, and many could even earlier.
Steve
Way Back Jack
<rst...@armory.com> wrote:
>-------------------
>Difference is, honestly, Left politics are good, Right politics are
>evidence of extreme evil, racism, sexism, antisexuality, greed, etc.
said the shithead who wants the struggling working class to support
and pay reparations to the underclass, ne'er-do-wells, no-loads, and
other assorted bums. Meanwhile you enjoy a life of privilege derived
from sleazy business practices that bilked the working class: able to
send your wife and children to fat farms, swimming camp, tennis camp,
golf camp, music camp, and just plain summer camp in the borscht belt
of the Catskills. A limousine communist just like Baldwin.
R. Steve Walz
>
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 20:54:45 -0700, "R. Steve Walz"
> <rst...@armory.com> wrote:
>
> >-------------------
> >Difference is, honestly, Left politics are good, Right politics are
> >evidence of extreme evil, racism, sexism, antisexuality, greed, etc.
>
> said the shithead who wants the struggling working class to support
> and pay reparations to the underclass,
No, the rich. By "rich" I mean everybody above, say, $80K per family
per year. These are the over-privileged who CAUSE the poverty of the
underclass with their rampant greed, and who impoverish further the
disadvantaged by investing in a second or third rental property to
amass a nest egg for a kushy retirement.
> ne'er-do-wells, no-loads, and other assorted bums.
---------------------
When you finally pay them decently for their labor they won't be!
Presto!
> Meanwhile you enjoy a life of privilege derived
> from sleazy business practices that bilked the working class: able to
> send your wife and children to fat farms, swimming camp, tennis camp,
> golf camp, music camp, and just plain summer camp in the borscht belt
> of the Catskills. A limousine communist just like Baldwin.
----------------------------
I don't know where you get such shit, we never made more than $25K
each in our lives, and we don't now. We've NEVER been to camp of any
kind, except the local state park in a cheap tent. My wife went to
music camp a couple times as a teen, but was unable to afford it after
that, and HER father was a high school BAND DIRECTOR!! Her mother was
a secretary and housewife. None of us has ever seen the Catskills, and
I don't frankly even know where they are, even though I've heard of
them in movies and on TV.
So as you see, you're a shit-fucking deluded little lying racist
piece of shit.
As I said:
Difference is, honestly, Left politics are good, Right politics are
evidence of extreme evil, racism, sexism, antisexuality, greed, etc.
Steve
waybackjack
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 08:50:18 -0700, "R. Steve Walz"
<rst...@armory.com> wrote:
>Way Back Jack wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 20:54:45 -0700, "R. Steve Walz"
>> <rst...@armory.com> wrote:
>>
>> >-------------------
>> >Difference is, honestly, Left politics are good, Right politics are
>> >evidence of extreme evil, racism, sexism, antisexuality, greed, etc.
>>
>> said the shithead who wants the struggling working class to support
>> and pay reparations to the underclass,
>----------------------
>No,
Yes.
And as I said, not only are you a scuzbag limousine liberal, you are
on record as saying that sex between adults and "consenting" children
does no harm to the children and may be beneficial.
R. Steve Walz
>
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 08:50:18 -0700, "R. Steve Walz"
> <rst...@armory.com> wrote:
>
> >Way Back Jack wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 20:54:45 -0700, "R. Steve Walz"
> >> <rst...@armory.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >-------------------
> >> >Difference is, honestly, Left politics are good, Right politics are
> >> >evidence of extreme evil, racism, sexism, antisexuality, greed, etc.
> >>
> >> said the shithead who wants the struggling working class to support
> >> and pay reparations to the underclass,
> >----------------------
> >No,
>
> Yes.
No, the rich. By "rich" I mean everybody above, say, $80K per family
per year. These are the over-privileged who CAUSE the poverty of the
underclass with their rampant greed, and who impoverish further the
disadvantaged by investing in a second or third rental property to
amass a nest egg for a kushy retirement.
> And as I said, not only are you a scuzbag limousine liberal, you are
> on record as saying that sex between adults and "consenting" children
> does no harm to the children and may be beneficial.
----------------------------
No, I said consenting children, not "consenting" children. That DOESN'T
mean that their consent is mentally fabricated in fact or kind by some
honry adult or adults who just want to fuck them, that means that they
actively want whatever sexually explicit experience, and that they get
to stop it any time they don't like it.
And as for limousine liberal, you were TOLD you were wrong and yet
you persisted in your lie:
I don't know where you get such shit, we never made more than $25K
each in our lives, and we don't now. We've NEVER been to camp of any
kind, except the local state park in a cheap tent. My wife went to
music camp a couple times as a teen, but was unable to afford it after
that, and HER father was a high school BAND DIRECTOR!! Her mother was
a secretary and housewife. None of us has ever seen the Catskills, and
I don't frankly even know where they are, even though I've heard of
them in movies and on TV.
So as you see, you're a shit-fucking deluded little lying racist
piece of shit.
And as I said:
Difference is, honestly, Left politics are good, Right politics are
evidence of extreme evil, racism, sexism, antisexuality, greed, etc.
Steve
Way Back Jack
<rst...@armory.com> wrote:
>waybackjack wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 08:50:18 -0700, "R. Steve Walz"
>> <rst...@armory.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Way Back Jack wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 20:54:45 -0700, "R. Steve Walz"
>> >> <rst...@armory.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >-------------------
>> >> >Difference is, honestly, Left politics are good, Right politics are
>> >> >evidence of extreme evil, racism, sexism, antisexuality, greed, etc.
>> >>
>> >> said the shithead who wants the struggling working class to support
>> >> and pay reparations to the underclass,
>> >----------------------
>> >No,
>>
Yes.
>> And as I said, not only are you a scuzbag limousine liberal, you are
>> on record as saying that sex between adults and "consenting" children
>> does no harm to the children and may be beneficial.
>----------------------------
>No, I said consenting children, not "consenting" children. That DOESN'T
>mean that their consent is mentally fabricated in fact or kind by some
>honry adult or adults who just want to fuck them, that means that they
>actively want whatever sexually explicit experience, and that they get
>to stop it any time they don't like it.
Even Alec Baldwin, limousine liberal and all-around asshole, isn't a
pedophile.
I don't mean to sound unpleasant, but your momma should have aborted
you.
>And as for limousine liberal, you were TOLD you were wrong and yet
>you persisted in your lie.
Oh I remember your ilk before shopping malls were ubiquitous with the
sleazy little family-owned appliance stores. Out on the front
sidewalk were the damaged and dented refrigerators, ranges, etc. and
how your kind bilked the lower classes and then behind their backs
called them stupid goyim and even schwartzers.
>And as I said:
>Difference is, honestly, Left politics are good, Right politics are
>evidence of extreme evil, racism, sexism, antisexuality, greed, etc.
Your philosophies are not driven by humanitarianism but by your fear
that the working class and no-loads will uprise and invade your
privileged existence. American left-wing weenies fear those who make
the most noise, so you embrace this share-the-wealth scheme even
though it will kill the working class. But maybe that's good; when
the working class become po' they'll hunt your scalp, pervert.
R. Steve Walz
>
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 10:42:08 -0700, "R. Steve Walz"
> <rst...@armory.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >Difference is, honestly, Left politics are good, Right politics are
> >> >> >evidence of extreme evil, racism, sexism, antisexuality, greed, etc.
> >> >>
> >> >> said the shithead who wants the struggling working class to support
> >> >> and pay reparations to the underclass,
> >> >----------------------
> >> >No,
>
> Yes.
No, the rich. By "rich" I mean everybody above, say, $80K per family
per year. These are the over-privileged who CAUSE the poverty of the
underclass with their rampant greed, and who impoverish further the
disadvantaged by investing in a second or third rental property to
amass a nest egg for a kushy retirement.
> >> And as I said, not only are you a scuzbag limousine liberal, you are
> >> on record as saying that sex between adults and "consenting" children
> >> does no harm to the children and may be beneficial.
> >----------------------------
> >No, I said consenting children, not "consenting" children. That DOESN'T
> >mean that their consent is mentally fabricated in fact or kind by some
> >honry adult or adults who just want to fuck them, that means that they
> >actively want whatever sexually explicit experience, and that they get
> >to stop it any time they don't like it.
>
> Even Alec Baldwin, limousine liberal and all-around asshole, isn't a
> pedophile.
-----------------
Neither am I. The notion that I am is just your dishonest posture.
> I don't mean to sound unpleasant,
-----------------
Of course you do, you're a shit-eating little racist sexuophobic hater.
> >And as for limousine liberal, you were TOLD you were wrong and yet
> >you persisted in your lie.
> And as I said, not only are you a scuzbag limousine liberal, you are
> on record as saying that sex between adults and "consenting" children
> does no harm to the children and may be beneficial.
----------------------------
No, I said consenting children, not "consenting" children. That DOESN'T
mean that their consent is mentally fabricated in fact or kind by some
honry adult or adults who just want to fuck them, that means that they
actively want whatever sexually explicit experience, and that they get
to stop it any time they don't like it.
And as for limousine liberal, you were TOLD you were wrong and yet
you persisted in your lie:
I don't know where you get such shit, we never made more than $25K
each in our lives, and we don't now. We've NEVER been to camp of any
kind, except the local state park in a cheap tent. My wife went to
music camp a couple times as a teen, but was unable to afford it after
that, and HER father was a high school BAND DIRECTOR!! Her mother was
a secretary and housewife. None of us has ever seen the Catskills, and
I don't frankly even know where they are, even though I've heard of
them in movies and on TV.
So as you see, you're a shit-fucking deluded little lying racist
piece of shit.
> Oh I remember your ilk before shopping malls were ubiquitous with the
> sleazy little family-owned appliance stores. Out on the front
> sidewalk were the damaged and dented refrigerators, ranges, etc. and
> how your kind bilked the lower classes and then behind their backs
> called them stupid goyim and even schwartzers.
------------------------
I'm not Jewish, Jews aren't like that, it's a Nazi myth, and you're
one sick fucking racist antisemitic little Nazi shit-eater.
> >And as I said:
> >Difference is, honestly, Left politics are good, Right politics are
> >evidence of extreme evil, racism, sexism, antisexuality, greed, etc.
>
> Your philosophies are not driven by humanitarianism but by your fear
> that the working class and no-loads will uprise and invade your
> privileged existence.
--------------------
Since I have no such "priveleged existence", you're nothing
but a fucking loon with racist delusions.
> American left-wing weenies fear those who make
> the most noise,
--------------------
WE make the most noise!
> so you embrace this share-the-wealth scheme even
> though it will kill the working class.
-------------------
It will free the working class and make the wealthy class join their
ranks as is fair and fitting.
> But maybe that's good; when
> the working class become po' they'll hunt your scalp, pervert.
-------------------------------
So you want us to believe that taking the wealthy down will somehow
impoverish the working class??? You're nothing but a paid shill and
disinformant for the rich. I wouldn't doubt that you're in their
direct employ as an internet disinfo specialist! The rich have
always employed paid rabble-rouser haters to distract the poor from
the crimes of the wealthy and prevant peasant revolution.
You're a homophobic little moron with delusions of grandeur.
Steve
Way Back Jack
<rst...@armory.com> wrote:
>Way Back Jack wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 10:42:08 -0700, "R. Steve Walz"
>> <rst...@armory.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >Difference is, honestly, Left politics are good, Right politics are
>> >> >> >evidence of extreme evil, racism, sexism, antisexuality, greed, etc.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> said the shithead who wants the struggling working class to support
>> >> >> and pay reparations to the underclass,
>> >> >----------------------
>> >> >No,
>>
>> Yes.
>--------
>No,
Yes.
>
>> >> And as I said, not only are you a scuzbag limousine liberal, you are
>> >> on record as saying that sex between adults and "consenting" children
>> >> does no harm to the children and may be beneficial.
>> >----------------------------
>> >No,
>> Yes. Even Alec Baldwin, limousine liberal and all-around asshole, isn't a
>> pedophile.
>-----------------
>Neither am I. The notion that I am is just
society's opinion of one who would even suggest adult-child sexual
relations.
>> I don't mean to sound unpleasant,
>-----------------
>Of course you do
Well, in your case, perhaps I do, pervert.
>> >And as for limousine liberal, you were TOLD you were wrong and yet
>> >you persisted in your lie.
>> And as I said, not only are you a scuzbag limousine liberal, you are
>> on record as saying that sex between adults and "consenting" children
>> does no harm to the children and may be beneficial.
>----------------------------
>No, I said consenting children,
Yup. That's whay you said.
As if children can consent in that regard.
>And as for limousine liberal, you were TOLD you were wrong and yet
You deny it now, in fear of your communist cohorts.
>
>> Oh I remember your ilk before shopping malls were ubiquitous with the
>> sleazy little family-owned appliance stores. Out on the front
>> sidewalk were the damaged and dented refrigerators, ranges, etc. and
>> how your kind bilked the lower classes and then behind their backs
>> called them stupid goyim and even schwartzers.
>------------------------
>I'm not Jewish, Jews aren't like that, it's a Nazi myth, and you're
>one sick fucking racist antisemitic little Nazi shit-eater.
Your mama was an ambulance chaser deluxe, paving the way into a life a
privilege.
Then you married into the Appliance Store racket.
>
>> >And as I said:
>> >Difference is, honestly, Left politics are good, Right politics are
>> >evidence of extreme evil, racism, sexism, antisexuality, greed, etc.
>>
>> Your philosophies are not driven by humanitarianism but by your fear
>> that the working class and no-loads will uprise and invade your
>> privileged existence.
>--------------------
>Since I have no such "priveleged existence", you're nothing
>but a fucking loon with racist delusions.
Your words are fales.
>
>> American left-wing weenies fear those who make
>> the most noise,
>--------------------
>WE make the most noise!
Loud crying and wailing born of fear.
>
>> so you embrace this share-the-wealth scheme even
>> though it will kill the working class.
>-------------------
>It will free the working class and make the wealthy class join their
>ranks as is fair and fitting.
It will drop the working class into the po' class.
>
>> But maybe that's good; when
>> the working class become po' they'll hunt your scalp, pervert.
>-------------------------------
>So you want us to believe that taking the wealthy down will somehow
>impoverish the working class???
Taking the working class down will put an end to you.
Better build bigger gates around your compound.
R. Steve Walz
>
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 17:08:44 -0700, "R. Steve Walz"
> <rst...@armory.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >Difference is, honestly, Left politics are good, Right politics are
> >> >> >> >evidence of extreme evil, racism, sexism, antisexuality, greed, etc.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> said the shithead who wants the struggling working class to support
> >> >> >> and pay reparations to the underclass,
No, the rich. By "rich" I mean everybody above, say, $80K per family
per year. These are the over-privileged who CAUSE the poverty of the
underclass with their rampant greed, and who impoverish further the
disadvantaged by investing in a second or third rental property to
amass a nest egg for a kushy retirement.
> >> >> And as I said, not only are you a scuzbag limousine liberal, you are
> >> >> on record as saying that sex between adults and "consenting" children
> >> >> does no harm to the children and may be beneficial.
> >> >----------------------------
>
> >> >No,
>
> >> Yes. Even Alec Baldwin, limousine liberal and all-around asshole, isn't a
> >> pedophile.
-----------------------------------
Neither am I. The notion that I am is just your dishonest posture.
> society's opinion of one who would even suggest adult-child sexual
> relations.
------------------------------
Society has no "opinion", only people do, and as in your case, a
number of them are ignorant.
> >> I don't mean to sound unpleasant,
> >-----------------
> >Of course you do
>
> Well, in your case, perhaps I do, pervert.
-------------------
Of course you do, you're a shit-eating little racist sexuophobic hater.
> >> >And as for limousine liberal, you were TOLD you were wrong and yet
> >> >you persisted in your lie.
>
> >> And as I said, not only are you a scuzbag limousine liberal, you are
> >> on record as saying that sex between adults and "consenting" children
> >> does no harm to the children and may be beneficial.
> >----------------------------
> >No, I said consenting children,
>
> Yup. That's whay you said.
-------------------------------
No, you deleted it to distort my meaning...
No, I said consenting children, not "consenting" children. That DOESN'T
mean that their consent is mentally fabricated in fact or kind by some
honry adult or adults who just want to fuck them, that means that they
actively want whatever sexually explicit experience, and that they get
to stop it any time they don't like it.
> As if children can consent in that regard.
------------------------
Children are allowed and expected to consent to things every day.
Many such things are more dangerous than sex.
> >And as for limousine liberal, you were TOLD you were wrong and yet
>
> You deny it now, in fear of your communist cohorts.
-----------------------------
Why? That's nonsense! Fear? Cohorts? You're irrational and nonsensical.
And as for limousine liberal, you were TOLD you were wrong and yet
you persisted in your lie:
I don't know where you get such shit, we never made more than $25K
each in our lives, and we don't now. We've NEVER been to camp of any
kind, except the local state park in a cheap tent. My wife went to
music camp a couple times as a teen, but was unable to afford it after
that, and HER father was a high school BAND DIRECTOR!! Her mother was
a secretary and housewife. None of us has ever seen the Catskills, and
I don't frankly even know where they are, even though I've heard of
them in movies and on TV.
So as you see, you're a shit-fucking deluded little lying racist
piece of shit.
> >> Oh I remember your ilk before shopping malls were ubiquitous with the
> >> sleazy little family-owned appliance stores. Out on the front
> >> sidewalk were the damaged and dented refrigerators, ranges, etc. and
> >> how your kind bilked the lower classes and then behind their backs
> >> called them stupid goyim and even schwartzers.
> >------------------------
> >I'm not Jewish, Jews aren't like that, it's a Nazi myth, and you're
> >one sick fucking racist antisemitic little Nazi shit-eater.
>
> Your mama was an ambulance chaser deluxe, paving the way into a life a
> privilege.
----------------------------------
You're just lying pitifully now.
> Then you married into the Appliance Store racket.
---------------------------------
My father was an engineer, and my mother was a nurse.
My wife's father was a highschool band director and her mother was
a secretary. Nobody ever owned a business of any kind.
You're a liar!
> >> >And as I said:
> >> >Difference is, honestly, Left politics are good, Right politics are
> >> >evidence of extreme evil, racism, sexism, antisexuality, greed, etc.
> >>
> >> Your philosophies are not driven by humanitarianism but by your fear
> >> that the working class and no-loads will uprise and invade your
> >> privileged existence.
> >--------------------
> >Since I have no such "priveleged existence", you're nothing
> >but a fucking loon with racist delusions.
>
> Your words are fales.
-------------------------
Your words are lies!
> >> American left-wing weenies fear those who make
> >> the most noise,
> >--------------------
> >WE make the most noise!
>
> Loud crying and wailing born of fear.
----------------------------
No. Anger, you shitwad.
> >> so you embrace this share-the-wealth scheme even
> >> though it will kill the working class.
> >-------------------
> >It will free the working class and make the wealthy class join their
> >ranks as is fair and fitting.
>
> It will drop the working class into the po' class.
--------------------------
Liar.
It will free the working class and make the wealthy class join their
ranks as is fair and fitting.
> >> But maybe that's good; when
> >> the working class become po' they'll hunt your scalp, pervert.
> >-------------------------------
> >So you want us to believe that taking the wealthy down will somehow
> >impoverish the working class???
>
> Taking the working class down will put an end to you.
---------------------
You're a moron.
> Better build bigger gates around your compound.
---------------------------
Nonsense. Liar. It will free the working class and make the wealthy
class join their ranks as is fair and fitting.
So you want us to believe that taking the wealthy down will somehow
Way Back Jack
<rst...@armory.com> wrote:
>Way Back Jack wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 17:08:44 -0700, "R. Steve Walz"
>> <rst...@armory.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >Difference is, honestly, Left politics are good, Right politics are
>> >> >> >> >evidence of extreme evil, racism, sexism, antisexuality, greed, etc.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> said the shithead who wants the struggling working class to support
>> >> >> >> and pay reparations to the underclass,
>--------
>No, the rich. By "rich" I mean everybody above, say, $80K per family
>per year.
Yup.
The middle class.
Even if they make faaaarrrr greater than $80K, they ain't necessarily
rich.
The rich are the the Bush family, Kerry, Edwards, Kennedy and other
limo liberals like y'all, Sol.
>
>> >> >> And as I said, not only are you a scuzbag limousine liberal, you are
>> >> >> on record as saying that sex between adults and "consenting" children
>> >> >> does no harm to the children and may be beneficial.
>> >> >----------------------------
>>
>> >> >No,
>>
>> >> Yes. Even Alec Baldwin, limousine liberal and all-around asshole, isn't a
>> >> pedophile.
>-----------------------------------
>Neither am I.
Another one like you and Baldwin is Paul Newman who said, "I have too
much money and don't mind giving it away."
That's cool, Paul, but don't ask working people to give theirs away.
>> society's opinion of one who would even suggest adult-child sexual
>> relations.
>------------------------------
>Society has no "opinion", only people do, and as in your case, a
>number of them are ignorant.
Oh, about 90% of them would call you a pedophile.
>
>> >> I don't mean to sound unpleasant,
>> >-----------------
>> >Of course you do
>>
>> Well, in your case, perhaps I do, pervert.
>-------------------
>Of course you do, you're a shit-eating little racist sexuophobic hater.
Actually, I hate left wingers and pedophiles.
>
>> >> >And as for limousine liberal, you were TOLD you were wrong and yet
>> >> >you persisted in your lie.
>>
>> >> And as I said, not only are you a scuzbag limousine liberal, you are
>> >> on record as saying that sex between adults and "consenting" children
>> >> does no harm to the children and may be beneficial.
>> >----------------------------
>> >No, I said consenting children,
>>
>> Yup. That's whay you said.
>-------------------------------
>No, you deleted it to distort my meaning...
>
>No, I said consenting children, not "consenting" children.
Yup, you sho nuff did.
>
>> As if children can consent in that regard.
>------------------------
>Children are allowed and expected to consent to things every day.
>Many such things are more dangerous than sex.
That's like saying "I don't mind if Johnny drinks out of the toilet as
long as he doesn't play with matches."
>> >And as for limousine liberal, you were TOLD you were wrong and yet
>>
>> You deny it now, in fear of your communist cohorts.
>-----------------------------
>Why? That's nonsense! Fear? Cohorts? You're irrational and nonsensical.
So you admit that even the commies won't get involved with a nutcake
pedo?
>> Your mama was an ambulance chaser deluxe, paving the way into a life a
>> privilege.
>----------------------------------
>You're just lying pitifully now.
You must be the one who lied ... cuz that's exactly what you said.
>> Then you married into the Appliance Store racket.
>---------------------------------
>My father was an engineer, and my mother was a nurse.
>My wife's father was a highschool band director and her mother was
>a secretary. Nobody ever owned a business of any kind.
>
>You're a liar!
So an engineer and an ambulance chaser.
And that's your definition of po' folks?
>
>> >> >And as I said:
>> >> >Difference is, honestly, Left politics are good, Right politics are
>> >> >evidence of extreme evil, racism, sexism, antisexuality, greed, etc.
>> >>
>> >> Your philosophies are not driven by humanitarianism but by your fear
>> >> that the working class and no-loads will uprise and invade your
>> >> privileged existence.
>> >--------------------
>> >Since I have no such "priveleged existence", you're nothing
>> >but a fucking loon with racist delusions.
>>
>> Your words are fales.
>-------------------------
>Your words are lies!
You're a perverted commie with no future in the US of A.
>
>> >> American left-wing weenies fear those who make
>> >> the most noise,
>> >--------------------
>> >WE make the most noise!
>>
>> Loud crying and wailing born of fear.
>----------------------------
>No. Anger, you shitwad.
So tell me, pervert: How many Americans are dying to emigrtae to
Castro's socialist paradise vis-a-vis the number trying to emigrate to
America?
>
>> >> so you embrace this share-the-wealth scheme even
>> >> though it will kill the working class.
>> >-------------------
>> >It will free the working class and make the wealthy class join their
>> >ranks as is fair and fitting.
>>
>> It will drop the working class into the po' class.
>--------------------------
>Liar.
>It will free the working class and make the wealthy class join their
>ranks as is fair and fitting.
Taking what little the working class has managed to save and giving to
those no-loads whom you fear will be your destruction.
And I'll laugh.
>
>> >> But maybe that's good; when
>> >> the working class become po' they'll hunt your scalp, pervert.
>> >-------------------------------
>> >So you want us to believe that taking the wealthy down will somehow
>> >impoverish the working class???
>>
>> Taking the working class down will put an end to you.
>---------------------
>You're a moron.
And scum like you are in the distinct, infintesimal minority.
Thank Gawd.
>
>> Better build bigger gates around your compound.
>---------------------------
>Nonsense. Liar. It will free the working class and make the wealthy
>class join their ranks as is fair and fitting.
The ex-working class will exterminate you, like the roach you are.
>So you want us to believe that taking the wealthy down will somehow
>impoverish the working class???
The workers will hunt you & your fat-farm wife, pervert.
Jamie Brinkoeter
"R. Steve Walz" <rst...@armory.com> wrote in message
<By "rich" I mean everybody above, say, $80K per family
> per year. These are the over-privileged who CAUSE the poverty of the
> underclass with their rampant greed, and who impoverish further the
> disadvantaged by investing in a second or third rental property to
> amass a nest egg for a kushy retirement.
>
>
You're joking, right? I guess it's a matter of perspective. I don't anyone
with $80K a year income who consider themselves rich, let alone have enough
money to invest in rental property. Is there something wrong with saving for
retirement?
aztek
> >> >> >> >> said the shithead who wants the struggling
> >> >> >> >> working class to support
> >> >> >> >> and pay reparations to the underclass,
> >--------
> >No, the rich. By "rich" I mean everybody above, say,
> > $80K per family per year.
>
> Yup.
> The middle class.
> Even if they make faaaarrrr greater than $80K, they ain't
> necessarily
> rich.
DAMN STRAIGHT ! Walz, you're abso-fuckin-lutely
NUTS if you think $80K is rich. We make slightly more
than that, and about all it accomplishes is disqualifying
my wife from the welfare she was on before we married,
and now SHE COMPLAINS about our standard of living
compared to WHAT SHE USED TO GET !!!!
Granted, part of this is inflation - we live today about
like I lived on $18K when I started working.
As for owning property - yeah right... does a
car really count ? Oh yeah, I don't actually own
that, either... damn. About the time I pay it off,
it'll be broken enough that I'll have to go into hock
again to stay on the road, and its staying on the
road that's one of the critical capabilities for
staying employed to begin with.
And retirement ? Dream on...
Add to that the way that the taxes spike for income
increases, and you need to make over $150K/yr to start
seeing any sky at all. Heck, the one year that I actually
got ahead a little was when I got an extra profit-sharing
bonus at work, and it put our income over the
social-security cap, so that some of our income wasn't
FICA'd to death - what a relieve that was ! It disappeared
though because they raised that cap way beyond our
reach now... damn (again).
> The rich are the the Bush family, Kerry, Edwards,
> Kennedy and other limo liberals like y'all, Sol.
Even though I don't know who "the rich" really are,
I know I'm not one of them, and its seems Walz
doesn't know much about it, either... unless he's
just drastically mis-spoke hisself.
R. Steve Walz
>
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 18:53:16 -0700, "R. Steve Walz"
> <rst...@armory.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >Difference is, honestly, Left politics are good, Right politics are
> >> >> >> >> >evidence of extreme evil, racism, sexism, antisexuality, greed, etc.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> said the shithead who wants the struggling working class to support
> >> >> >> >> and pay reparations to the underclass,
> >--------
> > No, the rich. By "rich" I mean everybody above, say, $80K per
> > poverty of the underclass with their rampant greed, and who
> > impoverish further the disadvantaged by investing in a second
> > or third rental property to amass a nest egg for a kushy
> > retirement.
> Yup.
> The middle class.
> Even if they make faaaarrrr greater than $80K, they ain't necessarily
> rich.
-----------------------
Since they aren't in the middle of Americans by income, since in fact
families above $80K are the top 20%, they ARE the rich, they are NOT
any fucking "middle class". They only SAY they are the "middle class"
to try to assuage their guilt and hide their illicit sense of
entitlement.
> The rich are the the Bush family, Kerry, Edwards, Kennedy and other
> limo liberals like y'all, Sol.
----------------------
They have no relation to my social strata, they are the super-rich.
> >> >> >> And as I said, not only are you a scuzbag limousine liberal, you are
> >> >> >> on record as saying that sex between adults and "consenting" children
> >> >> >> does no harm to the children and may be beneficial.
----------------------------
No, I said consenting children, not "consenting" children.
That DOESN'T mean that their consent is mentally fabricated
in fact or kind by some horny adult or adults who just want
to fuck them, that means that they actively want whatever
sexually explicit experience, and that they get to stop it
any time they don't like it.
> >> >> Yes. Even Alec Baldwin, limousine liberal and all-around asshole, isn't a
> >> >> pedophile.
> >-----------------------------------
> >Neither am I. The notion that I am is just your dishonest posture.
>
> Another one like you and Baldwin is Paul Newman who said, "I have too
> much money and don't mind giving it away."
---------------------------------
Since i don't have any fortune like that, i'm unrelated to that
economic stratum.
> That's cool, Paul, but don't ask working people to give theirs away.
---------------------------------
The rich above $80K don't "work", they piddle at hobby jobs and extract
pay four times that of workers who REALLY work!
> >> society's opinion of one who would even suggest adult-child sexual
> >> relations.
> >------------------------------
> >Society has no "opinion", only people do, and as in your case, a
> >number of them are ignorant.
>
> Oh, about 90% of them would call you a pedophile.
----------------------------
Actually less than 50% once they actually responded to ME and what
*I* say, and not your dishonest disingenuous rabble-rousing.
> I don't mean to sound unpleasant,
-----------------
Of course you do, you're a shit-eating little racist sexuophobic hater.
> >> Well, in your case, perhaps I do, pervert.
> >-------------------
> >Of course you do, you're a shit-eating little racist sexuophobic hater.
>
> Actually, I hate left wingers and pedophiles.
-------------------------
You're a shit-fucking little racist sexuophobic hater.
And as for limousine liberal, you were TOLD you were wrong and yet
you persisted in your lie:
I don't know where you get such shit, we never made more than $25K
each in our lives, and we don't now. We've NEVER been to camp of any
kind, except the local state park in a cheap tent. My wife went to
music camp a couple times as a teen, but was unable to afford it after
that, and HER father was a high school BAND DIRECTOR!! Her mother was
a secretary and housewife. None of us has ever seen the Catskills, and
I don't frankly even know where they are, even though I've heard of
them in movies and on TV.
So as you see, you're a shit-fucking deluded little lying racist
piece of shit.
> >> Yup. That's whay you said.
> >-------------------------------
> >No, you deleted it to distort my meaning...
> >
> >No, I said consenting children, not "consenting" children.
>
> Yup, you sho nuff did.
---------------------------
That means NOT phony "consent", but actual consent.
> >> As if children can consent in that regard.
> >------------------------
> >Children are allowed and expected to consent to things every day.
> >Many such things are more dangerous than sex.
>
> That's like saying "I don't mind if Johnny drinks out of the toilet as
> long as he doesn't play with matches."
-------------------------
Sex isn't a toilet. Nor is it playing with fire. The things children
consent to everyday that are more dangerous than sex are things like
playing football, skiing, riding in cars for any purpose, etc. Those
are all statistically MORE dangerous than any sexual outcome.
> >> Then you married into the Appliance Store racket.
> >---------------------------------
> >My father was an engineer, and my mother was a nurse.
> >My wife's father was a highschool band director and her mother was
> >a secretary. Nobody ever owned a business of any kind.
> >
> >You're a liar!
>
> So an engineer and an ambulance chaser.
--------------------------
An ambulance chaser, since you're not very good at the meaning of
words, would be an sleazy attorney. My mother was a nurse.
> So tell me, pervert: How many Americans are dying to emigrtae to
> Castro's socialist paradise vis-a-vis the number trying to emigrate to
> America?
--------------------
Cuba is resource deprived, it's a sterile sandy island. If they were
not blocked from legitimate trade by rich US politicos, people WOULD
want to emigrate!
> >> >> so you embrace this share-the-wealth scheme even
> >> >> though it will kill the working class.
> >> >-------------------
> >> >It will free the working class and make the wealthy class join their
> >> >ranks as is fair and fitting.
> >>
> >> It will drop the working class into the po' class.
> >--------------------------
> >Liar.
> >It will free the working class and make the wealthy class join their
> >ranks as is fair and fitting.
>
> Taking what little the working class has managed to save and giving to
> those no-loads whom you fear will be your destruction.
----------------------------------
This "working class"/"middle class" that you can't describe correctly
but want to defend, makes most of the money ON EARTH! The "little"
they saved is a LIE!! In fact, YOU'RE a lie, and that's about all you
are!
> >> Taking the working class down will put an end to you.
> >---------------------
> >You're a moron.
>
> And scum like you are in the distinct, infintesimal minority.
>
> Thank Gawd.
-----------------------
Majority, and we'll erase your kind from the earth.
> >> Better build bigger gates around your compound.
> >---------------------------
> >Nonsense. Liar. It will free the working class and make the wealthy
> >class join their ranks as is fair and fitting.
>
> The ex-working class will exterminate you, like the roach you are.
-------------------------------
If the actual "wrking class" were any poorer, they couldn't afford
the guns or cars to drive anywhere.
> >So you want us to believe that taking the wealthy down will somehow
> >impoverish the working class???
>
> The workers will hunt you & your fat-farm wife, pervert.
------------------------
You're nothing but a shit-lcking lying little racist right-wing hater.
Steve
R. Steve Walz
Not if everybody made that much. But otherwise, yes there is. I don't
care WHO your deluded friends who make over $80K THINK they are, but
they ARE the top 20% of income earners, and if they manage to spend
it all on beer and pizza and SUVs and don't save, then they are just
stupid, because MOST people with that kind of money start with their
own house and then buy one or two more and put poor people in them at
inflated rents and have approximately $2 million in their estate at
death! That's as opposed to HALF of ALL people managing to save
precisely NUTHIN' in their lives beyond about two months living
expenses!! And that's because it all goes to rent and actual expenses
since they often don't own even a used car outright!!
Steve
Marie
news:jkWWh.987$nR1.594@trnddc06...
> You're joking, right? I guess it's a matter of perspective. I don't anyone
> with $80K a year income who consider themselves rich, let alone have
> enough money to invest in rental property. Is there something wrong with
> saving for retirement?
$80K/yr in my area is definately wealthy. When most people around me are
making $20-30K, $80 is definately high-livin'.
Marie
RogerM
>
> DAMN STRAIGHT ! Walz, you're abso-fuckin-lutely
> NUTS if you think $80K is rich. We make slightly more
> than that, and about all it accomplishes is disqualifying
> my wife from the welfare she was on before we married,
> and now SHE COMPLAINS about our standard of living
> compared to WHAT SHE USED TO GET !!!!
>
Congrats on your choice of brides.
RogerM
>
> $80K/yr in my area is definately wealthy. When most people around me are
> making $20-30K, $80 is definately high-livin'.
> Marie
That's for the whole family, not one person.
Marie
news:462CD789...@ns.sympatico.ca...
Yes, lots of families have sahms, or rarely sahds. Most families here make
less than a total of $30K. And in some families, one adult makes barely
above minimum wage and the other adult will have a minimum wage job. Of
course, education factors in, as does a family's priorities(such as child
raising, having a new car, things like that).
Marie
R. Steve Walz
>
> > >No, the rich. By "rich" I mean everybody above, say,
> > > $80K per family per year.
> >
> > Yup.
> > The middle class.
> > Even if they make faaaarrrr greater than $80K, they ain't
> > necessarily
> > rich.
>
> DAMN STRAIGHT ! Walz, you're abso-fuckin-lutely
> NUTS if you think $80K is rich. We make slightly more
> than that, and about all it accomplishes is disqualifying
> my wife from the welfare she was on before we married,
> and now SHE COMPLAINS about our standard of living
> compared to WHAT SHE USED TO GET !!!!
She sounds like a really spoiled piece of work!!
> Granted, part of this is inflation - we live today about
> like I lived on $18K when I started working.
-------------------
Inflation the last 20 years has only been 8%.
Don't be an ass.
> As for owning property - yeah right... does a
> car really count ? Oh yeah, I don't actually own
> that, either... damn. About the time I pay it off,
> it'll be broken enough that I'll have to go into hock
> again to stay on the road, and its staying on the
> road that's one of the critical capabilities for
> staying employed to begin with.
-------------------------
Buy used and fix it up slowly, it will last 20 years
and cost you a tenth of a new car. Anyone who buys
a car new is costing himself $10K a pop for nuthin'.
> And retirement ? Dream on...
-------------------------
Retirement without owning OTHER people's homes in the USA is a
pipe-dream. Should it be?? You can change it if you want to.
But don't count on a luxury retirement. Nobody deserves that.
> Add to that the way that the taxes spike for income
> increases, and you need to make over $150K/yr to start
> seeing any sky at all. Heck, the one year that I actually
> got ahead a little was when I got an extra profit-sharing
> bonus at work, and it put our income over the
> social-security cap, so that some of our income wasn't
> FICA'd to death - what a relieve that was ! It disappeared
> though because they raised that cap way beyond our
> reach now... damn (again).
----------------------------
FICA doesn't do anything to death, it's a flat percentage.
I love you morons who don't seem to even know where your
money goes, you bunch must not even do your own taxes because
you don't even fucking know how!
> Even though I don't know who "the rich" really are,
> I know I'm not one of them, and its seems Walz
> doesn't know much about it, either... unless he's
> just drastically mis-spoke hisself.
--------------------------------
Go look up the USA income stats if you don't believe me.
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/WealthDist_TheNation.pdf
If you can't MUCH MORE than "get by" on $80K then your spending has
gone absolutely hog-wild and you're making the mistake of imagining
that that is NORMAL!! $80K is the level at which you're regarded
as a prime borrower for a home loan, and at anything more than
$80K you're prime borrowe for ANOTHER home every ten years as
well, ESPECIALLY if you're going to derive income bvy renting it!
Steve
Marie
news:1177342153....@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> DAMN STRAIGHT ! Walz, you're abso-fuckin-lutely
> NUTS if you think $80K is rich. We make slightly more
> than that, and about all it accomplishes is disqualifying
> my wife from the welfare she was on before we married,
> and now SHE COMPLAINS about our standard of living
> compared to WHAT SHE USED TO GET !!!!
OMG- I simply can't imagine having a problem if your income is $80K!! Maybe
this has to do with what part of the country you live in? And can people on
welfare actually get that much a year!?!? If our income was $80K I'd be in
heaven. We lived on $20K for years- having 2 kids, 2 used cars, with our
rent for a 2bdrom being $350.(then there was electricity, phone and
internet, auto insurance, and medical bills b/c there was no insurance) And
we had spending money and were able to eat out once a week as a family and
rent movies and go on dates while Grandma babysat. When a family of 4 can
live on so "little", it makes it hard to comprehend how someone making $80K
could have any problems. Hell, for the first year my husband was in the job
he has now, our income was less than $16K before taxes. Now he has moved up
several positions and we no longer live check-to-check (and boy do I feel
free!!) but my family of 5 lived on less than a fifth of what you make!
Marie
waybackjack
<rst...@armory.com> wrote:
>Way Back Jack wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 18:53:16 -0700, "R. Steve Walz"
>> <rst...@armory.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >Difference is, honestly, Left politics are good, Right politics are
>> >> >> >> >> >evidence of extreme evil, racism, sexism, antisexuality, greed, etc.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> said the shithead who wants the struggling working class to support
>> >> >> >> >> and pay reparations to the underclass,
>> >--------
>> > No, the rich. By "rich" I mean everybody above, say, $80K per
>> > family per year.
>
>
>> Yup.
>> The middle class.
>> Even if they make faaaarrrr greater than $80K, they ain't necessarily
>> rich.
>-----------------------
>Since they aren't in the middle of Americans by income, since in fact
>families above $80K are the top 20%, they ARE the rich, they are NOT
>any fucking "middle class". They only SAY they are the "middle class"
>to try to assuage their guilt and hide their illicit sense of
>entitlement.
People who make even more than $80K live from paycheck-to-paycheck
with maybe two weeks vacation in the local mountains and seashore.
Take that away to give to the no-loads and they'll kill you.
>
>> The rich are the the Bush family, Kerry, Edwards, Kennedy and other
>> limo liberals like y'all, Sol.
>----------------------
>They have no relation to my social strata, they are the super-rich.
Ya mean they got theirs not by selling faulty appliances to the lower
classes?
>
>> >> >> >> And as I said, not only are you a scuzbag limousine liberal, you are
>> >> >> >> on record as saying that sex between adults and "consenting" children
>> >> >> >> does no harm to the children and may be beneficial.
>----------------------------
>No, I said consenting children, not "consenting" children.
Indeed ya did.
And with wifey away at the fat farm.
Helene in finishing school.
And Yehuda away at tennis camp.
You can cruise the playgrounds.
>
>> >> >> Yes. Even Alec Baldwin, limousine liberal and all-around asshole, isn't a
>> >> >> pedophile.
>> >-----------------------------------
>> >Neither am I. The notion that I am is just your dishonest posture.
>>
>> Another one like you and Baldwin is Paul Newman who said, "I have too
>> much money and don't mind giving it away."
>---------------------------------
>Since i don't have any fortune like that, i'm unrelated to that
>economic stratum.
He made it in flix, not selling junk to the poor and ignint.
>
>> That's cool, Paul, but don't ask working people to give theirs away.
>---------------------------------
>The rich above $80K don't "work", they piddle at hobby jobs and extract
>pay four times that of workers who REALLY work!
When your ilk "shares-the-wealth" there's still a shitload left over
for your golf camps, etc.
Same ain't true for working class.
>
>> >> society's opinion of one who would even suggest adult-child sexual
>> >> relations.
>> >------------------------------
>> >Society has no "opinion", only people do, and as in your case, a
>> >number of them are ignorant.
>>
>> Oh, about 90% of them would call you a pedophile.
>----------------------------
>Actually less than 50% once they actually responded to ME and what
>*I* say, and not your dishonest disingenuous rabble-rousing.
Nope. On Usenet, it's been well over 90% agin ya.
Do a google and see.
>
>> I don't mean to sound unpleasant,
>-----------------
>Of course you do, you're a shit-eating little racist sexuophobic hater.
Well, in your case, perhaps I do mean to sound unpleasant.
>
>> >> Well, in your case, perhaps I do, pervert.
>> >-------------------
>> >Of course you do, you're a shit-eating little racist sexuophobic hater.
>>
>> Actually, I hate left wingers and pedophiles.
>-------------------------
>You're a shit-fucking little racist sexuophobic hater.
Tongue-tied babble.
>And as for limousine liberal, you were TOLD you were wrong and yet
>you persisted in your lie:
You deny it now in fear of your red buddies.
>
>> >> Yup. That's whay you said.
>> >-------------------------------
>> >No, you deleted it to distort my meaning...
>> >
>> >No, I said consenting children, not "consenting" children.
>>
>> Yup, you sho nuff did.
>---------------------------
>That means NOT phony "consent", but actual consent.
As interpreted by pedophiles?
CLUE: Society says children cannot consent in that regard.
Don't believe me?
Try it.
>
>> >> As if children can consent in that regard.
>> >------------------------
>> >Children are allowed and expected to consent to things every day.
>> >Many such things are more dangerous than sex.
>>
>> That's like saying "I don't mind if Johnny drinks out of the toilet as
>> long as he doesn't play with matches."
>-------------------------
>Sex isn't a toilet. Nor is it playing with fire. The things children
>consent to everyday that are more dangerous than sex are things like
>playing football, skiing, riding in cars for any purpose, etc. Those
>are all statistically MORE dangerous than any sexual outcome.
Don't know why you're trying to convince the Usenet community of your
horseshit.
Try lobbying your lawmakers.
See what they say.
>
>> >> Then you married into the Appliance Store racket.
>> >---------------------------------
>> >My father was an engineer, and my mother was a nurse.
>> >My wife's father was a highschool band director and her mother was
>> >a secretary. Nobody ever owned a business of any kind.
>> >
>> >You're a liar!
>>
>> So an engineer and an ambulance chaser.
>--------------------------
>An ambulance chaser, since you're not very good at the meaning of
>words, would be an sleazy attorney. My mother was a nurse.
She nursed the hell out of frivolous lawsuits?
>
>> So tell me, pervert: How many Americans are dying to emigrtae to
>> Castro's socialist paradise vis-a-vis the number trying to emigrate to
>> America?
>--------------------
>Cuba is resource deprived, it's a sterile sandy island. If they were
>not blocked from legitimate trade by rich US politicos, people WOULD
>want to emigrate!
Translation: If it were capitalist, peeps would be flocking there.
I see.
>
>> >> >> so you embrace this share-the-wealth scheme even
>> >> >> though it will kill the working class.
>> >> >-------------------
>> >> >It will free the working class and make the wealthy class join their
>> >> >ranks as is fair and fitting.
>> >>
>> >> It will drop the working class into the po' class.
>> >--------------------------
>> >Liar.
>> >It will free the working class and make the wealthy class join their
>> >ranks as is fair and fitting.
>>
>> Taking what little the working class has managed to save and giving to
>> those no-loads whom you fear will be your destruction.
>----------------------------------
>This "working class"/"middle class" that you can't describe correctly
>but want to defend, makes most of the money ON EARTH! The "little"
>they saved is a LIE!! In fact, YOU'RE a lie, and that's about all you
>are!
The term "most of the money" is disingenuous given the number of
middle class peeps.
But you're showing what I predicted: you hate the middle class.
You want everyone po' except you and your limo liberal buddies.
>
>> >> Taking the working class down will put an end to you.
>> >---------------------
>> >You're a moron.
>>
>> And scum like you are in the distinct, infintesimal minority.
>>
>> Thank Gawd.
>-----------------------
>Majority, and we'll erase your kind from the earth.
Again, you're showing your hatred toward the working class.
>
>> >> Better build bigger gates around your compound.
>> >---------------------------
>> >Nonsense. Liar. It will free the working class and make the wealthy
>> >class join their ranks as is fair and fitting.
>>
>> The ex-working class will exterminate you, like the roach you are.
>-------------------------------
>If the actual "wrking class" were any poorer, they couldn't afford
>the guns or cars to drive anywhere.
That's why you want them poorer.
>
>> >So you want us to believe that taking the wealthy down will somehow
>> >impoverish the working class???
>>
>> The workers will hunt you & your fat-farm wife, pervert.
>------------------------
>You're nothing but a shit-lcking lying little racist right-wing hater.
>Steve
I hate right wings???
Anim8rFSK
RogerM <roger...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
so glad they're breeding. :\
Arthur Lipscomb
"Marie" <annad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0im8h$eb0$1...@news04.infoave.net...
> "aztek" <az...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:1177342153....@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>> DAMN STRAIGHT ! Walz, you're abso-fuckin-lutely
>> NUTS if you think $80K is rich. We make slightly more
>> than that, and about all it accomplishes is disqualifying
>> my wife from the welfare she was on before we married,
>> and now SHE COMPLAINS about our standard of living
>> compared to WHAT SHE USED TO GET !!!!
>
> OMG- I simply can't imagine having a problem if your income is $80K!!
> Maybe this has to do with what part of the country you live in?
It must be.
I live in Santa Clara County where (according to a quick internet search),
the median income for a household is $74,335, and the median income for a
family is $81,717.
And can people on
> welfare actually get that much a year!?!? If our income was $80K I'd be in
> heaven. We lived on $20K for years- having 2 kids, 2 used cars, with our
> rent for a 2bdrom being $350.(then there was electricity, phone and
> internet, auto insurance, and medical bills b/c there was no insurance)
> And we had spending money and were able to eat out once a week as a family
> and rent movies and go on dates while Grandma babysat.
In the city I live in you'd need about $1000 a month just for a small one
bedroom apartment. I was talking to a relative who lives in another state a
few weeks ago and was amazed that she could rent a large house for about
$500 a month.
I think most people tend to spend what they make. So someone earning
$20,000 a year is spending $20,000 a year without much left over and someone
earning $80,000 a year is also spending $80,000 a year without much left
over. A person making $80,000 is not going to live the lifestyle of a
person making $20,000 and pocket the rest. Personally, as my income has
gone up so has my spending.
But what does any of this have to do with Alec Baldwin?
Marie
news:s96dnTrkx7PMn7Db...@comcast.com...
> In the city I live in you'd need about $1000 a month just for a small one
> bedroom apartment. I was talking to a relative who lives in another state
> a few weeks ago and was amazed that she could rent a large house for about
> $500 a month.
Yeah rent is like that here also. It varies, whether it's rural or suburban,
what neighborhood and whether it's in a large city. But our rent for a 3
bedroom now is $450, and we're in the process of buying a home.
> I think most people tend to spend what they make. So someone earning
> $20,000 a year is spending $20,000 a year without much left over and
> someone earning $80,000 a year is also spending $80,000 a year without
> much left over. A person making $80,000 is not going to live the
> lifestyle of a person making $20,000 and pocket the rest. Personally, as
> my income has gone up so has my spending.
Well that seems silly to me, to spend it just 'cause ya got it. I try to
teach my children not to live that type of lifestyle. We've been able to
have the things we have by not spending more than we needed to on bills and
groceries. That way, the extra adds up and over time it turns into a week at
the beach, a day at the zoo, Christmas,... And I actually know many people
who live this way- not overspending.
Of course, once our income got to where we weren't strictly living on each
dollar, we were able to put the kids in art classes, dance, soccer, whatever
they are interested in. So looking over what I just wrote, we are actually
overspending, but to me it's for a good reason, educational and physical,
not to have the coolest clothes and have my hair and nails done which I
think are absolutely stupid things to waste money on.
> But what does any of this have to do with Alec Baldwin?
I don't know, I guess nothing, but this is what I felt like responding to.
Marie
Anim8rFSK
"Arthur Lipscomb" <art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
> It must be.
> I live in Santa Clara County where (according to a quick internet search),
> the median income for a household is $74,335, and the median income for a
> family is $81,717.
I must be missing some fine distinction, but what's the difference
between a household and a family?
jack ak
I'd guess a household may have residents who are not related,
while a family may include one or two parents plus children.
Santa Clara County might have unrelated workers sharing rent.
Do all family members occupy the same residence?
Arthur Lipscomb
> "Arthur Lipscomb" <art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote in message
> news:s96dnTrkx7PMn7Db...@comcast.com...
>> In the city I live in you'd need about $1000 a month just for a small one
>> bedroom apartment. I was talking to a relative who lives in another
>> state a few weeks ago and was amazed that she could rent a large house
>> for about $500 a month.
>
> Yeah rent is like that here also. It varies, whether it's rural or
> suburban, what neighborhood and whether it's in a large city. But our rent
> for a 3 bedroom now is $450, and we're in the process of buying a home.
I really don't want to hear anymore about how much cheaper it is to live
everywhere else. :-(
>
>> I think most people tend to spend what they make. So someone earning
>> $20,000 a year is spending $20,000 a year without much left over and
>> someone earning $80,000 a year is also spending $80,000 a year without
>> much left over. A person making $80,000 is not going to live the
>> lifestyle of a person making $20,000 and pocket the rest. Personally, as
>> my income has gone up so has my spending.
>
> Well that seems silly to me, to spend it just 'cause ya got it. I try to
> teach my children not to live that type of lifestyle. We've been able to
> have the things we have by not spending more than we needed to on bills
> and groceries. That way, the extra adds up and over time it turns into a
> week at the beach, a day at the zoo, Christmas,... And I actually know
> many people who live this way- not overspending.
> Of course, once our income got to where we weren't strictly living on each
> dollar, we were able to put the kids in art classes, dance, soccer,
> whatever they are interested in. So looking over what I just wrote, we are
> actually overspending, but to me it's for a good reason, educational and
> physical, not to have the coolest clothes and have my hair and nails done
> which I think are absolutely stupid things to waste money on.
Somewhere out there there's someone living on $10,000 a year who would say
it's foolsing to waste money on art classes, dance, etc. It's all relative.
Anim8rFSK
jack ak <akj...@excite.com> wrote:
Yeah, that's part of the weirdness. They must be defining 'family
households' and 'non family households' somehow. Obviously they can't
mean 'family not living under the same roof'
R. Steve Walz
No it's not. He HAS to spend the $10K to LIVE, the $80K is spent as
LUXURY income. And $80K is derived by DEPRIVING ANOTHER hard working
family of it for NO HONEST REASON!!
Steve
R. Steve Walz
Liar.
> >> The rich are the the Bush family, Kerry, Edwards, Kennedy and other
> >> limo liberals like y'all, Sol.
> >----------------------
> >They have no relation to my social strata, they are the super-rich.
>
> Ya mean they got theirs not by selling faulty appliances to the lower
> classes?
--------------------------------
Precisely, you liar!
> >> >> >> >> And as I said, not only are you a scuzbag limousine liberal, you are
> >> >> >> >> on record as saying that sex between adults and "consenting" children
> >> >> >> >> does no harm to the children and may be beneficial.
> >----------------------------
> >No, I said consenting children, not "consenting" children.
>
> Indeed ya did.
>
> And with wifey away at the fat farm.
>
> Helene in finishing school.
>
> And Yehuda away at tennis camp.
>
> You can cruise the playgrounds.
----------------------------
You're nothing but shit-lipped hater-filth!!
> >> >> >> Yes. Even Alec Baldwin, limousine liberal and all-around asshole, isn't a
> >> >> >> pedophile.
> >> >-----------------------------------
> >> >Neither am I. The notion that I am is just your dishonest posture.
> >>
> >> Another one like you and Baldwin is Paul Newman who said, "I have too
> >> much money and don't mind giving it away."
> >---------------------------------
> >Since i don't have any fortune like that, i'm unrelated to that
> >economic stratum.
>
> He made it in flix, not selling junk to the poor and ignint.
-------------------
And I did neither, and you know it.
> >> That's cool, Paul, but don't ask working people to give theirs away.
> >---------------------------------
> >The rich above $80K don't "work", they piddle at hobby jobs and extract
> >pay four times that of workers who REALLY work!
>
> When your ilk "shares-the-wealth" there's still a shitload left over
> for your golf camps, etc.
>
> Same ain't true for working class.
---------------------------
You're a shit-lipped feces-tongued liar. You're filth!
> >> >> society's opinion of one who would even suggest adult-child sexual
> >> >> relations.
> >> >------------------------------
> >> >Society has no "opinion", only people do, and as in your case, a
> >> >number of them are ignorant.
> >>
> >> Oh, about 90% of them would call you a pedophile.
> >----------------------------
> >Actually less than 50% once they actually responded to ME and what
> >*I* say, and not your dishonest disingenuous rabble-rousing.
>
> Nope. On Usenet, it's been well over 90% agin ya.
>
> Do a google and see.
----------------------
Nope, or the topic of incest and sex with the young wouldn't be
the MOST popular search on Google!
> >> I don't mean to sound unpleasant,
> >-----------------
> >Of course you do, you're a shit-eating little racist sexuophobic hater.
>
> Well, in your case, perhaps I do mean to sound unpleasant.
-------------------------
You're a shit-lipped little pandering whore.
> >> >> Well, in your case, perhaps I do, pervert.
> >> >-------------------
> >> >Of course you do, you're a shit-eating little racist sexuophobic hater.
> >>
> >> Actually, I hate left wingers and pedophiles.
> >-------------------------
> >You're a shit-fucking little racist sexuophobic hater.
>
> Tongue-tied babble.
-------------------------
Tongue-tied?
YOU say it five times real fast, you shit-lipped asshole!
> >And as for limousine liberal, you were TOLD you were wrong and yet
> >you persisted in your lie:
>
> You deny it now in fear of your red buddies.
--------------------------
I have no "red buddies" that I fear, you shit-lipped liar.
> >> >> Yup. That's whay you said.
> >> >-------------------------------
> >> >No, you deleted it to distort my meaning...
> >> >
> >> >No, I said consenting children, not "consenting" children.
> >>
> >> Yup, you sho nuff did.
> >---------------------------
> >That means NOT phony "consent", but actual consent.
>
> As interpreted by pedophiles?
------------------
NO, by the children themselves!
> CLUE: Society says children cannot consent in that regard.
>
> Don't believe me?
>
> Try it.
----------------------
Irrelevant, they have never had it all explained to them.
As soon as we do they start qualifying, and saying, "Oh well,
I ddn't know that all you meant was THAT!" They always do this
when I explain it to them!!
> >> >> As if children can consent in that regard.
> >> >------------------------
> >> >Children are allowed and expected to consent to things every day.
> >> >Many such things are more dangerous than sex.
> >>
> >> That's like saying "I don't mind if Johnny drinks out of the toilet as
> >> long as he doesn't play with matches."
> >-------------------------
> >Sex isn't a toilet. Nor is it playing with fire. The things children
> >consent to everyday that are more dangerous than sex are things like
> >playing football, skiing, riding in cars for any purpose, etc. Those
> >are all statistically MORE dangerous than any sexual outcome.
>
> Don't know why you're trying to convince the Usenet community of your
> horseshit.
>
> Try lobbying your lawmakers.
>
> See what they say.
------------------------
They are too busy taking bribes and pandering.
> >> >> Then you married into the Appliance Store racket.
> >> >---------------------------------
> >> >My father was an engineer, and my mother was a nurse.
> >> >My wife's father was a highschool band director and her mother was
> >> >a secretary. Nobody ever owned a business of any kind.
> >> >
> >> >You're a liar!
> >>
> >> So an engineer and an ambulance chaser.
> >--------------------------
> >An ambulance chaser, since you're not very good at the meaning of
> >words, would be an sleazy attorney. My mother was a nurse.
>
> She nursed the hell out of frivolous lawsuits?
----------------------
You're a shit-lipped little liar, you disingenuous whore!
> >> So tell me, pervert: How many Americans are dying to emigrtae to
> >> Castro's socialist paradise vis-a-vis the number trying to emigrate to
> >> America?
> >--------------------
> >Cuba is resource deprived, it's a sterile sandy island. If they were
> >not blocked from legitimate trade by rich US politicos, people WOULD
> >want to emigrate!
>
> Translation: If it were capitalist, peeps would be flocking there.
> I see.
--------------------
No. If it were given a fair chance, we'd all want to go there.
> >> >> >> so you embrace this share-the-wealth scheme even
> >> >> >> though it will kill the working class.
> >> >> >-------------------
> >> >> >It will free the working class and make the wealthy class join their
> >> >> >ranks as is fair and fitting.
> >> >>
> >> >> It will drop the working class into the po' class.
> >> >--------------------------
> >> >Liar.
> >> >It will free the working class and make the wealthy class join their
> >> >ranks as is fair and fitting.
> >>
> >> Taking what little the working class has managed to save and giving to
> >> those no-loads whom you fear will be your destruction.
> >----------------------------------
> >This "working class"/"middle class" that you can't describe correctly
> >but want to defend, makes most of the money ON EARTH! The "little"
> >they saved is a LIE!! In fact, YOU'RE a lie, and that's about all you
> >are!
>
> The term "most of the money" is disingenuous given the number of
> middle class peeps.
-----------------------
Your "middle class" is the top 20%, you shit-lipped LIAR!
> But you're showing what I predicted: you hate the middle class.
------------------------
I hate the RULING class!!
> You want everyone po' except you and your limo liberal buddies.
-------------------------
You're a shit-lipped little liar.
> >> >> Taking the working class down will put an end to you.
> >> >---------------------
> >> >You're a moron.
> >>
> >> And scum like you are in the distinct, infintesimal minority.
> >>
> >> Thank Gawd.
> >-----------------------
> >Majority, and we'll erase your kind from the earth.
>
> Again, you're showing your hatred toward the working class.
-------------------------
RULING class, you fucking liar!
> >> >> Better build bigger gates around your compound.
> >> >---------------------------
> >> >Nonsense. Liar. It will free the working class and make the wealthy
> >> >class join their ranks as is fair and fitting.
> >>
> >> The ex-working class will exterminate you, like the roach you are.
> >-------------------------------
> >If the actual "wrking class" were any poorer, they couldn't afford
> >the guns or cars to drive anywhere.
>
> That's why you want them poorer.
-------------------------
I want the rich madeexactly as poor as everyone else!!
You're a shit-licking liar!
> >> >So you want us to believe that taking the wealthy down will somehow
> >> >impoverish the working class???
> >>
> >> The workers will hunt you & your fat-farm wife, pervert.
> >------------------------
> >You're nothing but a shit-lcking lying little racist right-wing hater.
> >Steve
>
> I hate right wings???
------------------------
No. You ARE one. Not "right-wing-hater", instead "right-wing hater".
Pay fucking attention, read for comprehension.
Steve
waybackjack
<rst...@armory.com> wrote:
It's true even in places like Hillbilly Haven, Mississippi.
And Gawd f'bid you should live in a place like the People's Socialist
Paradise Of Taxachusetts where they have a tax for every letter of the
alphabet.
>
>> >> The rich are the the Bush family, Kerry, Edwards, Kennedy and other
>> >> limo liberals like y'all, Sol.
>> >----------------------
>> >They have no relation to my social strata, they are the super-rich.
>>
>> Ya mean they got theirs not by selling faulty appliances to the lower
>> classes?
>--------------------------------
>Precisely, you liar!
I never said that the super-rich got that way by selling appliances to
the po'
Heck no, they were into bigger and better things, like murder.
>
>> >> >> >> >> And as I said, not only are you a scuzbag limousine liberal, you are
>> >> >> >> >> on record as saying that sex between adults and "consenting" children
>> >> >> >> >> does no harm to the children and may be beneficial.
>> >----------------------------
>> >No, I said consenting children, not "consenting" children.
>>
>> Indeed ya did.
>>
>> And with wifey away at the fat farm.
>>
>> Helene in finishing school.
>>
>> And Yehuda away at tennis camp.
>>
>> You can cruise the playgrounds.
>----------------------------
>You're nothing but shit-lipped hater-filth!!
Oh, is Yehuda at golf camp this week?
>
>> >> >> >> Yes. Even Alec Baldwin, limousine liberal and all-around asshole, isn't a
>> >> >> >> pedophile.
>> >> >-----------------------------------
>> >> >Neither am I. The notion that I am is just your dishonest posture.
>> >>
>> >> Another one like you and Baldwin is Paul Newman who said, "I have too
>> >> much money and don't mind giving it away."
>> >---------------------------------
>> >Since i don't have any fortune like that, i'm unrelated to that
>> >economic stratum.
>>
>> He made it in flix, not selling junk to the poor and ignint.
>-------------------
>And I did neither, and you know it.
You married into the "junk appliance empire."
>
>> >> That's cool, Paul, but don't ask working people to give theirs away.
>> >---------------------------------
>> >The rich above $80K don't "work", they piddle at hobby jobs and extract
>> >pay four times that of workers who REALLY work!
>>
>> When your ilk "shares-the-wealth" there's still a shitload left over
>> for your golf camps, etc.
>>
>> Same ain't true for working class.
>---------------------------
>You're a shit-lipped feces-tongued liar. You're filth!
You can bet your autographed copy of Madame Hilary's National
Communist Health Plan that I speaketh the truth, Ruth.
>
>> >> >> society's opinion of one who would even suggest adult-child sexual
>> >> >> relations.
>> >> >------------------------------
>> >> >Society has no "opinion", only people do, and as in your case, a
>> >> >number of them are ignorant.
>> >>
>> >> Oh, about 90% of them would call you a pedophile.
>> >----------------------------
>> >Actually less than 50% once they actually responded to ME and what
>> >*I* say, and not your dishonest disingenuous rabble-rousing.
>>
>> Nope. On Usenet, it's been well over 90% agin ya.
>>
>> Do a google and see.
>----------------------
>Nope, or the topic of incest and sex with the young wouldn't be
>the MOST popular search on Google!
And the peeps see you right in the middle of it.
>
>> >> I don't mean to sound unpleasant,
>> >-----------------
>> >Of course you do, you're a shit-eating little racist sexuophobic hater.
>>
>> Well, in your case, perhaps I do mean to sound unpleasant.
>-------------------------
>You're a shit-lipped little pandering whore.
The panderers and grovelers in our society come from the
sociopolitically left, because of their fear of those who make the
most noise.
>> >> >> Well, in your case, perhaps I do, pervert.
>> >> >-------------------
>> >> >Of course you do, you're a shit-eating little racist sexuophobic hater.
>> >>
>> >> Actually, I hate left wingers and pedophiles.
>> >-------------------------
>> >You're a shit-fucking little racist sexuophobic hater.
>>
>> Tongue-tied babble.
>-------------------------
>Tongue-tied?
>YOU say it five times real fast, you shit-lipped asshole!
Is that one of the games you play at the sandbox? What happened to
rock, paper, scissors?
>
>> >And as for limousine liberal, you were TOLD you were wrong and yet
>> >you persisted in your lie:
>>
>> You deny it now in fear of your red buddies.
>--------------------------
>I have no "red buddies" that I fear, you shit-lipped liar.
So you're the top red in the pack?
>
>> >> >> Yup. That's whay you said.
>> >> >-------------------------------
>> >> >No, you deleted it to distort my meaning...
>> >> >
>> >> >No, I said consenting children, not "consenting" children.
>> >>
>> >> Yup, you sho nuff did.
>> >---------------------------
>> >That means NOT phony "consent", but actual consent.
>>
>> As interpreted by pedophiles?
>------------------
>NO, by the children themselves!
CLUE: Society says children cannot consent in that regard.
>>
>> Don't believe me?
>>
>> Try it.
>----------------------
>Irrelevant, they have never had it all explained to them.
>As soon as we do they start qualifying, and saying, "Oh well,
>I ddn't know that all you meant was THAT!" They always do this
>when I explain it to them!!
If the law don't get ya, some parent will.
>
>> >> >> As if children can consent in that regard.
>> >> >------------------------
>> >> >Children are allowed and expected to consent to things every day.
>> >> >Many such things are more dangerous than sex.
>> >>
>> >> That's like saying "I don't mind if Johnny drinks out of the toilet as
>> >> long as he doesn't play with matches."
>> >-------------------------
>> >Sex isn't a toilet. Nor is it playing with fire. The things children
>> >consent to everyday that are more dangerous than sex are things like
>> >playing football, skiing, riding in cars for any purpose, etc. Those
>> >are all statistically MORE dangerous than any sexual outcome.
>>
>> Don't know why you're trying to convince the Usenet community of your
>> horseshit.
>>
>> Try lobbying your lawmakers.
>>
>> See what they say.
>------------------------
>They are too busy taking bribes and pandering.
Will that give you any consolation when your in stir with some 300-lb.
cellmate named Cleophus?
>
>> >> >> Then you married into the Appliance Store racket.
>> >> >---------------------------------
>> >> >My father was an engineer, and my mother was a nurse.
>> >> >My wife's father was a highschool band director and her mother was
>> >> >a secretary. Nobody ever owned a business of any kind.
>> >> >
>> >> >You're a liar!
>> >>
>> >> So an engineer and an ambulance chaser.
>> >--------------------------
>> >An ambulance chaser, since you're not very good at the meaning of
>> >words, would be an sleazy attorney. My mother was a nurse.
>>
>> She nursed the hell out of frivolous lawsuits?
>----------------------
>You're a shit-lipped little liar, you disingenuous whore!
Did you tell your engineer daddy and attorney mother that they must
donate earnings over a certain amt. to the no-loads, ne'er-do-wells,
welfare hags, and other assorted bums .... or did you just sit back
and enjoy your month-long vacation in the Borscht Belt?
>
>> >> So tell me, pervert: How many Americans are dying to emigrtae to
>> >> Castro's socialist paradise vis-a-vis the number trying to emigrate to
>> >> America?
>> >--------------------
>> >Cuba is resource deprived, it's a sterile sandy island. If they were
>> >not blocked from legitimate trade by rich US politicos, people WOULD
>> >want to emigrate!
>>
>> Translation: If it were capitalist, peeps would be flocking there.
>> I see.
>--------------------
>No. If it were given a fair chance, we'd all want to go there.
Is it true that you're moving to Venezuela?
>
>> >> >> >> so you embrace this share-the-wealth scheme even
>> >> >> >> though it will kill the working class.
>> >> >> >-------------------
>> >> >> >It will free the working class and make the wealthy class join their
>> >> >> >ranks as is fair and fitting.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It will drop the working class into the po' class.
>> >> >--------------------------
>> >> >Liar.
>> >> >It will free the working class and make the wealthy class join their
>> >> >ranks as is fair and fitting.
>> >>
>> >> Taking what little the working class has managed to save and giving to
>> >> those no-loads whom you fear will be your destruction.
>> >----------------------------------
>> >This "working class"/"middle class" that you can't describe correctly
>> >but want to defend, makes most of the money ON EARTH! The "little"
>> >they saved is a LIE!! In fact, YOU'RE a lie, and that's about all you
>> >are!
>>
>> The term "most of the money" is disingenuous given the number of
>> middle class peeps.
>-----------------------
>Your "middle class" is the top 20%, you shit-lipped LIAR!
Middle class/working class .... those who want the better life won't
buy into your share-the-wealth schemes.
China and the Bear are free market.
You better move to Venezuela or Hanoi and enjoy it while you can,
before they change too.
>
>> But you're showing what I predicted: you hate the middle class.
>------------------------
>I hate the RULING class!!
But you want to rule.
Just like other totalitarians like Stalin, Ho, Mao ..... do it my way
or else.
>
>> You want everyone po' except you and your limo liberal buddies.
>-------------------------
>You're a shit-lipped little liar.
and your privileged fambly.
>
>> >> >> Taking the working class down will put an end to you.
>> >> >---------------------
>> >> >You're a moron.
>> >>
>> >> And scum like you are in the distinct, infintesimal minority.
>> >>
>> >> Thank Gawd.
>> >-----------------------
>> >Majority, and we'll erase your kind from the earth.
>>
>> Again, you're showing your hatred toward the working class.
>-------------------------
>RULING class, you fucking liar!
I ain't a ruler, you dipshit.
>
>> >> >> Better build bigger gates around your compound.
>> >> >---------------------------
>> >> >Nonsense. Liar. It will free the working class and make the wealthy
>> >> >class join their ranks as is fair and fitting.
>> >>
>> >> The ex-working class will exterminate you, like the roach you are.
>> >-------------------------------
>> >If the actual "wrking class" were any poorer, they couldn't afford
>> >the guns or cars to drive anywhere.
>>
>> That's why you want them poorer.
>-------------------------
>I want the rich madeexactly as poor as everyone else!!
>You're a shit-licking liar!
Middle class with the desire for the good life is standing in your
way.
>
>> >> >So you want us to believe that taking the wealthy down will somehow
>> >> >impoverish the working class???
>> >>
>> >> The workers will hunt you & your fat-farm wife, pervert.
>> >------------------------
>> >You're nothing but a shit-lcking lying little racist right-wing hater.
>> >Steve
>>
>> I hate right wings???
>------------------------
>No. You ARE one. Not "right-wing-hater", instead "right-wing hater".
>Pay fucking attention, read for comprehension.
>Steve
Well, at least I kept you busy for a little while on Usenet, and away
from the sandbox.
toto
<rst...@armory.com> wrote:
>No it's not. He HAS to spend the $10K to LIVE, the $80K is spent as
>LUXURY income. And $80K is derived by DEPRIVING ANOTHER hard working
>family of it for NO HONEST REASON!!
>Steve
I think you are a bit behind the times in terms of your stats on
income levels. While $80,000 a year is a bit above the average, it's
certainly not so far above as to be unreasonable for someone who
is working. My son who works as a chemical engineer works quite
hard for his money.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/4person.html
In the 1970s, a family of 4 was able to live on $15,000 a year in
most places
In 2005, however, that same family needs $60,000 to maintain that
same standard of living.
Note that the median income for a family of 4 has risen. In
California where you live, the median income in 2005 was
$65,766. In Texas, where I will be living, the median was
$56,278. Obviously, there are states where it is a bit less, but
I did not see any that had a median of less than $47,000 in 2005.
Note that there is a disparity between these incomes in various types
of households. This does suggest that some groups are poorer than
others due to external factors like race, marital status, etc.
Overall in the entire US, married couples have a median income of
$66,067, while female headed households with no husband have a
median income of only $30,650 and male headed households with
no wife present have a median of $46,756.
Interestingly, Asian households have a higher median income than
any other group ($61,094) including whites. Blacks fare the worst
with a median income of only $30,858. The age of the head of
the household also contributes with the highest medians having heads
of households between 46 and 54 ($62,424). In general, those between
the ages of 25 and 64 have median incomes between $47,000 and
$62,000. Those who are younger or older have less income.
The medians, of course, have half the population above and half below
and some people will be in dire poverty and others quite wealthy, but
your contention that those who make $80,000 are in the wealthiest
class seems pretty skewed.
--
Dorothy
There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
The Outer Limits
aztek
> "aztek" <a...@charter.net> wrote in message
Yes, its easy to be thus mistaken when counting "dollar for dollar" -
I too was
raised in a family that lived on drastically less (my single mother
made
$4K most years I lived with her). How this was accomplished had less
to do with income that you might think. Because my mother didn't make
much, she qualified for welfare, which provides more than one might
think.
Medical assistance, food stamps, low-income housing, special food
programs (cheese was the big one when I was a kid), and the like add
up to quite a bit if you look at trying to replace with straight
income.
To get the real picture, you have to take into account ALL the dollar-
details.
Even though my family currently makes $80K+, we pay almost $30K in
taxes. The work that makes the money also COSTS money - I have
a two-hour commute to work, and my wife works seven days a week,
sometimes 14 hours a day. Because of my commute, my car insurance
is four times what it would normally be. My ex-wife chose to exploit
my family by turning the income that WE work for into elevated "child
support" (over $1K per month), which she used for her own luxury
instead of doing anything particularly special for my child. EVERY
single thing we do costs the maximum possible, because there are no
"deals" or "help" for people that supposedly have "the means".
My wife's business requires that we maintain a facility, so we
pay for a building, which in turn requires utilities - sometimes
upward of $1400 per month, not because of usage but because
of commercial rates (which basically amount to another tax).
The "ownership" of the building is the only shot at a "retirement"
savings that we have, but we'll pay immense interest for that
"privilege", and the property tax structure is so oppressive that
even paid off, we'll always have to pay to occupy, and so never
really "own" it anyway. We can't affort it and a residence, so
we live in a crappy apartment upstairs, and don't have any
extra money to even remodel for some basic comfort - we
share the building's public bathrooms, and have a crock
pot and electric skillet on a table for a kitchen. I get health
insurance through work, but with deductibles and "coverage
limitations", it ends up paying for very little compared
to the elevated costs of medical services/goods. These
costs keep going up, majorly contributed to by the fact
that even the poorest people in our state can afford, and
in many cases never even feel, these rising costs
because of subsidized coverage (MA which is FREE
for qualifyingly low incomes and MN Care which is
income-adjusted). My alcoholic dead-beat unemployed
brother-in-law gets comprehensive coverage for $12 a
month, and we pay almost EVERY PENNY of medical
costs for our family, even though I have supposedly
"great" benefits from my job.
So, just a couple points - if your entire family can live for
$20K, what could justify me paying $12K for just one child ?
Why should I have to pay more than your whole family
makes in a year just in income taxes ? Its also been a
REALLY long time since I've seen a 2br apt for less than
$600/mo., unless you're looking at subsidized housing.
Perhaps that's where the "locale" comes into play, but
I live in a town of 14000 people, and its not particularly
high on the average income scale.
My wife still incredulously makes the same objections
that you point out: how can we be so "poor" when we "make
so much" ? The answer is that because of the "income" on
paper, the dollars come from different places and are taken
in different ways. The bottom line is that after we've covered
all our "obligations" to society, we actually get access to
less actual dollars from our own income than you do.
So how are we rich and you're not ?
And Walz, its another dumb-ass loony shit-crack of
yours that WE (meaning people making > $80K) don't
actually WORK like people that make < $80K... its
a FALSE generalization. Part of how we make the
$80K TO BEGIN WITH is that I work 2 and sometimes
3 jobs ASIDE FROM MY FULL-TIME, and my wife
works EXTREME hours ! EVERYONE that knows
us thinks of us as "the hardest-working family" they
know of.
Sure, I'll give you that there are plenty of examples of
people making way too much money, and doing not
much of anything for it, but you can't CAUSALLY link
making certain dollar amounts to NOT WORKING !
I can also give you that the "difficulty" of our situation
makes your (Steve's) position appealing, namely that
if EVERYONE lived a "subsidized" life, perhaps things
could be kept more fair. One thing seems evident, it
doesn't seem to be working to be half-capitalistic and
half-socialistic. Someone always gets shafted.
aztek
> aztek wrote:
>
> > > >No, the rich. By "rich" I mean everybody above, say,
> > > > $80K per family per year.
>
> > > Yup.
> > > The middle class.
> > > Even if they make faaaarrrr greater than $80K, they ain't
> > > necessarily
> > > rich.
>
> > DAMN STRAIGHT ! Walz, you're abso-fuckin-lutely
> > NUTS if you think $80K is rich. We make slightly more
> > than that, and about all it accomplishes is disqualifying
> > my wife from the welfare she was on before we married,
> > and now SHE COMPLAINS about our standard of living
> > compared to WHAT SHE USED TO GET !!!!
>
> ---------------------
> She sounds like a really spoiled piece of work!!
>
> > Granted, part of this is inflation - we live today about
> > like I lived on $18K when I started working.
>
> -------------------
> Inflation the last 20 years has only been 8%.
OK, if you just want to count the "averages". I don't think
that gives a good picture of the actual activity and impact
of costs in a real person's life, though. If I want to sit alone
in an empty apartment and do the bare minimum just to
"exist", I can live with costs only going up in accord with
the "book inflation" rates - but NOONE with any motivation
at all lives a life like that. The fact is, the activity of "living"
escalates costs, and thus magnifies inflation.
> Don't be an ass.
Take your own advice.
> > As for owning property - yeah right... does a
> > car really count ? Oh yeah, I don't actually own
> > that, either... damn. About the time I pay it off,
> > it'll be broken enough that I'll have to go into hock
> > again to stay on the road, and its staying on the
> > road that's one of the critical capabilities for
> > staying employed to begin with.
>
> -------------------------
> Buy used and fix it up slowly, it will last 20 years
> and cost you a tenth of a new car. Anyone who buys
> a car new is costing himself $10K a pop for nuthin'.
I said "stay on the road", not "buy a new car" - how
the hell am I going to pay for fixing a car when I lose
my jobs because I don't show up because I'm "fixing
my car slowly over time", dip-shit ?!?
The REALITY is I have to start out with both the JOB
and the WORKING CAR to maintain the job, and this
usually means going into hock to start out with.
Getting OUT of hock can involve some luck with
timing and opportunity, and isn't GUARANTEED to
be a matter of just wise choices.
> > And retirement ? Dream on...
>
> -------------------------
> Retirement without owning OTHER people's homes in the USA is a
> pipe-dream. Should it be?? You can change it if you want to.
> But don't count on a luxury retirement. Nobody deserves that.
Indeed - no argument there...
> > Add to that the way that the taxes spike for income
> > increases, and you need to make over $150K/yr to start
> > seeing any sky at all. Heck, the one year that I actually
> > got ahead a little was when I got an extra profit-sharing
> > bonus at work, and it put our income over the
> > social-security cap, so that some of our income wasn't
> > FICA'd to death - what a relieve that was ! It disappeared
> > though because they raised that cap way beyond our
> > reach now... damn (again).
>
> ----------------------------
> FICA doesn't do anything to death, it's a flat percentage.
Illusion - once past the "cap", any additional income, which
is untaxed, has the effect of lowering the "flat percentage"
in relation to total income. If the cap is out of reach, the
tax is still there - an ADDITION to the RATE-SLIDING
income tax.
> I love you morons who don't seem to even know where your
> money goes, you bunch must not even do your own taxes because
> you don't even fucking know how!
Don't be a dumb-shit - this "insight" is superficial non-sense.
> > Even though I don't know who "the rich" really are,
> > I know I'm not one of them, and its seems Walz
> > doesn't know much about it, either... unless he's
> > just drastically mis-spoke hisself.
>
> --------------------------------
> Go look up the USA income stats if you don't believe me.
>
> http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/WealthDist_TheNation.pdf
>
> If you can't MUCH MORE than "get by" on $80K then your spending has
> gone absolutely hog-wild and you're making the mistake of imagining
> that that is NORMAL!!
Exactly what spending are you talking about ?
> $80K is the level at which you're regarded
> as a prime borrower for a home loan, and at anything more than
> $80K you're prime borrowe for ANOTHER home every ten years as
> well, ESPECIALLY if you're going to derive income bvy renting it!
> Steve
So what - as if the standards of the entities which YOU YOURSELF
consider robber-barons as to the prime "victims" they prefer to fleece
implies anything other than exactly what I'm talking about ?
R. Steve Walz
You're nothing but shit-lipped hater-filth!!
You're an idiot. All I did was persuade hundreds of people that shit
like you ought to be eradicated!
Steve
R. Steve Walz
I don't see any of the above, even in the expensive places, even
near to being over $80K. Close, but no cigar. And whether it is
$80K everywhere is quite irrelevant. It would be most places,
and I gave only one figure.
Steve
R. Steve Walz
>
> So how are we rich and you're not ?
I don't make $80K, but I know no one who does who doesn't have a new
SUV they don't need and which consumes twice their fair share of
gasoline. And onto that they are buying a house, while the rest of
us rent. One day the majority of us will organize and make rental
property illegal and use their democratic power to confiscate their
rentals and appropriate them and then make them unsellable in law.
> And Walz, its another dumb-ass loony shit-crack of
> yours that WE (meaning people making > $80K) don't
> actually WORK like people that make < $80K... its
> a FALSE generalization. Part of how we make the
> $80K TO BEGIN WITH is that I work 2 and sometimes
> 3 jobs ASIDE FROM MY FULL-TIME, and my wife
> works EXTREME hours ! EVERYONE that knows
> us thinks of us as "the hardest-working family" they
> know of.
----------------------
Then you're just fucking stupid and your kids are neglected.
There have always been examples of loony-poor who worked
themselves dead to try to keep up with the rich!
> Sure, I'll give you that there are plenty of examples of
> people making way too much money, and doing not
> much of anything for it, but you can't CAUSALLY link
> making certain dollar amounts to NOT WORKING !
-------------------------
Sure I can. I simply ignore the loony-poor who try to keep up with
the rich. They're a sick aberration.
> I can also give you that the "difficulty" of our situation
> makes your (Steve's) position appealing, namely that
> if EVERYONE lived a "subsidized" life, perhaps things
> could be kept more fair.
------------------
Not "subsidized", merely protected by a democratic government that
would enforce fairness! You make rental property illegal and
confiscate, to the ownership of the renter, any home other than the
landlord's own, and you then use public power to relocate people to
the surrounding near country, where with democratic help they can
be delivered the building materials and machinery so they can all
build steel and concrete compounds that will last for a thousand
years for their families, with all the space they need.
Then by Democratic fiat, we destroy all debt, destroy all private
ownership of everything but their home compound, and we destroy all
banking and stock instruments and make the Hour of Labor the ONLY
medium of exchange. No one will be paid more than another for any
Hour of Labor that the People authorize Democratically. And if you
don't work, you will be starved to death, because it will be illegal
to feed anyone who doesn't accept the work that the rest of us offer
them, and to eat they have to show current proof of employment.
We mandate that anyone now producing goods in industry or providing
crucial services MUST continue to work at their previous position
unless replaced, on pain of starvation until the society reacquires
long-term stability. And we eliminate the office clerk/cashier
positions that merely keep track of debt and reorganize those
workers into production workers.
> One thing seems evident, it
> doesn't seem to be working to be half-capitalistic and
> half-socialistic. Someone always gets shafted.
--------------------
Since I'm a Democratic Communist, that is totally obvious to me.
Steve
R. Steve Walz
>
> On Apr 23, 11:10 am, "R. Steve Walz" <rste...@armory.com> wrote:
> > aztek wrote:
> >
> > Inflation the last 20 years has only been 8%.
>
> OK, if you just want to count the "averages". I don't think
> that gives a good picture of the actual activity and impact
> of costs in a real person's life, though. If I want to sit alone
> in an empty apartment and do the bare minimum just to
> "exist", I can live with costs only going up in accord with
> the "book inflation" rates - but NOONE with any motivation
> at all lives a life like that. The fact is, the activity of "living"
> escalates costs, and thus magnifies inflation.
What? That's gobbledeygook!!
> > Buy used and fix it up slowly, it will last 20 years
> > and cost you a tenth of a new car. Anyone who buys
> > a car new is costing himself $10K a pop for nuthin'.
>
> I said "stay on the road", not "buy a new car" - how
> the hell am I going to pay for fixing a car when I lose
> my jobs because I don't show up because I'm "fixing
> my car slowly over time", dip-shit ?!?
----------------------------
Don't be stupid, one) I did it, and two) you buy two cheap
cars, one that needs lots more work but has promise.
> > > And retirement ? Dream on...
> > -------------------------
> > Retirement without owning OTHER people's homes in the USA is a
> > pipe-dream. Should it be?? You can change it if you want to.
> > But don't count on a luxury retirement. Nobody deserves that.
>
> Indeed - no argument there...
>
> > > Add to that the way that the taxes spike for income
> > > increases, and you need to make over $150K/yr to start
> > > seeing any sky at all. Heck, the one year that I actually
> > > got ahead a little was when I got an extra profit-sharing
> > > bonus at work, and it put our income over the
> > > social-security cap, so that some of our income wasn't
> > > FICA'd to death - what a relieve that was ! It disappeared
> > > though because they raised that cap way beyond our
> > > reach now... damn (again).
> > ----------------------------
> > FICA doesn't do anything to death, it's a flat percentage.
>
> Illusion - once past the "cap", any additional income, which
> is untaxed, has the effect of lowering the "flat percentage"
> in relation to total income. If the cap is out of reach, the
> tax is still there - an ADDITION to the RATE-SLIDING
> income tax.
-------------------------
Sounds like we need a means test for paying in to SS as well!
> > > Even though I don't know who "the rich" really are,
> > > I know I'm not one of them, and its seems Walz
> > > doesn't know much about it, either... unless he's
> > > just drastically mis-spoke hisself.
> > --------------------------------
> > Go look up the USA income stats if you don't believe me.
> >
> > http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/WealthDist_TheNation.pdf
> >
> > If you can't MUCH MORE than "get by" on $80K then your spending has
> > gone absolutely hog-wild and you're making the mistake of imagining
> > that that is NORMAL!!
>
> Exactly what spending are you talking about ?
----------------------
Whatever it is that makes it appear that you "just need" $80K a yeat
"just" to "get by"!!
> > $80K is the level at which you're regarded
> > as a prime borrower for a home loan, and at anything more than
> > $80K you're prime borrowe for ANOTHER home every ten years as
> > well, ESPECIALLY if you're going to derive income bvy renting it!
> > Steve
>
> So what - as if the standards of the entities which YOU YOURSELF
> consider robber-barons as to the prime "victims" they prefer to fleece
> implies anything other than exactly what I'm talking about ?
--------------------------
I'm saying that not everyone can BE a landlord, JUST LIKE everybody
cannot own each others' houses and make a living that way! And that
if people are retiring at ALL, that they are doing it in that illicit
manner!
Steve
Way Back Jack
<rst...@armory.com> wrote:
Come on now, every minute that you're on Usenet is one minute less
that a parent has to worry.
Buster
> 411: Caught on Tape: Alec Baldwin Calls Daughter a 'Rude, Thoughtless
> Pig'
> Friday, April 20, 2007
>
> By Roger Friedman
>
> Actor Alec Baldwin may be finding himself in very big trouble this
> morning. I mean, big trouble.
Kim Bassinger is probably in more trouble with the court for releasing
the VM to the media. Nice parenting skills.
Anim8rFSK
wrote:
You know, I don't know how she COULD be, unless the court heard it
FIRST, and told her not to release it, and she did anyway.
If she was smart, she gave it to somebody else BEFORE the judge ever
heard it.
R. Steve Walz
You're a shitty little lying piece of filth.
Steve
Way Back Jack
<rst...@armory.com> wrote:
Keeping you occupied is know as "Operation Sublimating Steve."
Heh heh.
toto
Half of the incomes are above the median and half below. Thus
if the median is $55,000 there are bound to be incomes well above
and well below that.
I didn't think I needed to lecture you about the difference between a
mean value and a median value.
toto
<rst...@armory.com> wrote:
>I don't make $80K, but I know no one who does who doesn't have a new
>SUV they don't need and which consumes twice their fair share of
>gasoline. And onto that they are buying a house, while the rest of
>us rent. One day the majority of us will organize and make rental
>property illegal and use their democratic power to confiscate their
>rentals and appropriate them and then make them unsellable in law.
My ds makes a bit over that and does not have an SUV. He spends
almost half of his income on his autistic son's therapy as we are not
in California where they are paid for and insurance does NOT cover ABA
at all (it may soon because there is a bill in the senate about having
insurance pay for therapies for children with an autistic diagnosis).
Buying a house is not only for the wealthy, btw. I don't know where
you get that idea. My parents bought a house way back when I was a
child and my dad was a factory worker and then a janitor. It's harder
nowadays, but it certainly does not take an $80,000 a year income to
buy (especially right now given the housing markets). Of course, in
California, almost everyone is priced out of the market, but that's a
special case. It's not true in most of the US.
R. Steve Walz
You don't take that much effort.
R. Steve Walz
>
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 08:33:35 -0700, "R. Steve Walz"
> <rst...@armory.com> wrote:
>
> >I don't see any of the above, even in the expensive places, even
> >near to being over $80K. Close, but no cigar. And whether it is
> >$80K everywhere is quite irrelevant. It would be most places,
> >and I gave only one figure.
> >Steve
>
> Half of the incomes are above the median and half below. Thus
> if the median is $55,000 there are bound to be incomes well above
> and well below that.
>
> I didn't think I needed to lecture you about the difference between a
> mean value and a median value.
>
> --
> Dorothy
As I said, less than half the people are keeping more than the other
half of people in chains, economically. We need to use Democratic
Power to end that forcibly. Whether the median is $80K here or there
or $100K someplace else is irrelevant. And yes, I know the difference
between median and average.
Steve
R. Steve Walz
>
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 08:54:02 -0700, "R. Steve Walz"
> <rst...@armory.com> wrote:
>
> >I don't make $80K, but I know no one who does who doesn't have a new
> >SUV they don't need and which consumes twice their fair share of
> >gasoline. And onto that they are buying a house, while the rest of
> >us rent. One day the majority of us will organize and make rental
> >property illegal and use their democratic power to confiscate their
> >rentals and appropriate them and then make them unsellable in law.
>
> My ds makes a bit over that and does not have an SUV. He spends
> almost half of his income on his autistic son's therapy as we are not
> in California where they are paid for and insurance does NOT cover ABA
> at all (it may soon because there is a bill in the senate about having
> insurance pay for therapies for children with an autistic diagnosis).
Well. Dotty, just imagine what my response would be to that, and then
ask yourself why you even bothered here.
> Buying a house is not only for the wealthy, btw. I don't know where
> you get that idea.
--------------------
It is where *I* live, because they won't give MORE THAN HALF of all
people a home loan!! Homes here are $600K to millions even for some-
thing tiny and tight. Why? Because the rich want to live here, and
they forget that they need servants to wait on them. And the rents
cost as much as a house payment because the landlords want their
rental properties to PAY FOR THEMSELVES!!
> My parents bought a house way back when I was a
> child and my dad was a factory worker and then a janitor. It's harder
> nowadays, but it certainly does not take an $80,000 a year income to
> buy (especially right now given the housing markets). Of course, in
> California, almost everyone is priced out of the market, but that's a
> special case. It's not true in most of the US.
> Dorothy
----------------------
Yes, if you want to live someplace stupid, where you can't even find
work, you can find a place to buy for cheap, but even then, the old
rule of 25% of your income works nowhere these days.
Steve
Way Back Jack
<rst...@armory.com> wrote:
>You don't take that much effort in keeping me from the sandbox.
I see.
And another thing, Walcz, wouldn't surprise me if your fambly owned
slaves. And here you are pissing-and-moaning that the working class
owes reparations.
____________
Way Back Jack
<rst...@armory.com> wrote:
New-Home Sales in U.S. Increase 2.6% to 858,000 Pace (Update3)
By Courtney Schlisserman
(snip)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aX6Vs0zUHBMg&refer=worldwide
________
HAHAHAHAHAHA! Whine, boy, whine.
toto
LOL. Steve, lots of people find work outside of California. My
husband always worked and we've never lived in California. My son
works too and he doesn't live in California. You are simply blowing
smoke and it's very silly.
I am sure there are places where people cannot find work, but there
are plenty were people work where home prices are quite reasonable.
The average price of a home in the Houston area is around $200,000
though there are certainly million dollar homes in the area. The
average price of homes in the Chicago area depends on which suburb,
but you can find a nice home for a reasonable price there as well.
Note that I am not speaking here of mansions, just nice homes in nice
neighborhoods.
R. Steve Walz
Of course you "work", but you can't make a decent wage in backwoods
places! And that means you pay a greater proportion of your income
for housing, purchased or rented, and the situation is no different
THAN California. I only NOW live in California, but I have lived the
other half of my life in Illinois and Missouri, where if you buy a
home you will never get to KEEP it, because the good jobs never last
for being exported, and you will be relegated to two jobs at various
local Mickey-D's and never get to raise your own children, who will
be uneducated drunks, as most youth seems to be in those hellish
little midwestern towns unless they are among the very few who escape
to places where they can be even MORE abused, like California!
Steve
R. Steve Walz
-------------------------------
You originally wrote:
"Keeping you occupied is know as "Operation Sublimating Steve."
To which I wrote:
"You don't take that much effort."
Which you then altered to:
"You don't take that much effort in keeping me from the sandbox."
You're a shitty little lying piece of filth.
> And another thing, Walcz, wouldn't surprise me if your fambly owned
> slaves. And here you are pissing-and-moaning that the working class
> owes reparations.
-----------------------
R. Steve Walz
And now their financing is collapsing on those young fools due to
phony low-interest loans that get cranked up by the criminals!
Steve
Way Back Jack
<rst...@armory.com> wrote:
"Young fools" in America have always had problems but they keep coming
and surviving and growing old .... and spitting at those who suggest
communism.
Don't see too many of them trying to go elsewhere vis-a-vis those
elsewhere trying to get in here.
Way Back Jack
<rst...@armory.com> wrote:
Any time that you spend away from the sandbox helps to ease parental
angst.
>> And another thing, Walcz, wouldn't surprise me if your fambly owned
>> slaves. And here you are pissing-and-moaning that the working class
>> owes reparations.
>-----------------------
>You're a shitty little lying piece of filth.
A slave-owning heritage marries up with a fambly that got rich by
bilking the poor.
And if that's not bad enough, he wants others to reparate.
That's chutzpah, babee.
R. Steve Walz
No, that's only recent. Americans 400 years ago were all communist.
They will be again soon.
> Don't see too many of them trying to go elsewhere vis-a-vis those
> elsewhere trying to get in here.
---------------------
That's because of wealth, not politics. And the wealth is illusory,
the rich only use it to attract more slaves, they don't ever bestow
it on the newbies. They lie, like you lie, you shitty little racist.
Steve
R. Steve Walz
Never happened, you shit-licking liar.
Steve
Way Back Jack
<rst...@armory.com> wrote:
>Way Back Jack wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 08:54:49 -0700, "R. Steve Walz"
>> <rst...@armory.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> New-Home Sales in U.S. Increase 2.6% to 858,000 Pace (Update3)
>> >>
>> >> By Courtney Schlisserman
>> >------------------------------
>> >And now their financing is collapsing on those young fools due to
>> >phony low-interest loans that get cranked up by the criminals!
>>
>> "Young fools" in America have always had problems but they keep coming
>> and surviving and growing old .... and spitting at those who suggest
>> communism.
>-------------------
>No, that's only recent. Americans 400 years ago were all communist.
>They will be again soon.
They're all dead, last I heard.
>
>> Don't see too many of them trying to go elsewhere vis-a-vis those
>> elsewhere trying to get in here.
>---------------------
>That's because of wealth, not politics. And the wealth is illusory,
>the rich only use it to attract more slaves, they don't ever bestow
>it on the newbies. They lie, like you lie, you shitty little racist.
The slaves love it; they keep a comin'.
Way Back Jack
<rst...@armory.com> wrote:
And lived lives of privilege while proclaiming that the working class
must support the no-loads.