#Trump leaves race, blustering
6019 Dead, 1162 since 1/20/09
[Zeppnote: Yes, The Donald is gone. Fortunately, Noot will step in to
provide comic relief in his stead. He already tried to brand Obama
"The food stamp President" the other day]
Donald Trump: I will not run for president in 2012
By Sahil Kapur
Monday, May 16th, 2011 -- 12:53 pm
WASHINGTON – Donald Trump announced Monday that he will not seek the
Republican presidential nomination in 2012.
"After considerable deliberation and reflection, I have decided not to
pursue the office of the Presidency," he said in a statement. "This
decision does not come easily or without regret."
Trump claimed that "if I were to run, I would be able to win the
primary and ultimately, the general election," but said, "Ultimately,
however, business is my greatest passion and I am not ready to leave
the private sector."
The real estate mogul surged to the top of the GOP primary polls last
month after hammering away about doubts on President Barack Obama's
birthplace. But his popularity has taken a steep dive in recent weeks,
after the president released his long-form birth certificate.
--
Not dead, in jail or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Read my essays at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/zepps_essays/
--
"So called payroll taxes aren't taxes at all" -- Steve Canyon, trying to explain
why millionaires don't actually pay less taxes than median income families.
Lee Curtis
> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/05/16/donald-trump-i-will-not-run-for-
> president-in-2012/
>
> [Zeppnote: Yes, The Donald is gone. Fortunately, Noot will step in to
> provide comic relief in his stead. He already tried to brand Obama
> "The food stamp President" the other day]
> Donald Trump: I will not run for president in 2012
> By Sahil Kapur
> Monday, May 16th, 2011 -- 12:53 pm
>
>
>
> WASHINGTON – Donald Trump announced Monday that he will not seek the
> Republican presidential nomination in 2012.
>
> "After considerable deliberation and reflection,
After spending hours everyday in front of the
mirror admiring himself he has any time left over
for "reflection"?
> I have decided not to
> pursue the office of the Presidency," he said in a statement. "This
> decision does not come easily or without regret."
>
> Trump claimed that "if I were to run, I would be able to win the
> primary and ultimately, the general election," but said, "Ultimately,
> however, business is my greatest passion and I am not ready to leave
> the private sector."
That would be the businesses he has NOT driven
into bankruptcy?
=========
"I've come out almost always as the victor, and I
have to say that. Because, you know, I don't want
to be braggadocious, but that's the kind of a person,
whether it's me or somebody else," the country needs
as president, he said.
This is the very same Donald Trump who has filed
corporate bankruptcy four times. 1991. 1992. 2004.
2009. I suppose he wants to run the government like
he runs his mirage of a real-estate empire: right
into bankruptcy court.
http://tinyurl.com/3v84aew
6019 Dead, 1162 since 1/20/09
wrote:
>6019 Dead, 1162 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>
>> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/05/16/donald-trump-i-will-not-run-for-
>> president-in-2012/
>>
>> [Zeppnote: Yes, The Donald is gone. Fortunately, Noot will step in to
>> provide comic relief in his stead. He already tried to brand Obama
>> "The food stamp President" the other day]
>> Donald Trump: I will not run for president in 2012
>> By Sahil Kapur
>> Monday, May 16th, 2011 -- 12:53 pm
>>
>>
>>
>> WASHINGTON – Donald Trump announced Monday that he will not seek the
>> Republican presidential nomination in 2012.
>>
>> "After considerable deliberation and reflection,
>
>
> After spending hours everyday in front of the
>mirror admiring himself he has any time left over
>for "reflection"?
>
>
>> I have decided not to
>> pursue the office of the Presidency," he said in a statement. "This
>> decision does not come easily or without regret."
>>
>> Trump claimed that "if I were to run, I would be able to win the
>> primary and ultimately, the general election," but said, "Ultimately,
>> however, business is my greatest passion and I am not ready to leave
>> the private sector."
>
>
> That would be the businesses he has NOT driven
>into bankruptcy?
His ass is still burning from the correspondent's dinner...
>
>
>=========
>
>"I've come out almost always as the victor, and I
>have to say that. Because, you know, I don't want
>to be braggadocious, but that's the kind of a person,
>whether it's me or somebody else," the country needs
>as president, he said.
>
>
>This is the very same Donald Trump who has filed
>corporate bankruptcy four times. 1991. 1992. 2004.
>2009. I suppose he wants to run the government like
>he runs his mirage of a real-estate empire: right
>into bankruptcy court.
>http://tinyurl.com/3v84aew
>
Phlip
> provide comic relief in his stead. He already tried to brand Obama
> "The food stamp President" the other day]
Oh, that wouldn't be a ... dog-whistle term, too, now would it?
(Let's see if PaxPerPoten or CB can resist the bait!)
wy
> He served his purpose. Going beyond that would do
> more harm than good.
What purpose was that?
>
> Notice we don't hear much from Palin anymore either.
No wonder my brain doesn't feel so scrambled anymore.
> She motivated HER base, and is now more useful being
> rather quiet.
Motivated her base into what? Which base? And where is it? But
yeah, at least she is more useful being quiet. Silence is golden.
>
> Machinations within machinations .... matched only
> by the DNC's :-)
>
> Politics as usual. As always.
Uhh, yeah. Okay. Right. Sure.
Phlip
> > He served his purpose. Going beyond that would do
> > more harm than good.
>
> What purpose was that?
Showing the other GOP hopefuls what happens when they challenge Obama.
> > She motivated HER base, and is now more useful being
> > rather quiet.
>
> Motivated her base into what? Which base? And where is it? But
> yeah, at least she is more useful being quiet. Silence is golden.
Into keeping gov'ts hands out of their Medicare...
6019 Dead, 1162 since 1/20/09
> He served his purpose. Going beyond that would do more harm than good.
It was doing good?
>
> Notice we don't hear much from Palin anymore either. She motivated HER
> base, and is now more useful being rather quiet.
She's still jumping up shouting "lookitmee! lookitmee!", but she's pretty
much irrelevant these days, so the media doesn't give her much coverage.
6019 Dead, 1162 since 1/20/09
> wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>
>>On May 16, 11:37 pm, Mr.B1ack <b...@barrk.net> wrote:
>>
>>> He served his purpose. Going beyond that would do more harm than good.
>>
>>What purpose was that?
>>
>>
>>> Notice we don't hear much from Palin anymore either.
>>
>>No wonder my brain doesn't feel so scrambled anymore.
>>
>>> She motivated HER base, and is now more useful being rather quiet.
>>
>>Motivated her base into what? Which base? And where is it? But yeah,
>>at least she is more useful being quiet. Silence is golden.
>
> Like any large political party, the GOP is not really so homogenous
> as it would like to appear. What you've got is a "United Factions",
> glued together by a few tenuous common threads.
Given that the GOP is presently having a multi-sided civil war right now,
I doubt anyone would call it homogenous. The bible bangers hate the
greed heads, the greed heads hate the teabaggers, and everyone hates Newt.
>
> Trump motivated the 'birther' faction - mostly dumb-asses incapable
> of articulating anything more complex about OBs politics and
> policies. They are, however, maybe five percent of the party.
Polls suggest they are as much as 60% of the party.
>
> Palin motivated the gawd-fearin' traditional family faction -
> considerably larger - with her Regular (hero) Mom bit. Secured a lot
> of votes, a lot of donations.
>
A lot of overlap between her crowd and Trumps. Mostly the dumb-ass
factor.
> The GOP needs those factions ... it's maybe 25 percent and represents
> a make or break difference at the polls.
>
> Now it's time to appeal to the 'sensible businessperson' and
> 'sensible policies' factions. Newtie will try to cover 'policies' ...
> dunno who they'll get to do 'biz' yet. It's important to get the
> hicks and dumb-asses motivated, yet safely out of the way early ...
> so the sane, sensible and dignified stuff can take precedence as the
> election comes into view.
>
You really think calling Obama "the food-stamp President" is an appeal to
policy?
>
>>> Machinations within machinations .... matched only by the DNC's :-)
>>>
>>> Politics as usual. As always.
>>
>>Uhh, yeah. Okay. Right. Sure.
>
> Oh yea ... COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than EVER ......
>
> Right ... sure ......
Bert Hyman
news:ddba029d-8a48-45ec...@s41g2000prb.googlegroups.com
Phlip <phli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 16, 8:15 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>
>> > He served his purpose. Going beyond that would do
>> > more harm than good.
>>
>> What purpose was that?
>
> Showing the other GOP hopefuls what happens when they challenge Obama.
What, exactly, is that?
But what "challenge" are you talking about anyway?
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
6019 Dead, 1162 since 1/20/09
> "6019 Dead, 1162 since 1/20/09" <de...@gone.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 17 May 2011 10:12:08 -0400, Mr.B1ack wrote:
>>
>>> wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On May 16, 11:37 pm, Mr.B1ack <b...@barrk.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> He served his purpose. Going beyond that would do more harm than
>>>>> good.
>>>>
>>>>What purpose was that?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Notice we don't hear much from Palin anymore either.
>>>>
>>>>No wonder my brain doesn't feel so scrambled anymore.
>>>>
>>>>> She motivated HER base, and is now more useful being rather quiet.
>>>>
>>>>Motivated her base into what? Which base? And where is it? But
>>>>yeah, at least she is more useful being quiet. Silence is golden.
>>>
>>> Like any large political party, the GOP is not really so homogenous
>>> as it would like to appear. What you've got is a "United Factions",
>>> glued together by a few tenuous common threads.
>>
>>Given that the GOP is presently having a multi-sided civil war right
>>now, I doubt anyone would call it homogenous. The bible bangers hate
>>the greed heads, the greed heads hate the teabaggers, and everyone hates
>>Newt.
>
> Not quite THAT bad ... but there is a contest for the "heart and soul
> of the party" so to speak. The jeezus nuts had it for a while but
> they've kind of fallen out of fashion as fiscal issues have moved to
> the forefront.
>
> But with fiscal issues, you've got the 'true conservatives', the
> lingering 'neo-cons' like Newtie, the T's and even some Libertarian
> input.
>
> Wouldn't hurt my feelings if the GOP once again became "The
> Businessmans Party", prefereably the SENSIBLE businessmans party. The
> reign of the jeezus nuts was just awful for the party.
They need to break away from the worldwide multinationals first. Their
interests don't coincide with the interests of the American people.
And they need to drop the lunacy that government should be run like a
business. For one thing, they've made it the only business in the world
that insists that nothing be done to increase money coming in.
>
> Anyway, for the next 20+ years, I think MONEY issues, not religion or
> 'family values', are going to be what defines any major party.
>
>>> Trump motivated the 'birther' faction - mostly dumb-asses incapable
>>> of articulating anything more complex about OBs politics and
>>> policies. They are, however, maybe five percent of the party.
>>
>>Polls suggest they are as much as 60% of the party.
>
> Is that the poll of upper-middle class Prius owners ? :-)
>
> I put VERY little stock in 'polls'. Too many ways to screw 'em up
> even UNINTENTIONALLY ... and lots of resaons to tilt them
> INTENTIONALLY too.
>
> This is nothing new ... Sam Clemens ranted against the 'damned lies'
> of statiticians ... but the general public is far more credulous, and
> far less educated in the art of lying with numbers, than they used to
> be. Polls SEEM 'scientitific' ... thay have that air of "proofiness"
> to them ...
Bert Hyman
wrote:
> On 18 May 2011 20:20:21 GMT, Bert Hyman <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
>>> Showing the other GOP hopefuls what happens when they challenge
>>> Obama.
>>
>>What, exactly, is that?
What happens when Obama's challenged?
>>
>>But what "challenge" are you talking about anyway?
>
> Just about everything
>
> Your party i
My party?
Oh yogurt, you always go so far out of your way to prove, again and
again, that you're a fool.
Phlip
> >>> Obama.
>
> >>What, exactly, is that?
>
> What happens when Obama's challenged?
He finds a simple way to write a headline that craters them in the
polls, and publicly humiliates them.
Phlip
Forgot to mention - after a pause to see if he can use the more
efficient option: Let them do it to themselves.
Bert Hyman
news:8bee864a-cf75-4d4d...@l14g2000pro.googlegroups.com
Phlip <phli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> Showing the other GOP hopefuls what happens when they challenge
>> >>> Obama.
>>
>> >>What, exactly, is that?
>>
>> What happens when Obama's challenged?
>
> He finds a simple way to write a headline
Obama's writing the headlines now?
Interesting.
I guess that explains why Obama won't allow the Boston Herald to cover
his events in Boston.
Matt Lehrich of the White House Press Office wrote to the
Herald, "I tend to consider the degree to which papers have
demonstrated to covering the White House regularly and fairly in
determining local pool reporters."
http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/18/white-house-alleged-to-have-punished-unfavorable-press-again
Bert Hyman
news:10630bc5-409c-40cb...@q12g2000prb.googlegroups.com
Phlip <phli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 18, 4:19 pm, Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >>> Showing the other GOP hopefuls what happens when they challenge
>> > >>> Obama.
>>
>> > >>What, exactly, is that?
>>
>> > What happens when Obama's challenged?
>>
>> He finds a simple way to write a headline that craters them in the
>> polls, and publicly humiliates them.
>
> Forgot to mention -
You mean that you hit send before your watcher had a chance to correct
your message.
6019 Dead, 1162 since 1/20/09
> Easy to SAY ...
And nearly impossible to do. But if it isn't done, the future of America
is to become another Bangladesh.
>
> But is it possible to DO ? I have extreme doubts. Those
> multinationals are integrated into every aspect of our economy - and
> political system. It'd be like trying to remove cancer cell by cell
> ... you'd shred the patient into goo trying to save him.
>
> This might be a case where you have to go AROUND the status-quo ...
> by creating a SECOND one, a system on top of the system. Consider an
> "All-American Business Network" that only creates, invests and
> employs HERE. It would run in parallel with the existing system and,
> hopefully, slowly steal away its business.
>
>>And they need to drop the lunacy that government should be run like a
>>business. For one thing, they've made it the only business in the world
>>that insists that nothing be done to increase money coming in.
>
> So then, it SHOULD be run like a business ... TRYING to increase the
> cash inflow ........ :-)
>
> The problem we've been stuck with since Nixon at least is that the
> economy has been managed NOT like a business but in a POLITICAL
> fashion to achieve POLITICAL goals ... mostly to get people and
> parties re-elected by making the stupid people believe we had more
> money than we really did.
>
> The real wealth of 1945-1965 faded away, but the ILLUSION of wealth
> HAD to continue on for political reasons. That cost us dearly. Kinda
> like how Enron re-arranged its books to provide the illusion of
> success - so stockholders wouldn't flee. But, in the end .....
>
> Of course running govt PURELY like a business would carry its own
> downsides. There's a happy, sane, sustainable medium in there
> somewhere ....
>
> But these corrupted jackasses we hire as 'leaders' cannot, or will
> not, find it.
6032 Dead, 1175 since 1/20/09
> We'll be working for Bangladesh ...
>
> Cheap.
>
> And HAPPY for the opportunity.
>
> But, as I wrote, the existing system is too powerful to just get rid
> of. It countrols too much money, too many 'leaders' ... and is
> capable of punishing anyone who messes with their gravy train.
>
> So we'll have to go AROUND them somehow, in ways that don't seem
> threatening at first.
>
> Remember the 'local money' that popped up as things began to collapse
> ... good for merchandise and services from local sources. The Feds
> (meaning their patrons) HATED it ... but couldn't actually squelsh it
> either as the stuff could be viewed as simple 'discount coupons'. The
> fad went away of its own accord, but COULD be revived if expertly
> sold.
That's really not a bad idea. My neighborhood is talking about a garden
co-op. Everyone sets aside 100 square feet to raise one or two crops,
and at harvest time, we redistribute all the crops.
6032 Dead, 1175 since 1/20/09
> Ah ... communism .......
A bit friendlier than the type Joe Stalin had...
>
> It'll work, on a small scale anyway. The problem is that while this
> puts a variety of food on everyones table, it doesn't pay the
> mortgage or put gas in your tank or let the more avid farmers buy an
> extra 100 squares.
>
Nope, it doesn't. Unless we have an excess we can sell. (Unlikely--our
growing season is only four months).
> Now the 'local currency' scheme actually created de-facto money,
> which could be accumulated, lent, which could generate interest ...
> shifting around, concentrating in places until it could do greater
> feats. The only restriction was that it was LOCAL money ... you had
> to buy and sell within the radius which accepted it. You weren't
> supposed to convert it to dollars or anything that could be used
> outside the locality.
Like the Plenty. This article is a couple of years old, but suggests
that not only is it legal, but it works:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2009-04-05-scrip_N.htm
>
> This enhanced commerce HERE, Americans doing biz with Americans
> instead of Chinese or Indians or whomever. The 'money' was also
> outside the reach of federal banks or the tax man or multinationals
> that would pervert its value and intent.
>
> Now clearly this was not a universal solution. At the very least
> 'local' would have to include a BIG locality ... big enough so there
> would be SOMEBODY to provide anything you'd be likely to want, and
> buy anything you'd likely produce. 'Regional money' at the very
> least.
>
We would probably have to have a "State of Jefferson" script. Jefferson
is the imaginary state composed of the six northernmost counties of
California, and the southern half of Oregon. Total population probably
about a million.
> Now if you went too far too fast with this concept the Feds WOULD try
> to stamp it out. It would be very difficult both legally and
> logistically, but they'd try. The don't want a second economy, an
> economy that doesn't include THEM or their Big Money patrons.
We already have a second economy here, based on dope. Weed is the
universal script for what otherwise would be barter. An ounce will buy a
cord of pine, for example. The problem is it's seasonal. Everyone gets
a payday in October, and so the value can fluctuate wildly.
>
> But blitzkreig is not the plan ... slow and steady instead. Eat away
> at multinationals profits a little more, and then a little more -
> weakening them and their grip. THIS could work. I fear this may be
> the ONLY thing that can work, the grip of the multinationals is SO
> great. Well, this or one of those nasty revolutions with blood
> running in the streets and 'the enemy' lined up against a wall. But
> almost none of those EVER turn out well ... usually just opens the
> door for some greater dictator.
Plus, in this case, the "enemy" is headquartered all over the world, in
over a hundred countries, and in thousands of locations.
Hell, rebelling successfully against a central government usually
involves some pretty long odds. Even if you settle for the 12 nastiest
corporations and rebel against them, you'll have your work cut out for
you.
And as you note, violent revolutions rarely work out well, even if they
do succeed.
So yeah: the only way to beat them is through economics. They'll
contribute to their own defeat: corporate bureaucracy and centralization
of power usually averages out to about the same as the USSR.
>
> I'm gonna have to do some searching to see what percentage of "value
> added" by American workers actually STAYS in America ... vs that
> which drifts overseas. This would provide one useful measure of how
> successful the 'local money' schemes - which are really "Buy
> American" schemes - are working. Maybe an idea of how well they'd
> HAVE to work to yeild the desired effects ... historical figures
> would tell that tale. When did it all start to turn negative for us ?
> Late 50's ? Mid 60s ? Once determined we'd have to aim a bit beyond
> the mark.
Didn't Krugman get his Nobel for that particular line of inquiry?
Gary DW
says...
> > Remember the 'local money' that popped up as things began to collapse
> > ... good for merchandise and services from local sources. The Feds
> > (meaning their patrons) HATED it ... but couldn't actually squelsh it
> > either as the stuff could be viewed as simple 'discount coupons'. The
> > fad went away of its own accord, but COULD be revived if expertly
> > sold.
>
> That's really not a bad idea. My neighborhood is talking about a garden
> co-op. Everyone sets aside 100 square feet to raise one or two crops,
> and at harvest time, we redistribute all the crops.
>
>
Thats socialism Zepp...
It will never work!
--
Conservatives only mistrust government when it comes to spending money on
people they don't like. -Digby
6032 Dead, 1175 since 1/20/09
> In article <ir3bm2$e83$7...@dont-email.me>, 6032 Dead, 1175 since 1/20/09
> says...
>
>
>
>> > Remember the 'local money' that popped up as things began to
>> > collapse ... good for merchandise and services from local sources.
>> > The Feds (meaning their patrons) HATED it ... but couldn't
>> > actually squelsh it either as the stuff could be viewed as simple
>> > 'discount coupons'. The fad went away of its own accord, but COULD
>> > be revived if expertly sold.
>>
>> That's really not a bad idea. My neighborhood is talking about a
>> garden co-op. Everyone sets aside 100 square feet to raise one or two
>> crops, and at harvest time, we redistribute all the crops.
>>
>>
>>
> Thats socialism Zepp...
>
> It will never work!
On a large scale, no.
Steve
1/20/09" <de...@gone.com> wrote:
<ROTFL> A hundred sq foot plot will barely grow enough of anything to
supply a single family, let alone several neighbors. When I lived in
Georgia I had a garden that was about a hundred feet long and probably
twelve feet wide. That was for me and three kids.
Matt
> On Thu, 19 May 2011 15:06:42 +0000 (UTC), "6032 Dead, 1175 since
>
>
>
>
>
> 1/20/09" <d...@gone.com> wrote:
> >On Thu, 19 May 2011 10:49:54 -0400, Mr.B1ack wrote:
>
>
> >>>On Wed, 18 May 2011 23:11:36 -0400, Mr.B1ack wrote:
>
>
> >>>>>On Wed, 18 May 2011 16:48:25 -0400, Mr.B1ack wrote:
>
Re-read what he said, Steve. EVERYONE sets aside 100 sq ft. That's
quite
a bit of space overall.
Matt
Steve
<chuckle> No matter if one family sets aside 100 sq feet or 100
familes each set aside 100 sq feet, it's still 100 sq feet per family.
Matt
What is the total sq feet set aside for all Americans in farmland?
Matt
Steve
<LOL> Now there's a good research project for you, Matt, since
you're so desperate to change the subject after your stupid comment
above.
>Matt
Matt
> On Fri, 20 May 2011 18:39:11 -0700 (PDT), Matt
>
>
>
>
>
That's what I thought.
Thanks for pointing out your stupidity, Steve. <LAUGH> We all do
enjoy it.
Matt
Steve
<chuckle> Matt hasn't thought at all. He has no idea how many acres
of Farmland there are in the US nor can he state the relevance to this
issue in this post
>Thanks for pointing out your stupidity, Steve. <LAUGH> We all do
>enjoy it.
>
>Matt
Speaking of laughter...
"As the wattage increases, the loss decreases.
I didn't quite believe this either, but was pointed
at some good evidence of this.
In fact, it makes sense to a certain degree, the
lossage becomes insignificant quickly."
--mattt...@sprynet.com Apr 29, 2008
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/d8ff3e51e76c1f45
Canyon note: See what "makes sense" to a moron? Matt is
not only not the sharpest knife in the drawer, he's apparently
had some nasty encounters with the disposal..
Matt
> On Fri, 20 May 2011 18:39:11 -0700 (PDT), Matt
>
>
>
>
>
Now, for those that actually have a brain and can think.
The total number of acres of crop land in the US is: 2,655,382 acres
(source USDA Economic Research Service).
The total population of the United States is: 307,006,550 people
(source: The US census bureau)
Total number of acres per person: 0.0086 acres per person.
An acre is 43 560 sq ft.
Multiplying, which is well out of Steve's capabilities, we get: 376.76
sq ft per person in the united states overall.
Now, if you have a brain, which again eliminates Steve <chuckle>, you
understand that about a third of the
overall cropland is used for crops for animals. So, we are down to
about 250 sq ft per person. This is on a
large-scale, it is terribly inefficient.
As you see, Steve is an idiot who couldn't bother to do the basic
research needed to understand that 100 sq
ft is MORE than enough to feed a family.
Poor Steve, shown up again.
Matt
>
>
> >Matt- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Steve
<ROTFL> only 2.6 million acres?????
<chuckle> Total cropland used for crops in the USA 2002) was
340 million acres, not <LOL> 2.6 million acres...
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/EIB14/eib14d.pdf
Matt must have his head way up his ass today.
Don't know Matt got that number, but it's ridiculously wrong
>The total population of the United States is: 307,006,550 people
>(source: The US census bureau)
>Total number of acres per person: 0.0086 acres per person.
>An acre is 43 560 sq ft.
>Multiplying, which is well out of Steve's capabilities, we get: 376.76
>sq ft per person in the united states overall.
>
>Now, if you have a brain, which again eliminates Steve <chuckle>, you
>understand that about a third of the
>overall cropland is used for crops for animals. So, we are down to
>about 250 sq ft per person.
Just using Matt's calculations on the real number of cropland in the
USA we get about 32,000 sq feet per person...
>This is on a
>large-scale, it is terribly inefficient.
Actually, the large scale is way more efficient than a home garden you
silly moron.
>As you see, Steve is an idiot who couldn't bother to do the basic
>research needed to understand that 100 sq
>ft is MORE than enough to feed a family.
<ROTFLMAO> Back to grade school with you Matt
>Poor Steve, shown up again.
Irony anyone... Matt says there's only 2.6 million acres of cropland
in the USA when there is really about 340 million acres...
Matt
>
> Matt must have his head way up his ass today.
Organic crop land. <chuckle> Steve thinks that growing food for cows
counts as
crops.
ROFLMAO. Learn to read, Stevie. Learn to think.
Matt
Steve
<ROTFLMAO> Organic crop land, eh... Matt is talking about the
wormy food that you see off in the corner in some grocery stores that
is grown on land that is registered as "organic cropland."
... and Matt is apparently so stupid that he thinks any crop land that
isn't registered as organic cropland is "food for cows?"
Organic cropland looks to be about O.8% of the total cropland and Matt
thinks that all the rest, 99.2% is "food for cows"
>ROFLMAO. Learn to read, Stevie. Learn to think.
Need I say... Irony anyone?
>Matt
Matt
> On Sat, 21 May 2011 07:26:49 -0700 (PDT), Matt
>
>
>
>
>
Poor Steve. Caught in his own stupidity and he has to bluster and
whine. Sounds a lot like Trump.
Learn a lot about farming in Florida there, Steve? Or maybe Montana,
that crop center of the world.
<smile>
Matt
Steve
That's from the remarkably ignorant Matt Telles who says:
"The total number of acres of crop land in the US is: 2,655,382
acres."
--mattt...@sprynet.com
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/61f7f3da22b98987?hl=en
Canyon Note:
Total cropland used for crops in the USA 2002) was
340 million acres, not <LOL> 2.6 million acres...
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/EIB14/eib14d.pdf
Matt says the total cropland is about 250 sq ft per person when
it's actually well over 32,000 sq feet per person...
<snicker> No charge for the lesson (again), Matt.
Steve
<ROTFL> only 2.6 million acres?????
<chuckle> Total cropland used for crops in the USA 2002) was
340 million acres, not <LOL> 2.6 million acres...
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/EIB14/eib14d.pdf
Matt must have his head way up his ass today.
Don't know Matt got that number, but it's ridiculously wrong
>The total population of the United States is: 307,006,550 people
>(source: The US census bureau)
>Total number of acres per person: 0.0086 acres per person.
>An acre is 43 560 sq ft.
>Multiplying, which is well out of Steve's capabilities, we get: 376.76
>sq ft per person in the united states overall.
>
>Now, if you have a brain, which again eliminates Steve <chuckle>, you
>understand that about a third of the
>overall cropland is used for crops for animals. So, we are down to
>about 250 sq ft per person.
Just using Matt's calculations on the real number of cropland in the
USA we get about 32,000 sq feet per person...
>This is on a
>large-scale, it is terribly inefficient.
Actually, the large scale is way more efficient than a home garden you
silly moron.
>As you see, Steve is an idiot who couldn't bother to do the basic
>research needed to understand that 100 sq
>ft is MORE than enough to feed a family.
<ROTFLMAO> Back to grade school with you Matt
>Poor Steve, shown up again.
Irony anyone... Matt says there's only 2.6 million acres of cropland
in the USA when there is really about 340 million acres...
>Matt
Matt
>
> Matt must have his head way up his ass today.
>
> Don't know Matt got that number, but it's ridiculously wrong
Steve, with his extensive background in farming, having lived in the
HUGE
farming states of Florida and Montana babbles on.
Steve, you lost. You were wrong, be a man and admit it.
Oh, wait, you can't. You aren't a man, you are a little boy.
Now I remember why I don't bother to correct every single one of your
posts anymore, since you are wrong every single time.
Steve "Google Scholar" Canyon. A moron at his best.
Now "Steve" will come back with previous whines he's been proven
wrong over. Because "Steve" is too immature to ever let anything go.
Watch and see, folks.
Matt
Steve
<mattt...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>On May 21, 10:09áam, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 May 2011 05:50:58 -0700 (PDT), Matt
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>> >On May 21, 4:49áam, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 20 May 2011 18:39:11 -0700 (PDT), Matt
>>
>> >> <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>> >> >On May 20, 4:20ápm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Fri, 20 May 2011 10:43:43 -0700 (PDT), Matt
>>
>> >> >> <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >On May 20, 9:17áam, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Thu, 19 May 2011 15:06:42 +0000 (UTC), "6032 Dead, 1175 since
>>
>> >> >> >> 1/20/09" <d...@gone.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >On Thu, 19 May 2011 10:49:54 -0400, Mr.B1ack wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> "6019 Dead, 1162 since 1/20/09" <d...@gone.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >>>On Wed, 18 May 2011 23:11:36 -0400, Mr.B1ack wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >>>> "6019 Dead, 1162 since 1/20/09" <d...@gone.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>>On Wed, 18 May 2011 16:48:25 -0400, Mr.B1ack wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>>> "6019 Dead, 1162 since 1/20/09" <d...@gone.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>On Tue, 17 May 2011 10:12:08 -0400, Mr.B1ack wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>On May 16, 11:37ápm, Mr.B1ack <b...@barrk.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> He served his purpose. Going beyond that would do more harm than
>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> good.
>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>What purpose was that?
>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> Notice we don't hear much from Palin anymore either.
>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>No wonder my brain doesn't feel so scrambled anymore.
>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> She motivated HER base, and is now more useful being rather
>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> quiet.
>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>Motivated her base into what? áWhich base? áAnd where is it? áBut
>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>yeah, at least she is more useful being quiet. áSilence is golden.
>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> á áLike any large political party, the GOP is not really so
>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> á áhomogenous as it would like to appear. What you've got is a
>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> á á"United Factions", glued together by a few tenuous common
>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> á áthreads.
>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>Given that the GOP is presently having a multi-sided civil war right
>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>now, I doubt anyone would call it homogenous. áThe bible bangers
>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>hate the greed heads, the greed heads hate the teabaggers, and
>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>everyone hates Newt.
>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>>> á áNot quite THAT bad ... but there is a contest for the "heart and
>> >> >> >> >>>>>> á ásoul of the party" so to speak. The jeezus nuts had it for a
>> >> >> >> >>>>>> á áwhile but they've kind of fallen out of fashion as fiscal issues
>> >> >> >> >>>>>> á áhave moved to the forefront.
>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>>> á áBut with fiscal issues, you've got the 'true conservatives', the
>> >> >> >> >>>>>> á álingering 'neo-cons' like Newtie, the T's and even some
>> >> >> >> >>>>>> á áLibertarian input.
>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>>> á áWouldn't hurt my feelings if the GOP once again became "The
>> >> >> >> >>>>>> á áBusinessmans Party", prefereably the SENSIBLE businessmans party.
>> >> >> >> >>>>>> á áThe reign of the jeezus nuts was just awful for the party.
>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>>They need to break away from the worldwide multinationals first.
>> >> >> >> >>>>>Their interests don't coincide with the interests of the American
>> >> >> >> >>>>>people.
>>
>> >> >> >> >>>> á áEasy to SAY ...
>>
>> >> >> >> >>>And nearly impossible to do. áBut if it isn't done, the future of
>> >> >> >> >>>America is to become another Bangladesh.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> á áWe'll be working for Bangladesh ...
>>
>> >> >> >> >> á áCheap.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> á áAnd HAPPY for the opportunity.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> á áBut, as I wrote, the existing system is too powerful to just get rid
>> >> >> >> >> á áof. It countrols too much money, too many 'leaders' ... and is
>> >> >> >> >> á ácapable of punishing anyone who messes with their gravy train.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> á áSo we'll have to go AROUND them somehow, in ways that don't seem
>> >> >> >> >> á áthreatening at first.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> á áRemember the 'local money' that popped up as things began to collapse
>> >> >> >> >> á á... good for merchandise and services from local sources. The Feds
>> >> >> >> >> á á(meaning their patrons) HATED it ... but couldn't actually squelsh it
>> >> >> >> >> á áeither as the stuff could be viewed as simple 'discount coupons'. The
>> >> >> >> >> á áfad went away of its own accord, but COULD be revived if expertly
>> >> >> >> >> á ásold.
>>
>> >> >> >> >That's really not a bad idea. áMy neighborhood is talking about a garden
>> >> >> >> >co-op. áEveryone sets aside 100 square feet to raise one or two crops,
>> >> >> >> >and at harvest time, we redistribute all the crops. á
>>
>> >> >> >> <ROTFL> áA hundred sq foot plot will barely grow enough of anything to
>> >> >> >> supply a single family, let alone several neighbors. When I lived in
>> >> >> >> Georgia I had a garden that was about a hundred feet long and probably
>> >> >> >> twelve feet wide. á That was for me and three kids.
>>
>> >> >> >Re-read what he said, Steve. EVERYONE sets aside 100 sq ft. That's
>> >> >> >quite
>> >> >> >a bit of space overall.
>>
>> >> >> >Matt
>>
>> >> >> <chuckle> áNo matter if one family sets aside 100 sq feet or 100
>> >> >> familes each set aside 100 sq feet, it's still 100 sq feet per family
>>
>> >> >What is the total sq feet set aside for all Americans in farmland?
>>
>> >> <LOL> á Now there's a good research project for you, Matt, since
>> >> you're so desperate to change the subject after your stupid comment
>> >> above. á
>>
>> >Now, for those that actually have a brain and can think.
>>
>> >The total number of acres of crop land in the US is: 2,655,382 acres
>> >(source USDA Economic Research Service).
>>
>> <ROTFL> áonly 2.6 million acres?????
>>
>> <chuckle> á Total cropland used for crops in the USA 2002) was
>> 340 million acres, not <LOL> á2.6 million acres...
>>http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/EIB14/eib14d.pdf
>>
>> áMatt must have his head way up his ass today.
>>
>> Don't know Matt got that number, but it's ridiculously wrong
>
>Steve, with his extensive background in farming, having lived in the
>HUGE
>farming states of Florida and Montana babbles on.
Matt can't seem to grasp the facts..
since
Both Florida and Montana have more cropland than the 2.6 million acres
Matt claims for the entire USA..
Seems that Matt found a figure for <LOL> organic cropland and
apparently didn't even know what organic cropland was..
>Steve, you lost. You were wrong, be a man and admit it.
Irony anyone?
>Oh, wait, you can't. You aren't a man, you are a little boy.
>
>Now I remember why I don't bother to correct every single one of your
>posts anymore, since you are wrong every single time.
>
>Steve "Google Scholar" Canyon. A moron at his best.
>
>Now "Steve" will come back with previous whines he's been proven
>wrong over. Because "Steve" is too immature to ever let anything go.
>Watch and see, folks.
More irony from Matt.. who can never seem to find a way to get even
with me for re posting his stupidities... this will become one of
them..
"The total number of acres of crop land in the US is: 2,655,382
acres."
--mattt...@sprynet.com
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/61f7f3da22b98987?hl=en
Canyon Note:
Total cropland used for crops in the USA (2002) was
Matt
> On Sat, 21 May 2011 10:59:42 -0700 (PDT), Matt
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 21, 10:09 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 21 May 2011 05:50:58 -0700 (PDT), Matt
>
> >> <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 20 May 2011 18:39:11 -0700 (PDT), Matt
>
> >> >> <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Fri, 20 May 2011 10:43:43 -0700 (PDT), Matt
>
> >> >> >> <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 19 May 2011 15:06:42 +0000 (UTC), "6032 Dead, 1175 since
>
> >> >> >> >> 1/20/09" <d...@gone.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >On Thu, 19 May 2011 10:49:54 -0400, Mr.B1ack wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> "6019 Dead, 1162 since 1/20/09" <d...@gone.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >>>On Wed, 18 May 2011 23:11:36 -0400, Mr.B1ack wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >>>> "6019 Dead, 1162 since 1/20/09" <d...@gone.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>On Wed, 18 May 2011 16:48:25 -0400, Mr.B1ack wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> "6019 Dead, 1162 since 1/20/09" <d...@gone.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>On Tue, 17 May 2011 10:12:08 -0400, Mr.B1ack wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> He served his purpose. Going beyond that would do more harm than
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> good.
>
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>What purpose was that?
>
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> Notice we don't hear much from Palin anymore either.
>
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>No wonder my brain doesn't feel so scrambled anymore.
>
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> She motivated HER base, and is now more useful being rather
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> quiet.
>
>
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Like any large political party, the GOP is not really so
>
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>Given that the GOP is presently having a multi-sided civil war right
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>hate the greed heads, the greed heads hate the teabaggers, and
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>everyone hates Newt.
>
>
>
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> Wouldn't hurt my feelings if the GOP once again became "The
>
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>They need to break away from the worldwide multinationals first.
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>Their interests don't coincide with the interests of the American
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>people.
>
>
> >> >> >> >> >>>And nearly impossible to do. But if it isn't done, the future of
> >> >> >> >> >>>America is to become another Bangladesh.
>
>
>
> >> >> >> >> >> And HAPPY for the opportunity.
>
>
>
> >> >> >> >> >> Remember the 'local money' that popped up as things began to collapse
>
> >> >> >> >> >That's really not a bad idea. My neighborhood is talking about a garden
> >> >> >> >> >co-op. Everyone sets aside 100 square feet to raise one or two crops,
> >> >> >> >> >and at harvest time, we redistribute all the crops.
>
> >> >> >> >> supply a single family, let alone several neighbors. When I lived in
> >> >> >> >> Georgia I had a garden that was about a hundred feet long and probably
>
> >> >> >> >Re-read what he said, Steve. EVERYONE sets aside 100 sq ft. That's
> >> >> >> >quite
> >> >> >> >a bit of space overall.
>
> >> >> >> >Matt
>
> >> >> >> familes each set aside 100 sq feet, it's still 100 sq feet per family
>
> >> >> >What is the total sq feet set aside for all Americans in farmland?
>
> >> >> you're so desperate to change the subject after your stupid comment
> >> >> above.
>
>
> >> >The total number of acres of crop land in the US is: 2,655,382 acres
> >> >(source USDA Economic Research Service).
>
>
> >> 340 million acres, not <LOL> 2.6 million acres...
> >>http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/EIB14/eib14d.pdf
>
>
> >> Don't know Matt got that number, but it's ridiculously wrong
>
> >Steve, with his extensive background in farming, having lived in the
> >HUGE
> >farming states of Florida and Montana babbles on.
>
> Matt can't seem to grasp the facts..
That you live in Florida, grew up in Montana, and haven't a clue about
farming?
No, Steve, I think I have the facts just fine.
<laugh>
Go back to whining some more, Steve.
Matt
Steve
Shaking my head and smiling since Montana has massive amounts of
cropland.
Oh, and BTW....
"The total number of acres of crop land in the US is: 2,655,382 acres."
--mattt...@sprynet.com
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/61f7f3da22b98987?hl=en
Canyon Note:
Total cropland used for crops in the USA (2002) was
340 million acres, not <LOL> 2.6 million acres...
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/EIB14/eib14d.pdf
Matt says the total cropland is about 250 sq ft per person when
it's actually well over 32,000 sq feet per person...
Matt
> On Sat, 21 May 2011 17:27:42 -0700 (PDT), Matt
>
>
>
>
>
And you grew it all, no doubt.
Sure, Steve. Whatever you say.
ROFLAMO.
Did you grow lentils, Steve? Do you know what a lentil is?
ROFLMAO.
Oh, this is just too good.
Tell me, Steve, how many acres did you have of those lentil crops?
C'mon Steve, you are an EXPERT here. Well, ok, a Google Scholar
without a clue, but an EXPERT at it!
Matt
Steve
<mattt...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>On May 21, 6:35ápm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 May 2011 17:27:42 -0700 (PDT), Matt
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>> >On May 21, 3:56ápm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 21 May 2011 10:59:42 -0700 (PDT), Matt
>>
>> >> <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>> >> >On May 21, 10:09áam, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Sat, 21 May 2011 05:50:58 -0700 (PDT), Matt
>>
>> >> >> <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >On May 21, 4:49áam, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Fri, 20 May 2011 18:39:11 -0700 (PDT), Matt
>>
>> >> >> >> <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >On May 20, 4:20ápm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 20 May 2011 10:43:43 -0700 (PDT), Matt
>>
>> >> >> >> >> <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >On May 20, 9:17áam, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 19 May 2011 15:06:42 +0000 (UTC), "6032 Dead, 1175 since
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> 1/20/09" <d...@gone.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >On Thu, 19 May 2011 10:49:54 -0400, Mr.B1ack wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> "6019 Dead, 1162 since 1/20/09" <d...@gone.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>On Wed, 18 May 2011 23:11:36 -0400, Mr.B1ack wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> "6019 Dead, 1162 since 1/20/09" <d...@gone.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>On Wed, 18 May 2011 16:48:25 -0400, Mr.B1ack wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> "6019 Dead, 1162 since 1/20/09" <d...@gone.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>On Tue, 17 May 2011 10:12:08 -0400, Mr.B1ack wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>On May 16, 11:37ápm, Mr.B1ack <b...@barrk.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> He served his purpose. Going beyond that would do more harm than
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> good.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>What purpose was that?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> Notice we don't hear much from Palin anymore either.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>No wonder my brain doesn't feel so scrambled anymore.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> She motivated HER base, and is now more useful being rather
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> quiet.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>Motivated her base into what? áWhich base? áAnd where is it? áBut
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>yeah, at least she is more useful being quiet. áSilence is golden.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> á áLike any large political party, the GOP is not really so
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> á áhomogenous as it would like to appear. What you've got is a
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> á á"United Factions", glued together by a few tenuous common
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> á áthreads.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>Given that the GOP is presently having a multi-sided civil war right
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>now, I doubt anyone would call it homogenous. áThe bible bangers
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>hate the greed heads, the greed heads hate the teabaggers, and
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>everyone hates Newt.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> á áNot quite THAT bad ... but there is a contest for the "heart and
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> á ásoul of the party" so to speak. The jeezus nuts had it for a
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> á áwhile but they've kind of fallen out of fashion as fiscal issues
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> á áhave moved to the forefront.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> á áBut with fiscal issues, you've got the 'true conservatives', the
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> á álingering 'neo-cons' like Newtie, the T's and even some
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> á áLibertarian input.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> á áWouldn't hurt my feelings if the GOP once again became "The
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> á áBusinessmans Party", prefereably the SENSIBLE businessmans party.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> á áThe reign of the jeezus nuts was just awful for the party.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>They need to break away from the worldwide multinationals first.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>Their interests don't coincide with the interests of the American
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>people.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> á áEasy to SAY ...
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>And nearly impossible to do. áBut if it isn't done, the future of
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>America is to become another Bangladesh.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> á áWe'll be working for Bangladesh ...
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> á áCheap.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> á áAnd HAPPY for the opportunity.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> á áBut, as I wrote, the existing system is too powerful to just get rid
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> á áof. It countrols too much money, too many 'leaders' ... and is
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> á ácapable of punishing anyone who messes with their gravy train.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> á áSo we'll have to go AROUND them somehow, in ways that don't seem
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> á áthreatening at first.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> á áRemember the 'local money' that popped up as things began to collapse
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> á á... good for merchandise and services from local sources. The Feds
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> á á(meaning their patrons) HATED it ... but couldn't actually squelsh it
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> á áeither as the stuff could be viewed as simple 'discount coupons'. The
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> á áfad went away of its own accord, but COULD be revived if expertly
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> á ásold.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >That's really not a bad idea. áMy neighborhood is talking about a garden
>> >> >> >> >> >> >co-op. áEveryone sets aside 100 square feet to raise one or two crops,
>> >> >> >> >> >> >and at harvest time, we redistribute all the crops. á
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> <ROTFL> áA hundred sq foot plot will barely grow enough of anything to
>> >> >> >> >> >> supply a single family, let alone several neighbors. When I lived in
>> >> >> >> >> >> Georgia I had a garden that was about a hundred feet long and probably
>> >> >> >> >> >> twelve feet wide. á That was for me and three kids.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >Re-read what he said, Steve. EVERYONE sets aside 100 sq ft. That's
>> >> >> >> >> >quite
>> >> >> >> >> >a bit of space overall.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >Matt
>>
>> >> >> >> >> <chuckle> áNo matter if one family sets aside 100 sq feet or 100
>> >> >> >> >> familes each set aside 100 sq feet, it's still 100 sq feet per family
>>
>> >> >> >> >What is the total sq feet set aside for all Americans in farmland?
>>
>> >> >> >> <LOL> á Now there's a good research project for you, Matt, since
>> >> >> >> you're so desperate to change the subject after your stupid comment
>> >> >> >> above. á
>>
>> >> >> >Now, for those that actually have a brain and can think.
>>
>> >> >> >The total number of acres of crop land in the US is: 2,655,382 acres
>> >> >> >(source USDA Economic Research Service).
>>
>> >> >> <ROTFL> áonly 2.6 million acres?????
>>
>> >> >> <chuckle> á Total cropland used for crops in the USA 2002) was
>> >> >> 340 million acres, not <LOL> á2.6 million acres...
>> >> >>http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/EIB14/eib14d.pdf
>>
>> >> >> áMatt must have his head way up his ass today.
>>
>> >> >> Don't know Matt got that number, but it's ridiculously wrong
>>
>> >> >Steve, with his extensive background in farming, having lived in the
>> >> >HUGE
>> >> >farming states of Florida and Montana babbles on.
>>
>> >> Matt can't seem to grasp the facts..
>>
>> >That you live in Florida, grew up in Montana, and haven't a clue about
>> >farming?
>>
>> >No, Steve, I think I have the facts just fine.
>>
>> ><laugh>
>>
>> >Go back to whining some more, Steve.
>>
>> >Matt
>>
>> Shaking my head and smiling since Montana has massive amounts of
>> cropland.
>
>And you grew it all, no doubt.
>
>Sure, Steve. Whatever you say.
>
>ROFLAMO.
>
>Did you grow lentils, Steve? Do you know what a lentil is?
>
>ROFLMAO.
>
>Oh, this is just too good.
>
>Tell me, Steve, how many acres did you have of those lentil crops?
>
>C'mon Steve, you are an EXPERT here. Well, ok, a Google Scholar
>without a clue, but an EXPERT at it!
>
>
>Matt
That's from Matt Telles who quite stupidly said:
"The total number of acres of crop land in the US is: 2,655,382 acres."
--mattt...@sprynet.com
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/61f7f3da22b98987?hl=en
Canyon Note:
Total cropland used for crops in the USA (2002) was
340 million acres, not <LOL> 2.6 million acres...
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/EIB14/eib14d.pdf
Matt says the total cropland is about 250 sq ft per person when
Matt
> On Sat, 21 May 2011 17:59:27 -0700 (PDT), Matt
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 21, 6:35 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 21 May 2011 17:27:42 -0700 (PDT), Matt
>
> >> <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 21 May 2011 10:59:42 -0700 (PDT), Matt
>
> >> >> <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Sat, 21 May 2011 05:50:58 -0700 (PDT), Matt
>
> >> >> >> <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 20 May 2011 18:39:11 -0700 (PDT), Matt
>
> >> >> >> >> <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 20 May 2011 10:43:43 -0700 (PDT), Matt
>
> >> >> >> >> >> <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 19 May 2011 15:06:42 +0000 (UTC), "6032 Dead, 1175 since
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> 1/20/09" <d...@gone.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >On Thu, 19 May 2011 10:49:54 -0400, Mr.B1ack wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "6019 Dead, 1162 since 1/20/09" <d...@gone.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>On Wed, 18 May 2011 23:11:36 -0400, Mr.B1ack wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> "6019 Dead, 1162 since 1/20/09" <d...@gone.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>On Wed, 18 May 2011 16:48:25 -0400, Mr.B1ack wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> "6019 Dead, 1162 since 1/20/09" <d...@gone.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>On Tue, 17 May 2011 10:12:08 -0400, Mr.B1ack wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> He served his purpose. Going beyond that would do more harm than
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> good.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>What purpose was that?
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> Notice we don't hear much from Palin anymore either.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>No wonder my brain doesn't feel so scrambled anymore.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> She motivated HER base, and is now more useful being rather
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> quiet.
>
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Like any large political party, the GOP is not really so
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>Given that the GOP is presently having a multi-sided civil war right
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>hate the greed heads, the greed heads hate the teabaggers, and
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>everyone hates Newt.
>
>
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> Wouldn't hurt my feelings if the GOP once again became "The
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>They need to break away from the worldwide multinationals first.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>Their interests don't coincide with the interests of the American
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>people.
>
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>And nearly impossible to do. But if it isn't done, the future of
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>America is to become another Bangladesh.
>
>
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> And HAPPY for the opportunity.
>
>
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Remember the 'local money' that popped up as things began to collapse
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >That's really not a bad idea. My neighborhood is talking about a garden
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >co-op. Everyone sets aside 100 square feet to raise one or two crops,
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >and at harvest time, we redistribute all the crops.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> supply a single family, let alone several neighbors. When I lived in
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Georgia I had a garden that was about a hundred feet long and probably
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >Re-read what he said, Steve. EVERYONE sets aside 100 sq ft. That's
> >> >> >> >> >> >quite
> >> >> >> >> >> >a bit of space overall.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >Matt
>
> >> >> >> >> >> familes each set aside 100 sq feet, it's still 100 sq feet per family
>
> >> >> >> >> >What is the total sq feet set aside for all Americans in farmland?
>
> >> >> >> >> you're so desperate to change the subject after your stupid comment
> >> >> >> >> above.
>
>
> >> >> >> >The total number of acres of crop land in the US is: 2,655,382 acres
> >> >> >> >(source USDA Economic Research Service).
>
>
> >> >> >> 340 million acres, not <LOL> 2.6 million acres...
> >> >> >>http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/EIB14/eib14d.pdf
>
Aaaaand there we are!
Thanks, Steve-o, for proving me right again and again.
Now, go back to your lentils.
With your yacht.
In Florida.
ROFLMAO.
Matt
Slackjaw
Let me interrupt for a minute.
Matt, you really believe that only 2.6 million acres of land is used
for farming in the U.S.?
--
-Slackjaw
If ignorance is bliss, why are there so many miserable liberals?
Steve
It's pretty funny, Matt, that every time you try to get even with me
for exposing your ignorance, you end up giving me another keeper..
***********************************************
"The total number of acres of crop land in the US is: 2,655,382
acres."
--mattt...@sprynet.com
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/61f7f3da22b98987?hl=en
Canyon Note:
Total cropland used for crops in the USA (2002) was
340 million acres, not <LOL> 2.6 million acres...
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/EIB14/eib14d.pdf
***********************************************
"As the wattage increases, the loss decreases.
I didn't quite believe this either, but was pointed
at some good evidence of this.
In fact, it makes sense to a certain degree, the
lossage becomes insignificant quickly."
--mattt...@sprynet.com Apr 29, 2008
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/d8ff3e51e76c1f45
Canyon note: See what "makes sense" to a moron? Matt is
not only not the sharpest knife in the drawer, he's apparently
had some nasty encounters with the disposal..
Matt says the total cropland is about 250 sq ft per person when
it's actually well over 32,000 sq feet per person...
***********************************************
"[I] work for Microsoft. Why don't you send me your name
and address, Stevie. I'll have someone from legal
contact you about your "legal retail copy" since XP
is no longer sold legally."
--Matt Telles Feb 19, 2009
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/dc692ef4f374c30a?hl=en
canyon note: Office Depot, for one is still selling it....
***********************************************
"A margin call means you owe money. You
can owe more than you have. Hence, you
can lose money."
--mattt...@sprynet.com
Canyon note: you owe the same amount of
money after the margin call as before it.
***********************************************
Here's the one I love, Matt...
"Removing you from Yahoo is fairly easy, getting rid of your other
account for ToS violations isn't going to take much longer. "
-- mattt...@sprynet.com May 5 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/a709a141b6d0fdd1
Matt
> On Sat, 21 May 2011 18:57:33 -0700 (PDT), Matt
>
>
>
>
>
Its pretty funny, Steve the Google Scholar, how you know nothing
and yet post so much drivel.
How are the lentils coming along, Steve?
ROFLMAO.
Google Scholar Canyon STRIKES AGAIN!
Matt
Steve
"The total number of acres of crop land in the US is: 2,655,382 acres."
--mattt...@sprynet.com
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/61f7f3da22b98987?hl=en
Canyon Note:
Total cropland used for crops in the USA (2002) was
340 million acres, not <LOL> 2.6 million acres...
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/EIB14/eib14d.pdf
Matt says the total cropland is about 250 sq ft per person when
Steve
Fact is that I've schooled poor, ignorant Matt about that and now he's
just acting like the petulant, immature child that he is and
pretending that he hasn't, once more, had his hat handed to him, by
me.
Matt
>
> Canyon ...
LOL. Whatever you say lentil boy.
Matt
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Matt
No, lentil boy likes to make crap up. Go back and re-read the
conversation,
we were discussing farming by individuals (i.e. organic farming).
Lentil boy
can't handle being shown up, so he just changes the conditions of the
conversation.
Do you believe that comparing organic, i.e. local, farming to big mill
operations producing cow and pig food is an apples to apples
comparison?
Matt
>
> --
> -Slackjaw
>
> If ignorance is bliss, why are there so many miserable liberals?- Hide quoted text -
Steve
<chuckle> Matt was too stupid to realize what a ridiculous number
that was.. Florida alone has more cropland than <LOL> 2,655,382
acres."
>LOL. Whatever you say lentil boy.
>
>Matt
Actually, Dummy, it's about what the Dept. of Agriculture has said..
Total cropland used for crops in the USA (2002) was
Steve
<ROTFL> Matt is even too stupid to even know what organic farming
is.. (most home gardens would not qualify) and of course, the word
"organic" wasn't even part of Matt's claim.. see below:
"The total number of acres of crop land in the US is: 2,655,382 acres."
--mattt...@sprynet.com
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/61f7f3da22b98987?hl=en
Canyon Note:
Total cropland used for crops in the USA (2002) was
340 million acres, not <LOL> 2.6 million acres...
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/EIB14/eib14d.pdf
Matt says the total cropland is about 250 sq ft per person when
it's actually well over 32,000 sq feet per person...
Matt
> On Sun, 22 May 2011 08:38:05 -0700 (PDT), Matt
>
>
>
>
>
Hey lentil boy, were we talking to you?
No.
Bye lentil boy.
Matt
Steve
"The total number of acres of crop land in the US is: 2,655,382 acres."
--mattt...@sprynet.com
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/61f7f3da22b98987?hl=en
Canyon Note:
Total cropland used for crops in the USA (2002) was
340 million acres, not <LOL> 2.6 million acres...
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/EIB14/eib14d.pdf
Matt says the total cropland is about 250 sq ft per person when
Matt
>
> Canyon Note:
> Total cropland used for crops in the USA (2002) was
>
> Matt says the total cropland is about 250 sq ft per person when
> it's actually well over 32,000 sq feet per person...
Lentil boy seems to be obsessed with size.
Not a big surprise, really.
He honestly CANNOT handle being shown up. Which is sad, because it is
so easy.
Poor lentil boy. Done a lot of farming there, LB?
ROFLMAO.
Matt
Steve
Thanks for yet another opportunity to repost your ignorance, Matt..
"The total number of acres of crop land in the US is: 2,655,382 acres."
--mattt...@sprynet.com
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/61f7f3da22b98987?hl=en
Matt
> On Sun, 22 May 2011 14:09:46 -0700 (PDT), Matt
>
And Steve says... nothing.
That's what lentils do. Stunning surprise.
Have a good day, lentil boy, reposting your stupidity for all to see.
Matt
Steve
Matt
> On Sun, 22 May 2011 14:30:48 -0700 (PDT), Matt
>
Yes, Lentil Boy, repost away.
Because that's all you do. Because you offer nothing to society.
Because, Lentil Boy, you are a loser.
You don't have a "yacht", you don't have a "wife and kids". You have
nothing, and you know it. That's why you are are here 24/7, that's
why you accomplish nothing, and are terrified that anyone will find
out your name.
So, Lentil Boy, repost away.
ROFLMAO. What a loser.
Matt
Steve
<LOL> as if an ignorant dweeb like you would know about such
things...
By the way, Matt, I do love it when you pathetic fools twitch and
sputter like you do below...
>You have
>nothing, and you know it. That's why you are are here 24/7, that's
>why you accomplish nothing, and are terrified that anyone will find
>out your name.
<LOL> I do love it so..
>So, Lentil Boy, repost away.
>
>ROFLMAO. What a loser.
Remember that I even had so school your dumb ass about header files
too..
>Matt
Thanks for yet another opportunity to repost your ignorance, Matt..
"The total number of acres of crop land in the US is: 2,655,382 acres."
--mattt...@sprynet.com
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/61f7f3da22b98987?hl=en
Matt
> On Sun, 22 May 2011 15:06:28 -0700 (PDT), Matt
>
Thanks for yet another opporunity to point out you are a LOSER, Lentil
Boy.
Sorry I can't post as often as you do, I have a life. A wife,
children, a job.
ROFLMAO.
Matt
Steve
Kurt Nicklas
> On Sun, 22 May 2011 08:38:05 -0700 (PDT), Matt
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Canyon Note:
> Total cropland used for crops in the USA (2002) was
>
> Matt says the total cropland is about 250 sq ft per person when
> it's actually well over 32,000 sq feet per person...
I like to pound Matt with his usenet quotes where he fantasizes about
my death and the deaths of others he hates.
Be a pity if anyone from MS were to spot them on google.
Yeah...a real pity.
Salty Stan
> > >> >> > > > the HUGE
> > >> >> > > >farmingstates of Florida and Montana babbles on.
>
> > >> >> > > Matt can't seem to grasp the facts..
>
> > >> >> > That you live in Florida, grew up in Montana, and haven't a clue about
> > >> >> >farming?
>
> > >> >> > No, Steve, I think I have the facts just fine.
>
> > >> >> > <laugh>
>
> > >> >> > Go back to whining some more, Steve.
>
> > >> >> > Matt
>
> > >> >> Let me interrupt for a minute.
>
> > >> >> Matt, you really believe that only 2.6 million acres of land is used
>
> > >> >No, lentil boy likes to make crap up. Go back and re-read the
> > >> >conversation,
> > >> >we were discussingfarmingby individuals (i.e. organicfarming).
>
> > >> <ROTFL> Matt is even too stupid to even know what organicfarming
> > >> is.. (most home gardens would not qualify) and of course, the word
> > >> "organic" wasn't even part of Matt's claim.. see below:
>
> > >Hey lentil boy, were we talking to you?
>
> > >No.
>
> > >Bye lentil boy.
>
> > >Matt
>
> > "The total number of acres of crop land in the US is: 2,655,382 acres."
> > --matttel...@sprynet.comhttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/61f7f3da22b9898...
Excuse me for butting in, but Matt I don't think you are right on this
one.
2,655,382 acres may seem like a lot, but not to feed the entire USA. I
believe Steve is right on this issue.
>
> > Canyon Note:
> > Total cropland used for crops in the USA (2002) was
> > 340 million acres, not <LOL> 2.6 million acres...http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/EIB14/eib14d.pdf
>
> > Matt says the total cropland is about 250 sq ft per person when
> > it's actually well over 32,000 sq feet per person...
>
> Lentil boy seems to be obsessed with size.
>
> Not a big surprise, really.
>
> He honestly CANNOT handle being shown up. Which is sad, because it is
> so easy.
>
> Poor lentil boy. Done a lot offarming...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Matt
So email them, Kurt. You need the email address, let me know, I'll be
happy
to give you the head of Legal.
Tell him everything I said to you, Kurt. But try not to be too
surprised when he
laughs you out of his office.
Matt
6032 Dead, 1175 since 1/20/09
It that pathetic little turd trying to threaten people again?
He was laughed at and humiliated the last time he did it.
He really is pathetic.
--
"So called payroll taxes aren't taxes at all" -- Steve Canyon, trying to explain
why millionaires don't actually pay less taxes than median income families.
Steve
...or if they saw that he had to be schooled about what a platform
token is...
Steve
Irony anyone? see below:
I figure it's time to start considering legal action
against this little stalker.
--David B.(Zepp) Jamieson 2 Mar 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/b503459d6b2db5b2?hl=en&
Matt
> On Mon, 23 May 2011 12:36:07 -0700, "6032 Dead, 1175 since 1/20/09"
>
Gee, Lentil Boy, you think legal action is violence?
Guess you know as much about the law as you do farming, or
electricity, or computers, or ...
ROFLMAO.
Poor Lentil Boy. Pwned again.
matt
Steve
No, dummy, do you?
>Guess you know as much about the law as you do farming, or
>electricity, or computers, or ...
>
>ROFLMAO.
>
>Poor Lentil Boy. Pwned again.
>
>matt
>
"We import 2,193M barrels of oil a day from Canada. 998M barrels a day
from Mexico.
We produce something like 10M barrels a day"
--mattt...@sprynet.com
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/b61991414c476e85?hl=en
Canyon Note:
The US produces 5,361,000 barrels/day
We import only 9,013,000 barrels/day total
http://www.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=oil_home#tab2
Matt
> On Mon, 23 May 2011 13:59:41 -0700 (PDT), Matt
>
>
> No, dummy, do you?
Lentil Boy calling someone a dummy.
ROFLMAO.
Now THAT, folks, is irony.
C'mon Lentil Boy, respond with some more of your quotes.
Cause you know what, Lentil Boy? MORONS can't think for themselves
and have to parrot others.
Google Scholar
Google Failure.
Buh-bye now Lentil Boy, we won't be hearing from you again if you
have to come up with something original.
Matt
Steve
"The total number of acres of crop land in the US is: 2,655,382 acres."
--mattt...@sprynet.com
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/61f7f3da22b98987?hl=en
Matt
> On Mon, 23 May 2011 16:39:40 -0700 (PDT), Matt
>
>
>
>
>
> <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> >On May 23, 4:47 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 23 May 2011 13:59:41 -0700 (PDT), Matt
>
> >> >Gee, Lentil Boy, you think legal action is violence?
>
> >> No, dummy, do you?
>
> >Lentil Boy calling someone a dummy.
>
> >ROFLMAO.
>
> >Now THAT, folks, is irony.
>
> >C'mon Lentil Boy, respond with some more of your quotes.
>
> >Cause you know what, Lentil Boy? MORONS can't think for themselves
> >and have to parrot others.
>
> >Google Scholar
> >Google Failure.
>
> >Buh-bye now Lentil Boy, we won't be hearing from you again if you
> >have to come up with something original.
>
> >Matt
<Anything that wasn't a quote from someone else removed>
Gee, there you go. Lentil Boy at his best.
He said:
<nothing>
Stunning, isn't it folks? This kid really is a moron.
Matt
Steve
"As the wattage increases, the loss decreases.
I didn't quite believe this either, but was pointed
at some good evidence of this.
In fact, it makes sense to a certain degree, the
lossage becomes insignificant quickly."
--mattt...@sprynet.com Apr 29, 2008
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/d8ff3e51e76c1f45
Canyon note: See what "makes sense" to a moron? Matt is
not only not the sharpest knife in the drawer, he's apparently
had some nasty encounters with the disposal..
Matt
> On Mon, 23 May 2011 16:54:56 -0700 (PDT), Matt
>
>
>
>
>
<Quotes removed leaving nothing>
Lentil Boy doesn't seem to have anything to say. There's a surprise.
Guess that's because he can't talk about the yacht he claimed to have,
and its landline for his Internet. Can't talk about the wife he
doesn't have
or the children he's claimed at various stages.
Poor Lentil Boy. He's just a complete loser.
Matt
Steve
"The total number of acres of crop land in the US is: 2,655,382 acres."
Matt
> On Mon, 23 May 2011 17:09:26 -0700 (PDT), Matt
>
>
>
>
>
Steve
"The total number of acres of crop land in the US is: 2,655,382 acres."
Matt
> On Mon, 23 May 2011 17:17:23 -0700 (PDT), Matt
>
>
>
>
>
<Quotes Removed>
Thanks Lentil Boy. I do appreciate you proving you have no wife,
children, yacht or apartment buildings.
Matt
Steve
"Removing you from Yahoo is fairly easy, getting rid of your other
account for ToS violations isn't going to take much longer. "
-- mattt...@sprynet.com May 5 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/a709a141b6d0fdd1
Steve
Slackjaw
> On May 21, 10:22 pm, "Slackjaw" <SlackJa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Matt wrote:
> > > On May 21, 3:56 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Sat,---
> > Let me interrupt for a minute.
> >
> > Matt, you really believe that only 2.6 million acres of land is used
> > for farming in the U.S.?
>
> No, lentil boy likes to make crap up. Go back and re-read the
> conversation,
> we were discussing farming by individuals (i.e. organic farming).
> Lentil boy
> can't handle being shown up, so he just changes the conditions of the
> conversation.
>
> Do you believe that comparing organic, i.e. local, farming to big mill
> operations producing cow and pig food is an apples to apples
> comparison?
>
> Matt
>
Didn't you post this, Matt?
Kurt Nicklas
I'll do one better, Matt. I'll slap them out into the groups again.
I think you're sick.
"Thank you for proving the Republicans are traitors. You will be
executed, slime."
---- Matt Telles, 1/22/10
"Yep. Bush must be executed. Anyone that has ever backed him must be
executed. Anyone that voted for him must be executed."
---- Matt Telles, 10/16/05
"So, you are a Commie? I hope they string you up and execute you,
stinking Communist.
---- Matt Telles, 10/10/09
"No, we feel that you should be executed. What's your address,
traitor?"
---- Matt Telles threatens my life, 10/30/09
"You WILL be tracked down, you WILL be tried, you WILL be executed."
---- Matt Telles threatens my life, 10/29/09
Kurt Nicklas
wrote:
> On Mon, 23 May 2011 10:07:54 -0700 (PDT), Matt
>
<shrug>
I don't make you leftwingers fantasize about the deaths of people who
don't agree with you.
But I do point out your quotes, don't I?
Poor lil you.
Matt
Ah, another moron that can only pull up quotes.
C'mon Nickles, send them to the FBI. Let's see that muscle of yours.
ROFLMAO.
Conservative = Loser, apparently.
You and Lentil Boy, sitting in a tree...
ROFLMAO.
C'mon MORON, do something about it.
Matt
Steve
"Removing you from Yahoo is fairly easy, getting rid of your other
Matt
> On Tue, 24 May 2011 04:31:41 -0700 (PDT), Matt
>
Hey, Look! Its LOSER LENTIL BOY with his zero content!
Thanks LENTIL BOY LOSER! Without you, we might learn something.
Now, go back to your dreary little apartment without a wife or
children.
Don't sail on the yacht you don't have, or go to the job you don't
have.
ROFLMAO.
Bye Lentil Boy Loser.
Matt
Matt
Poor Nickie, just won't go to the FBI.
Why is that, Nickie?
C'mon loser boy, do it.
Matt