info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
What Kind of Criminal Activity Is Keeping Trump From Releasing His Tax Returns? What Is He Afraid Of?
29 views
Skip to first unread message
Joe Cooper
Sep 20, 2016, 12:41:54 AM9/20/16
to
he's clearly a liar and a criminal, on top of being a morbidly obese coward
who is afraid of the truth. He's got a big mouth and a tiny brain. He
probably sucked cocks in school and stull does occasionally just to keep in
practice until he meets Putin again.
More here:
Unless Donald Trump releases his tax returns, we should assume he is lying
through his teeth about giving “millions” to charities and good causes.
We should assume that when he had a chance to show how much he really cared
for veterans by giving some of his money to help them, he flipped them off.
And when he had a chance to show how much he supported, say, police officers
or their families, or border patrol agents by contributing to their benevolent
funds or even legal defense funds, he just let the phone ring.
And when he had a chance to show his compassion or generosity by giving money
to other charitable causes, he told them to talk to the hand.
I can’t prove it for certain. You can’t prove a negative. But it’s time to
stop letting cynical spin doctors take advantage of that principle. Trump can
prove this assumption wrong by releasing his tax returns. If he doesn’t, the
assumption will have to stand.
When people hide financial documents, there’s a reason for it.
Ironically, I would love to be wrong. I would love to be able to see that
Trump has given a fortune to good causes, year after year. I would love to be
stunned by the scale of his generosity. The reason? It might encourage other
rich people — and other middle-class people, for that matter — to reach into
their wallets more often as well.
Oh, and it might also give me a smidgen more hope about the man who has a
one-in-three chance of becoming the next president. Donald Trump could be in
the White House next January. He could control our nukes, our Special Forces
and the awesome, terrifying panoply of the state. I would love it if he
weren’t a sociopath.
But I dare not hope. Trump is hiding his tax returns.
If it looks, talks and quacks like a duck, it’s almost certainly a duck. And
when it looks, talks and quacks like a billionaire going out of his way to
hide the one legal document that could show how much he has given to charity
over the years … well, work it out.
Every presidential candidate in modern times has shared his returns with
voters, so that they could see he was on the up and up. Even Trump’s running
mate, Mike Pence, has done so.
Can you imagine the news headlines if Hillary Clinton were hiding her tax
returns? (Really. Just shut your eyes for a moment and just imagine it.
Hilarious, isn’t it?)
Read: Trump Foundation’s purchase of Trump painting gives new meaning to art
of the deal
This isn’t a sideshow. This goes to the heart of the Trump campaign. Donald
Trump claims to be a rich guy who has the interests of ordinary people at
heart. But if that were true, he would have shared generously of his fortune
with deserving ordinary people over the years. I’ll bet most of the people
reading this have done so, and they don’t have a fraction of Trump’s wealth.
If he hasn’t done that, then he isn’t a rich guy who has the interests of
ordinary people at heart. He is a rich guy running for president out of vanity
— oh, yeah, and so he can save his kids billions in inheritance taxes by
abolishing them.
I’ve been writing about finance for over 20 years, and over and over again
I’ve found that when people hide financial details, they do it for a reason.
That was true when Enron was shuffling derivatives into separate “special
purpose vehicles” that didn’t show up on the balance sheet. It was true when
Wall Street banks created mortgage-backed securities so complicated that the
investors couldn’t actually understand them. It’s been true every time a
company has made its proxy statements so long, dense and convoluted that none
of the stockholders could work out just how much money the CEO was taking
home.
And I’d bet dollars to Trump casino IOUs that it’s true when a presidential
candidate who boasts about being worth “billions,” and who boasts about giving
“millions” and even “tens of millions” to charity, then goes out of his way to
hide any evidence.
Whenever people hide financial documents, there’s a reason for it.
Trump claims he will release his returns when a “routine audit” is complete.
There is absolutely no logical reason — none — to take that preposterous
statement seriously. No “audit” would stop him from releasing his returns.
Even the IRS came out and confirmed that. It’s obvious to anyone with even a
basic knowledge of tax affairs. Oh, and what about previous years?
Some think Trump is hiding his returns because he’s hiding financial links to
the Kremlin or unsavory characters. But those might not show up on his tax
returns, unless he was really, really foolish. (I’m not ruling that out.)
Others speculate that he’s hiding his minuscule tax bill. But Trump has
already boasted about how easy it is for rich guys like him to game the
system. That probably wouldn’t stop him from releasing his returns either.
The one thing his tax returns can’t hide, however, is how much or little he
gets to deduct for his charitable donations.
And note that the IRS counts only real, bona fide donations. So-called
“donations” of time, goodwill or the use of an empty club room in the
off-season don’t cut it.
The U.S. media is hamstrung in covering this story by a combination of
cowardice and its peculiar version of the Queensberry rules. For example, we
keep reporting the defenses and obfuscations offered by the Trump campaign,
even though they are completely bogus.
So all praise to David Fahrenthold at the Washington Post. Through some
terrific old-school, shoe-leather reporting, he has already done everything
reasonable to find charities that have received checks from Donald Trump. The
results: not good.
Trump? He has suggested he won’t release his returns before the election,
which surely means “ever.” But he does say that as president he will try to
“loosen up” the libel laws so he can sue the Washington Post “for a lot of
money” for criticizing him. Good to know.
I contacted Trump’s campaign yesterday to ask about the returns. Their
response? To borrow a popular twitterism: “crickets.”
The only response that would count for anything would be to release the
returns. On that the campaign’s silence is deafening. And unless that changes,
we have to draw the only conclusions that make sense.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/donald-trump-has-all-the-reasons-in-the-world-to-release-his-tax-returns-2016-09-14
who is afraid of the truth. He's got a big mouth and a tiny brain. He
probably sucked cocks in school and stull does occasionally just to keep in
practice until he meets Putin again.
More here:
Unless Donald Trump releases his tax returns, we should assume he is lying
through his teeth about giving “millions” to charities and good causes.
We should assume that when he had a chance to show how much he really cared
for veterans by giving some of his money to help them, he flipped them off.
And when he had a chance to show how much he supported, say, police officers
or their families, or border patrol agents by contributing to their benevolent
funds or even legal defense funds, he just let the phone ring.
And when he had a chance to show his compassion or generosity by giving money
to other charitable causes, he told them to talk to the hand.
I can’t prove it for certain. You can’t prove a negative. But it’s time to
stop letting cynical spin doctors take advantage of that principle. Trump can
prove this assumption wrong by releasing his tax returns. If he doesn’t, the
assumption will have to stand.
When people hide financial documents, there’s a reason for it.
Ironically, I would love to be wrong. I would love to be able to see that
Trump has given a fortune to good causes, year after year. I would love to be
stunned by the scale of his generosity. The reason? It might encourage other
rich people — and other middle-class people, for that matter — to reach into
their wallets more often as well.
Oh, and it might also give me a smidgen more hope about the man who has a
one-in-three chance of becoming the next president. Donald Trump could be in
the White House next January. He could control our nukes, our Special Forces
and the awesome, terrifying panoply of the state. I would love it if he
weren’t a sociopath.
But I dare not hope. Trump is hiding his tax returns.
If it looks, talks and quacks like a duck, it’s almost certainly a duck. And
when it looks, talks and quacks like a billionaire going out of his way to
hide the one legal document that could show how much he has given to charity
over the years … well, work it out.
Every presidential candidate in modern times has shared his returns with
voters, so that they could see he was on the up and up. Even Trump’s running
mate, Mike Pence, has done so.
Can you imagine the news headlines if Hillary Clinton were hiding her tax
returns? (Really. Just shut your eyes for a moment and just imagine it.
Hilarious, isn’t it?)
Read: Trump Foundation’s purchase of Trump painting gives new meaning to art
of the deal
This isn’t a sideshow. This goes to the heart of the Trump campaign. Donald
Trump claims to be a rich guy who has the interests of ordinary people at
heart. But if that were true, he would have shared generously of his fortune
with deserving ordinary people over the years. I’ll bet most of the people
reading this have done so, and they don’t have a fraction of Trump’s wealth.
If he hasn’t done that, then he isn’t a rich guy who has the interests of
ordinary people at heart. He is a rich guy running for president out of vanity
— oh, yeah, and so he can save his kids billions in inheritance taxes by
abolishing them.
I’ve been writing about finance for over 20 years, and over and over again
I’ve found that when people hide financial details, they do it for a reason.
That was true when Enron was shuffling derivatives into separate “special
purpose vehicles” that didn’t show up on the balance sheet. It was true when
Wall Street banks created mortgage-backed securities so complicated that the
investors couldn’t actually understand them. It’s been true every time a
company has made its proxy statements so long, dense and convoluted that none
of the stockholders could work out just how much money the CEO was taking
home.
And I’d bet dollars to Trump casino IOUs that it’s true when a presidential
candidate who boasts about being worth “billions,” and who boasts about giving
“millions” and even “tens of millions” to charity, then goes out of his way to
hide any evidence.
Whenever people hide financial documents, there’s a reason for it.
Trump claims he will release his returns when a “routine audit” is complete.
There is absolutely no logical reason — none — to take that preposterous
statement seriously. No “audit” would stop him from releasing his returns.
Even the IRS came out and confirmed that. It’s obvious to anyone with even a
basic knowledge of tax affairs. Oh, and what about previous years?
Some think Trump is hiding his returns because he’s hiding financial links to
the Kremlin or unsavory characters. But those might not show up on his tax
returns, unless he was really, really foolish. (I’m not ruling that out.)
Others speculate that he’s hiding his minuscule tax bill. But Trump has
already boasted about how easy it is for rich guys like him to game the
system. That probably wouldn’t stop him from releasing his returns either.
The one thing his tax returns can’t hide, however, is how much or little he
gets to deduct for his charitable donations.
And note that the IRS counts only real, bona fide donations. So-called
“donations” of time, goodwill or the use of an empty club room in the
off-season don’t cut it.
The U.S. media is hamstrung in covering this story by a combination of
cowardice and its peculiar version of the Queensberry rules. For example, we
keep reporting the defenses and obfuscations offered by the Trump campaign,
even though they are completely bogus.
So all praise to David Fahrenthold at the Washington Post. Through some
terrific old-school, shoe-leather reporting, he has already done everything
reasonable to find charities that have received checks from Donald Trump. The
results: not good.
Trump? He has suggested he won’t release his returns before the election,
which surely means “ever.” But he does say that as president he will try to
“loosen up” the libel laws so he can sue the Washington Post “for a lot of
money” for criticizing him. Good to know.
I contacted Trump’s campaign yesterday to ask about the returns. Their
response? To borrow a popular twitterism: “crickets.”
The only response that would count for anything would be to release the
returns. On that the campaign’s silence is deafening. And unless that changes,
we have to draw the only conclusions that make sense.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/donald-trump-has-all-the-reasons-in-the-world-to-release-his-tax-returns-2016-09-14
Ubiquitous
Sep 20, 2016, 4:42:56 AM9/20/16
to
In article <nrqemf$1j79$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, joe.c...@heiltrump.net wrote:
>he's clearly a liar and a criminal, on top of being a morbidly obese coward
>who is afraid of the truth. He's got a big mouth and a tiny brain. He
>probably sucked cocks in school and stull does occasionally just to keep in
>practice until he meets Putin again.
And you posted this off-topic article here because?
>he's clearly a liar and a criminal, on top of being a morbidly obese coward
>who is afraid of the truth. He's got a big mouth and a tiny brain. He
>probably sucked cocks in school and stull does occasionally just to keep in
>practice until he meets Putin again.
--
Hillary is still awaiting evidence beyond an explosion, shrapnel, fire,
smoke, and injuries to decide if NYC experienced a bomb.
Ed Huntress
Sep 20, 2016, 5:40:46 AM9/20/16
to
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 04:43:57 -0500, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
wrote:
For good reason. People were yelling "bomb" the last time there was a
large explosion on the east side, but it turned out to be from leaking
gas:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_East_Village_gas_explosion
Police initially thought the leak came from Donald Trump, but he was
uptown at the time.
--
Ed Huntress
wrote:
large explosion on the east side, but it turned out to be from leaking
gas:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_East_Village_gas_explosion
Police initially thought the leak came from Donald Trump, but he was
uptown at the time.
--
Ed Huntress
mog...@hotmail.com
Sep 20, 2016, 9:16:18 AM9/20/16
to
On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 12:41:54 AM UTC-4, Joe Cooper wrote:
> he's clearly a liar and a criminal ...
Well he isn't a convicted criminal but, it sure would be nice if he'd be up front about stuff like this. He owes $650 million dollars to a Chinese bank. Strangely didn't want to be up front about it. Doesn't want to talk about it or be bothered with it.
Does he owe money to a Russian bank?
(I say again, it sure would be nice if he'd be up front about stuff like this)
> he's clearly a liar and a criminal ...
Well he isn't a convicted criminal but, it sure would be nice if he'd be up front about stuff like this. He owes $650 million dollars to a Chinese bank. Strangely didn't want to be up front about it. Doesn't want to talk about it or be bothered with it.
Does he owe money to a Russian bank?
(I say again, it sure would be nice if he'd be up front about stuff like this)
&
Sep 20, 2016, 11:46:34 AM9/20/16
to
fake flooding its to hide online dealing its from peter j ross and alt
usenet kooks report them to fbi . i win
On 09/20/2016 12:38 AM, raykeller wrote:
> he's clearly a liar and a criminal, on top of being a morbidly obese
> coward who is afraid of the truth. He's got a big mouth and a tiny
> brain. He probably sucked cocks in school and stull does
> occasionally just to keep in practice until he meets Putin again.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Wayne
Sep 20, 2016, 5:28:23 PM9/20/16
to
On 9/19/2016 9:38 PM, raykeller wrote:
> he's clearly a liar and a criminal, on top of being a morbidly obese
> coward who is afraid of the truth. He's got a big mouth and a tiny
> brain. He probably sucked cocks in school and stull does occasionally
> just to keep in practice until he meets Putin again.
>
Who the hell cares about his tax returns.
> he's clearly a liar and a criminal, on top of being a morbidly obese
> coward who is afraid of the truth. He's got a big mouth and a tiny
> brain. He probably sucked cocks in school and stull does occasionally
> just to keep in practice until he meets Putin again.
>
The choice is between Hillary, who is guaranteed to turn the US into a
fucked up socialist mess or Trump who may or may not fuck things up.
Given those choices, Trump is clearly preferred.
stunnel bear
Sep 20, 2016, 5:41:59 PM9/20/16
to
Ooops, loony braindead libs need not apply.
PaxPerPoten
Sep 20, 2016, 6:26:30 PM9/20/16
to
On 9/19/2016 11:43 PM, rightwing-values wrote:
> he's clearly a liar and a criminal, on top of being a morbidly obese
> coward who is afraid of the truth. He's got a big mouth and a tiny
> brain. He probably sucked cocks in school and stull does occasionally
> just to keep in practice until he meets Putin again.
>
Looks like Bradley Sherman shitheads postings!
> he's clearly a liar and a criminal, on top of being a morbidly obese
> coward who is afraid of the truth. He's got a big mouth and a tiny
> brain. He probably sucked cocks in school and stull does occasionally
> just to keep in practice until he meets Putin again.
>
--
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but *They mean to govern*. They promise to
be good masters, *but they mean to be masters*. Daniel Webster
Jeanne Douglas
Sep 20, 2016, 7:48:51 PM9/20/16
to
In article <nrs9lc$s5d$1...@dont-email.me>,
> or Trump who may or may not fuck things up.
>
> Given those choices, Trump is clearly preferred.
Are you high?
Every word out of Trump's mouth is proof that he's a racist fascist who
hates the Constitution.
--
JD
Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream
up a God superior to themselves. Most
Gods have the manners and morals of a
spoiled child.
Wayne <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 9/19/2016 9:38 PM, raykeller wrote:
> > he's clearly a liar and a criminal, on top of being a morbidly obese
> > coward who is afraid of the truth. He's got a big mouth and a tiny
> > brain. He probably sucked cocks in school and stull does occasionally
> > just to keep in practice until he meets Putin again.
> >
> Who the hell cares about his tax returns.
>
> The choice is between Hillary, who is guaranteed to turn the US into a
> fucked up socialist mess
Your evidence for this ridiculous assertion?
> On 9/19/2016 9:38 PM, raykeller wrote:
> > he's clearly a liar and a criminal, on top of being a morbidly obese
> > coward who is afraid of the truth. He's got a big mouth and a tiny
> > brain. He probably sucked cocks in school and stull does occasionally
> > just to keep in practice until he meets Putin again.
> >
> Who the hell cares about his tax returns.
>
> The choice is between Hillary, who is guaranteed to turn the US into a
> fucked up socialist mess
> or Trump who may or may not fuck things up.
>
> Given those choices, Trump is clearly preferred.
Every word out of Trump's mouth is proof that he's a racist fascist who
hates the Constitution.
--
JD
Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream
up a God superior to themselves. Most
Gods have the manners and morals of a
spoiled child.
stunnel bear
Sep 20, 2016, 9:14:35 PM9/20/16
to
On 9/20/2016 5:48 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <nrs9lc$s5d$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Wayne <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> On 9/19/2016 9:38 PM, raykeller wrote:
>>> he's clearly a liar and a criminal, on top of being a morbidly obese
>>> coward who is afraid of the truth. He's got a big mouth and a tiny
>>> brain. He probably sucked cocks in school and stull does occasionally
>>> just to keep in practice until he meets Putin again.
>>>
>> Who the hell cares about his tax returns.
>>
>> The choice is between Hillary, who is guaranteed to turn the US into a
>> fucked up socialist mess
>
> Your evidence for this ridiculous assertion?
Saul Alinsky.
> In article <nrs9lc$s5d$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Wayne <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> On 9/19/2016 9:38 PM, raykeller wrote:
>>> he's clearly a liar and a criminal, on top of being a morbidly obese
>>> coward who is afraid of the truth. He's got a big mouth and a tiny
>>> brain. He probably sucked cocks in school and stull does occasionally
>>> just to keep in practice until he meets Putin again.
>>>
>> Who the hell cares about his tax returns.
>>
>> The choice is between Hillary, who is guaranteed to turn the US into a
>> fucked up socialist mess
>
> Your evidence for this ridiculous assertion?
>> or Trump who may or may not fuck things up.
>>
>> Given those choices, Trump is clearly preferred.
>
> Are you high?
> Every word out of Trump's mouth is proof that he's a racist fascist who
> hates the Constitution.
“Our job is to not make life more comfortable for the rioter or the
robber or the looter,” said Trump while addressing supporters in West
Bend, Wis., a city where the black population hovers around 1%,
according to recent census data. “Our job is to make life more
comfortable for the African American parent who wants their kids to be
able to safely — safely — walk the streets and walk to school. Or the
senior citizen waiting for a bus.”
“The Democratic Party has failed and betrayed the African American
community,” said Trump, arguing that high poverty rates and poor school
systems in predominantly black inner cities nationwide reflect the
failures of Democrats who oversee these communities.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/second-amendment-rights
Donald J. Trump on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the
people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period.
The Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right that belongs to all
law-abiding Americans. The Constitution doesn’t create that right – it
ensures that the government can’t take it away. Our Founding Fathers
knew, and our Supreme Court has upheld, that the Second Amendment’s
purpose is to guarantee our right to defend ourselves and our families.
This is about self-defense, plain and simple.
It’s been said that the Second Amendment is America’s first freedom.
That’s because the Right to Keep and Bear Arms protects all our other
rights. We are the only country in the world that has a Second
Amendment. Protecting that freedom is imperative. Here’s how we will do
that:
Enforce The Laws On The Books
We need to get serious about prosecuting violent criminals. The Obama
administration’s record on that is abysmal. Violent crime in cities like
Baltimore, Chicago and many others is out of control. Drug dealers and
gang members are given a slap on the wrist and turned loose on the
street. This needs to stop.
Several years ago there was a tremendous program in Richmond, Virginia
called Project Exile. It said that if a violent felon uses a gun to
commit a crime, you will be prosecuted in federal court and go to prison
for five years – no parole or early release. Obama’s former Attorney
General, Eric Holder, called that a “cookie cutter” program. That’s
ridiculous. I call that program a success. Murders committed with guns
in Richmond decreased by over 60% when Project Exile was in place – in
the first two years of the program alone, 350 armed felons were taken
off the street.
Why does that matter to law-abiding gun owners? Because they’re the ones
who anti-gun politicians and the media blame when criminals misuse guns.
We need to bring back and expand programs like Project Exile and get
gang members and drug dealers off the street. When we do, crime will go
down and our cities and communities will be safer places to live.
Here’s another important way to fight crime – empower law-abiding gun
owners to defend themselves. Law enforcement is great, they do a
tremendous job, but they can’t be everywhere all of the time. Our
personal protection is ultimately up to us. That’s why I’m a gun owner,
that’s why I have a concealed carry permit, and that’s why tens of
millions of Americans have concealed carry permits as well. It’s just
common sense. To make America great again, we’re going to go after
criminals and put the law back on the side of the law-abiding.
Fix Our Broken Mental Health System
Let’s be clear about this. Our mental health system is broken. It needs
to be fixed. Too many politicians have ignored this problem for too long.
All of the tragic mass murders that occurred in the past several years
have something in common – there were red flags that were ignored. We
can’t allow that to continue. We need to expand treatment programs,
because most people with mental health problems aren’t violent, they
just need help. But for those who are violent, a danger to themselves or
others, we need to get them off the street before they can terrorize our
communities. This is just common sense.
And why does this matter to law-abiding gun owners? Once again, because
they get blamed by anti-gun politicians, gun control groups and the
media for the acts of deranged madmen. When one of these tragedies
occurs, we can count on two things: one, that opponents of gun rights
will immediately exploit it to push their political agenda; and two,
that none of their so-called “solutions” would have prevented the
tragedy in the first place. They’ve even admitted it.
We need real solutions to address real problems. Not grandstanding or
political agendas.
Rudy Canoza
Sep 20, 2016, 11:54:53 PM9/20/16
to
On 9/20/2016 6:14 PM, stunnel bear wrote:
> On 9/20/2016 5:48 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>> In article <nrs9lc$s5d$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> Wayne <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/19/2016 9:38 PM, raykeller wrote:
>>>> he's clearly a liar and a criminal, on top of being a morbidly obese
>>>> coward who is afraid of the truth. He's got a big mouth and a tiny
>>>> brain. He probably sucked cocks in school and stull does occasionally
>>>> just to keep in practice until he meets Putin again.
>>>>
>>> Who the hell cares about his tax returns.
>>>
>>> The choice is between Hillary, who is guaranteed to turn the US into a
>>> fucked up socialist mess
>>
>> Your evidence for this ridiculous assertion?
>
> Saul Alinsky.
LOL! You might as well have said R. Crumb or H. Rap Brown or J. Young.
> On 9/20/2016 5:48 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>> In article <nrs9lc$s5d$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> Wayne <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/19/2016 9:38 PM, raykeller wrote:
>>>> he's clearly a liar and a criminal, on top of being a morbidly obese
>>>> coward who is afraid of the truth. He's got a big mouth and a tiny
>>>> brain. He probably sucked cocks in school and stull does occasionally
>>>> just to keep in practice until he meets Putin again.
>>>>
>>> Who the hell cares about his tax returns.
>>>
>>> The choice is between Hillary, who is guaranteed to turn the US into a
>>> fucked up socialist mess
>>
>> Your evidence for this ridiculous assertion?
>
> Saul Alinsky.
You cunt.
stunnel bear
Sep 21, 2016, 12:06:26 AM9/21/16
to
Wow.
Gunner Asch
Sep 21, 2016, 4:26:19 PM9/21/16
to
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 00:43:40 -0400, rightwing-values
<sssn...@nospam.net> wrote:
>Path: not-for-mail
>From: rightwing-values <sssn...@nospam.net>
>Newsgroups: alt.survival,misc.survivalism,talk.politics.misc
>Subject: What Kind of Criminal Activity Is Keeping Trump From Releasing His Tax Returns? What Is He Afraid Of?
>Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.atheism,rec.crafts.metalworking
>Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 00:43:40 -0400
>Organization: A
>Lines: 148
>Message-ID: <nrqeub$1jd8$1...@gioia.aioe.org>
>Reply-To: nob...@nospam.net
>NNTP-Posting-Host: UV2k5pE7oyAQ6qJtKueD0Q.user.gioia.aioe.org
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Complaints-To: ab...@aioe.org
>X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
>X-Newsreader: MesNews/1.08.06.00-gb
>X-ICQ: 543516788
>X-Received-Body-CRC: 1919502152
>X-Received-Bytes: 7923
>X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 160921-4, 09/21/2016), Inbound message
>X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
>
>I'm clearly a liar and a criminal, on top of being a morbidly obese coward
>who is afraid of the truth. I've got a big mouth and a tiny brain. i
> sucked cocks in school and stull do occasionally just to keep in
>practice until I meets Putin again.
>
Thats a hell of an admission!!
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
<sssn...@nospam.net> wrote:
>Path: not-for-mail
>From: rightwing-values <sssn...@nospam.net>
>Newsgroups: alt.survival,misc.survivalism,talk.politics.misc
>Subject: What Kind of Criminal Activity Is Keeping Trump From Releasing His Tax Returns? What Is He Afraid Of?
>Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.atheism,rec.crafts.metalworking
>Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 00:43:40 -0400
>Organization: A
>Lines: 148
>Message-ID: <nrqeub$1jd8$1...@gioia.aioe.org>
>Reply-To: nob...@nospam.net
>NNTP-Posting-Host: UV2k5pE7oyAQ6qJtKueD0Q.user.gioia.aioe.org
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Complaints-To: ab...@aioe.org
>X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
>X-Newsreader: MesNews/1.08.06.00-gb
>X-ICQ: 543516788
>X-Received-Body-CRC: 1919502152
>X-Received-Bytes: 7923
>X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 160921-4, 09/21/2016), Inbound message
>X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
>
>I'm clearly a liar and a criminal, on top of being a morbidly obese coward
>who is afraid of the truth. I've got a big mouth and a tiny brain. i
> sucked cocks in school and stull do occasionally just to keep in
>practice until I meets Putin again.
>
Thats a hell of an admission!!
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
duke
Sep 21, 2016, 4:28:17 PM9/21/16
to
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 00:39:29 -0400, Joe Cooper <joe.c...@heiltrump.net> wrote:
>he's clearly a liar and a criminal, on top of being a morbidly obese coward
>who is afraid of the truth. He's got a big mouth and a tiny brain. He
>probably sucked cocks in school and stull does occasionally just to keep in
>practice until he meets Putin again.
He's probably waiting on hitlery to release her 33,000 missing emails.
>he's clearly a liar and a criminal, on top of being a morbidly obese coward
>who is afraid of the truth. He's got a big mouth and a tiny brain. He
>probably sucked cocks in school and stull does occasionally just to keep in
>practice until he meets Putin again.
the dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Rudy Canoza
Sep 21, 2016, 5:38:00 PM9/21/16
to
[followups vandalism by deplorable cocksucker repaired]
On 9/20/2016 9:06 PM, spammy - a dumb cunt whose face I intend to smash
with a shovel - mewled:
No, stupid cunt, because I don't.
You don't say a thing, not one fucking thing, when you simply blurt
"Saul Alinsky." That doesn't mean anything.
On 9/20/2016 9:06 PM, spammy - a dumb cunt whose face I intend to smash
with a shovel - mewled:
> On 9/20/2016 9:54 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 9/20/2016 6:14 PM, spammy - a dumb cunt whose face I intend to smash with a shovel - mewled:
You don't say a thing, not one fucking thing, when you simply blurt
"Saul Alinsky." That doesn't mean anything.
escarpment
Sep 21, 2016, 6:12:40 PM9/21/16
to
On 9/21/2016 3:37 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> You cunt.
>>>
>> You might as well have told us all you front for Shillary.
>
> No, stupid cunt, because I don't.
Of course you do.
>>> You cunt.
>>>
>> You might as well have told us all you front for Shillary.
>
> No, stupid cunt, because I don't.
Any vote NOT for Trump is functionally a vote FOR Shillary.
Period.
> You don't say a thing, not one fucking thing, when you simply blurt
> "Saul Alinsky." That doesn't mean anything.
He was her hero, her mentor, the subject of her dissertation.
You are mentally flabby and unkempt.
Rudy Canoza
Sep 21, 2016, 8:06:08 PM9/21/16
to
[followups vandalism by deplorable cocksucker repaired]
On 9/21/2016 3:12 PM, escarpment wrote:
> On 9/21/2016 3:37 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> You cunt.
>>>>
>>> You might as well have told us all you front for Shillary.
>>
>> No, stupid cunt, because I don't.
>
> Of course you do.
>
> Any vote NOT for Trump is functionally a vote FOR Shillary.
Wrong. It's a vote for the candidate I prefer. That's what it is.
> On 9/21/2016 3:37 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> You cunt.
>>>>
>>> You might as well have told us all you front for Shillary.
>>
>> No, stupid cunt, because I don't.
>
> Of course you do.
>
> Any vote NOT for Trump is functionally a vote FOR Shillary.
>> You don't say a thing, not one fucking thing, when you simply blurt
>> "Saul Alinsky." That doesn't mean anything.
>
> Oh it means everything.
escarpment
Sep 21, 2016, 8:09:54 PM9/21/16
to
On 9/21/2016 6:06 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> [followups vandalism by deplorable cocksucker repaired]
>
> On 9/21/2016 3:12 PM, escarpment wrote:
>> On 9/21/2016 3:37 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>> You cunt.
>>>>>
>>>> You might as well have told us all you front for Shillary.
>>>
>>> No, stupid cunt, because I don't.
>>
>> Of course you do.
>>
>> Any vote NOT for Trump is functionally a vote FOR Shillary.
>
> Wrong.
Nope,a functional reality given the numbers.
> [followups vandalism by deplorable cocksucker repaired]
>
> On 9/21/2016 3:12 PM, escarpment wrote:
>> On 9/21/2016 3:37 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>> You cunt.
>>>>>
>>>> You might as well have told us all you front for Shillary.
>>>
>>> No, stupid cunt, because I don't.
>>
>> Of course you do.
>>
>> Any vote NOT for Trump is functionally a vote FOR Shillary.
>
> Wrong.
> It's a vote for the candidate I prefer. That's what it is.
>>> You don't say a thing, not one fucking thing, when you simply blurt
>>> "Saul Alinsky." That doesn't mean anything.
>>
>> Oh it means everything.
>
> It means nothing,
Rudy Canoza
Sep 21, 2016, 8:40:32 PM9/21/16
to
[followups vandalism by deplorable cocksucker repaired]
On 9/21/2016 5:09 PM, spammy - a dumb cunt whose face I intend to smash
with a shovel - mewled:
> On 9/21/2016 6:06 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> [followups vandalism by deplorable cocksucker repaired]
>>
>> On 9/21/2016 3:12 PM, escarpment wrote:
>>> On 9/21/2016 3:37 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> You cunt.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You might as well have told us all you front for Shillary.
>>>>
>>>> No, stupid cunt, because I don't.
>>>
>>> Of course you do.
>>>
>>> Any vote NOT for Trump is functionally a vote FOR Shillary.
>>
>> Wrong.
>
> Nope,a functional reality
Not a reality of any kind.
>> [followups vandalism by deplorable cocksucker repaired]
>>
>> On 9/21/2016 3:12 PM, escarpment wrote:
>>> On 9/21/2016 3:37 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> You cunt.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You might as well have told us all you front for Shillary.
>>>>
>>>> No, stupid cunt, because I don't.
>>>
>>> Of course you do.
>>>
>>> Any vote NOT for Trump is functionally a vote FOR Shillary.
>>
>> Wrong.
>
> Nope,a functional reality
>> It's a vote for the candidate I prefer. That's what it is.
>
> It WILL elect Shillary
People who vote for the good candidate, Gary Johnson, never would have
voted for the shitbag Drumpf in any circumstance.
>>>> You don't say a thing, not one fucking thing, when you simply blurt
>>>> "Saul Alinsky." That doesn't mean anything.
>>>
>>> Oh it means everything.
>>
>> It means nothing,
>
> Yoru clips
in place, dickless?
John Baker
Sep 21, 2016, 9:52:03 PM9/21/16
to
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 14:28:17 -0700, Wayne <mygarb...@verizon.net>
wrote:
>On 9/19/2016 9:38 PM, raykeller wrote:
>> he's clearly a liar and a criminal, on top of being a morbidly obese
>> coward who is afraid of the truth. He's got a big mouth and a tiny
>> brain. He probably sucked cocks in school and stull does occasionally
>> just to keep in practice until he meets Putin again.
>>
>Who the hell cares about his tax returns.
>
>The choice is between Hillary, who is guaranteed to turn the US into a
>fucked up socialist mess
I'll take a "fucked up socialist mess" like Finland over what we have
now any day of the week.
>or Trump who may or may not fuck things up.
>
>Given those choices, Trump is clearly preferred.
The only good thing about a Trump presidency is that he'd only have
support from the teabaggers in Congress. He'd have little if any from
more moderate Republicans and none at all from Democrats.
AA #1898
Giver of No Fucks
Keeper of the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch
wrote:
>On 9/19/2016 9:38 PM, raykeller wrote:
>> he's clearly a liar and a criminal, on top of being a morbidly obese
>> coward who is afraid of the truth. He's got a big mouth and a tiny
>> brain. He probably sucked cocks in school and stull does occasionally
>> just to keep in practice until he meets Putin again.
>>
>Who the hell cares about his tax returns.
>
>The choice is between Hillary, who is guaranteed to turn the US into a
>fucked up socialist mess
now any day of the week.
>or Trump who may or may not fuck things up.
>
>Given those choices, Trump is clearly preferred.
support from the teabaggers in Congress. He'd have little if any from
more moderate Republicans and none at all from Democrats.
AA #1898
Giver of No Fucks
Keeper of the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch
Gunner Asch
Sep 22, 2016, 12:35:52 AM9/22/16
to
On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 21:52:02 -0400, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net>
wrote:
>>Who the hell cares about his tax returns.
>>
>>The choice is between Hillary, who is guaranteed to turn the US into a
>>fucked up socialist mess
>
>I'll take a "fucked up socialist mess" like Finland over what we have
>now any day of the week.
You mean the Finland that is getting rid of their Socialism, right
along with Denmark, Sweden and Norway? They found it didnt work
worth a shit...so they are moving back to enlightened capitalism.
What..you didnt get the memo? Shrug..you must not be important
enough...3 string....
November..right? (Grin)....Demonrats havent had control of it for 2
yrs...you remember they lost that in the last election..by the biggest
landslide for Republicans in 120 yrs. So frankly....no one really
gives a shit what Democrats have to say. Crom knows that they never
think..so trying to figure that out is like asking how high up is, to
a flounder.
Evidently you seem to think that the same Left Is In Control meme is
applicable. Sorry to make you scream and tear out your hair..but the
entire political spectrum is moving back to the Right..after 40+ plus
years of utter and ever increasing Democrat controlled
buffoonery....ultimately giving us our current economy with its 23%
unemployment rate and its shrinking industry and its massive debt.
You may with to move to hummm..say..Cuba..because the Right is going
to make your life a living hell..assuming one simply doesnt do away
with you because of your treason and stupidity. Along with a
significant number of your fellow Demonrats.
But hey...just keep your head down and maybe it will all be a dream
when you wake up....snicker....or maybe not.....
(Grin)
wrote:
>>Who the hell cares about his tax returns.
>>
>>The choice is between Hillary, who is guaranteed to turn the US into a
>>fucked up socialist mess
>
>I'll take a "fucked up socialist mess" like Finland over what we have
>now any day of the week.
along with Denmark, Sweden and Norway? They found it didnt work
worth a shit...so they are moving back to enlightened capitalism.
What..you didnt get the memo? Shrug..you must not be important
enough...3 string....
>
>>or Trump who may or may not fuck things up.
>>
>>Given those choices, Trump is clearly preferred.
>
>
>The only good thing about a Trump presidency is that he'd only have
>support from the teabaggers in Congress. He'd have little if any from
>more moderate Republicans and none at all from Democrats.
>
You do realize that 80% of Congress is up for relelection in
>>or Trump who may or may not fuck things up.
>>
>>Given those choices, Trump is clearly preferred.
>
>
>The only good thing about a Trump presidency is that he'd only have
>support from the teabaggers in Congress. He'd have little if any from
>more moderate Republicans and none at all from Democrats.
>
November..right? (Grin)....Demonrats havent had control of it for 2
yrs...you remember they lost that in the last election..by the biggest
landslide for Republicans in 120 yrs. So frankly....no one really
gives a shit what Democrats have to say. Crom knows that they never
think..so trying to figure that out is like asking how high up is, to
a flounder.
Evidently you seem to think that the same Left Is In Control meme is
applicable. Sorry to make you scream and tear out your hair..but the
entire political spectrum is moving back to the Right..after 40+ plus
years of utter and ever increasing Democrat controlled
buffoonery....ultimately giving us our current economy with its 23%
unemployment rate and its shrinking industry and its massive debt.
You may with to move to hummm..say..Cuba..because the Right is going
to make your life a living hell..assuming one simply doesnt do away
with you because of your treason and stupidity. Along with a
significant number of your fellow Demonrats.
But hey...just keep your head down and maybe it will all be a dream
when you wake up....snicker....or maybe not.....
(Grin)
fizzy lifting drinks
Sep 22, 2016, 2:35:31 AM9/22/16
to
On 9/21/2016 9:35 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 21:52:02 -0400, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> Who the hell cares about his tax returns.
>>>
>>> The choice is between Hillary, who is guaranteed to turn the US into a
>>> fucked up socialist mess
>>
>> I'll take a "fucked up socialist mess" like Finland over what we have
>> now any day of the week.
>
> You mean the Finland that is getting rid of their Socialism, right
> along with Denmark, Sweden and Norway?
They were never socialist. Every one of them has been a staunch market
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 21:52:02 -0400, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> Who the hell cares about his tax returns.
>>>
>>> The choice is between Hillary, who is guaranteed to turn the US into a
>>> fucked up socialist mess
>>
>> I'll take a "fucked up socialist mess" like Finland over what we have
>> now any day of the week.
>
> You mean the Finland that is getting rid of their Socialism, right
> along with Denmark, Sweden and Norway?
economy since...well, since forever.
Jeanne Douglas
Sep 22, 2016, 5:34:45 AM9/22/16
to
In article <QYKEz.247$CQ7...@fx10.iad>,
Try telling that to the wacky right.
That's What's Up
Sep 22, 2016, 10:20:15 AM9/22/16
to
On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 21:35:48 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 21:52:02 -0400, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net>
>wrote:
>
>>>Who the hell cares about his tax returns.
>>>
>>>The choice is between Hillary, who is guaranteed to turn the US into a
>>>fucked up socialist mess
>>
>>I'll take a "fucked up socialist mess" like Finland over what we have
>>now any day of the week.
>
>You mean the Finland that is getting rid of their Socialism, right
>along with Denmark, Sweden and Norway?
Oh lookee, something else that lifetime failure Wieber is astoundingly
clueless about! Maybe you should focus on cleaning up your own house
before you pretend to know what others should do.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/alt.machines.cnc/six5Kz7WSF0/sdrtoikUi6MJ
Nah, you gave up on fixing your own life a long time ago, right,
loser?
wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 21:52:02 -0400, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net>
>wrote:
>
>>>Who the hell cares about his tax returns.
>>>
>>>The choice is between Hillary, who is guaranteed to turn the US into a
>>>fucked up socialist mess
>>
>>I'll take a "fucked up socialist mess" like Finland over what we have
>>now any day of the week.
>
>You mean the Finland that is getting rid of their Socialism, right
>along with Denmark, Sweden and Norway?
clueless about! Maybe you should focus on cleaning up your own house
before you pretend to know what others should do.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/alt.machines.cnc/six5Kz7WSF0/sdrtoikUi6MJ
Nah, you gave up on fixing your own life a long time ago, right,
loser?
Gunner Asch
Sep 22, 2016, 11:32:01 AM9/22/16
to
button? Its obvious you dont read the news or national geopolitics.
http://nypost.com/2015/10/19/sorry-bernie-scandinavia-is-no-socialist-paradise-after-all/
http://www.bullshitexposed.com/scandinavian-socialism-debunked/
etc etc etc
I/we can well remember when Scandinavia was held up by the Left as the
Holy Grail of socialism.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/how_swedish_socialism_failed_20160511
fizzy lifting drinks
Sep 22, 2016, 12:29:23 PM9/22/16
to
On 9/22/2016 8:31 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 23:35:28 -0700, fizzy lifting drinks
> <you.get...@bayern.de> wrote:
>
>> On 9/21/2016 9:35 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 21:52:02 -0400, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Who the hell cares about his tax returns.
>>>>>
>>>>> The choice is between Hillary, who is guaranteed to turn the US into a
>>>>> fucked up socialist mess
>>>>
>>>> I'll take a "fucked up socialist mess" like Finland over what we have
>>>> now any day of the week.
>>>
>>> You mean the Finland that is getting rid of their Socialism, right
>>> along with Denmark, Sweden and Norway?
>>
>> They were never socialist. Every one of them has been a staunch market
>> economy since...well, since forever.
>
> So..you spend all your time in the toilet playing with your belly
> button? Its obvious you dont read the news or national geopolitics.
>
> http://nypost.com/2015/10/19/sorry-bernie-scandinavia-is-no-socialist-paradise-after-all/
>
> http://www.bullshitexposed.com/scandinavian-socialism-debunked/
If you would bother to read your own sources, you drug-crazed
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 23:35:28 -0700, fizzy lifting drinks
> <you.get...@bayern.de> wrote:
>
>> On 9/21/2016 9:35 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 21:52:02 -0400, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Who the hell cares about his tax returns.
>>>>>
>>>>> The choice is between Hillary, who is guaranteed to turn the US into a
>>>>> fucked up socialist mess
>>>>
>>>> I'll take a "fucked up socialist mess" like Finland over what we have
>>>> now any day of the week.
>>>
>>> You mean the Finland that is getting rid of their Socialism, right
>>> along with Denmark, Sweden and Norway?
>>
>> They were never socialist. Every one of them has been a staunch market
>> economy since...well, since forever.
>
> So..you spend all your time in the toilet playing with your belly
> button? Its obvious you dont read the news or national geopolitics.
>
> http://nypost.com/2015/10/19/sorry-bernie-scandinavia-is-no-socialist-paradise-after-all/
>
> http://www.bullshitexposed.com/scandinavian-socialism-debunked/
heart-attack-about-to-happen, you'd see that they contradict you
explicitly. That last one, for example:
1. Scandinavia isn’t really all that socialist
Scandinavian countries have certain socialist characteristics such
as high taxes and extensive welfare systems. However, these
countries have relatively capitalistic markets. Scandinavian
businesses are mostly free from regulation, nationalization and
protectionism.
Read your sources before posting them next time, stupid.
>
> I/we can well remember when Scandinavia was held up by the Left as the
> Holy Grail of socialism.
>
> http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/how_swedish_socialism_failed_20160511
*market* economies - capitalist - with a big and generous welfare system.
https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-of-scandinavian-socialism/
Democratic socialism purports to combine majority rule with state
control of the means of production. However, the Scandinavian
countries are not good examples of democratic socialism in action
because they aren’t socialist.
In the Scandinavian countries, like all other developed nations, the
means of production are primarily owned by private individuals, not
the community or the government, and resources are allocated to
their respective uses by the market, not government or community
planning.
Socialism is government ownership and operation of the means of
production, distribution and finance. The Scandinavian countries don't
have that, and never did.
That's What's Up
Sep 22, 2016, 2:19:21 PM9/22/16
to
On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 09:29:19 -0700, fizzy lifting drinks
If only he had time to read anything useful. Instead he's too busy
formulating his brain dead opinions, and pretending he's an expert at
too many things to list. Other things he doesn't have time for:
earning a living, providing for his family, paying his bills.
formulating his brain dead opinions, and pretending he's an expert at
too many things to list. Other things he doesn't have time for:
earning a living, providing for his family, paying his bills.
Jeanne Douglas
Sep 22, 2016, 6:33:50 PM9/22/16
to
In article <AFTEz.45$DP3...@fx33.iad>,
anything government does to actually help the people who pay the taxes
is socialism and well on its way to being the Soviet Union.
fizzy lifting drinks <you.get...@bayern.de> wrote:
> On 9/22/2016 8:31 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 23:35:28 -0700, fizzy lifting drinks
> > <you.get...@bayern.de> wrote:
> >
> >> On 9/21/2016 9:35 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 21:52:02 -0400, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> Who the hell cares about his tax returns.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The choice is between Hillary, who is guaranteed to turn the US into a
> >>>>> fucked up socialist mess
> >>>>
> >>>> I'll take a "fucked up socialist mess" like Finland over what we have
> >>>> now any day of the week.
> >>>
> >>> You mean the Finland that is getting rid of their Socialism, right
> >>> along with Denmark, Sweden and Norway?
> >>
> >> They were never socialist. Every one of them has been a staunch market
> >> economy since...well, since forever.
> >
> > So..you spend all your time in the toilet playing with your belly
> > button? Its obvious you dont read the news or national geopolitics.
> >
> > http://nypost.com/2015/10/19/sorry-bernie-scandinavia-is-no-socialist-paradi
> > se-after-all/
> >
> > http://www.bullshitexposed.com/scandinavian-socialism-debunked/
>
> If you would bother to read your own sources, you drug-crazed
> heart-attack-about-to-happen, you'd see that they contradict you
> explicitly. That last one, for example:
>
> 1. Scandinavia isnšt really all that socialist
> On 9/22/2016 8:31 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 23:35:28 -0700, fizzy lifting drinks
> > <you.get...@bayern.de> wrote:
> >
> >> On 9/21/2016 9:35 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 21:52:02 -0400, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> Who the hell cares about his tax returns.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The choice is between Hillary, who is guaranteed to turn the US into a
> >>>>> fucked up socialist mess
> >>>>
> >>>> I'll take a "fucked up socialist mess" like Finland over what we have
> >>>> now any day of the week.
> >>>
> >>> You mean the Finland that is getting rid of their Socialism, right
> >>> along with Denmark, Sweden and Norway?
> >>
> >> They were never socialist. Every one of them has been a staunch market
> >> economy since...well, since forever.
> >
> > So..you spend all your time in the toilet playing with your belly
> > button? Its obvious you dont read the news or national geopolitics.
> >
> > http://nypost.com/2015/10/19/sorry-bernie-scandinavia-is-no-socialist-paradi
> > se-after-all/
> >
> > http://www.bullshitexposed.com/scandinavian-socialism-debunked/
>
> If you would bother to read your own sources, you drug-crazed
> heart-attack-about-to-happen, you'd see that they contradict you
> explicitly. That last one, for example:
>
>
> Scandinavian countries have certain socialist characteristics such
> as high taxes and extensive welfare systems. However, these
> countries have relatively capitalistic markets. Scandinavian
> businesses are mostly free from regulation, nationalization and
> protectionism.
>
>
> Read your sources before posting them next time, stupid.
>
> >
> > I/we can well remember when Scandinavia was held up by the Left as the
> > Holy Grail of socialism.
> >
> > http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/how_swedish_socialism_failed_20160511
>
> The Scandinavian countries are not "socialist" and never were. They are
> *market* economies - capitalist - with a big and generous welfare system.
>
> https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-of-scandinavian-socialism/
>
> Democratic socialism purports to combine majority rule with state
> control of the means of production. However, the Scandinavian
> countries are not good examples of democratic socialism in action
> because they arenšt socialist.
> Scandinavian countries have certain socialist characteristics such
> as high taxes and extensive welfare systems. However, these
> countries have relatively capitalistic markets. Scandinavian
> businesses are mostly free from regulation, nationalization and
> protectionism.
>
>
> Read your sources before posting them next time, stupid.
>
> >
> > I/we can well remember when Scandinavia was held up by the Left as the
> > Holy Grail of socialism.
> >
> > http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/how_swedish_socialism_failed_20160511
>
> The Scandinavian countries are not "socialist" and never were. They are
> *market* economies - capitalist - with a big and generous welfare system.
>
> https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-of-scandinavian-socialism/
>
> Democratic socialism purports to combine majority rule with state
> control of the means of production. However, the Scandinavian
> countries are not good examples of democratic socialism in action
>
> In the Scandinavian countries, like all other developed nations, the
> means of production are primarily owned by private individuals, not
> the community or the government, and resources are allocated to
> their respective uses by the market, not government or community
> planning.
>
> Socialism is government ownership and operation of the means of
> production, distribution and finance. The Scandinavian countries don't
> have that, and never did.
You've got to remember that, according to these ignorant idiots,
> In the Scandinavian countries, like all other developed nations, the
> means of production are primarily owned by private individuals, not
> the community or the government, and resources are allocated to
> their respective uses by the market, not government or community
> planning.
>
> Socialism is government ownership and operation of the means of
> production, distribution and finance. The Scandinavian countries don't
> have that, and never did.
anything government does to actually help the people who pay the taxes
is socialism and well on its way to being the Soviet Union.
fizzy lifting drinks
Sep 22, 2016, 7:03:25 PM9/22/16
to
>>
>> Scandinavian countries have certain socialist characteristics such
>> as high taxes and extensive welfare systems. However, these
>> countries have relatively capitalistic markets. Scandinavian
>> businesses are mostly free from regulation, nationalization and
>> protectionism.
>>
>>
>> Read your sources before posting them next time, stupid.
>>
>>>
>>> I/we can well remember when Scandinavia was held up by the Left as the
>>> Holy Grail of socialism.
>>>
>>> http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/how_swedish_socialism_failed_20160511
>>
>> The Scandinavian countries are not "socialist" and never were. They are
>> *market* economies - capitalist - with a big and generous welfare system.
>>
>> https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-of-scandinavian-socialism/
>>
>> Democratic socialism purports to combine majority rule with state
>> control of the means of production. However, the Scandinavian
>> countries are not good examples of democratic socialism in action
>> because they aren¹t socialist.
>> Scandinavian countries have certain socialist characteristics such
>> as high taxes and extensive welfare systems. However, these
>> countries have relatively capitalistic markets. Scandinavian
>> businesses are mostly free from regulation, nationalization and
>> protectionism.
>>
>>
>> Read your sources before posting them next time, stupid.
>>
>>>
>>> I/we can well remember when Scandinavia was held up by the Left as the
>>> Holy Grail of socialism.
>>>
>>> http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/how_swedish_socialism_failed_20160511
>>
>> The Scandinavian countries are not "socialist" and never were. They are
>> *market* economies - capitalist - with a big and generous welfare system.
>>
>> https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-of-scandinavian-socialism/
>>
>> Democratic socialism purports to combine majority rule with state
>> control of the means of production. However, the Scandinavian
>> countries are not good examples of democratic socialism in action
>>
>> In the Scandinavian countries, like all other developed nations, the
>> means of production are primarily owned by private individuals, not
>> the community or the government, and resources are allocated to
>> their respective uses by the market, not government or community
>> planning.
>>
>> Socialism is government ownership and operation of the means of
>> production, distribution and finance. The Scandinavian countries don't
>> have that, and never did.
>
>
> You've got to remember that, according to these ignorant idiots,
> anything government does to actually help the people who pay the taxes
> is socialism and well on its way to being the Soviet Union.
Dole handouts aren't helping the people who pay the taxes. They help
>> In the Scandinavian countries, like all other developed nations, the
>> means of production are primarily owned by private individuals, not
>> the community or the government, and resources are allocated to
>> their respective uses by the market, not government or community
>> planning.
>>
>> Socialism is government ownership and operation of the means of
>> production, distribution and finance. The Scandinavian countries don't
>> have that, and never did.
>
>
> You've got to remember that, according to these ignorant idiots,
> anything government does to actually help the people who pay the taxes
> is socialism and well on its way to being the Soviet Union.
people who *don't* pay the taxes.
Gunner Asch
Sep 22, 2016, 7:11:05 PM9/22/16
to
On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 09:29:19 -0700, fizzy lifting drinks
<you.get...@bayern.de> wrote:
>If you would bother to read your own sources, you drug-crazed
>heart-attack-about-to-happen, you'd see that they contradict you
>explicitly. That last one, for example:
>
> 1. Scandinavia isn’t really all that socialist
"all that socialist"? What are you using for the mean? The USSR?
<you.get...@bayern.de> wrote:
>If you would bother to read your own sources, you drug-crazed
>heart-attack-about-to-happen, you'd see that they contradict you
>explicitly. That last one, for example:
>
> 1. Scandinavia isn’t really all that socialist
Red China? Cuba?
You are such a brainless little squat-to-piss...its not a bother
staying ahead of you by putting you in the bozo bin.
(VBG)
Gunner Asch
Sep 22, 2016, 7:12:05 PM9/22/16
to
On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 09:29:19 -0700, fizzy lifting drinks
<you.get...@bayern.de> wrote:
>
>>
>> I/we can well remember when Scandinavia was held up by the Left as the
>> Holy Grail of socialism.
>>
>> http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/how_swedish_socialism_failed_20160511
>
>The Scandinavian countries are not "socialist" and never were. They are
>*market* economies - capitalist - with a big and generous welfare system.
Yet all the cites I provided say you are once again..full of shit and
<you.get...@bayern.de> wrote:
>
>>
>> I/we can well remember when Scandinavia was held up by the Left as the
>> Holy Grail of socialism.
>>
>> http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/how_swedish_socialism_failed_20160511
>
>The Scandinavian countries are not "socialist" and never were. They are
>*market* economies - capitalist - with a big and generous welfare system.
ignorant as fuck.
But then..we did know that.
fizzy lifting drinks
Sep 22, 2016, 7:23:19 PM9/22/16
to
On 9/22/2016 4:11 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 09:29:19 -0700, fizzy lifting drinks
> <you.get...@bayern.de> wrote:
>
>> If you would bother to read your own sources, you drug-crazed
>> heart-attack-about-to-happen, you'd see that they contradict you
>> explicitly. That last one, for example:
>>
>> 1. Scandinavia isn’t really all that socialist
>
> "all that socialist"? What are you using for the mean? The USSR?
> Red China? Cuba?
That was *your* source, you brain-dead cunthair, which stated flatly
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 09:29:19 -0700, fizzy lifting drinks
> <you.get...@bayern.de> wrote:
>
>> If you would bother to read your own sources, you drug-crazed
>> heart-attack-about-to-happen, you'd see that they contradict you
>> explicitly. That last one, for example:
>>
>> 1. Scandinavia isn’t really all that socialist
>
> "all that socialist"? What are you using for the mean? The USSR?
> Red China? Cuba?
that the Scandinavian countries all have market economies. They aren't
socialist. Social welfare programs is not socialism.
fizzy lifting drinks
Sep 22, 2016, 7:24:21 PM9/22/16
to
On 9/22/2016 4:12 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 09:29:19 -0700, fizzy lifting drinks
> <you.get...@bayern.de> wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>> I/we can well remember when Scandinavia was held up by the Left as the
>>> Holy Grail of socialism.
>>>
>>> http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/how_swedish_socialism_failed_20160511
>>
>> The Scandinavian countries are not "socialist" and never were. They are
>> *market* economies - capitalist - with a big and generous welfare system.
>
> Yet all the cites I provided say
that you are completely full of shit and don't know what socialism is.
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 09:29:19 -0700, fizzy lifting drinks
> <you.get...@bayern.de> wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>> I/we can well remember when Scandinavia was held up by the Left as the
>>> Holy Grail of socialism.
>>>
>>> http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/how_swedish_socialism_failed_20160511
>>
>> The Scandinavian countries are not "socialist" and never were. They are
>> *market* economies - capitalist - with a big and generous welfare system.
>
> Yet all the cites I provided say
Correct.
Scandinavia - market economies based on private enterprise. Not socialist.
Jeanne Douglas
Sep 22, 2016, 9:12:00 PM9/22/16
to
In article <%qZEz.441$eD4...@fx04.iad>,
> >> 1. Scandinavia isn1t really all that socialist
Though, of course, the biggest Welfare Queens of the country don't seem
to pay any taxes even though their employees require SNAP and Medicaid
to stay alive because their Welfare Queen employers don't pay them
enough to survive. Of course, I'm speaking of the Walmarts and fast food
places. And I wouldn't be surprised if bank employees, some of whom we
have recently learned make only $12/hour, needed help surviving as well.
> >>
> >> Scandinavian countries have certain socialist characteristics such
> >> as high taxes and extensive welfare systems. However, these
> >> countries have relatively capitalistic markets. Scandinavian
> >> businesses are mostly free from regulation, nationalization and
> >> protectionism.
> >>
> >>
> >> Read your sources before posting them next time, stupid.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I/we can well remember when Scandinavia was held up by the Left as the
> >>> Holy Grail of socialism.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/how_swedish_socialism_failed_20160511
> >>
> >> The Scandinavian countries are not "socialist" and never were. They are
> >> *market* economies - capitalist - with a big and generous welfare system.
> >>
> >> https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-of-scandinavian-socialism/
> >>
> >> Democratic socialism purports to combine majority rule with state
> >> control of the means of production. However, the Scandinavian
> >> countries are not good examples of democratic socialism in action
> >> because they aren1t socialist.
> >> Scandinavian countries have certain socialist characteristics such
> >> as high taxes and extensive welfare systems. However, these
> >> countries have relatively capitalistic markets. Scandinavian
> >> businesses are mostly free from regulation, nationalization and
> >> protectionism.
> >>
> >>
> >> Read your sources before posting them next time, stupid.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I/we can well remember when Scandinavia was held up by the Left as the
> >>> Holy Grail of socialism.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/how_swedish_socialism_failed_20160511
> >>
> >> The Scandinavian countries are not "socialist" and never were. They are
> >> *market* economies - capitalist - with a big and generous welfare system.
> >>
> >> https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-of-scandinavian-socialism/
> >>
> >> Democratic socialism purports to combine majority rule with state
> >> control of the means of production. However, the Scandinavian
> >> countries are not good examples of democratic socialism in action
> >>
> >> In the Scandinavian countries, like all other developed nations, the
> >> means of production are primarily owned by private individuals, not
> >> the community or the government, and resources are allocated to
> >> their respective uses by the market, not government or community
> >> planning.
> >>
> >> Socialism is government ownership and operation of the means of
> >> production, distribution and finance. The Scandinavian countries don't
> >> have that, and never did.
> >
> >
> > You've got to remember that, according to these ignorant idiots,
> > anything government does to actually help the people who pay the taxes
> > is socialism and well on its way to being the Soviet Union.
>
> Dole handouts aren't helping the people who pay the taxes. They help
> people who *don't* pay the taxes.
Most of those people have most certainly paid taxes. And will again.
> >> In the Scandinavian countries, like all other developed nations, the
> >> means of production are primarily owned by private individuals, not
> >> the community or the government, and resources are allocated to
> >> their respective uses by the market, not government or community
> >> planning.
> >>
> >> Socialism is government ownership and operation of the means of
> >> production, distribution and finance. The Scandinavian countries don't
> >> have that, and never did.
> >
> >
> > You've got to remember that, according to these ignorant idiots,
> > anything government does to actually help the people who pay the taxes
> > is socialism and well on its way to being the Soviet Union.
>
> Dole handouts aren't helping the people who pay the taxes. They help
> people who *don't* pay the taxes.
Though, of course, the biggest Welfare Queens of the country don't seem
to pay any taxes even though their employees require SNAP and Medicaid
to stay alive because their Welfare Queen employers don't pay them
enough to survive. Of course, I'm speaking of the Walmarts and fast food
places. And I wouldn't be surprised if bank employees, some of whom we
have recently learned make only $12/hour, needed help surviving as well.
Jeanne Douglas
Sep 22, 2016, 9:12:29 PM9/22/16
to
In article <FJZEz.417$CZ6...@fx34.iad>,
fizzy lifting drinks <you.get...@bayern.de> wrote:
> On 9/22/2016 4:11 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 09:29:19 -0700, fizzy lifting drinks
> > <you.get...@bayern.de> wrote:
> >
> >> If you would bother to read your own sources, you drug-crazed
> >> heart-attack-about-to-happen, you'd see that they contradict you
> >> explicitly. That last one, for example:
> >>
> >> 1. Scandinavia isnšt really all that socialist
> On 9/22/2016 4:11 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 09:29:19 -0700, fizzy lifting drinks
> > <you.get...@bayern.de> wrote:
> >
> >> If you would bother to read your own sources, you drug-crazed
> >> heart-attack-about-to-happen, you'd see that they contradict you
> >> explicitly. That last one, for example:
> >>
> >
> > "all that socialist"? What are you using for the mean? The USSR?
> > Red China? Cuba?
>
> That was *your* source, you brain-dead cunthair, which stated flatly
> that the Scandinavian countries all have market economies. They aren't
> socialist. Social welfare programs is not socialism.
Denmark has been named the top country for business.
> > "all that socialist"? What are you using for the mean? The USSR?
> > Red China? Cuba?
>
> That was *your* source, you brain-dead cunthair, which stated flatly
> that the Scandinavian countries all have market economies. They aren't
> socialist. Social welfare programs is not socialism.
fizzy lifting drinks
Sep 22, 2016, 10:21:56 PM9/22/16
to
> Though, of course, the biggest Welfare Queens of the country don't seem
> to pay any taxes even though their employees require SNAP and Medicaid
> to stay alive because their Welfare Queen employers don't pay them
> enough to survive.
Contrary to what leftists believe, dole benefits force employers to pay
higher wages than they otherwise would have to pay. Dole benefits raise
the reservation wage of the dole scroungers.
http://www.econmodel.com/classic/terms/reservationwagerate.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservation_wage
In order to entice layabouts away from their couches, employers have to
pay more than they otherwise would, *because* the dole benefits mean the
layabouts have less incentive to work.
Dole benefits are not a "subsidy" to employers; they are a *tax* on
employers.
fizzy lifting drinks
Sep 22, 2016, 10:22:18 PM9/22/16
to
On 9/22/2016 6:12 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <FJZEz.417$CZ6...@fx34.iad>,
> fizzy lifting drinks <you.get...@bayern.de> wrote:
>
>> On 9/22/2016 4:11 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 09:29:19 -0700, fizzy lifting drinks
>>> <you.get...@bayern.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you would bother to read your own sources, you drug-crazed
>>>> heart-attack-about-to-happen, you'd see that they contradict you
>>>> explicitly. That last one, for example:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Scandinavia isn¹t really all that socialist
> In article <FJZEz.417$CZ6...@fx34.iad>,
> fizzy lifting drinks <you.get...@bayern.de> wrote:
>
>> On 9/22/2016 4:11 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 09:29:19 -0700, fizzy lifting drinks
>>> <you.get...@bayern.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you would bother to read your own sources, you drug-crazed
>>>> heart-attack-about-to-happen, you'd see that they contradict you
>>>> explicitly. That last one, for example:
>>>>
>>>
>>> "all that socialist"? What are you using for the mean? The USSR?
>>> Red China? Cuba?
>>
>> That was *your* source, you brain-dead cunthair, which stated flatly
>> that the Scandinavian countries all have market economies. They aren't
>> socialist. Social welfare programs is not socialism.
>
>
> Denmark has been named the top country for business.
Cite.
>>> "all that socialist"? What are you using for the mean? The USSR?
>>> Red China? Cuba?
>>
>> That was *your* source, you brain-dead cunthair, which stated flatly
>> that the Scandinavian countries all have market economies. They aren't
>> socialist. Social welfare programs is not socialism.
>
>
> Denmark has been named the top country for business.
Jeanne Douglas
Sep 23, 2016, 1:37:00 AM9/23/16
to
In article <sl0Fz.283$CQ7...@fx10.iad>,
fizzy lifting drinks <you.get...@bayern.de> wrote:
> On 9/22/2016 6:12 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> > In article <FJZEz.417$CZ6...@fx34.iad>,
> > fizzy lifting drinks <you.get...@bayern.de> wrote:
> >
> >> On 9/22/2016 4:11 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 09:29:19 -0700, fizzy lifting drinks
> >>> <you.get...@bayern.de> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> If you would bother to read your own sources, you drug-crazed
> >>>> heart-attack-about-to-happen, you'd see that they contradict you
> >>>> explicitly. That last one, for example:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. Scandinavia isn1t really all that socialist
> On 9/22/2016 6:12 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> > In article <FJZEz.417$CZ6...@fx34.iad>,
> > fizzy lifting drinks <you.get...@bayern.de> wrote:
> >
> >> On 9/22/2016 4:11 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 09:29:19 -0700, fizzy lifting drinks
> >>> <you.get...@bayern.de> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> If you would bother to read your own sources, you drug-crazed
> >>>> heart-attack-about-to-happen, you'd see that they contradict you
> >>>> explicitly. That last one, for example:
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> "all that socialist"? What are you using for the mean? The USSR?
> >>> Red China? Cuba?
> >>
> >> That was *your* source, you brain-dead cunthair, which stated flatly
> >> that the Scandinavian countries all have market economies. They aren't
> >> socialist. Social welfare programs is not socialism.
> >
> >
> > Denmark has been named the top country for business.
>
> Cite.
<http://www.forbes.com/best-countries-for-business/list/>
> >>> "all that socialist"? What are you using for the mean? The USSR?
> >>> Red China? Cuba?
> >>
> >> That was *your* source, you brain-dead cunthair, which stated flatly
> >> that the Scandinavian countries all have market economies. They aren't
> >> socialist. Social welfare programs is not socialism.
> >
> >
> > Denmark has been named the top country for business.
>
> Cite.
Jeanne Douglas
Sep 23, 2016, 1:40:07 AM9/23/16
to
In article <6l0Fz.282$CQ7...@fx10.iad>,
There's been no such thing in 20 years, since Clinton and the
Republicans passed that evil welfare "reform".
> > Though, of course, the biggest Welfare Queens of the country don't seem
> > to pay any taxes even though their employees require SNAP and Medicaid
> > to stay alive because their Welfare Queen employers don't pay them
> > enough to survive.
>
> We were talking about Scandinavia.
>
> Contrary to what leftists believe, dole benefits force employers to pay
> higher wages than they otherwise would have to pay. Dole benefits raise
> the reservation wage of the dole scroungers.
The only "dole scroungers" are corporations.
> http://www.econmodel.com/classic/terms/reservationwagerate.htm
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservation_wage
>
> In order to entice layabouts away from their couches, employers have to
> pay more than they otherwise would, *because* the dole benefits mean the
> layabouts have less incentive to work.
Wow, you're really an asshole.
> Dole benefits are not a "subsidy" to employers; they are a *tax* on
> employers.
So you think allowing their employees to starve to death is a good thing?
Republicans passed that evil welfare "reform".
> > Though, of course, the biggest Welfare Queens of the country don't seem
> > to pay any taxes even though their employees require SNAP and Medicaid
> > to stay alive because their Welfare Queen employers don't pay them
> > enough to survive.
>
> We were talking about Scandinavia.
>
> Contrary to what leftists believe, dole benefits force employers to pay
> higher wages than they otherwise would have to pay. Dole benefits raise
> the reservation wage of the dole scroungers.
> http://www.econmodel.com/classic/terms/reservationwagerate.htm
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservation_wage
>
> In order to entice layabouts away from their couches, employers have to
> pay more than they otherwise would, *because* the dole benefits mean the
> layabouts have less incentive to work.
> Dole benefits are not a "subsidy" to employers; they are a *tax* on
> employers.
Beam Me Up Scotty
Sep 23, 2016, 3:13:48 AM9/23/16
to
--
That's Karma ;)
Obama has no problem labeling all Republicans as his enemy, and he can
label Republicans as racists easily enough...
Obama has no problem calling all gun owners his enemy.
Obama has no problem calling all the police, racists and condemning them.
Why does Obama have so much difficulty calling Muslims, terrorists and
condemning them?
http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3674/1018/original.jpg
Ed Huntress
Sep 23, 2016, 9:35:38 AM9/23/16
to
On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 03:13:45 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
<I'm-Really...@Idiocracy.gov> wrote:
>On 09/22/2016 10:22 PM, fizzy lifting drinks wrote:
>> On 9/22/2016 6:12 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>> In article <FJZEz.417$CZ6...@fx34.iad>,
>>> fizzy lifting drinks <you.get...@bayern.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/22/2016 4:11 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 09:29:19 -0700, fizzy lifting drinks
>>>>> <you.get...@bayern.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you would bother to read your own sources, you drug-crazed
>>>>>> heart-attack-about-to-happen, you'd see that they contradict you
>>>>>> explicitly. That last one, for example:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Scandinavia isnšt really all that socialist
<I'm-Really...@Idiocracy.gov> wrote:
>On 09/22/2016 10:22 PM, fizzy lifting drinks wrote:
>> On 9/22/2016 6:12 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>> In article <FJZEz.417$CZ6...@fx34.iad>,
>>> fizzy lifting drinks <you.get...@bayern.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/22/2016 4:11 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 09:29:19 -0700, fizzy lifting drinks
>>>>> <you.get...@bayern.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you would bother to read your own sources, you drug-crazed
>>>>>> heart-attack-about-to-happen, you'd see that they contradict you
>>>>>> explicitly. That last one, for example:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "all that socialist"? What are you using for the mean? The USSR?
>>>>> Red China? Cuba?
>>>>
>>>> That was *your* source, you brain-dead cunthair, which stated flatly
>>>> that the Scandinavian countries all have market economies. They aren't
>>>> socialist. Social welfare programs is not socialism.
>>>
>>>
>>> Denmark has been named the top country for business.
>>
>> Cite.
>>
>Probably by Denmark...
By Forbes Magazine. You know, that left-wing communist rag that calls
>>>>> "all that socialist"? What are you using for the mean? The USSR?
>>>>> Red China? Cuba?
>>>>
>>>> That was *your* source, you brain-dead cunthair, which stated flatly
>>>> that the Scandinavian countries all have market economies. They aren't
>>>> socialist. Social welfare programs is not socialism.
>>>
>>>
>>> Denmark has been named the top country for business.
>>
>> Cite.
>>
>Probably by Denmark...
itself "The Capitalist Tool." <g>
You do know who Malcolm Forbes is, right?
--
Ed Huntress
fizzy lifting drinks
Sep 23, 2016, 11:54:11 AM9/23/16
to
his presidency. Signing that welfare reform bill, even though he only
did it because Dick Morris told him that, having already vetoed two
others, vetoing that one would cost him re-election, was the very best
thing Clinton did in all eight years. (Second-best was signing
Gramm-Leach-Bliley and getting rid of the notoriously inefficient and
economically worthless sections of Glass-Steagall that enforced the
"wall" between commercial and investment banking. *NO*, that repeal did
not "cause" the financial crisis of 2008 - nothing whatever to do with
it.) The American people wanted welfare reform, and it was the right
thing to do. Every doomsday scenario trotted out by statist advocates
of dependency and sloth was proved to be complete bullshit. No one
"starved", no one became "homeless" because of the welfare reform bill.
It was good, and it was long overdue.
Bit by bit, Congress has made it possible for people to get by long-term
on the efforts of people who are productive, and the 1996 law itself was
shot through with holes that allowed states to continue to provide TANF
benefits beyond the 60 month so-called limit.
SNAP benefits time limits were relaxed by Obama, and many people use
them long-term.
Section 8 housing benefits had no time limit until relatively recently,
and there isn't much of one now.
There should not *be* long term dole handouts available for able-bodied
adults.
>
>>> Though, of course, the biggest Welfare Queens of the country don't seem
>>> to pay any taxes even though their employees require SNAP and Medicaid
>>> to stay alive because their Welfare Queen employers don't pay them
>>> enough to survive.
>>
>> We were talking about Scandinavia.
>>
>> Contrary to what leftists believe, dole benefits force employers to pay
>> higher wages than they otherwise would have to pay. Dole benefits raise
>> the reservation wage of the dole scroungers.
>
> The only "dole scroungers" are corporations.
>> In order to entice layabouts away from their couches, employers have to
>> pay more than they otherwise would, *because* the dole benefits mean the
>> layabouts have less incentive to work.
>
> Wow, you're really an asshole.
[restore the stuff you unethically snipped]
>> Contrary to what leftists believe, dole benefits force employers to pay
>> higher wages than they otherwise would have to pay. Dole benefits raise
>> the reservation wage of the dole scroungers.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservation_wage
Dole handouts *increase* the wage that employers must offer to get the
layabouts to get their asses off the couch and work. In fact, some
leftists even think that's a *good* thing (although it isn't):
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/09/18/the-real-value-of-a-universal-basic-income-is-that-it-raises-the-reservation-wage/#affe183316f4
Leftists think that people shouldn't "have" to work.
>> Dole benefits are not a "subsidy" to employers; they are a *tax* on
>> employers.
>
> So you think allowing their employees to starve to death is a good thing?
No one starves in America - no one. Stop that stupid lie.
Allah's Cock Bar
Sep 23, 2016, 4:11:08 PM9/23/16
to
On 9/21/2016 6:40 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> Any vote NOT for Trump is functionally a vote FOR Shillary.
>>>
>>> Wrong.
>>
>> Nope,a functional reality
>
> Not a reality of any kind.
Is where your mind resides, yes.
>>>> Any vote NOT for Trump is functionally a vote FOR Shillary.
>>>
>>> Wrong.
>>
>> Nope,a functional reality
>
> Not a reality of any kind.
>>> It's a vote for the candidate I prefer. That's what it is.
>>
>> It WILL elect Shillary
>
> No.
You're full of shit.
> People who vote for her will elect her.
> People who vote for the good candidate, Gary Johnson, never would have
> voted for the shitbag Drumpf in any circumstance.
Johnson is a proxy for Shillary.
His policies are in 72% coherence with Bernie Sanders.
>>>>> You don't say a thing, not one fucking thing, when you simply blurt
>>>>> "Saul Alinsky." That doesn't mean anything.
>>>>
>>>> Oh it means everything.
>>>
>>> It means nothing,
>>
>> Yoru clips
>
> Ha ha ha ha! What are "yoru" clips? Are they what hold your catheter
> in place, dickless?
I think your head is suited for a trenching shovel.
Rudy Canoza
Sep 26, 2016, 2:51:36 PM9/26/16
to
On 9/23/2016 6:35 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 03:13:45 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
> <I'm-Really...@Idiocracy.gov> wrote:
>
>> On 09/22/2016 10:22 PM, fizzy lifting drinks wrote:
>>> On 9/22/2016 6:12 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>>> In article <FJZEz.417$CZ6...@fx34.iad>,
>>>> fizzy lifting drinks <you.get...@bayern.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/22/2016 4:11 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 09:29:19 -0700, fizzy lifting drinks
>>>>>> <you.get...@bayern.de> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you would bother to read your own sources, you drug-crazed
>>>>>>> heart-attack-about-to-happen, you'd see that they contradict you
>>>>>>> explicitly. That last one, for example:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. Scandinavia isn¹t really all that socialist
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 03:13:45 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
> <I'm-Really...@Idiocracy.gov> wrote:
>
>> On 09/22/2016 10:22 PM, fizzy lifting drinks wrote:
>>> On 9/22/2016 6:12 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>>> In article <FJZEz.417$CZ6...@fx34.iad>,
>>>> fizzy lifting drinks <you.get...@bayern.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/22/2016 4:11 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 09:29:19 -0700, fizzy lifting drinks
>>>>>> <you.get...@bayern.de> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you would bother to read your own sources, you drug-crazed
>>>>>>> heart-attack-about-to-happen, you'd see that they contradict you
>>>>>>> explicitly. That last one, for example:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "all that socialist"? What are you using for the mean? The USSR?
>>>>>> Red China? Cuba?
>>>>>
>>>>> That was *your* source, you brain-dead cunthair, which stated flatly
>>>>> that the Scandinavian countries all have market economies. They aren't
>>>>> socialist. Social welfare programs is not socialism.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Denmark has been named the top country for business.
>>>
>>> Cite.
>>>
>> Probably by Denmark...
>
> By Forbes Magazine. You know, that left-wing communist rag that calls
> itself "The Capitalist Tool." <g>
I think of Forbes as being more of a supporter for Clinton-style crony
>>>>>> "all that socialist"? What are you using for the mean? The USSR?
>>>>>> Red China? Cuba?
>>>>>
>>>>> That was *your* source, you brain-dead cunthair, which stated flatly
>>>>> that the Scandinavian countries all have market economies. They aren't
>>>>> socialist. Social welfare programs is not socialism.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Denmark has been named the top country for business.
>>>
>>> Cite.
>>>
>> Probably by Denmark...
>
> By Forbes Magazine. You know, that left-wing communist rag that calls
> itself "The Capitalist Tool." <g>
corporatism, not capitalism.
Ed Huntress
Sep 26, 2016, 3:55:37 PM9/26/16
to
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 11:51:33 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
wrote:
>On 9/23/2016 6:35 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 03:13:45 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
>> <I'm-Really...@Idiocracy.gov> wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/22/2016 10:22 PM, fizzy lifting drinks wrote:
>>>> On 9/22/2016 6:12 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>>>> In article <FJZEz.417$CZ6...@fx34.iad>,
>>>>> fizzy lifting drinks <you.get...@bayern.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/22/2016 4:11 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 09:29:19 -0700, fizzy lifting drinks
>>>>>>> <you.get...@bayern.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you would bother to read your own sources, you drug-crazed
>>>>>>>> heart-attack-about-to-happen, you'd see that they contradict you
>>>>>>>> explicitly. That last one, for example:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. Scandinavia isnšt really all that socialist
(publishers, then, of Business Week), Forbes' main task was making
sarcastic remarks about mainstream business publications (WSJ,
Business Week, Fortune).
Well into his 50s, and maybe his 60s, Malcolm kept his Honda 750
motorcycle in his office, gasoline smell and all. He thought of
himself, and his magazine, as swashbucklers.
I don't know about the crony bit. Maybe. Malcolm himself was kind of
an extreme individualist.
--
Ed Huntress
wrote:
>On 9/23/2016 6:35 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 03:13:45 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
>> <I'm-Really...@Idiocracy.gov> wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/22/2016 10:22 PM, fizzy lifting drinks wrote:
>>>> On 9/22/2016 6:12 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>>>> In article <FJZEz.417$CZ6...@fx34.iad>,
>>>>> fizzy lifting drinks <you.get...@bayern.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/22/2016 4:11 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 09:29:19 -0700, fizzy lifting drinks
>>>>>>> <you.get...@bayern.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you would bother to read your own sources, you drug-crazed
>>>>>>>> heart-attack-about-to-happen, you'd see that they contradict you
>>>>>>>> explicitly. That last one, for example:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "all that socialist"? What are you using for the mean? The USSR?
>>>>>>> Red China? Cuba?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That was *your* source, you brain-dead cunthair, which stated flatly
>>>>>> that the Scandinavian countries all have market economies. They aren't
>>>>>> socialist. Social welfare programs is not socialism.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Denmark has been named the top country for business.
>>>>
>>>> Cite.
>>>>
>>> Probably by Denmark...
>>
>> By Forbes Magazine. You know, that left-wing communist rag that calls
>> itself "The Capitalist Tool." <g>
>
>I think of Forbes as being more of a supporter for Clinton-style crony
>corporatism, not capitalism.
It's more like curmudgeon capitalism. When I was at McGraw-Hill
>>>>>>> "all that socialist"? What are you using for the mean? The USSR?
>>>>>>> Red China? Cuba?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That was *your* source, you brain-dead cunthair, which stated flatly
>>>>>> that the Scandinavian countries all have market economies. They aren't
>>>>>> socialist. Social welfare programs is not socialism.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Denmark has been named the top country for business.
>>>>
>>>> Cite.
>>>>
>>> Probably by Denmark...
>>
>> By Forbes Magazine. You know, that left-wing communist rag that calls
>> itself "The Capitalist Tool." <g>
>
>I think of Forbes as being more of a supporter for Clinton-style crony
>corporatism, not capitalism.
(publishers, then, of Business Week), Forbes' main task was making
sarcastic remarks about mainstream business publications (WSJ,
Business Week, Fortune).
Well into his 50s, and maybe his 60s, Malcolm kept his Honda 750
motorcycle in his office, gasoline smell and all. He thought of
himself, and his magazine, as swashbucklers.
I don't know about the crony bit. Maybe. Malcolm himself was kind of
an extreme individualist.
--
Ed Huntress
Rudy Canoza
Sep 27, 2016, 1:24:09 PM9/27/16
to
On 9/26/2016 12:55 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 11:51:33 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
> wrote:
>
>> On 9/23/2016 6:35 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>> On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 03:13:45 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
>>> <I'm-Really...@Idiocracy.gov> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 09/22/2016 10:22 PM, fizzy lifting drinks wrote:
>>>>> On 9/22/2016 6:12 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>>>>> In article <FJZEz.417$CZ6...@fx34.iad>,
>>>>>> fizzy lifting drinks <you.get...@bayern.de> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/22/2016 4:11 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 09:29:19 -0700, fizzy lifting drinks
>>>>>>>> <you.get...@bayern.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you would bother to read your own sources, you drug-crazed
>>>>>>>>> heart-attack-about-to-happen, you'd see that they contradict you
>>>>>>>>> explicitly. That last one, for example:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1. Scandinavia isn¹t really all that socialist
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 11:51:33 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
> wrote:
>
>> On 9/23/2016 6:35 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>> On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 03:13:45 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
>>> <I'm-Really...@Idiocracy.gov> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 09/22/2016 10:22 PM, fizzy lifting drinks wrote:
>>>>> On 9/22/2016 6:12 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>>>>> In article <FJZEz.417$CZ6...@fx34.iad>,
>>>>>> fizzy lifting drinks <you.get...@bayern.de> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/22/2016 4:11 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 09:29:19 -0700, fizzy lifting drinks
>>>>>>>> <you.get...@bayern.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you would bother to read your own sources, you drug-crazed
>>>>>>>>> heart-attack-about-to-happen, you'd see that they contradict you
>>>>>>>>> explicitly. That last one, for example:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "all that socialist"? What are you using for the mean? The USSR?
>>>>>>>> Red China? Cuba?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That was *your* source, you brain-dead cunthair, which stated flatly
>>>>>>> that the Scandinavian countries all have market economies. They aren't
>>>>>>> socialist. Social welfare programs is not socialism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Denmark has been named the top country for business.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cite.
>>>>>
>>>> Probably by Denmark...
>>>
>>> By Forbes Magazine. You know, that left-wing communist rag that calls
>>> itself "The Capitalist Tool." <g>
>>
>> I think of Forbes as being more of a supporter for Clinton-style crony
>> corporatism, not capitalism.
>
> It's more like curmudgeon capitalism. When I was at McGraw-Hill
> (publishers, then, of Business Week), Forbes' main task was making
> sarcastic remarks about mainstream business publications (WSJ,
> Business Week, Fortune).
>
> Well into his 50s, and maybe his 60s, Malcolm kept his Honda 750
> motorcycle in his office, gasoline smell and all. He thought of
> himself, and his magazine, as swashbucklers.
>
> I don't know about the crony bit. Maybe. Malcolm himself was kind of
> an extreme individualist.
Crony capitalism doesn't mean fat cats sitting around the club in dinner
>>>>>>>> "all that socialist"? What are you using for the mean? The USSR?
>>>>>>>> Red China? Cuba?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That was *your* source, you brain-dead cunthair, which stated flatly
>>>>>>> that the Scandinavian countries all have market economies. They aren't
>>>>>>> socialist. Social welfare programs is not socialism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Denmark has been named the top country for business.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cite.
>>>>>
>>>> Probably by Denmark...
>>>
>>> By Forbes Magazine. You know, that left-wing communist rag that calls
>>> itself "The Capitalist Tool." <g>
>>
>> I think of Forbes as being more of a supporter for Clinton-style crony
>> corporatism, not capitalism.
>
> It's more like curmudgeon capitalism. When I was at McGraw-Hill
> (publishers, then, of Business Week), Forbes' main task was making
> sarcastic remarks about mainstream business publications (WSJ,
> Business Week, Fortune).
>
> Well into his 50s, and maybe his 60s, Malcolm kept his Honda 750
> motorcycle in his office, gasoline smell and all. He thought of
> himself, and his magazine, as swashbucklers.
>
> I don't know about the crony bit. Maybe. Malcolm himself was kind of
> an extreme individualist.
jackets with cigars and cognac. It means rich guys cooperating enough
to create barriers to entry into the club, and especially cooperating
with politicians to that effect. Malcolm Forbes personally may well
have been an individualist, but Forbes the magazine definitely is a
cheerleader for crony capitalists.
Ed Huntress
Sep 27, 2016, 2:42:31 PM9/27/16
to
On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 10:24:07 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
It may have changed. I don't read it through anymore; I just read a
few individual articles. I have heard that they've smoothed out their
editorial approach, with less of the curmudgeonly sarcasm.
They were always the odd man out, fighting against the big three (or
four, if you include Barron's). To get noticed, they pursued a policy
of being provocative and even belligerant.
For that matter, I don't know if any of the big business magazines
oppose cronyism. They've all been defenders of big, established
companies, and they all -- with the possible exception of Business
Week in the '70s and '80s -- scoffed at the concept of oligopoly. Even
so, I used to argue with the then-chief editor of BW over whether the
Big Three (still the Big Four then) automakers were oligopolists. They
definitely were, in the real sense of the word, which is why they were
so vulnerable to the Japanese car makers. He wouldn't buy it.
To get back to the question, I don't think there's anything about
Forbes that would disqualify them from judging about the best
countries for business. Their evaluation is formulaic, and it's based
on the traditional issues that businesses are supposed to favor.
On that issue, I have asked scores of small manufacturers and jobbers
what their biggest issue is, what would drive them to expand and hire,
and I've never heard one -- not ONE -- say it was taxes. If someone
brings it up, they'll jump on it. But unprompted, their big issue
is...making more sales, every time I can remember over the past 40
years.
--
Ed Huntress
wrote:
>On 9/26/2016 12:55 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 11:51:33 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/23/2016 6:35 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 03:13:45 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
>>>> <I'm-Really...@Idiocracy.gov> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 09/22/2016 10:22 PM, fizzy lifting drinks wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/22/2016 6:12 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <FJZEz.417$CZ6...@fx34.iad>,
>>>>>>> fizzy lifting drinks <you.get...@bayern.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9/22/2016 4:11 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 09:29:19 -0700, fizzy lifting drinks
>>>>>>>>> <you.get...@bayern.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you would bother to read your own sources, you drug-crazed
>>>>>>>>>> heart-attack-about-to-happen, you'd see that they contradict you
>>>>>>>>>> explicitly. That last one, for example:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1. Scandinavia isnšt really all that socialist
>On 9/26/2016 12:55 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 11:51:33 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/23/2016 6:35 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 03:13:45 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
>>>> <I'm-Really...@Idiocracy.gov> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 09/22/2016 10:22 PM, fizzy lifting drinks wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/22/2016 6:12 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <FJZEz.417$CZ6...@fx34.iad>,
>>>>>>> fizzy lifting drinks <you.get...@bayern.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9/22/2016 4:11 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 09:29:19 -0700, fizzy lifting drinks
>>>>>>>>> <you.get...@bayern.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you would bother to read your own sources, you drug-crazed
>>>>>>>>>> heart-attack-about-to-happen, you'd see that they contradict you
>>>>>>>>>> explicitly. That last one, for example:
>>>>>>>>>>
few individual articles. I have heard that they've smoothed out their
editorial approach, with less of the curmudgeonly sarcasm.
They were always the odd man out, fighting against the big three (or
four, if you include Barron's). To get noticed, they pursued a policy
of being provocative and even belligerant.
For that matter, I don't know if any of the big business magazines
oppose cronyism. They've all been defenders of big, established
companies, and they all -- with the possible exception of Business
Week in the '70s and '80s -- scoffed at the concept of oligopoly. Even
so, I used to argue with the then-chief editor of BW over whether the
Big Three (still the Big Four then) automakers were oligopolists. They
definitely were, in the real sense of the word, which is why they were
so vulnerable to the Japanese car makers. He wouldn't buy it.
To get back to the question, I don't think there's anything about
Forbes that would disqualify them from judging about the best
countries for business. Their evaluation is formulaic, and it's based
on the traditional issues that businesses are supposed to favor.
On that issue, I have asked scores of small manufacturers and jobbers
what their biggest issue is, what would drive them to expand and hire,
and I've never heard one -- not ONE -- say it was taxes. If someone
brings it up, they'll jump on it. But unprompted, their big issue
is...making more sales, every time I can remember over the past 40
years.
--
Ed Huntress
0 new messages