17 total posts
Not the government's money anyway.
Well, that's the lunatic fringe heard from.
of course the rest of us are paying taxes to fund corporate welfare schemes just like this. I think corporate tax rates should be returned to 1950's levels. Nobody talked about an unfair tax burden then, and Corporations paid nearly 40 % of all taxes collected, which is why individual tax rates were lower.
I wonder how much the guy got paid to make the change, and I bet it wasn't much in comparison.
(NT) Thanks for the personal attack
I have an e-mail from a Mod informing me that personal
attacks are not exceptionable. Specifically: "Just so you know. The Speakeasy has very relaxed rules so it's a place where some slug it out. To me, it's much like a boxing ring. If you don't want to get hit, don't go there."
Additionally, I am only reflecting your position as defined by you in a previous post. You indicated you were considerably to the Right of Bush or some other equally Rightist individual. You have no difficulty in defining mild liberals and even some whom I'd consider right of center as Looney lefties.
In all other respects, you're most welcome,
I don't think I've ever claimed to be to the right of Bush. What YOU consider middle-of-the-road liberals )you don't name any) probably ARE lefty loonies.
I'll pit my sanity against yours any day. I think we've seen what you have.
BTW I hope you don't think I snitched to the mods. I did not.
No Ed, I was complaining about a personal attack on myself
which elicited the response from one of the Mods.
I'm sorry if you were not the one who posted a line of political figures and ideas that went from Kerry through liberal centerist then Bush and finally said Me quite a long way to the Right of Bush. Perhaps it was Edward O'Daniel, I tend to get you two confused at times, and at 59 and with my infirmities most of the physical, I just don't retain things that are less important to me as well any more.
I don't think there are any Loony Left successful politicians in the United States. Compared to what I saw in Britain and see in Canada the liberal wing of the Democratic party looks pretty pitiful when compared to Red Ken Livingstone the Lord Mayor of London, or to some of the NDP (New Democratic Party) socialists up here. In fact not even compared to the US of yesteryear with Jerry Brown, and Tom Hayden and various others.
I do see extremism on the Right quite a lot in the United States though. And no countervaling force to temper it.
I am greatly disturbed by what I see as the failed promise of the United States. This is a feeling that has developed while watching the US from the outside, and especially over the last 5 and a bit years. I find Bush and all his works anathem to everything I ever thought I knew about America and Americans. I have seen an accepting country become a narrow and bigotted one judging by what I see on television and read in the newspapers, and I think Bush's economics are a greater folly than those of Ronald Reagan. They are an indulgence that the US will be paying for for decades (the deficits and the indebtedness).
But that's entirely my own opinion and shouldn't trouble you.
I'll keep my sanity, thanks, it has worked quite well so far, and I'm proud of its products whether my dissertation or my son's character and success at school. I grant that I am sometimes too quick to anger here on SE, but I am not in my general life. It is a stress reaction which is why you may perceive me as erratic when in real life I am not. I don't enjoy people making cracks about my meds, because unlike most people I have been dependent on medications that have at times made me very wretched and touchy indeed (we're talking Prednisone here) but I haven't been on Prednisone for over a year, and my personal pharmacology is nobody's business but my own. It was that remark that elicited my appeal to the Mods which was ignored. So be it, but I'm not going to play nicey nice when apparently either the rules have changed or the enforcement has. If I perceive something as a personal attack I may reply in kind.
Regarding the Mods, I am puzzled by the enforcement or non-enforcement of rules. I created a post that began "Now there's a Republican I could vote for" about Fiorello LaGuardia which has been axed. I can't understand why, even if someone posted nasty things afterwards that the original post wouldn't stay. It may have been a mistake, and if so a note would have been nice. I don't think it was all that controversial, and I was trying to show that I'm more concerned with what a politician does for his entire constituency than for special interest groups. Anyway, its a mystery to me.
Best wishes from an unstressed
And where is it written 1. that corporations should be tax
exempt, and 2. we should all be tax exempt. Since I read broadly, I have come across the upper classes in Britain fuming about taxes of 2 1/2 pence in the pound (that's 1%) back at the end of the 19th century, but given all the things government gives you, taxes should in my opinion be paid willingly both by corporations and by individuals.
But then that's not how it was done in the 18th Century so I'm sure it won't be received enthusiastically here.
Rob "just barely 200 years ahead of you" Boyter
That is the first of a lifetime of your mistakes,
Governent can give NOTHING, it can only TAKE
AT first glace, gov't appears to only take
Governent can give NOTHING, it can only TAKE
And often it seems to forget how to do anything else.
But without government, there is no law, no rules, every man has to watch out for himself etc.
Government grows more unresponsive as it grow larger, but without it there would be no interstate road system. There would be no national defense (and therefor probably no USA). There would be no legal system to seek any redress for injury besides personal confrontation and violence.
Government may be a necessary evil rather than a guardian angel, but it is necessary.
It gives structure to society, it gives "domestic tranquility" a chance. One interesting quote I ran across on a quick search....
One of the concerns of the Framers was that the government prior to that under the Constitution was unable, by force or persuasion, to quell rebellion or quarrels amongst the states. The government watched in horror as Shay's Rebellion transpired just before the Convention, and some states had very nearly gone to war with each other over territory (such as between Pennsylvania and Connecticut over Wilkes-Barre). One of the main goals of the Convention, then, was to ensure the federal government had powers to squash rebellion and to smooth tensions between states.
And without state government, each town would settle it's conflicts by force, intimidation, and/or economic bullying, much like each feudal lord did during the middle ages.
Yes, I mutter and sometimes shout about how government takes, espcially looking at my paycheck stubs. But without government there is only choas and domination by the most violent.
click here to email firstname.lastname@example.org
Bush give-away to the oil industry! Impeach him!
huh, Bush wasn't elected yet? It was still the Clinton administration when that happened? Oh, well, never mind.
But Bush has Big Oil ties !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(so does Senator Kennedy!)
I've never noticed Bush's ties.
Kennedy's ties on the other hand are very wide and usually have food on them.
(NT) Duckman wants to know if Togo has been drinking
(NT) Sadly, no.
So how much more would gas cost today if this were "fixed"?
You must be some kind of...
lunatic....according to that Canadian paragon of mental health.