wrote in news:z7bhj.292748$Fc.214118@attbi_s21:

CJT wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

CJT wrote:

No, it's not. It is obvious if you look at the nutcases leading
your party.


I'm not having a party. But if it's the Republicans party you mean,
then yes, there are a few nutcases in there.


Yep. We've got Ron Paul. A few years ago, we had David Duke. It's not
only a big tent, the flaps on all the side are open.

The Democratic Party resembles the inmate population of a
penetentiary; you've got the Brothers, the Latinos, the White
Supremists, and so on. The only thing they have in common is the
prison. Sometimes, they'll work together - as in the case of a riot -
but mostly the pursue their own agendas.

The Republican camp is made up of four distinct groups: The social
conservatives, the economic conservatives, the small-government
conservatives, and the war-mongering neocons. The social conservatives
(prayer in school, anti-abortion, etc.) don't care too much about
economic issues, but are happy to cooperate with the econcomic
conservatives. The economic conservatives (free markets, less
regulation, free trade, etc.) don't care too much about social issues
and willingly cooperate with the socials. This alliance often works.

The Democrats consist, mainly, of groups that hate each other, but get
together to win elections. For example, the environmentalist oppose
oil exporation in Alaska while the unions heartily endorse it. The
Democrat groups often work at cross-purposes, but somehow manage to
prevail about half the time.

In a nutshell: Democrats tend to provide for the general welfare
through the treasury, Republicans tend to promote the general welfare
through the economy.

The Democrats think everybody should have a chance to do well. The
Republicans think the already well-off should keep all they have and get
more, regardless of merit, at the expense of the "unwashed masses."
That's what's "conservative" about it -- conserve the relative positions
of everybody -- keep the rich rich and the poor poor.



20 years ago I would have agreed with you. Today I don't. I have a small
business and Republicans have mostly made it easier for my small
business to exist and to prosper. Of course I have to work hard and do
all the right things but they make it possible. The Dems, on the other
hand, seem to have the opinion that because I work hard and make money
that I should give a large share to those who don't have the ambition to
work 14 to 16 hours a day. Seems the harder I work, the more roadblocks
are put in my way in the form of taxes and regulations. While I agree
that taxes should exist to ensure vital infrastructure, I don't agree
that they should exist so that some can sit around drinking, smoking pot
and crack all day long and make babies for me to support with my taxes.
Now I'm not referring to those who simply can't work or take care of
themselves. I gladly pay out to help those people. I'd rather do it
voluntarily through various charitable organizations but never the less,
I feel the obligation to help these people.
I am, by no means, rich. My current goal is to gross $150,000 this year.
20 years ago, I worked for an employer 40 hour weeks and grossed
$25,000.00. I paid very little taxes, in percentage to what I pay now
but I am much happier because I am totally self sufficient.
Sorry. This is getting too long.



You are right;in a nutshell,the DemocRATs are Communists,and the
Republicans are better for the country.
None of the DemocRATs social programs have made it better for
people,instead,they have made it *worse* for them.

Instead of being "progressives",they actually are REGRESSIVES.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

George wrote:

Unfortunately people often parrot that but live something completely
different.

Isn't it a paradox that stuff like the following goes on everyday.

Take for example the Walmarts in my area. In the past few years Walton
Enterprises, LLC has contacted the government with a request that went
something like this. "Mr Government, thanks for all of your help in
the past for lifting the money out of the pockets of others to help
us build our first stores in your area by acquiring the land and
installing the roads, utilities, traffic signals and best of all
giving us a nine year tax exemption which is effectively lifting more
money out of people pockets on our behalf because they have to pay
the taxes and we don't. So the tax exemption is up so we have picked
out another close by location than you can acquire and develop for us
again by pulling money out of peoples pockets on our behalf. As we
understand this completely renews our tax exemption so others can pay
the taxes we don't."
Or how about insurance companies who wouldn't think twice about
denying a claim going to the government and demanding help as in "it
was a lot windier than expected so we will have to pay out a lot of
claims, so Mr Government could you please pull money out of
everyone's pockets to help help us?

Or how about brokerages and megabanks who say they are conservatives
and would do anything no matter hoe amoral it was to make money: "Mr
Government, even though I have an MBA and 25 years experience I got
tricked (read "I was really greedy") into buying those investments. It
would really be embarrassing if my decision making reflected on us so
could you pull money out of everyone's pocket to help poor little us?

And I have known two individuals who always claimed they were true
conservatives and if others had to eat mud it was their fault
instantly change their minds when they got into difficulty. Then it
became "The government has to help poor little me..."


Not that there's anything wrong with that.

In your Walmart case, Walmart didn't make the rules - I don't see how they
can be criticized for playing by them. How hard would it have been for the
city council to say "No?" Walmart would go to the public and say "You can
have a swell store if you just persuade your city fathers...." The elected
representatives could make their case. Then, perhaps, there'd be a vote and
the town would end up with an air-conditioned football stadium. No...
wait....

As to the megabanks, here's a dirty little secret: The PC crowd a few years
ago mandated where banks must open branch offices and how they must allocate
their loan portfolio. If the bank or morgtage company didn't have some
percentage of their loans in certain ethnic neighborhoods, they faced being
put out of business by the government. If a bank didn't have a branch office
on the other side of the tracks, and it didn't matter that the only business
transacted there was bank robbery, some federal agency would yank their
charter.

Banks and morgtage companies HAD to concoct a morgtage instrument that
people with no credit could take, else the entire bank would be brought
down.

In article ,
George wrote:


Or how about insurance companies who wouldn't think twice about denying
a claim going to the government and demanding help as in "it was a lot
windier than expected so we will have to pay out a lot of claims, so Mr
Government could you please pull money out of everyone's pockets to help
help us?

Haven't seen them do that to my memory. Mostly they just refuse to
write the insurance so the government has to step and do it instead of
them. I don't know of an instance where the insurance companies have had
the gov bail them out directly.


Or how about brokerages and megabanks who say they are conservatives and
would do anything no matter hoe amoral it was to make money: "Mr
Government, even though I have an MBA and 25 years experience I got
tricked (read "I was really greedy") into buying those investments. It
would really be embarrassing if my decision making reflected on us so
could you pull money out of everyone's pocket to help poor little us?
Depends. A lot of this is secondary to government dicking around in
the first place. To a certain extent the current housing hooha is
secondary to the Fed keeping rates low too long and then ratcheting them
up as well as the Fed and everyone else pushing real hard to get people
in houses. Much like 90% of the S&L crisis in the 80s was related to
Congress screwing around with tax laws and agreements.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"CJT" wrote in message
...

krw wrote:


In article , alt.home.repair,
says...


wrote:



On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 20:00:46 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

\.



Without commenting on the rest of it, the educational system is and
always has been a local function. The feds, even to this day, have a
relatively small dog in this hunt.


Our education is in the sewer for the same reason the auto industrey
is in the sewer. Their union created a top heavy structure where
seniority had more value than competence and most of the money went to
the least productive.

Education is in the sewer because a bunch of holier-than-thou's think
science is a threat to society,


Nonsense.


Just look at the watered down texts in use and how they got to be that
way.



Where have you seen these watered down texts? By "where", I mean the name
of the school district, as well as the city & state.


Texas generally. Periodically new texts are approved. All the nutcases
show up with their imagined grievances. The publishers attempt to avoid
confrontation by appeasement.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

HeyBub wrote:
George wrote:
Unfortunately people often parrot that but live something completely
different.

Isn't it a paradox that stuff like the following goes on everyday.

Take for example the Walmarts in my area. In the past few years Walton
Enterprises, LLC has contacted the government with a request that went
something like this. "Mr Government, thanks for all of your help in
the past for lifting the money out of the pockets of others to help
us build our first stores in your area by acquiring the land and
installing the roads, utilities, traffic signals and best of all
giving us a nine year tax exemption which is effectively lifting more
money out of people pockets on our behalf because they have to pay
the taxes and we don't. So the tax exemption is up so we have picked
out another close by location than you can acquire and develop for us
again by pulling money out of peoples pockets on our behalf. As we
understand this completely renews our tax exemption so others can pay
the taxes we don't."
Or how about insurance companies who wouldn't think twice about
denying a claim going to the government and demanding help as in "it
was a lot windier than expected so we will have to pay out a lot of
claims, so Mr Government could you please pull money out of
everyone's pockets to help help us?

Or how about brokerages and megabanks who say they are conservatives
and would do anything no matter hoe amoral it was to make money: "Mr
Government, even though I have an MBA and 25 years experience I got
tricked (read "I was really greedy") into buying those investments. It
would really be embarrassing if my decision making reflected on us so
could you pull money out of everyone's pocket to help poor little us?

And I have known two individuals who always claimed they were true
conservatives and if others had to eat mud it was their fault
instantly change their minds when they got into difficulty. Then it
became "The government has to help poor little me..."


Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Sure there is. If you truly believe in something you practice what you
believe and you work for change.

In your Walmart case, Walmart didn't make the rules - I don't see how they
can be criticized for playing by them.


They are just being disingenuous as above. If they truly believe in
private enterprise they could say "Our core values are that private
enterprise is a good thing, to that end we will stand on our own (just
like we claim everyone else should) and will not seek or accept any
public funds for the operation of our enterprise and will actively work
to eliminate such funding.


How hard would it have been for the
city council to say "No?" Walmart would go to the public and say "You can
have a swell store if you just persuade your city fathers...." The elected
representatives could make their case. Then, perhaps, there'd be a vote and
the town would end up with an air-conditioned football stadium. No...
wait....

As to the megabanks, here's a dirty little secret: The PC crowd a few years
ago mandated where banks must open branch offices and how they must allocate
their loan portfolio. If the bank or morgtage company didn't have some
percentage of their loans in certain ethnic neighborhoods, they faced being
put out of business by the government. If a bank didn't have a branch office
on the other side of the tracks, and it didn't matter that the only business
transacted there was bank robbery, some federal agency would yank their
charter.

Banks and morgtage companies HAD to concoct a morgtage instrument that
people with no credit could take, else the entire bank would be brought
down.

krw wrote:
In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
HeyBub wrote:

CJT wrote:

No, it's not. It is obvious if you look at the nutcases leading
your party.

I'm not having a party. But if it's the Republicans party you mean,
then yes, there are a few nutcases in there.

Yep. We've got Ron Paul. A few years ago, we had David Duke. It's not only a
big tent, the flaps on all the side are open.

The Democratic Party resembles the inmate population of a penetentiary;
you've got the Brothers, the Latinos, the White Supremists, and so on. The
only thing they have in common is the prison. Sometimes, they'll work
together - as in the case of a riot - but mostly the pursue their own
agendas.

The Republican camp is made up of four distinct groups: The social
conservatives, the economic conservatives, the small-government
conservatives, and the war-mongering neocons. The social conservatives
(prayer in school, anti-abortion, etc.) don't care too much about economic
issues, but are happy to cooperate with the econcomic conservatives. The
economic conservatives (free markets, less regulation, free trade, etc.)
don't care too much about social issues and willingly cooperate with the
socials. This alliance often works.

The Democrats consist, mainly, of groups that hate each other, but get
together to win elections. For example, the environmentalist oppose oil
exporation in Alaska while the unions heartily endorse it. The Democrat
groups often work at cross-purposes, but somehow manage to prevail about
half the time.

In a nutshell: Democrats tend to provide for the general welfare through the
treasury, Republicans tend to promote the general welfare through the
economy.


The Democrats think everybody should have a chance to do well. The
Republicans think the already well-off should keep all they have and get
more, regardless of merit, at the expense of the "unwashed masses."

Absolutely backwards. Democrats want you to be beholding to them,
rather than have a chance to make a real life for yourself.

That's what's "conservative" about it -- conserve the relative positions
of everybody -- keep the rich rich and the poor poor.

Only a loony leftist loser could come up with such nonsense.

Read posts from "heybub" (who is a not unusual full bore right wing I
don't care who dies as long as I get more money guy). He says that what
is his is his, don't touch it and the most important thing is to get
more no matter how it is done even it it involves being disingenuous by
having the government do it for you because they are taking someone
else's worth and transferring it to you.

In article ,
George wrote:


In your Walmart case, Walmart didn't make the rules - I don't see how they
can be criticized for playing by them.


They are just being disingenuous as above. If they truly believe in
private enterprise they could say "Our core values are that private
enterprise is a good thing, to that end we will stand on our own (just
like we claim everyone else should) and will not seek or accept any
public funds for the operation of our enterprise and will actively work
to eliminate such funding.


Private enterprise never has been about standing on own, but rather
not being actively worked against by the government. Don't know of a
single time WM or other entity has said they would not take advantage of
whatever was available to them (hopefully legally). Nothing in the idea
of private enterprise would argue against seeking funding from whatever
source. The way around this is try and get cities to stop competing with
each other. Some have and are quite content.
There is a rather large "Stop me before I tax rebate again!!"
quality to a lot of this on the part of the governments. They want the
jobs, but then bemoan the deals they volunteered to do to get them.

CJT wrote:

Where have you seen these watered down texts? By "where", I mean
the name of the school district, as well as the city & state.


Texas generally. Periodically new texts are approved. All the
nutcases show up with their imagined grievances. The publishers
attempt to avoid confrontation by appeasement.

Ah, yes. I remember the famous case where a group objected to an American
History text on the grounds, inter alia, that it devoted four pages to
Marilyn Monroe and one page to George Washington.

Texas has a big effect on school textbooks inasmuch as the state buys the
books for the entire state and provides them at no charge to the school
districts. In other jurisdictions, each school district makes its own
decisions.

George wrote:

Only a loony leftist loser could come up with such nonsense.

Read posts from "heybub" (who is a not unusual full bore right wing I
don't care who dies as long as I get more money guy). He says that
what is his is his, don't touch it and the most important thing is to
get more no matter how it is done even it it involves being
disingenuous by having the government do it for you because they are
taking someone else's worth and transferring it to you.

Let me get this straight. I don't want to put words in your mouth, so if I'm
wrong, please correct me.

Is it your view:

The Republicans should be criticized because they use the power of the
government to take from one person and give the proceeds (less a handling
fee) to another person?

Giggle.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

CJT wrote:

Where have you seen these watered down texts? By "where", I mean
the name of the school district, as well as the city & state.


Texas generally. Periodically new texts are approved. All the
nutcases show up with their imagined grievances. The publishers
attempt to avoid confrontation by appeasement.

Ah, yes. I remember the famous case where a group objected to an American
History text on the grounds, inter alia, that it devoted four pages to
Marilyn Monroe and one page to George Washington.

Texas has a big effect on school textbooks inasmuch as the state buys the
books for the entire state and provides them at no charge to the school
districts. In other jurisdictions, each school district makes its own
decisions.

I have a friend who recently retired from the upper echelons of a
major purveyor of textbooks (who shall remain nameless) who periodically
(following loosening his tongue somewhat with adult beverages) would
discuss in great detail how they basically wrote texts to keep TX and/or
CA happy as these were the biggest customers. Some of the balancing that
entailed was enlightening, if not uplifting....

In article ,
wrote:



But, unfortunately, all the other shool district can choose from are
the heavily filtered textbooks that places such as Texas want.
Publishers of texbooks publish to the lowest common denominator. They
don't publish special versions for different levels of honesty.
CA is the other place that governs how textbooks are written. Sorta
interesting dichotomy doncha think.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
CJT wrote:

Where have you seen these watered down texts? By "where", I mean
the name of the school district, as well as the city & state.


Texas generally. Periodically new texts are approved. All the
nutcases show up with their imagined grievances. The publishers
attempt to avoid confrontation by appeasement.

Ah, yes. I remember the famous case where a group objected to an American
History text on the grounds, inter alia, that it devoted four pages to
Marilyn Monroe and one page to George Washington.


That does sound like a really stupid textbook. I would've complained about
it, too. I also would've liked to subpoena the writer(s) and have them
explain to the public what the phuque they were thinking.

Kurt Ullman wrote:
Ah, yes. I remember the famous case where a group objected to an
American History text on the grounds, inter alia, that it devoted
four pages to Marilyn Monroe and one page to George Washington.

Texas has a big effect on school textbooks inasmuch as the state
buys the books for the entire state and provides them at no charge
to the school districts. In other jurisdictions, each school
district makes its own decisions.

I have a friend who recently retired from the upper echelons of a
major purveyor of textbooks (who shall remain nameless) who
periodically (following loosening his tongue somewhat with adult
beverages) would discuss in great detail how they basically wrote
texts to keep TX and/or CA happy as these were the biggest customers.
Some of the balancing that entailed was enlightening, if not
uplifting....

Yes, Richard Feynman got roped into assisting the California textbook
selection committee. In reviewing a 5th grade math book, he ran across the
following (paraphrased) problem (as he tells about in his book "Surely
you're joking, Mr. Feynman!"):

White stars are 10,000 degrees.
Blue stars are 8,000 degrees
Red stars are 6,000 degrees.
Bobby and his dad are in the backyard looking at stars. Bobby's dad sees two
white stars and one red star. Bobby sees three blue stars. What is the total
temperature of all the stars Bobby and his dad saw?

[Who does NOT know what's wrong with the above problem?]

He has other, similarly horrible, stories about textbook adoption. Including
a proposed text, consisting of 300 blank pages, that was graded "acceptable"
by the science teachers on the textbook committee.

--- aside
I love this story from his book:

[Ring-ring.]
"Hello"
"Is this Dr. Feynman?"
"Yes"
"Dr Richard P. Feynman?"
"Yes"
"Dr. Feynman, my name is X, I am the United States Ambassador to the Court
of King Gustav VI of Sweden. It is my distinct pleasure to inform you you
have won the 1965 Nobel Prize in Physics."
"Do you know what the hell TIME it is in California?"
"Uh..."
"It's three o'clock in the goddamn morning. Call back after nine!"
[click]

On Jan 10, 2:35*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
Ah, yes. I remember the famous case where a group objected to an
American History text on the grounds, inter alia, that it devoted
four pages to Marilyn Monroe and one page to George Washington.

Texas has a big effect on school textbooks inasmuch as the state
buys the books for the entire state and provides them at no charge
to the school districts. In other jurisdictions, each school
district makes its own decisions.

* I have a friend who recently retired from the upper echelons of a
major purveyor of textbooks (who shall remain nameless) who
periodically (following loosening his tongue somewhat with adult
beverages) would discuss in great detail how they basically wrote
texts to keep TX and/or CA happy as these were the biggest customers.
Some of the balancing that entailed was enlightening, if not
uplifting....

Yes, Richard Feynman got roped into assisting the California textbook
selection committee. In reviewing a 5th grade math book, he ran across the
following (paraphrased) problem (as he tells about in his book "Surely
you're joking, Mr. Feynman!"):

White stars are 10,000 degrees.
Blue stars are 8,000 degrees
Red stars are 6,000 degrees.
Bobby and his dad are in the backyard looking at stars. Bobby's dad sees two
white stars and one red star. Bobby sees three blue stars. What is the total
temperature of all the stars Bobby and his dad saw?

[Who does NOT know what's wrong with the above problem?]

He has other, similarly horrible, stories about textbook adoption. Including
a proposed text, consisting of 300 blank pages, that was graded "acceptable"
by the science teachers on the textbook committee.

--- aside
I love this story from his book:

[Ring-ring.]
"Hello"
"Is this Dr. Feynman?"
"Yes"
"Dr Richard P. Feynman?"
"Yes"
"Dr. Feynman, my name is X, I am the United States Ambassador to the Court
of King Gustav VI of Sweden. It is my distinct pleasure to inform you you
have won the 1965 Nobel Prize in Physics."
"Do you know what the hell TIME it is in California?"
"Uh..."
"It's three o'clock in the goddamn morning. Call back after nine!"
[click]- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Touring a large and expensive physics facility in Switzerland, Dr.
Feynman asks "what is it for".

The guide replies "It is to prove the existance of - - - -, Oh yes,
You are the one who theorized it's existence".

Dr Feynman: "Don't you believe me?".

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
George wrote:


In your Walmart case, Walmart didn't make the rules - I don't see how they
can be criticized for playing by them.


They are just being disingenuous as above. If they truly believe in
private enterprise they could say "Our core values are that private
enterprise is a good thing, to that end we will stand on our own (just
like we claim everyone else should) and will not seek or accept any
public funds for the operation of our enterprise and will actively work
to eliminate such funding.



Private enterprise never has been about standing on own, but rather
not being actively worked against by the government. Don't know of a
single time WM or other entity has said they would not take advantage of
whatever was available to them (hopefully legally). Nothing in the idea
of private enterprise would argue against seeking funding from whatever
source. The way around this is try and get cities to stop competing with
each other. Some have and are quite content.
There is a rather large "Stop me before I tax rebate again!!"
quality to a lot of this on the part of the governments. They want the
jobs, but then bemoan the deals they volunteered to do to get them.

If you believe that, then you shouldn't have any problem with
individuals playing by the same rules (i.e. grabbing all they can get
with or without the help of government). After all, individuals are
already at a disadvantage -- unlike corporations, they don't live
forever.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

HeyBub wrote:
George wrote:
Only a loony leftist loser could come up with such nonsense.

Read posts from "heybub" (who is a not unusual full bore right wing I
don't care who dies as long as I get more money guy). He says that
what is his is his, don't touch it and the most important thing is to
get more no matter how it is done even it it involves being
disingenuous by having the government do it for you because they are
taking someone else's worth and transferring it to you.

Let me get this straight. I don't want to put words in your mouth, so if I'm
wrong, please correct me.

Is it your view:

The Republicans should be criticized because they use the power of the
government to take from one person and give the proceeds (less a handling
fee) to another person?

Giggle.


I thought we were discussing conservatives?

The problem I have is how disingenuous someone is when their belief is
that they like the wealth they have and they want to keep it (and obtain
more) and one of the ways to do that is to not have the government touch
any of it. But it is perfectly OK if they (or their enterprise) have the
chance to have the government pull money from the pockets of others if
it will help them.

This is no different than say I was an advocate for eliminating the
consumption of alcohol. I assemble like minded people and we do
everything we can to advance our convictions.

Then one day it is discovered that I really enjoy those martinis I drink
every night. When someone declares that I am just a rotten two-faced so
and so I reply that I breathe different air than they do and since
consumption of alcohol is legal it is perfectly OK for me to do it.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
krw wrote:

In article , alt.home.repair,
says...

krw wrote:


In article , alt.home.repair,
says...


krw wrote:


You're an idiot. Lieberman also wants to *WIN* the war in Iraq
and
is 100% behind the President in his efforts. Are you all for
that
too?

Sure. Doesn't everybody?


NO!



"WIN" is so amporhous a concept, it's something that everybody can
get
behind.


No, apparently it's not. The democrats are fully invested in
losing, being the losers they are.



Nonsense.


No, it's not. It is obvious if you look at the nutcases leading
your party.

I'm not having a party. But if it's the Republicans party you mean,
then yes, there are a few nutcases in there.

Wrong, as usual.
Keith


You don't think Huckabee's a nut case?

Kucinich?

--
Keith

Kucinich is off the radar screen. You don't Huckabee's a nut case?

Huckabee is a pro-life tax-and-spend Democrat in Republican Party clothing.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

George wrote:
Read posts from "heybub" (who is a not unusual full bore right wing I
don't care who dies as long as I get more money guy). He says that what
is his is his, don't touch it and the most important thing is to get
more no matter how it is done even it it involves being disingenuous by
having the government do it for you because they are taking someone
else's worth and transferring it to you.

You should follow your own advice and read the posts from "heybub".

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

George wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
George wrote:
Only a loony leftist loser could come up with such nonsense.

Read posts from "heybub" (who is a not unusual full bore right wing
I don't care who dies as long as I get more money guy). He says that
what is his is his, don't touch it and the most important thing is
to get more no matter how it is done even it it involves being
disingenuous by having the government do it for you because they are
taking someone else's worth and transferring it to you.

Let me get this straight. I don't want to put words in your mouth,
so if I'm wrong, please correct me.

Is it your view:

The Republicans should be criticized because they use the power of
the government to take from one person and give the proceeds (less a
handling fee) to another person?

Giggle.


I thought we were discussing conservatives?

Oh. Okay, scratch out the word "Republican" in the above and substitue
"conservative."



The problem I have is how disingenuous someone is when their belief is
that they like the wealth they have and they want to keep it (and
obtain more) and one of the ways to do that is to not have the
government touch any of it.


But it is perfectly OK if they (or their
enterprise) have the chance to have the government pull money from
the pockets of others if it will help them.

Surely you don't mean that Boeing should not sell fighter jets to the U.S.
military, that Acme Construction should not rebuild the bridge that fell
down in Minnesota, that Home Moo Dairies should not sell milk to schools?

Should Scott Paper simply GIVE toilet paper to the county courthouse? Or
would you rather judges bring their own, maybe even jurors.


This is no different than say I was an advocate for eliminating the
consumption of alcohol. I assemble like minded people and we do
everything we can to advance our convictions.

Then one day it is discovered that I really enjoy those martinis I
drink every night. When someone declares that I am just a rotten
two-faced so and so I reply that I breathe different air than they do
and since consumption of alcohol is legal it is perfectly OK for me
to do it.

You seem to be complaining about hypocrisy. Relax, there's nothing wrong
with hypocrisy. The sign that says "This way to Chicago" doesn't actually GO
to Chicago itself.

Don't forget 85% of gynecologists are male.

clifto wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"krw" wrote in message
. net...

In article , alt.home.repair,
says...

"krw" wrote in message
l.net...

In article , alt.home.repair,
says...

krw wrote:


In article , alt.home.repair,
says...


krw wrote:



In article , alt.home.repair,
says...



krw wrote:



You're an idiot. Lieberman also wants to *WIN* the war in Iraq
and
is 100% behind the President in his efforts. Are you all for
that
too?

Sure. Doesn't everybody?


NO!




"WIN" is so amporhous a concept, it's something that everybody can
get
behind.


No, apparently it's not. The democrats are fully invested in
losing, being the losers they are.



Nonsense.


No, it's not. It is obvious if you look at the nutcases leading
your party.


I'm not having a party. But if it's the Republicans party you mean,
then yes, there are a few nutcases in there.

Wrong, as usual.
Keith


You don't think Huckabee's a nut case?

Kucinich?

--
Keith

Kucinich is off the radar screen. You don't Huckabee's a nut case?


Huckabee is a pro-life tax-and-spend Democrat in Republican Party clothing.

He's no Democrat for sure.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

clifto wrote:

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
snip
Huckabee is a pro-life tax-and-spend Democrat in Republican Party clothing.

If you can be honest for a moment, you will realize that the "tax and
spend" stereotype has not fit the Democrats in a long time (if it ever
did) and that it in fact better fits the Republicans (although they
often modify it slightly to "borrow and spend").


Just look at the party affiliation of the person who is responsible for
the recent doubling of the national debt.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

In article , CJT
wrote:

clifto wrote:

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
snip
Huckabee is a pro-life tax-and-spend Democrat in Republican Party clothing.

If you can be honest for a moment, you will realize that the "tax and
spend" stereotype has not fit the Democrats in a long time (if it ever
did) and that it in fact better fits the Republicans (although they
often modify it slightly to "borrow and spend").

Tax and spend is a dem issue because they are the ones who like to
increase taxes. You are probably right on the b&s part for the GOP.
Interesting and little appreciated stat. If you look at expenditures in
the Stat Abstract, an take three distinct blocks of time (50years before
the '94 take over by the GOP, the first five years of their "rule" and
the 5 years that followed, you will note that the % of yearly increase
in spending was the same on either end, with a decrease for the few
years until the GOP went to the Dark Side, too.
Seems as though spending is fine thing for both sides.
Another interesting indication is a LONG line of studies showing that
if spending increases were limited to inflation, the budget would
balance within 3-5 years (depending on which specific year you are
talking about..



Just look at the party affiliation of the person who is responsible for
the recent doubling of the national debt.

On 01/14/08 08:04 am Kurt Ullman wrote:

Tax and spend is a dem issue because they are the ones who like to
increase taxes. You are probably right on the b&s part for the GOP.
Interesting and little appreciated stat. If you look at expenditures in
the Stat Abstract, an take three distinct blocks of time (50years before
the '94 take over by the GOP, the first five years of their "rule" and
the 5 years that followed, you will note that the % of yearly increase
in spending was the same on either end, with a decrease for the few
years until the GOP went to the Dark Side, too.
Seems as though spending is fine thing for both sides.
Another interesting indication is a LONG line of studies showing that
if spending increases were limited to inflation, the budget would
balance within 3-5 years (depending on which specific year you are
talking about..


All taxes get spent somehow, no matter who votes for them. The question
is what they get spent on.

I had a Swedish roommate for a while in grad school. He said that he
didn't mind paying more than 50% of his salary in taxes, because he
considered that the services provided made it good value for money.

Perce

In article ,
"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote:

On 01/14/08 08:04 am Kurt Ullman wrote:


All taxes get spent somehow, no matter who votes for them. The question
is what they get spent on.
Heck I'd settle for just spending the taxes



I had a Swedish roommate for a while in grad school. He said that he
didn't mind paying more than 50% of his salary in taxes, because he
considered that the services provided made it good value for money.


Swedes are weird that way (grin). In the US, there are a series of
rather interesting studies that seem to indicate 30% is our cut-off.
Above that, people are more interested to game the system, use (legal)
tax avoidance strategies with more vigor, etc. Interesting.

On Jan 14, 1:41*pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:

* Swedes are weird that way (grin). In the US, there are a series of
rather interesting studies that seem to indicate 30% is our cut-off.
Above that, people are more interested to game the system, use (legal)
tax avoidance strategies with more vigor, etc. Interesting.


It is difficult to compare one countries tax with another. The
govenment taxing the Employer instead of the Employee is a farce. The
employer doesn't care if the tax goes through the pocket of the
employee. It is still considered part of the wage. Therefore SS Tax
is really about 15% of the salary. Add that to the income tax and
other hidden taxes and the US taxes get pretty high too.

Sweden like most European Countries has 25% Value Added Tax
(Consumption tax similar to what Huckabee proposes). Their exports
are 25% cheaper but they add the 25% to Ameircan products that have
already had income and SS tax added.

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article , CJT
wrote:


clifto wrote:


JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

snip

Huckabee is a pro-life tax-and-spend Democrat in Republican Party clothing.


If you can be honest for a moment, you will realize that the "tax and
spend" stereotype has not fit the Democrats in a long time (if it ever
did) and that it in fact better fits the Republicans (although they
often modify it slightly to "borrow and spend").


Tax and spend is a dem issue because they are the ones who like to
increase taxes.

That is a myth propagated by Republicans in an attempt to gain political
advantage. And it has worked pretty well for them, too, because their
constituents decline to think for themselves.

You are probably right on the b&s part for the GOP.
Interesting and little appreciated stat. If you look at expenditures in
the Stat Abstract, an take three distinct blocks of time (50years before
the '94 take over by the GOP, the first five years of their "rule" and
the 5 years that followed, you will note that the % of yearly increase
in spending was the same on either end, with a decrease for the few
years until the GOP went to the Dark Side, too.
Seems as though spending is fine thing for both sides.
Another interesting indication is a LONG line of studies showing that
if spending increases were limited to inflation, the budget would
balance within 3-5 years (depending on which specific year you are
talking about..



Just look at the party affiliation of the person who is responsible for
the recent doubling of the national debt.


--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

Just in case you haven't noticed, we have a Republican President in
2008. And he is without a doubt the worst President in the history of
the United States of America.

CJT wrote:
clifto wrote:
snip
Huckabee is a pro-life tax-and-spend Democrat in Republican Party clothing.

If you can be honest for a moment, you will realize that the "tax and
spend" stereotype has not fit the Democrats in a long time (if it ever
did) and that it in fact better fits the Republicans (although they
often modify it slightly to "borrow and spend").


Just look at the party affiliation of the person who is responsible for
the recent doubling of the national debt.

Which of the 535 people do you mean?

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

Grandpa Chuck wrote:

Just in case you haven't noticed, we have a Republican President in
2008. And he is without a doubt the worst President in the history of
the United States of America.

no argument from me on that

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

clifto wrote:

CJT wrote:

clifto wrote:
snip

Huckabee is a pro-life tax-and-spend Democrat in Republican Party clothing.


If you can be honest for a moment, you will realize that the "tax and
spend" stereotype has not fit the Democrats in a long time (if it ever
did) and that it in fact better fits the Republicans (although they
often modify it slightly to "borrow and spend").


Just look at the party affiliation of the person who is responsible for
the recent doubling of the national debt.


Which of the 535 people do you mean?

the one in the White House -- you know, the one who proposes, and signs,
the budget

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

In article , CJT
wrote:

c
the one in the White House -- you know, the one who proposes, and signs,
the budget

But the people who actually get to make most of the decisions, spend
inordinate amounts of time in hearings on the budget and then actually
pass the bills that mandate the spending get a free pass. Of course, for
much of this time, the party affiliation was the same.

clifto wrote in
:

CJT wrote:
clifto wrote:
snip
Huckabee is a pro-life tax-and-spend Democrat in Republican Party
clothing.

If you can be honest for a moment, you will realize that the "tax and
spend" stereotype has not fit the Democrats in a long time (if it
ever did) and that it in fact better fits the Republicans (although
they often modify it slightly to "borrow and spend").


Just look at the party affiliation of the person who is responsible
for the recent doubling of the national debt.

Which of the 535 people do you mean?


Yes,we ARE fighting a war. Gotta spend money during a war.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote:


Yes,we ARE fighting a war. Gotta spend money during a war.

Plus 9-11 and the upheaval that caused. And Katrina.

nick hull wrote:
In article ,
Grandpa Chuck wrote:

Just in case you haven't noticed, we have a Republican President in
2008. And he is without a doubt the worst President in the history of
the United States of America.

I'll bet in 4 years Bush will be the 2nd worst

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

ANYBODY who lived through the Carter administration already knows that
Bush was far from the worst.

In article ,
Grandpa Chuck wrote:

Just in case you haven't noticed, we have a Republican President in
2008. And he is without a doubt the worst President in the history of
the United States of America.

I'll bet in 4 years Bush will be the 2nd worst

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

In article ,
clifto wrote:

Just look at the party affiliation of the person who is responsible for
the recent doubling of the national debt.

Which of the 535 people do you mean?

ALL of them ;(

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

Jim Yanik wrote:

clifto wrote in
:


CJT wrote:

clifto wrote:
snip

Huckabee is a pro-life tax-and-spend Democrat in Republican Party
clothing.


If you can be honest for a moment, you will realize that the "tax and
spend" stereotype has not fit the Democrats in a long time (if it
ever did) and that it in fact better fits the Republicans (although
they often modify it slightly to "borrow and spend").


Just look at the party affiliation of the person who is responsible
for the recent doubling of the national debt.

Which of the 535 people do you mean?



Yes,we ARE fighting a war. Gotta spend money during a war.


That's part of the problem. It's the wrong war, entered into on false
(or perhaps even falsified) information.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

HeyBub wrote:

Jim Yanik wrote:

Yes,we ARE fighting a war. Gotta spend money during a war.


Plus 9-11 and the upheaval that caused. And Katrina.


Much of the Katrina resource was wasted -- acres of unused trailers, etc.

9-11 was awful, but not "double the national debt" awful.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

BobR wrote:

nick hull wrote:

In article ,
Grandpa Chuck wrote:


Just in case you haven't noticed, we have a Republican President in
2008. And he is without a doubt the worst President in the history of
the United States of America.

I'll bet in 4 years Bush will be the 2nd worst

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/


ANYBODY who lived through the Carter administration already knows that
Bush was far from the worst.

I lived through the Carter administration. It wasn't good, but Bush
has been much worse.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

CJT wrote:

ANYBODY who lived through the Carter administration already knows
that Bush was far from the worst.

I lived through the Carter administration. It wasn't good, but Bush
has been much worse.

"It wasn't good?" During Carter's term: Inflation rose from 6% to 12%;
unemployment to 7.5%, interest rates to 20%. Then there was the Iranian
hostage crisis. And we can't forget Carter's response to the Soviet invasion
of Afghanistan: He cancelled the Olympics! When he stood for re-election,
Carter got 41% of the popular vote and 47 electoral votes (out of 537).

Assuming you're not afflicted with BDS, how is the Bush administration bad
for the average person?

Inflation is lower than it's been for a long time (2-3%), unemployment is
below historical averages, taxes have been reduced, the Assault Weapons Ban
expired, we've managed to kill 100,000 or more do-bads, wages are up, the
military is stronger, the Congress is moribund, and the Oval Office doesn't
need steam-cleaning every week.