In article , "DGDevin" wrote:


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...

Or you could consider that I meant not wasting money on foreign aid to
China, gold-plated weapons that don't always work, and tax breaks for the
oil companies and *instead* spending that money on transportation
infrastructure in America that will benefit the whole nation for
generations, rather than adding to the existing budget.

Or you could consider that this should not be regarded as an either-or
choice,
and that the options should include "none of the above" -- which, not
coincidentally, describes exactly which of these things we have the money
available to do.

So what is America supposed to do, retire as a nation? Sure, that $14
trillion debt has to be paid down, but that doesn't mean every dime possible
has to be dedicated solely to that cause. Potholes still have to be filled,
somebody still needs to show up when we call 911, and private industry can't
be counted on to build everything the nation needs built.

Failing to invest in the future is a good way to ensure there won't be one.

So is squandering money on projects that are not (a) commercially viable, (b)
of vital interest to the nation, or (c) authorized by the Constitution.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...


Failing to invest in the future is a good way to ensure there won't be
one.

So is squandering money on projects that are not (a) commercially viable,
(b)
of vital interest to the nation, or (c) authorized by the Constitution.

First, commercial viability is not necessary or even desirable for
everything. Privatized law enforcement would result in the wealthy side of
town getting a cop on every corner while the poor side of town would be on
its own. The original national motto was not Dog Eat Dog.

Second, left up to some folks what is of vital interest would be whatever
benefits them and to hell with everyone else. It's refreshing when
occasionally a law is passed based on what is good for the whole nation
rather than some segment that can afford lobbyists and fat campaign fund
donations.

Third, the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it does, that's
why a couple of recent cases have recognized that the 2nd Amendment protects
an individual right to own firearms to the dismay of all those folks who
disagree. So until the court rules there shouldn't be a federal Dept. of
Education, there will be one, and anyone who disagrees is welcome to vote
for the party that is currently trying to strip funding from any government
agency that has inconvenienced the corporate sponsors of that party.

On 2/19/2011 8:16 AM, Leon wrote:
wrote in message
m...


"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
eb.com...

Hello "Ding Dongs", AKA: Recently elected governors of Ohio (Kasich),
Wisconsin(Walker) and Florida(Scott).

You don't want high speed rail research projects in your states, no
problem.

The money you are rejecting has been committed, so the Feds are simply
redirecting your funds to us here in California.

We'll take it

China has 19,000 miles of high speed rail lines, and by high speed I mean
faster than anything in Japan or France. More than 50 cities in China are
now linked by high speed rail. And guess whose money paid for it all?

So America's infrastructure rots away because according to some folks we
can't afford to repair it or upgrade it, not if it means their taxes might
go up. Good thing they weren't around when Eisenhower was building the
interstate system, or we'd still be driving on two-lane gravel roads.


Its a good thing that when Eisenhower was president the governmant was not
$11,000,000,000,000.00 in debt. Yup that is 12 zeros to the left of the
decimel point.


Up about 40% from two years ago.

knuttle wrote in news:ijpld0$g1p$1
@news.eternal-september.org:

Up about 40% from two years ago.

So what? Reducing taxes and expending money to fight two wars doesn't put
money into the piggybank.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 2/19/2011 8:16 AM, Leon wrote:
wrote in message
m...


"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
eb.com...

Hello "Ding Dongs", AKA: Recently elected governors of Ohio (Kasich),
Wisconsin(Walker) and Florida(Scott).

You don't want high speed rail research projects in your states, no
problem.

The money you are rejecting has been committed, so the Feds are simply
redirecting your funds to us here in California.

We'll take it

China has 19,000 miles of high speed rail lines, and by high speed I mean
faster than anything in Japan or France. More than 50 cities in China are
now linked by high speed rail. And guess whose money paid for it all?

So America's infrastructure rots away because according to some folks we
can't afford to repair it or upgrade it, not if it means their taxes might
go up. Good thing they weren't around when Eisenhower was building the
interstate system, or we'd still be driving on two-lane gravel roads.


Its a good thing that when Eisenhower was president the governmant was not
$11,000,000,000,000.00 in debt. Yup that is 12 zeros to the left of the
decimel point.


Actually I believe it is up to about 14,000,000,000,000,000 else why
would we have to be raising the debt ceiling which is about 14.3T.

I believe is was about 10,000,000,000,000,000 when pelosi pulled the
plug on the financial industries in Sept 28, 2008, as obama has been
adding about 1.5T every year since he took office.

On 20 Feb 2011 00:02:45 GMT, Han wrote:

knuttle wrote in news:ijpld0$g1p$1
:

Up about 40% from two years ago.

So what? Reducing taxes

Exactly what taxes have been reduced?

and expending money to fight two wars

They have been going on *far* longer than two years.

doesn't put money into the piggybank.

Neither does spending 65% more than you make.

" wrote in
:

On 20 Feb 2011 00:02:45 GMT, Han wrote:

knuttle wrote in news:ijpld0$g1p$1
:

Up about 40% from two years ago.

So what? Reducing taxes

Exactly what taxes have been reduced?

and expending money to fight two wars

They have been going on *far* longer than two years.

doesn't put money into the piggybank.

Neither does spending 65% more than you make.

Yes, indeed, it does date from more than 2 years ago. Remember that at
one time (I believe it was the Clinton era) that there was a surplus?
Tax cuts (to the rich especially) and a war in Iraq based on intended or
unintended deception plus a mismanaged war in Afganistan caused the
current deficit. This was of course compounded by mismanagement of
several branches of governmemt (Bureau of mining etc, and oversight of
banking are only 2 of them) caused the housing bubble.

Now everyone wants to keep their benefits that they are "entitled" to,
and wants someone else to pay. I guess that is human nature, but what
about the common good?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 02/20/2011 05:38 AM, Han wrote:
z wrote in
:

On 20 Feb 2011 00:02:45 GMT, wrote:

wrote in news:ijpld0$g1p$1
@news.eternal-september.org:

Up about 40% from two years ago.

So what? Reducing taxes

Exactly what taxes have been reduced?

and expending money to fight two wars

They have been going on *far* longer than two years.

doesn't put money into the piggybank.

Neither does spending 65% more than you make.

Yes, indeed, it does date from more than 2 years ago. Remember that at
one time (I believe it was the Clinton era) that there was a surplus?

If you believe there was a surplus, check out the national debt history.
You'll find the last time the debt was reduced was in the last year of
the Eisenhower administration. The debt has increased every year since.

Tax cuts (to the rich especially) and a war in Iraq based on intended or
unintended deception plus a mismanaged war in Afganistan caused the
current deficit.

The deficit has quadrupled in the last two years.

This was of course compounded by mismanagement of
several branches of governmemt (Bureau of mining etc, and oversight of
banking are only 2 of them) caused the housing bubble.

Now everyone wants to keep their benefits that they are "entitled" to,
and wants someone else to pay. I guess that is human nature, but what
about the common good?

On 20 Feb 2011 12:38:22 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 20 Feb 2011 00:02:45 GMT, Han wrote:

knuttle wrote in news:ijpld0$g1p$1
:

Up about 40% from two years ago.

So what? Reducing taxes

Exactly what taxes have been reduced?

and expending money to fight two wars

They have been going on *far* longer than two years.

doesn't put money into the piggybank.

Neither does spending 65% more than you make.

Yes, indeed, it does date from more than 2 years ago. Remember that at
one time (I believe it was the Clinton era) that there was a surplus?

Both wrong and irrelevant.

Tax cuts (to the rich especially) and a war in Iraq based on intended or
unintended deception plus a mismanaged war in Afganistan caused the
current deficit.

Both wrong and irrelevant.

This was of course compounded by mismanagement of
several branches of governmemt (Bureau of mining etc, and oversight of
banking are only 2 of them) caused the housing bubble.

The 4T spent in the last two years wasn't all the "housing bubble", rather a
"government bubble".

Now everyone wants to keep their benefits that they are "entitled" to,
and wants someone else to pay. I guess that is human nature, but what
about the common good?

How about everyone keeping their "entitlements" that they had in, say, 2006,
for a start?

" wrote in
:

How about everyone keeping their "entitlements" that they had in, say,
2006, for a start?


Since you like to go back, ewwhy not go back to the tax rates of yesteryear
too?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 20 Feb 2011 17:14:05 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

How about everyone keeping their "entitlements" that they had in, say,
2006, for a start?


Since you like to go back, ewwhy not go back to the tax rates of yesteryear
too?

2006? Sure, no problem.

" wrote in
:

On 20 Feb 2011 17:14:05 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

How about everyone keeping their "entitlements" that they had in,
say, 2006, for a start?


Since you like to go back, ewwhy not go back to the tax rates of
yesteryear too?

2006? Sure, no problem.

Why not 2000, or 1950?
Oh, wait, you rather cut benefits than pay taxes. Well, you'll have your
wish. All of us will have benefits cut. I just hope my savings will be
inflation proof. I am retired, and loving it!!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 14:25:31 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote:

Like it or not, government is necessary and has a cost in our society.

We will probably all agree there, Lew.

But, like it or not, BIG government is UNnecessary and adds a
devastating cost to (and effect upon) our society.

--
The more passions and desires one has,
the more ways one has of being happy.
-- Charlotte-Catherine

On 20 Feb 2011 23:45:03 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 20 Feb 2011 17:14:05 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

How about everyone keeping their "entitlements" that they had in,
say, 2006, for a start?


Since you like to go back, ewwhy not go back to the tax rates of
yesteryear too?

2006? Sure, no problem.

Why not 2000, or 1950?

Because I thought we were actually trying to be realistic. I guess I should
have known better.

Oh, wait, you rather cut benefits than pay taxes. Well, you'll have your
wish. All of us will have benefits cut. I just hope my savings will be
inflation proof. I am retired, and loving it!!

To 2006 levels? That's a good start.

Just wait until the stagflation hits. We'll see if you love that.

DGDevin wrote:

First, commercial viability is not necessary or even desirable for
everything. Privatized law enforcement would result in the wealthy
side of town getting a cop on every corner while the poor side of
town would be on its own. The original national motto was not Dog
Eat Dog.

In my town (and probably yours), there are FAR more private security guards
than cops.


Second, left up to some folks what is of vital interest would be
whatever benefits them and to hell with everyone else. It's
refreshing when occasionally a law is passed based on what is good
for the whole nation rather than some segment that can afford
lobbyists and fat campaign fund donations.

Adam Smith settled this hash over 200 years ago when he postulated the
theory of "The Invisible Hand." It's essence is that when every person does
what's best for himself, the entire community prospers.


Third, the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it does,
that's why a couple of recent cases have recognized that the 2nd
Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms to the dismay
of all those folks who disagree. So until the court rules there
shouldn't be a federal Dept. of Education, there will be one, and
anyone who disagrees is welcome to vote for the party that is
currently trying to strip funding from any government agency that has
inconvenienced the corporate sponsors of that party.

Exactly right. The Constitution, like the Bible, often doesn't mean what it
says or doesn't say what it means. It's up to the Court (or Biblical
scholars), to tell us the straight skinny.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:


Its a good thing that when Eisenhower was president the governmant
was not $11,000,000,000,000.00 in debt. Yup that is 12 zeros to the
left of the decimel point.

You're debt estimate is over 25% low ($14B). Barry has been busy.


Well, he DID post his information yesterday....

In article om, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:

Since the end of WWII, the total cost of government, which includes
everything from the local dog catcher to the president, has remained
constant at about 35% plus or minus a point.

False. In actuality, it's risen from 20% at the end of WWII to over 40% today.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...ury_chart.html

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

First, commercial viability is not necessary or even desirable for
everything. Privatized law enforcement would result in the wealthy
side of town getting a cop on every corner while the poor side of
town would be on its own. The original national motto was not Dog
Eat Dog.

In my town (and probably yours), there are FAR more private security
guards than cops.

I'm sure you're right, but so what? They aren't there to enforce the law,
they're there to protect the property they're paid to protect. Did Home
Depot send out private security to try to track down the would-be muggers
you chased off? Of course not, HD couldn't care less if those same guys
went over to Piggly Wiggly's parking lot and mugged somebody, that's not
their problem.

Second, left up to some folks what is of vital interest would be
whatever benefits them and to hell with everyone else. It's
refreshing when occasionally a law is passed based on what is good
for the whole nation rather than some segment that can afford
lobbyists and fat campaign fund donations.

Adam Smith settled this hash over 200 years ago when he postulated the
theory of "The Invisible Hand." It's essence is that when every person
does what's best for himself, the entire community prospers.

See, just because somebody writes something down and gets some other folks
to agree with him doesn’t mean an issue is "settled". Alan Greenspan
believed in that invisible hand for most of his life, but not too long ago
he was forced to admit there were some serious flaws in the theory. It
turned out that bonus-chasing employees of big Wall St. firms pursued
policies which ended up wounding or even destroying the companies they
worked for *and* caused massive damage to the entire economy. It turns out
that when the financial sector resembles a casino run by lunatics that the
old invisible hand falls down on the job. Ditto with when a company dumps
toxic waste in the river to save money, or when a drug company suppresses
studies showing its drugs have some nasty side effects, or when privatized
prisons give kickbacks to judges to send offenders to their facilities, or
when a labor union gets pay and benefits for its members then end up
dragging down the company that foolishly agreed to them during a period of
prosperity. Just because it's good for *somebody* doesn’t mean its good for
the entire community.

All theories work in an academic setting, but in the real world the end
result is not so simple or so nice, it can often be quite nasty.

Third, the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it does,
that's why a couple of recent cases have recognized that the 2nd
Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms to the dismay
of all those folks who disagree. So until the court rules there
shouldn't be a federal Dept. of Education, there will be one, and
anyone who disagrees is welcome to vote for the party that is
currently trying to strip funding from any government agency that has
inconvenienced the corporate sponsors of that party.

Exactly right. The Constitution, like the Bible, often doesn't mean what
it says or doesn't say what it means. It's up to the Court (or Biblical
scholars), to tell us the straight skinny.

Ironically you managed to get it right despite the attempted sarcasm. Only
in a libertarian la la land would it be otherwise, would it be the case that
we would never need a court to decide a Constitutional issue. As for the
Bible, if you want to believe that Methuselah lived to the age of 969, you
go right ahead. Happily the Constitution means the rest of us don't have to
order our lives on the basis of such beliefs.

On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 08:27:59 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:




Third, the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it does,
that's why a couple of recent cases have recognized that the 2nd
Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms to the dismay
of all those folks who disagree. So until the court rules there
shouldn't be a federal Dept. of Education, there will be one, and
anyone who disagrees is welcome to vote for the party that is
currently trying to strip funding from any government agency that has
inconvenienced the corporate sponsors of that party.

So I take it from this that you actually WANT to be ruled by a
dictatorship of 9 old people appointed for life?

dhall987 wrote in
:

On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 08:27:59 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:
Third, the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it does,
that's why a couple of recent cases have recognized that the 2nd
Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms to the dismay
of all those folks who disagree. So until the court rules there
shouldn't be a federal Dept. of Education, there will be one, and
anyone who disagrees is welcome to vote for the party that is
currently trying to strip funding from any government agency that has
inconvenienced the corporate sponsors of that party.

So I take it from this that you actually WANT to be ruled by a
dictatorship of 9 old people appointed for life?

I believe the Constitution is the supreme law. Whatever Congress enacts
is the law as long as it doesn't conflict with the Constitution.
President appoints Supremes with the consent of the Senate, so all in all
pretty balanced, but still subject to new laws and especially laws'
interpretation. And in my not so humble opinion, that's as it should be.
Now personally, I'm really in favor of limiting guns and ammo ...


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

dhall987 wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 08:27:59 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:




Third, the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it
does, that's why a couple of recent cases have recognized that the
2nd Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms to the
dismay of all those folks who disagree. So until the court rules
there shouldn't be a federal Dept. of Education, there will be one,
and anyone who disagrees is welcome to vote for the party that is
currently trying to strip funding from any government agency that
has inconvenienced the corporate sponsors of that party.

So I take it from this that you actually WANT to be ruled by a
dictatorship of 9 old people appointed for life?

Um, yeah, I guess. What's the alternative? Nine young people appointed for
life? Nine old people appointed for two years? Six old people appointed for
life?

Still, the best form of government is a benevolent despot.

Second best is probably what we've got.

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Still, the best form of government is a benevolent despot.

Benevolent to you or to me?

Second best is probably what we've got.

Agree.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 08:27:59 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:




Third, the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it does,
that's why a couple of recent cases have recognized that the 2nd
Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms to the dismay
of all those folks who disagree. So until the court rules there
shouldn't be a federal Dept. of Education, there will be one, and
anyone who disagrees is welcome to vote for the party that is
currently trying to strip funding from any government agency that has
inconvenienced the corporate sponsors of that party.

So I take it from this that you actually WANT to be ruled by a
dictatorship of 9 old people appointed for life.

The Congress can overrule the "dictator" any time it can get enough of
the state legislaturs to concur.

In article ,
says...

dhall987 wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 08:27:59 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:




Third, the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it
does, that's why a couple of recent cases have recognized that the
2nd Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms to the
dismay of all those folks who disagree. So until the court rules
there shouldn't be a federal Dept. of Education, there will be one,
and anyone who disagrees is welcome to vote for the party that is
currently trying to strip funding from any government agency that
has inconvenienced the corporate sponsors of that party.

So I take it from this that you actually WANT to be ruled by a
dictatorship of 9 old people appointed for life?

Um, yeah, I guess. What's the alternative? Nine young people appointed for
life? Nine old people appointed for two years? Six old people appointed for
life?

Still, the best form of government is a benevolent despot.

Second best is probably what we've got.

A despot wouldn't _dare_ try to get away with the taxes we pay.

On 26 Feb 2011 21:27:30 GMT, Han wrote:

dhall987 wrote in
:

On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 08:27:59 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:
Third, the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it does,
that's why a couple of recent cases have recognized that the 2nd
Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms to the dismay
of all those folks who disagree. So until the court rules there
shouldn't be a federal Dept. of Education, there will be one, and
anyone who disagrees is welcome to vote for the party that is
currently trying to strip funding from any government agency that has
inconvenienced the corporate sponsors of that party.

So I take it from this that you actually WANT to be ruled by a
dictatorship of 9 old people appointed for life?

I believe the Constitution is the supreme law. Whatever Congress enacts
is the law as long as it doesn't conflict with the Constitution.
President appoints Supremes with the consent of the Senate, so all in all
pretty balanced, but still subject to new laws and especially laws'
interpretation. And in my not so humble opinion, that's as it should be.

I prefer 9 very smart old guys over one dictator, any day.


Now personally, I'm really in favor of limiting guns and ammo ...

Crikey, not again. CARS kill more people each year than guns do.

I truly wish you would do some research along that line, Han. Paper
after paper comes out with NO evidence that fewer guns make us safer
and paper after paper comes out with evidence that gun control
increases crime.

Defensive gun use (most weapons not even fired) account for around 1.5
million crimes NOT being committed each year.

The CDC did a comprehensive study on gun control studies and came to
the conclusion that all fifty or so papers were inconclusive because
not one of them had all the parameters of the other 49. IOW, they
couldn't prove their theory for advancing gun control, couldn't prove
its effectiveness.
http://www.vdare.com/francis/gun_control.htm (pro-gun bias, but a good
starting point)

One statistic which should be a dead giveaway to all you wishful gun
controllers is that while the number of guns in American hands has
increased by hundreds of millions, the actual crime rate has gone
down, year after year. PLEASE look into it.

I used to be against handguns until I saw the truth. I truly hope that
you find it, too, before some perp in Manhattan mugs ya.

--
You can't wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club.
--Jack London

On Feb 26, 7:05*pm, Larry Jaques
wrote:
On 26 Feb 2011 21:27:30 GMT, Han wrote:





dhall987 wrote in
:

On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 08:27:59 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:
Third, the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it does,
that's why a couple of recent cases have recognized that the 2nd
Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms to the dismay
of all those folks who disagree. *So until the court rules there
shouldn't be a federal Dept. of Education, there will be one, and
anyone who disagrees is welcome to vote for the party that is
currently trying to strip funding from any government agency that has
inconvenienced the corporate sponsors of that party.

So I take it from this that you actually WANT to be ruled by a
dictatorship of 9 old people appointed for life?

I believe the Constitution is the supreme law. *Whatever Congress enacts
is the law as long as it doesn't conflict with the Constitution. *
President appoints Supremes with the consent of the Senate, so all in all
pretty balanced, but still subject to new laws and especially laws'
interpretation. *And in my not so humble opinion, that's as it should be. *

I prefer 9 very smart old guys over one dictator, any day.

Now personally, I'm really in favor of limiting guns and ammo ...

Crikey, not again. CARS kill more people each year than guns do.

I truly wish you would do some research along that line, Han. Paper
after paper comes out with NO evidence that fewer guns make us safer
and paper after paper comes out with evidence that gun control
increases crime. *

Defensive gun use (most weapons not even fired) account for around 1.5
million crimes NOT being committed each year.

The CDC did a comprehensive study on gun control studies and came to
the conclusion that all fifty or so papers were inconclusive because
not one of them had all the parameters of the other 49. *IOW, they
couldn't prove their theory for advancing gun control, couldn't prove
its effectiveness.http://www.vdare.com/francis/gun_control.htm(pro-gun bias, but a good
starting point)

One statistic which should be a dead giveaway to all you wishful gun
controllers is that while the number of guns in American hands has
increased by hundreds of millions, the actual crime rate has gone
down, year after year. *PLEASE look into it.

I used to be against handguns until I saw the truth. I truly hope that
you find it, too, before some perp in Manhattan mugs ya.

--
You can't wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --Jack London

Car jackings slowed down significantly after a few perps were drilled
right through the car door as they attempted the crime.
In Detroit, Uncle Ted (Nugent) told people to put a gun on their lap
as they drove through bad areas of the city.
Perp says: "get out, gimme your car" and next thing he knows, he's
clutching what once was his junk.
The word got out quickly.
Problem solved.

Larry, I said:

Now personally, I'm really in favor of limiting guns and ammo ...

The fact that people get killed because unstable persons can get hold of
guns and VAST supplies of ammo this easily is proof that LIMITING should
work.

The vast majority of people may be sane and careful etc, etc, the few fools
should NOT get hold of guns. It was a really good thing that the people
who came to the rescue in Tucson didn't start shooting, because that would
have been true slaughter then. It's great that it then ended because the
potential was just terrible.

I have walked and used buses and subways, as well as cabs across Manhattan
for 34 years, and nothing of note has happened to me. Admittedly I
frequented relatively good areas (Midtown between 8th & 1st Ave and 14th to
70th streets).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
The Congress can overrule the "dictator" any time it can get enough of
the state legislaturs to concur.

Terrible logic. If he was a "dictator", the there wouldn't be anyone around
to overrule him.

"dhall987" wrote in message
...


So I take it from this that you actually WANT to be ruled by a
dictatorship of 9 old people appointed for life?

If you have a better idea than a division of powers between the executive,
the legislature and the judiciary, by all means describe it for us.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...


Still, the best form of government is a benevolent despot.

Alas, Santa Claus turned down the job.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
n.local...

A despot wouldn't _dare_ try to get away with the taxes we pay.

Too bad the middle class has to carry the load while the rich laugh all the
way to the bank.

As Warren Buffet pointed out in 2007 when he paid taxes at the rate of 19%
while his employees were paying 33%:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/bu...very.html?_r=1

It turned out that Mr. Buffett, with immense income from dividends and
capital gains, paid far, far less as a fraction of his income than the
secretaries or the clerks or anyone else in his office. Further, in
conversation it came up that Mr. Buffett doesnt use any tax planning at
all. He just pays as the Internal Revenue Code requires. €œHow can this be
fair?€� he asked of how little he pays relative to his employees. €œHow can
this be right?€�

€œTheres class warfare, all right,€� Mr. Buffett said, €œbut its my class,
the rich class, thats making war, and were winning.€�

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 16:13:46 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
wrote:

On Feb 26, 7:05Â*pm, Larry Jaques
wrote:

Defensive gun use (most weapons not even fired) account for around 1.5
million crimes NOT being committed each year.
--snip--
I used to be against handguns until I saw the truth. I truly hope that
you find it, too, before some perp in Manhattan mugs ya.


Car jackings slowed down significantly after a few perps were drilled
right through the car door as they attempted the crime.
In Detroit, Uncle Ted (Nugent) told people to put a gun on their lap
as they drove through bad areas of the city.
Perp says: "get out, gimme your car" and next thing he knows, he's
clutching what once was his junk.
The word got out quickly.
Problem solved.

I don't understand your reference to "junk". Would this have been his
package (AKA: Big Jim and the Boys) which had just been blown off by
the car owner's gun?

--
You can't wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club.
--Jack London

On 27 Feb 2011 00:37:50 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry, I said:

Now personally, I'm really in favor of limiting guns and ammo ...

The fact that people get killed because unstable persons can get hold of
guns and VAST supplies of ammo this easily is proof that LIMITING should
work.

Han, limiting legal guns has no effect on the number of guns in
criminal hands. You can buy a black market gun on many streetcorners
in any large city, and in most small ones. Your gun bans would only
limit the number of _defensive_ weapons in law-abiding citizens'
hands. It would encourage the criminals to commit more crime. Christ,
look at Great Britain for a perfect example. With no guns, their crime
rate is far higher than ours now.


The vast majority of people may be sane and careful etc, etc, the few fools
should NOT get hold of guns. It was a really good thing that the people
who came to the rescue in Tucson didn't start shooting, because that would
have been true slaughter then. It's great that it then ended because the
potential was just terrible.

If an armed person could have gotten a shot off into the killer before
he killed all those people, it would have been LESS of a slaughter.

People who come unhinged and want to kill someone will use whatever is
in front of them, including pocket knives, guns, rocks, clubs,
baseball bats, golf clubs, pieces of glass, bottles, pencils, etc. to
get their evil deed done. If you limit guns, the victim won't be able
to defend himself from the perps. If you want to be an unarmed
victim, fine. I sure as hell don't.


I have walked and used buses and subways, as well as cabs across Manhattan
for 34 years, and nothing of note has happened to me. Admittedly I
frequented relatively good areas (Midtown between 8th & 1st Ave and 14th to
70th streets).

I won't say it.I won't say it.I won't say it.I won't say it...

--
You can't wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club.
--Jack London

Larry Jaques wrote:

: If an armed person could have gotten a shot off into the killer before
: he killed all those people, it would have been LESS of a slaughter.

That's undoubtedly true (as true as "If a meteorite had hit the killer before
he killed all those people, it would have been LESS of a slaughter"), but
of course thinking that an armed bystander would have actually done this
well is a fantasy.

Here's a quite good piece published in the Tucson Citizen:

http://tucsoncitizen.com/mark-evans/archives/409

Bottom line: even well-trained police officers don't have a very
good hit rate, and it gets worse with multiple participants.

-- Andy Barss

J. Clarke wrote:

: A despot wouldn't _dare_ try to get away with the taxes we pay.

Eh? The US has the second lowest taxes of all developed
nations in the world. And our taxes right now are lower that
they've been since the late 1940s-early 1950s.

-- Andy Barss

"Andrew Barss" wrote in message ...

J. Clarke wrote:

: A despot wouldn't _dare_ try to get away with the taxes we pay.

Eh? The US has the second lowest taxes of all developed
nations in the world. And our taxes right now are lower that
they've been since the late 1940s-early 1950s.

Sure, but they're convinced they're being taxed at breathtaking rates
because the politicians in a certain party tell them that every chance they
get. That same party claims the other party is the one that spends taxpayer
dollars like crazy, yet the last time they were in power they doubled the
national debt, an odd thing for the supposed party of fiscal responsibility
to have done.

In article ,
says...

J. Clarke wrote:

: A despot wouldn't _dare_ try to get away with the taxes we pay.

Eh? The US has the second lowest taxes of all developed
nations in the world. And our taxes right now are lower that
they've been since the late 1940s-early 1950s.

And how do they compare to the highest tax that a despot can get away
with charging without being lynched?

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
Han, limiting legal guns has no effect on the number of guns in
criminal hands. You can buy a black market gun on many streetcorners
in any large city, and in most small ones. Your gun bans would only
limit the number of _defensive_ weapons in law-abiding citizens'
hands.

A significant number of firearms are stolen during break ins from legal
owners. While that certainly does not account for the totality of firearms
available in the US, it does count for many of them when examined a little
more closely. Your "no effect on the number of guns" is a false statement.

As usual, like many others, you adopt the mentality that there's so many
guns available that it's a waste of time trying to regulate them. Exactly
the same mentality is adopted with drugs. Legalizing everything is
tantamount to turning your entire country into the wild west where might
makes right.

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On 27 Feb 2011 00:37:50 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry, I said:

Now personally, I'm really in favor of limiting guns and ammo ...

The fact that people get killed because unstable persons can get hold
of guns and VAST supplies of ammo this easily is proof that LIMITING
should work.

Han, limiting legal guns has no effect on the number of guns in
criminal hands. You can buy a black market gun on many streetcorners
in any large city, and in most small ones. Your gun bans would only
limit the number of _defensive_ weapons in law-abiding citizens'
hands. It would encourage the criminals to commit more crime. Christ,
look at Great Britain for a perfect example. With no guns, their crime
rate is far higher than ours now.

False logic, Larry. If that idiot had been unable to buy a gun, or even
unable to buy a 33-round magazine, there would have been far less
slaughter. Can't you see that? If someone has a legitimate reason for
buying a weapon, I'll let him or her. I just would like to make it more
difficult for idiots to buy lethality. Seems to me you have to agree if
you ever want to look an innocent vistim in the eye.

The vast majority of people may be sane and careful etc, etc, the few
fools should NOT get hold of guns. It was a really good thing that
the people who came to the rescue in Tucson didn't start shooting,
because that would have been true slaughter then. It's great that it
then ended because the potential was just terrible.

If an armed person could have gotten a shot off into the killer before
he killed all those people, it would have been LESS of a slaughter.

See above, If that idiot had been unable to buy a gun, or even unable to
buy a 33-round magazine, there would have been far less slaughter. Can't
you see that?

People who come unhinged and want to kill someone will use whatever is
in front of them, including pocket knives, guns, rocks, clubs,
baseball bats, golf clubs, pieces of glass, bottles, pencils, etc. to
get their evil deed done. If you limit guns, the victim won't be able
to defend himself from the perps. If you want to be an unarmed
victim, fine. I sure as hell don't.

Your statement here again is nonsense in the context of that idiot's
unhingedness.

I have walked and used buses and subways, as well as cabs across
Manhattan for 34 years, and nothing of note has happened to me.
Admittedly I frequented relatively good areas (Midtown between 8th &
1st Ave and 14th to 70th streets).

I won't say it.I won't say it.I won't say it.I won't say it...

So what is it you won't say? Apparently it is safe for me to walk in
Manhattan. Or Atlanta, or Orlando, or San Diego, or San Francisco, or
even Washington DC.

--
You can't wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club.
--Jack London




--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

If you disagree with the statements, an explanation of why you think
they are incorrect would be far more persuasive than raising ad
hominem attacks against the person who made them.

Do you think that Glock pistols and 33-round magazines should be available
to everyone?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid