On 10/13/2011 10:11 AM, Robatoy wrote:

In terms of brake parts pricing. Do an all-around brake job on a Ford
Fusion and a Malibu, and you will see a $1000.00 difference...at least
around here. Same deal with the OEM parts... I'm sure it is okay to
put somebody else's wiper blades on

If the car's still under warranty, have the work done under warranty.
Then it won't cost you anything. If the car's not under warranty, shop
around; there's no warranty left to "void".

On Oct 14, 4:47*pm, Just Wondering wrote:
On 10/13/2011 10:11 AM, Robatoy wrote:

In terms of brake parts pricing. Do an all-around brake job on a Ford
Fusion and a Malibu, and you will see a $1000.00 difference...at least
around here. Same deal with the OEM parts... I'm sure it is okay to
put somebody else's wiper blades on

If the car's still under warranty, have the work done under warranty.
Then it won't cost you anything. *If the car's not under warranty, shop
around; there's no warranty left to "void".

A brake job under warranty? Who? Where? lol

On 10/14/2011 10:01 AM, Bill wrote:
On 10/14/2011 11:55 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 07:15:51 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/13/2011 8:11 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:49:17 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/13/2011 2:33 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:06:42 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 10/13/2011 10:18 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 07:51:46 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 10/12/2011 2:14 PM, Han wrote:
Larry wrote in
news Snip



IMNSHO, we will grow the economy more if we let the less
affluent
buy more ...

GOOD punchline.g
(On the off chance that you're serious, what's your logic
there?
How do the poor buy more?)

Getting more spending power into the hands of the less
affluent will
lead to more purchasing of manufactured goods (my opinion).

Do you have any good ideas as to how to accomplish that? I'd
love it!

Good! Same as above: We would be even richer as a nation if the
resulting wealth was spread out more evenly, not going to
corporations
and really rich people who can afford to stash it abroad.


Sets see here Han do you want to share your wealth with me?
Probably
not. Corporations which are made up of people and create jobs for
people should not be taxed at all. We don't want to bite the
hand that
feeds us.

Right, but also note that those corporations don't pay tax
anyway. It's a
cost of doing business and necessarily gets passed onto the
consumer. Might
just as well put the tax there. It's more efficient, if nothing
else.


Right! Corporations don't pay taxes its customers do.

So do I mark you down in the "Supports Fair Tax" column? ;-)

How wold you like me to answer that? ;~)

Well,...

Ultimately I think every one should pay equally for services that they
are getting. Like going to the store and buying a new TV or going to a
base ball game, no discounts or price hikes for income level or
personal
wealth.

"Equality" means different things to different people. I'd prefer a
flat
(rate) income tax, likely because it's easier to understand (the
ramifications
of) than "The Fair Tax".

I am talking about equal, not a formula for equal. I pay a dollar you
pay a dollar. As you mentioned Equality can include a formula to make
your amount more or less than my amount. Government taxes should the
same and affordable by every one. I think this would eventually be
obtainable if every one had equal interest in how the government spends
our money.

Let's see, $3.5B/312M is only $11,000 per person. We pay that much
(only two
of us), and perhaps you do, but I don't see it happening for "the
poor". Even
I wouldn't much like it with a family of six. No, flat *rate* is good
enough,
even with *a* standard deduction.

And what makes a person feel they are "entitled" to have 6 kids?
Don't get me started...lol.

At least in the USA, you are entitled to exercise your constitutional
rights. Decisions about procreation are a fundamental constitutional
right.

On 10/14/2011 11:39 AM, Leon wrote:
On 10/14/2011 11:30 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:01:19 -0400, wrote:

On 10/14/2011 11:55 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

And what makes a person feel they are "entitled" to have 6 kids?

Are you in favor of the Chinese solution? Nazi Germany? Do you think the
government should determine who should (not) have children?
Why do you always take the opposite extreme view???

I feel that if you cannot pay your bills and support your children you
should think about not having any more.

Well, that's a matter of people fitting in with your picture of social
responsibility. That's a different question than whether they are
entitled to choose the size of their families. And the answer is way to
complex to reduce it to a simple head count.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:39:29 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/14/2011 11:30 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:01:19 -0400, wrote:

On 10/14/2011 11:55 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 07:15:51 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/13/2011 8:11 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:49:17 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/13/2011 2:33 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:06:42 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/13/2011 10:18 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 07:51:46 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/12/2011 2:14 PM, Han wrote:
Larry wrote in
news Snip



IMNSHO, we will grow the economy more if we let the less affluent
buy more ...

GOOD punchline.g
(On the off chance that you're serious, what's your logic there?
How do the poor buy more?)

Getting more spending power into the hands of the less affluent will
lead to more purchasing of manufactured goods (my opinion).

Do you have any good ideas as to how to accomplish that? I'd love it!

Good! Same as above: We would be even richer as a nation if the
resulting wealth was spread out more evenly, not going to corporations
and really rich people who can afford to stash it abroad.


Sets see here Han do you want to share your wealth with me? Probably
not. Corporations which are made up of people and create jobs for
people should not be taxed at all. We don't want to bite the hand that
feeds us.

Right, but also note that those corporations don't pay tax anyway. It's a
cost of doing business and necessarily gets passed onto the consumer. Might
just as well put the tax there. It's more efficient, if nothing else.


Right! Corporations don't pay taxes its customers do.

So do I mark you down in the "Supports Fair Tax" column? ;-)

How wold you like me to answer that? ;~)

Well,...

Ultimately I think every one should pay equally for services that they
are getting. Like going to the store and buying a new TV or going to a
base ball game, no discounts or price hikes for income level or personal
wealth.

"Equality" means different things to different people. I'd prefer a flat
(rate) income tax, likely because it's easier to understand (the ramifications
of) than "The Fair Tax".

I am talking about equal, not a formula for equal. I pay a dollar you
pay a dollar. As you mentioned Equality can include a formula to make
your amount more or less than my amount. Government taxes should the
same and affordable by every one. I think this would eventually be
obtainable if every one had equal interest in how the government spends
our money.

Let's see, $3.5B/312M is only $11,000 per person. We pay that much (only two
of us), and perhaps you do, but I don't see it happening for "the poor". Even
I wouldn't much like it with a family of six. No, flat *rate* is good enough,
even with *a* standard deduction.

And what makes a person feel they are "entitled" to have 6 kids?

Are you in favor of the Chinese solution? Nazi Germany? Do you think the
government should determine who should (not) have children?
Why do you always take the opposite extreme view???

Read it again. I don't take that view, rather that's the view Bill is
expressing; government should control fertility.

I feel that if you cannot pay your bills and support your children you
should think about not having any more.

krw, I agree with Leon's statement above.


Should? We agree. That is NOT what Bill said in:

"And what makes a person feel they are "entitled" to have 6 kids?"

Notice the word "entitled". What's the opposite?

Or keep popping them out, rely more on the government for support, and
become another statistic. That is not working for a particular group.

This certainly should be discouraged, but don't you think that needing someone
to "allow" someone to have children is a little on the Chinese or Nazi side?
In a free society, people most certainly *ARE* entitled to have children.

Just Wondering wrote:
On 10/14/2011 10:01 AM, Bill wrote:
On 10/14/2011 11:55 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 07:15:51 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/13/2011 8:11 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:49:17 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/13/2011 2:33 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:06:42 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 10/13/2011 10:18 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 07:51:46 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 10/12/2011 2:14 PM, Han wrote:
Larry wrote in
news Snip



IMNSHO, we will grow the economy more if we let the less
affluent
buy more ...

GOOD punchline.g
(On the off chance that you're serious, what's your logic
there?
How do the poor buy more?)

Getting more spending power into the hands of the less
affluent will
lead to more purchasing of manufactured goods (my opinion).

Do you have any good ideas as to how to accomplish that? I'd
love it!

Good! Same as above: We would be even richer as a nation if the
resulting wealth was spread out more evenly, not going to
corporations
and really rich people who can afford to stash it abroad.


Sets see here Han do you want to share your wealth with me?
Probably
not. Corporations which are made up of people and create jobs for
people should not be taxed at all. We don't want to bite the
hand that
feeds us.

Right, but also note that those corporations don't pay tax
anyway. It's a
cost of doing business and necessarily gets passed onto the
consumer. Might
just as well put the tax there. It's more efficient, if nothing
else.


Right! Corporations don't pay taxes its customers do.

So do I mark you down in the "Supports Fair Tax" column? ;-)

How wold you like me to answer that? ;~)

Well,...

Ultimately I think every one should pay equally for services that
they
are getting. Like going to the store and buying a new TV or going
to a
base ball game, no discounts or price hikes for income level or
personal
wealth.

"Equality" means different things to different people. I'd prefer a
flat
(rate) income tax, likely because it's easier to understand (the
ramifications
of) than "The Fair Tax".

I am talking about equal, not a formula for equal. I pay a dollar you
pay a dollar. As you mentioned Equality can include a formula to make
your amount more or less than my amount. Government taxes should the
same and affordable by every one. I think this would eventually be
obtainable if every one had equal interest in how the government spends
our money.

Let's see, $3.5B/312M is only $11,000 per person. We pay that much
(only two
of us), and perhaps you do, but I don't see it happening for "the
poor". Even
I wouldn't much like it with a family of six. No, flat *rate* is good
enough,
even with *a* standard deduction.

And what makes a person feel they are "entitled" to have 6 kids?
Don't get me started...lol.

At least in the USA, you are entitled to exercise your constitutional
rights. Decisions about procreation are a fundamental constitutional right.


Or an accident.

Just Wondering wrote in news:4e98a264$0$6530$882e7ee2
@usenet-news.net:

At least in the USA, you are entitled to exercise your constitutional
rights. Decisions about procreation are a fundamental constitutional
right.

You think that octomom exercised her constitutional rights?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Leon wrote:
On 10/13/2011 8:11 PM, Bill wrote:
Leon wrote:
On 10/13/2011 2:33 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:06:42 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/13/2011 10:18 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 07:51:46 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 10/12/2011 2:14 PM, Han wrote:
Larry wrote in
news Snip



IMNSHO, we will grow the economy more if we let the less
affluent
buy more ...

GOOD punchline.g
(On the off chance that you're serious, what's your logic there?
How do the poor buy more?)

Getting more spending power into the hands of the less affluent
will
lead to more purchasing of manufactured goods (my opinion).

Do you have any good ideas as to how to accomplish that? I'd love
it!

Good! Same as above: We would be even richer as a nation if the
resulting wealth was spread out more evenly, not going to
corporations
and really rich people who can afford to stash it abroad.


Sets see here Han do you want to share your wealth with me? Probably
not. Corporations which are made up of people and create jobs for
people should not be taxed at all. We don't want to bite the hand
that
feeds us.

Right, but also note that those corporations don't pay tax anyway.
It's a
cost of doing business and necessarily gets passed onto the
consumer. Might
just as well put the tax there. It's more efficient, if nothing else.


Right! Corporations don't pay taxes its customers do.

So do I mark you down in the "Supports Fair Tax" column? ;-)

How wold you like me to answer that? ;~)

Ultimately I think every one should pay equally for services that they
are getting. Like going to the store and buying a new TV or going to a
base ball game, no discounts or price hikes for income level or personal
wealth.

That gets more difficult for things like utilities and national defense.
Would you care to see the Smithsonian Institution shut down because it
couldn't "make it" based on the dollars it gets from admission? I'm just
talking...I know where you are coming from (too).

You raise the rates of admission. Run it like a business. Or let it be
run by donations. When the government is involved with money issues
nothing is efficient. I think it would be prudent to say that every
aspect of government spending could be trimmed back with no loss in
services if you cut the dead weight and have effecient management.

Me doing woodworking is not efficient. That doesn't mean I shouldn't try
to do it. From what I see, the most extreme form of capitalism, like
that which reaches into game theory and gambling by FDIC-insured banks,
is not a pretty thing. I'm willing to give up some efficiency in
exchange for some soul. I'm not for government that pushes its own
lottery tickets either. I like many things which are difficult to put a
dollar figure on, like fish, trees and clean air.

On 10/14/2011 3:28 PM, Bill wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:
On 10/14/2011 10:01 AM, Bill wrote:
On 10/14/2011 11:55 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 07:15:51 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/13/2011 8:11 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:49:17 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 10/13/2011 2:33 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:06:42 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 10/13/2011 10:18 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 07:51:46 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 10/12/2011 2:14 PM, Han wrote:
Larry wrote in
news Snip



IMNSHO, we will grow the economy more if we let the less
affluent
buy more ...

GOOD punchline.g
(On the off chance that you're serious, what's your logic
there?
How do the poor buy more?)

Getting more spending power into the hands of the less
affluent will
lead to more purchasing of manufactured goods (my opinion).

Do you have any good ideas as to how to accomplish that? I'd
love it!

Good! Same as above: We would be even richer as a nation if the
resulting wealth was spread out more evenly, not going to
corporations
and really rich people who can afford to stash it abroad.


Sets see here Han do you want to share your wealth with me?
Probably
not. Corporations which are made up of people and create jobs
for
people should not be taxed at all. We don't want to bite the
hand that
feeds us.

Right, but also note that those corporations don't pay tax
anyway. It's a
cost of doing business and necessarily gets passed onto the
consumer. Might
just as well put the tax there. It's more efficient, if nothing
else.


Right! Corporations don't pay taxes its customers do.

So do I mark you down in the "Supports Fair Tax" column? ;-)

How wold you like me to answer that? ;~)

Well,...

Ultimately I think every one should pay equally for services that
they
are getting. Like going to the store and buying a new TV or going
to a
base ball game, no discounts or price hikes for income level or
personal
wealth.

"Equality" means different things to different people. I'd prefer a
flat
(rate) income tax, likely because it's easier to understand (the
ramifications
of) than "The Fair Tax".

I am talking about equal, not a formula for equal. I pay a dollar you
pay a dollar. As you mentioned Equality can include a formula to make
your amount more or less than my amount. Government taxes should the
same and affordable by every one. I think this would eventually be
obtainable if every one had equal interest in how the government
spends
our money.

Let's see, $3.5B/312M is only $11,000 per person. We pay that much
(only two
of us), and perhaps you do, but I don't see it happening for "the
poor". Even
I wouldn't much like it with a family of six. No, flat *rate* is good
enough,
even with *a* standard deduction.

And what makes a person feel they are "entitled" to have 6 kids?
Don't get me started...lol.

At least in the USA, you are entitled to exercise your constitutional
rights. Decisions about procreation are a fundamental constitutional
right.

Or an accident.

1. Decisions are not accidents.
2. A decision to engage in coitus carries with it an attendant risk of
procreation. You make the decision knowing that procreation is possible.

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 20:09:22 +0000 (UTC),
(Larry W) wrote:

In article ,
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:
On 10/14/2011 6:06 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Leon wrote:



05 Cavalier, turn the rotors and drums and new pads and shoes.

Turn the rotors???? Leon - nobody turns rotors anymore!


Uh yes they do unless I guess you are talking about one of those 4
brakes for just $99 kind of deals. A typical normally priced 4 wheel
job at a dealer is $400, and they do turn the rotors.

Most manufacturers within the last decade or so have started recommending
that rotors NOT be turned.

What they're doing it manufacturing them to the minimum thickness to
begin with, so turning them makes them warp every time. Grrrrr!

--
Every day I remind myself that my inner and outer life are
based on the labors of other men, living and dead, and that
I must exert myself in order to give in the same measure as
I have received and am still receiving.
-- Albert Einstein

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 14:35:43 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

On 10/13/2011 6:22 AM, Leon wrote:
On 10/12/2011 9:33 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Larry Blanchard wrote:

But can anyone truly say that any person is worth more than a million
dollars a year? I certainly don't think so.

What's "worth" got to do with anything? Some HAVE more than a million
because others willingly GAVE it to them.

Oh, there are exceptions, but in the main the wealthy earned their
fortunes.



Those that earned their wealth, how much harder than you did they work
to earn that amount?


Lets say you work 40 hours a week and earn $100,000 per year.

Do you think that on average that some one that makes $1,000,000 per
year has worked 10 times harder than you?

Not harder, but he may have done things that earned his company ten
times as much profit as the work you did.

In the end, how much you make depends on what the person paying thinks your
work is worth, not how much you sweat.

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 17:26:36 -0400, Bill wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:39:29 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/14/2011 11:30 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:01:19 -0400, wrote:

On 10/14/2011 11:55 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 07:15:51 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/13/2011 8:11 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:49:17 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/13/2011 2:33 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:06:42 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/13/2011 10:18 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 07:51:46 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/12/2011 2:14 PM, Han wrote:
Larry wrote in
news Snip



IMNSHO, we will grow the economy more if we let the less affluent
buy more ...

GOOD punchline.g
(On the off chance that you're serious, what's your logic there?
How do the poor buy more?)

Getting more spending power into the hands of the less affluent will
lead to more purchasing of manufactured goods (my opinion).

Do you have any good ideas as to how to accomplish that? I'd love it!

Good! Same as above: We would be even richer as a nation if the
resulting wealth was spread out more evenly, not going to corporations
and really rich people who can afford to stash it abroad.


Sets see here Han do you want to share your wealth with me? Probably
not. Corporations which are made up of people and create jobs for
people should not be taxed at all. We don't want to bite the hand that
feeds us.

Right, but also note that those corporations don't pay tax anyway. It's a
cost of doing business and necessarily gets passed onto the consumer. Might
just as well put the tax there. It's more efficient, if nothing else.


Right! Corporations don't pay taxes its customers do.

So do I mark you down in the "Supports Fair Tax" column? ;-)

How wold you like me to answer that? ;~)

Well,...

Ultimately I think every one should pay equally for services that they
are getting. Like going to the store and buying a new TV or going to a
base ball game, no discounts or price hikes for income level or personal
wealth.

"Equality" means different things to different people. I'd prefer a flat
(rate) income tax, likely because it's easier to understand (the ramifications
of) than "The Fair Tax".

I am talking about equal, not a formula for equal. I pay a dollar you
pay a dollar. As you mentioned Equality can include a formula to make
your amount more or less than my amount. Government taxes should the
same and affordable by every one. I think this would eventually be
obtainable if every one had equal interest in how the government spends
our money.

Let's see, $3.5B/312M is only $11,000 per person. We pay that much (only two
of us), and perhaps you do, but I don't see it happening for "the poor". Even
I wouldn't much like it with a family of six. No, flat *rate* is good enough,
even with *a* standard deduction.

And what makes a person feel they are "entitled" to have 6 kids?

Are you in favor of the Chinese solution? Nazi Germany? Do you think the
government should determine who should (not) have children?
Why do you always take the opposite extreme view???

Read it again. I don't take that view, rather that's the view Bill is
expressing; government should control fertility.

I feel that if you cannot pay your bills and support your children you
should think about not having any more.

krw, I agree with Leon's statement above.

So do I (keywords: "should think about not") but that is NOT what you said.

Again, you said,

"And what makes a person feel they are "entitled" to have 6 kids?"

By who's authority are they to be prevented?

Words mean things, particularly in a text media.

On 14 Oct 2011 21:31:20 GMT, Han wrote:

Just Wondering wrote in news:4e98a264$0$6530$882e7ee2
:

At least in the USA, you are entitled to exercise your constitutional
rights. Decisions about procreation are a fundamental constitutional
right.

You think that octomom exercised her constitutional rights?

What "right" did she exercise that you believe she didn't have? Also, please
point to the passage in the Constitution that justifies your argument.

" wrote in
:

On 14 Oct 2011 21:31:20 GMT, Han wrote:

Just Wondering wrote in
news:4e98a264$0$6530$882e7ee2 @usenet-news.net:

At least in the USA, you are entitled to exercise your
constitutional rights. Decisions about procreation are a
fundamental constitutional right.

You think that octomom exercised her constitutional rights?

What "right" did she exercise that you believe she didn't have? Also,
please point to the passage in the Constitution that justifies your
argument.

So in your opinion she exercised her constitutional rights to pay a
physician who should get his license revoked (my opinion) to implant way
too many embryos. I don't think the constitution enumerates the rights
to become pregnant, so that is a moot point. In my opinion she didn't
have the right to precreate on an industrial scale and let society take
care of the consequences.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 15 Oct 2011 02:00:18 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 14 Oct 2011 21:31:20 GMT, Han wrote:

Just Wondering wrote in
news:4e98a264$0$6530$882e7ee2 @usenet-news.net:

At least in the USA, you are entitled to exercise your
constitutional rights. Decisions about procreation are a
fundamental constitutional right.

You think that octomom exercised her constitutional rights?

What "right" did she exercise that you believe she didn't have? Also,
please point to the passage in the Constitution that justifies your
argument.

So in your opinion she exercised her constitutional rights to pay a
physician who should get his license revoked (my opinion) to implant way
too many embryos. I don't think the constitution enumerates the rights
to become pregnant, so that is a moot point. In my opinion she didn't
have the right to precreate on an industrial scale and let society take
care of the consequences.

Sue the damned doctor to recoup the funds wrought on society by his
damnfool actions. And get octobeeyatch a shrink.

--
Every day I remind myself that my inner and outer life are
based on the labors of other men, living and dead, and that
I must exert myself in order to give in the same measure as
I have received and am still receiving.
-- Albert Einstein

"Han" wrote:

So in your opinion she exercised her constitutional rights to pay a
physician who should get his license revoked (my opinion) to implant
way
too many embryos. I don't think the constitution enumerates the
rights
to become pregnant, so that is a moot point. In my opinion she
didn't
have the right to precreate on an industrial scale and let society
take
care of the consequences.
---------------------------
The State Medical board has revoked the doctor's eight to practice as
a result of his actions.

Lew

On 15 Oct 2011 02:00:18 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 14 Oct 2011 21:31:20 GMT, Han wrote:

Just Wondering wrote in
news:4e98a264$0$6530$882e7ee2 @usenet-news.net:

At least in the USA, you are entitled to exercise your
constitutional rights. Decisions about procreation are a
fundamental constitutional right.

You think that octomom exercised her constitutional rights?

What "right" did she exercise that you believe she didn't have? Also,
please point to the passage in the Constitution that justifies your
argument.

So in your opinion she exercised her constitutional rights to pay a
physician who should get his license revoked (my opinion) to implant way
too many embryos.

Absolutely she had that Constitutional right. If you disagree, please point
to the passage that show otherwise. His license was revoked, AFAIK.

I don't think the constitution enumerates the rights to become pregnant,
so that is a moot point.

Of course it doesn't. The Constitution is a limitation on GOVERNMENT'S power,
not on human rights. Humans have inalienable rights. They're *not*
enumerated, ANYWHERE.

In my opinion she didn't have the right to precreate on an industrial
scale and let society take care of the consequences.

You say she didn't have the "right". Just where is that right limited? How
is it limited? Would 7 embryos be within this "right"? How about six? Where
is this limit? Because *you* think it's "wrong:, doesn't mean she doesn't
have the "right" to be stupid.

Leon wrote:
On 10/14/2011 6:06 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Leon wrote:



05 Cavalier, turn the rotors and drums and new pads and shoes.

Turn the rotors???? Leon - nobody turns rotors anymore!


Uh yes they do unless I guess you are talking about one of those 4
brakes for just $99 kind of deals. A typical normally priced 4 wheel
job at a dealer is $400, and they do turn the rotors.

Don't know about the $99 deals Leon - I don't let any of my vehicles out for
repair. The only time one of my vehicles will go to a shop is if for some
reason, I just do not want to do the work - and the cheap side of me won't
let that happen very often.

What I've found though, is that I've gone back to a practice of replacing
only the pads, every other brake job - unless of course, there is some
extreme rotor wear, but that's a different matter. I was replacing rotors
every time, and it just was not necessary - especially since I switched over
to ceramic pads. Today's rotors often do not tolerate turning very well
since they are not all that thick to start with, and if there is any warping
or gouging, they don't survive turning very well.

Of course, my cost does not reflect shop rates, but that 4 wheel brake job
with new rotors and ceramic pads will cost me under $200, and an hour or two
of my time.

--

-Mike-

" wrote in
:

You say she didn't have the "right". Just where is that right
limited? How is it limited? Would 7 embryos be within this "right"?
How about six? Where is this limit? Because *you* think it's
"wrong:, doesn't mean she doesn't have the "right" to be stupid.

I said in my opinion she doesn't have the right because she is unable to
care for the children. It is not a responsible thing to do. That's all.
Moreover, it isn't fair to the children, because there is no way she could
provide the proper gestational environment. End of story.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 10/14/2011 3:42 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 10/13/2011 6:40 AM, Leon wrote:

IMHO the tax solution is for "everyone" to pay the exact same amount of
taxes.
Every one means a family of 5 pays 5 times what a single person pays.

You're contradicting yourself. What you're actually saying is that a
single woman with no children would pay X dollars while a single women
with one child would pay 2X dollars, and the child would pay 0 dollars.
That's three people, each paying three very different amounts.
For everyone to pay the exact amount, a 40 year old CEO making $2
million a year and a 3 month old orphan would each be required to pay
the same amount in taxes.

No what I am actually saying is that a family of 5 pays 5 times what a
single person pays. That was not that hard to understand was it?


To simplify that for you, the single mom goes to the movies and pays $5.

A mom and her child go to the movies and pays $10.

You actually have to use a bit of "common" sense and think in a way a
"reasonable" person would think.


You finally get it on the last sentence of you overly stated paragraph.

And to help you with that example, the same $2m CEO goes to the movies
and pays the same amount as the orphan. Fair is fair. Right?

On 10/14/2011 3:09 PM, Larry W wrote:
In article7eWdndUUUsQguwXTnZ2dnUVZ5qednZ2d@giganews. com,
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:
On 10/14/2011 6:06 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Leon wrote:



05 Cavalier, turn the rotors and drums and new pads and shoes.

Turn the rotors???? Leon - nobody turns rotors anymore!


Uh yes they do unless I guess you are talking about one of those 4
brakes for just $99 kind of deals. A typical normally priced 4 wheel
job at a dealer is$400, and they do turn the rotors.

Most manufacturers within the last decade or so have started recommending
that rotors NOT be turned.

Not if they need to be turned. If there is even wear there is no need
to do so.

On 10/15/2011 6:13 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Leon wrote:
On 10/14/2011 6:06 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Leon wrote:



05 Cavalier, turn the rotors and drums and new pads and shoes.

Turn the rotors???? Leon - nobody turns rotors anymore!


Uh yes they do unless I guess you are talking about one of those 4
brakes for just $99 kind of deals. A typical normally priced 4 wheel
job at a dealer is$400, and they do turn the rotors.

Don't know about the $99 deals Leon - I don't let any of my vehicles out for
repair. The only time one of my vehicles will go to a shop is if for some
reason, I just do not want to do the work - and the cheap side of me won't
let that happen very often.

What I've found though, is that I've gone back to a practice of replacing
only the pads, every other brake job - unless of course, there is some
extreme rotor wear, but that's a different matter. I was replacing rotors
every time, and it just was not necessary - especially since I switched over
to ceramic pads. Today's rotors often do not tolerate turning very well
since they are not all that thick to start with, and if there is any warping
or gouging, they don't survive turning very well.

Of course, my cost does not reflect shop rates, but that 4 wheel brake job
with new rotors and ceramic pads will cost me under $200, and an hour or two
of my time.



Understood and every thing you mentioned above is true. I was
responding more to the comment you made about nobody turning rotors any
more. As with you I never sent my vehicle to the shop either so to
speak, I was the service sales manager and got free access to the shop
equipment. I turned my own rotors. The least expensive way of having
the rotors turned for the average person would be to take the
rotors/drums in himself and have the turned at the auto parts store. It
has be quite a while since I have done this but $15 would get all 4
turned and that was a heck of a cheap price then. I suspect that even
now if the rotor/drum can be turned that is still the least expensive
way out.
Being older and not having problems with paying an extra $200 or so to
keep me off the floor and my hands clean I let the dealership have my
business.

On 10/14/2011 3:47 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 10/13/2011 10:11 AM, Robatoy wrote:

In terms of brake parts pricing. Do an all-around brake job on a Ford
Fusion and a Malibu, and you will see a $1000.00 difference...at least
around here. Same deal with the OEM parts... I'm sure it is okay to
put somebody else's wiper blades on

If the car's still under warranty, have the work done under warranty.
Then it won't cost you anything. If the car's not under warranty, shop
around; there's no warranty left to "void".


Wear items are not covered by the manufacturer so if you wear the brakes
wear out, wear the tires out, or run the tank out of gas, that is on you
to maintain the vehicle.

On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 07:13:41 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 10/14/2011 3:42 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 10/13/2011 6:40 AM, Leon wrote:

IMHO the tax solution is for "everyone" to pay the exact same amount of
taxes.
Every one means a family of 5 pays 5 times what a single person pays.

You're contradicting yourself. What you're actually saying is that a
single woman with no children would pay X dollars while a single women
with one child would pay 2X dollars, and the child would pay 0 dollars.
That's three people, each paying three very different amounts.
For everyone to pay the exact amount, a 40 year old CEO making $2
million a year and a 3 month old orphan would each be required to pay
the same amount in taxes.

No what I am actually saying is that a family of 5 pays 5 times what a
single person pays. That was not that hard to understand was it?


To simplify that for you, the single mom goes to the movies and pays $5.

A mom and her child go to the movies and pays $10.

You actually have to use a bit of "common" sense and think in a way a
"reasonable" person would think.


You finally get it on the last sentence of you overly stated paragraph.

And to help you with that example, the same $2m CEO goes to the movies
and pays the same amount as the orphan. Fair is fair. Right?

You haven't done your research yet, I see.

--
Happiness lies in the joy of achievement and the thrill of creative effort.
-- Franklin D. Roosevelt

On 15 Oct 2011 11:19:37 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

You say she didn't have the "right". Just where is that right
limited? How is it limited? Would 7 embryos be within this "right"?
How about six? Where is this limit? Because *you* think it's
"wrong:, doesn't mean she doesn't have the "right" to be stupid.

I said in my opinion she doesn't have the right because she is unable to
care for the children.

Show me where that inalienable right has been revoked. Citation, please.

It is not a responsible thing to do.

Smoking is irresponsible, too. Carrying a credit card balance is
irresponsible. People have the right to be irresponsible.

That's all.

All? You obviously want to run everyone's life the way *you* think it should
be run. That is the leftist's goal.

Moreover, it isn't fair to the children, because there is no way she could
provide the proper gestational environment. End of story.

No it certainly is not. *YOU* don't get to decide what others may do.

On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 09:19:23 -0500, "
wrote:



Normally not as much as he does on the labor turning the rotors and very
often at a much lower price to the customer. This also keeps the
mechanic stay busy and happy. Normally the mechanic is going to sell/
suggest the repair method that benefits him the most with the same
repair outcome.

Three of four times I've had brake jobs done, at least in the past couple of
decades, the mechanic has suggested new rotors. The difference wasn't all
that much, so that's the way I've gone. Before that ('70s & '80s), rotors
were incredibly expensive, so had them turned.


What matters is what specific rotors we are talking about. Many new
cars have thinner, lighter rotors than was used in the past. They
don't have the meat on them to turn very much.

Rotors used to be very expensive too, now they are reasonably priced
compared to years ago.

So, turn or replace? Well that depends on other factors today.

" wrote in
:





In my opinion is what I said. Legalese may decide otherwise.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 10/14/2011 4:01 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 10/14/2011 11:39 AM, Leon wrote:
On 10/14/2011 11:30 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:01:19 -0400, wrote:

On 10/14/2011 11:55 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

And what makes a person feel they are "entitled" to have 6 kids?

Are you in favor of the Chinese solution? Nazi Germany? Do you think the
government should determine who should (not) have children?
Why do you always take the opposite extreme view???

I feel that if you cannot pay your bills and support your children you
should think about not having any more.

Well, that's a matter of people fitting in with your picture of social
responsibility. That's a different question than whether they are
entitled to choose the size of their families. And the answer is way to
complex to reduce it to a simple head count.


No kidding, I did not say parents should be limited to how many kids
they have nor was I agreeing with that statement.

On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 10:44:55 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 09:19:23 -0500, "
wrote:



Normally not as much as he does on the labor turning the rotors and very
often at a much lower price to the customer. This also keeps the
mechanic stay busy and happy. Normally the mechanic is going to sell/
suggest the repair method that benefits him the most with the same
repair outcome.

Three of four times I've had brake jobs done, at least in the past couple of
decades, the mechanic has suggested new rotors. The difference wasn't all
that much, so that's the way I've gone. Before that ('70s & '80s), rotors
were incredibly expensive, so had them turned.


What matters is what specific rotors we are talking about. Many new
cars have thinner, lighter rotors than was used in the past. They
don't have the meat on them to turn very much.

Right. Chances are, if they're so bad they need turning, they can't be.

Rotors used to be very expensive too, now they are reasonably priced
compared to years ago.

Yep. $20-$30 each vs. $15-$20 each to turn. When they were $100, and up, it
made more sense.

So, turn or replace? Well that depends on other factors today.

I think you've hit most of them.

On 15 Oct 2011 15:17:11 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:





In my opinion is what I said. Legalese may decide otherwise.

It is not an "opinion" that people do not have "rights", that the clearly do.
Perhaps you need to bone up on the English language?

On 10/15/2011 6:13 AM, Leon wrote:
On 10/14/2011 3:42 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 10/13/2011 6:40 AM, Leon wrote:

IMHO the tax solution is for "everyone" to pay the exact same amount of
taxes.
Every one means a family of 5 pays 5 times what a single person pays.

You're contradicting yourself. What you're actually saying is that a
single woman with no children would pay X dollars while a single women
with one child would pay 2X dollars, and the child would pay 0 dollars.
That's three people, each paying three very different amounts.
For everyone to pay the exact amount, a 40 year old CEO making $2
million a year and a 3 month old orphan would each be required to pay
the same amount in taxes.

No what I am actually saying is that a family of 5 pays 5 times what a
single person pays. That was not that hard to understand was it?


To simplify that for you, the single mom goes to the movies and pays $5.

A mom and her child go to the movies and pays $10.

You actually have to use a bit of "common" sense and think in a way a
"reasonable" person would think.


You finally get it on the last sentence of you overly stated paragraph.

And to help you with that example, the same $2m CEO goes to the movies
and pays the same amount as the orphan.

Actually, the 3 month old would get in free.

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 13:58:22 -0500, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

BZZZT! Wrong answer! SS benefits most certainly *ARE* taxable.

And once again you prove the adage "fools rush in ..." - SS benefits are
only taxable if the recipients non-SS taxable income exceeds 25K. And
only half are taxable until it exceeds 34K. The corresponding numbers
for a married couple filing jointly are 32K and 44K.

The numbers are for 2010 taxes.

I'm going to quit responding to your posts. Time and time again I and
others have corrected your errors of fact and you never change. I have
to assume that you deliberately ignore the facts to generate controversy.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 14:58:05 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

And what makes a person feel they are "entitled" to have 6 kids? Don't
get me started...lol.

At least in the USA, you are entitled to exercise your constitutional
rights. Decisions about procreation are a fundamental constitutional
right.

Oh? Where in the constitution?

P.S. I wish you and others would learn to snip.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On 10/15/2011 12:12 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 13:58:22 -0500, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

BZZZT! Wrong answer! SS benefits most certainly *ARE* taxable.

And once again you prove the adage "fools rush in ..." - SS benefits are
only taxable if
^^

"If" is the mother of all dissembling qualifiers.

IOW, "SS benefits most certainly *ARE* taxable".

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 10/15/2011 12:30 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 14:58:05 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

And what makes a person feel they are "entitled" to have 6 kids? Don't
get me started...lol.

At least in the USA, you are entitled to exercise your constitutional
rights. Decisions about procreation are a fundamental constitutional
right.

Oh? Where in the constitution?

P.S. I wish you and others would learn to snip.


Actually, the concept precedes the Constituion, in a little document
called the Declaration of Independence:

"Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness ... " embodied therein by any
reasonable determination.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 17:30:15 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 14:58:05 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

And what makes a person feel they are "entitled" to have 6 kids? Don't
get me started...lol.

At least in the USA, you are entitled to exercise your constitutional
rights. Decisions about procreation are a fundamental constitutional
right.

Oh? Where in the constitution?

You need a civics lesson. The Constitution does not enumerate individual
rights, rather limits government's power.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people."

If it's *NOT* there, it's the people's.

P.S. I wish you and others would learn to snip.

On 10/15/2011 11:30 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 14:58:05 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

And what makes a person feel they are "entitled" to have 6 kids? Don't
get me started...lol.

At least in the USA, you are entitled to exercise your constitutional
rights. Decisions about procreation are a fundamental constitutional
right.

Oh? Where in the constitution?

P.S. I wish you and others would learn to snip.

The Constitution enumerates and limits government power, not individual
rights. That's what the Bill of Rights says, specifically the 9th and
10th Amendments. Construing the Bill of Rights, the Supremes have
repeatedly held that procreation is a fundamental right.

Han wrote in news:Xns9F7E9CE52642Aikkezelf@
216.151.153.168:

" wrote in
:

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 16:36:22 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 16:40:13 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

I apologize for my shorthand. Please allow me to rephrase and
perhaps you'll have a cogent comment on the new rendition: "The REAL
inequity is that 49% of the wage-earning population pays NO income
taxes at all!

Oh, I think I can come up with something :-). Like your figure is
still wrong - it was approximately true for one year only (2009) as I
stated.

OTOH, with the "greying" of the population, I would expect the number
who owe no federal income tax to go up. For example, since our SS
benefits are not taxable, our "taxable" income last year was well
below the 21K threshold that would require me to file a return. Guess
I'm just another freeloader.

BZZZT! Wrong answer! SS benefits most certainly *ARE* taxable.

As almost always, it depends. Check first with the IRS, like he
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/...179091,00.html

IRS says he
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=179091,00.html

The Social Security benefits you received in 2010 may be taxable. You
should receive a Form SSA-1099 which will show the total amount of your
benefits. The information provided on this statement along with the
following seven facts from the IRS will help you determine whether or not
your benefits are taxable.

How much – if any – of your Social Security benefits are taxable depends
on your total income and marital status.

Generally, if Social Security benefits were your only income for 2010,
your benefits are not taxable and you probably do not need to file a
federal income tax return.

If you received income from other sources, your benefits will not be
taxed unless your modified adjusted gross income is more than the base
amount for your filing status.

Your taxable benefits and modified adjusted gross income are figured on a
worksheet in the Form 1040A or Form 1040 Instruction booklet.

You can do the following quick computation to determine whether some of
your benefits may be taxable:
• First, add one-half of the total Social Security benefits you received
to all your other income, including any tax exempt interest and other
exclusions from income.
• Then, compare this total to the base amount for your filing status. If
the total is more than your base amount, some of your benefits may be
taxable.

The 2010 base amounts a
• $32,000 for married couples filing jointly.
• $25,000 for single, head of household, qualifying widow/widower with a
dependent child, or married individuals filing separately who did not
live with their spouses at any time during the year.
• $0 for married persons filing separately who lived together during the
year.



--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

But he said he would stop responding to his posts!!! This definitely
adds a lot of weight to the seriousness of this argument!

We need to take these emphasized statements seriously. If somebody
states something incorrectly, here, woodworkers need to unite and don
their white capes with face hoods for fear of just being viewed as a
bunch of whittling hacks with no real life skills! These lifestyle
threatening off-the-cuff comments cannot be tolerated and shouldn't be
taken lightly.

Anybody have plans for a wooden cross?

-----------------
"Swingman" wrote in message
...
"If" is the mother of all dissembling qualifiers.

IOW, "SS benefits most certainly *ARE* taxable".

-------------------
"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...
I'm going to quit responding to your posts. Time and time again I and
others have corrected your errors of fact and you never change. I have
to assume that you deliberately ignore the facts to generate
controversy.

On 15 Oct 2011 20:10:38 GMT, Han wrote:



IRS says he
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=179091,00.html

The Social Security benefits you received in 2010 may be taxable. You
should receive a Form SSA-1099 which will show the total amount of your
benefits. The information provided on this statement along with the
following seven facts from the IRS will help you determine whether or not
your benefits are taxable.

How much – if any – of your Social Security benefits are taxable depends
on your total income and marital status.

Generally, if Social Security benefits were your only income for 2010,
your benefits are not taxable and you probably do not need to file a
federal income tax return.

Don't forget to check your state laws too. In CT, SS income is
taxable, assuming you are in the taxable brackets.