funny things to do on a bike

[Jonesy]

Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (Jonesy) wrote:
>
> >Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:...
> >> [email protected] (Jonesy) wrote:
>
> >> >In the real world, your scenario is pure Chicken Little fantasy.
> >>
> >> One small drop of sarin on your skin will kill you within minutes.
> >>
> >> You really can't imagine a way to disperse the stuff in a fine mist
> >> over a crowd? I can think of dozens.
> >
> >Then there must be *something* about it that prevents terrorists from
> >doing it.
> >
> >Access to sarin is not it - it's quite easy to acquire the precursors
> >(not in the U.S. - organophosphorus compounds were pretty strictly
> >regulated even before 9/11). So maybe you just don't know as much
> >about it as you seem to think you do.
>
> Look at the quality of the Al Qaeda terrorists and tell me you think
> any of them could brew up a viable batch of sarin.

Bin Laden is an architect - I'm sure that somewhere out there is some
fanatic that knows something about organic chemistry. Beleive me,
making the stuff ain't tough.

> Maybe you could
> fill us all in on where they might go about picking up a few gallons
> of the stuff, other than from a state-sponsored lab (directly or
> indirectly).

The precursors could be had on the open market. (In the U.S. it's
tougher.)

They are simple, and widely available. Even existing O-P pesticides
could be modified, if one knew how to do that. In fact, that's how
sarin was originally made.

> The fact they haven't used it as a weapon yet doesn't prove anything
> any more than the fact no one had flown airliners into skyscrapers did
> prior to 9/11, even though it was obviously possible.

Sarin is nasty stuff, and easy to make purely with simple equipment
and generally available precursors. It's structure is published,
along with the sturctures of the binary shell components. Some
knowledge is required, but nothing that couldn't be learned with an
undergraduate chemistry textbook and some internet research.

Making is easy. Delivering, even ineffectively, is hard.

--
Jonesy

 

[David Kerber]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > Mark Hickey wrote:
> >
> >> Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Mark Hickey wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Oh, BTW, what size howitzer was used in the sarin attack in the Tokyo
> >>>> subway?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Oh, and in that confined space, how many thousands were killed?
> >>
> >>
> >> Seven.
>
> At worst, you are lying. At best, deceiving...Reminds me of a certain
> administration.....
>
> There were 12 individuals killed. Not the 7000 that you imply!

Oh, come on! You are intentionally mis-reading his post. He meant 7
people, not 7 thousand people, and you know it.

.....


--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

 

[JP]

Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Why not argue with the facts rather than trying to set up an amazingly
> unstable straw man. Did Clinton do anything to reduce mercury
> emissions? Did Bush pass legislation that will reduce them by 70%
> (I'll give you a hint - no/yes).

Did you show me anything to convince me that any legislation or
rulemaking by the Bush administration will do anything positive for
the environment?

> >> Clinton joined Bush and the (then) Democratic congress in unanimously
> >> rejecting ratification of the Kyoto accord.
> >
> >My memory of Kyoto was that Clinton signed but it did not submit it to
> >Congress because he did not have the votes to get it passed.
>
> Your recollection was wrong. Congress has to pass it before it can be
> signed by the president (95-0 is a little beyond "not having the
> votes" at any rate).

Wrong. A treaty is signed and then sent to the Senate for ratification
for it to become binding. It can be signed by the President or his
representative, usually the Secretary of State.

In fact my recollection turns out to be exactly right. Clinton never
submitted Kyoto to the Senate for ratification. The vote you are
talking about was a Senate resolution expressing its dissatisfaction
with the treaty. It was NOT, however, a ratification vote. President
Clinton negotiated and signed Kyoto and was actually accused by some
of trying to implement its provisions by Executive Order. To say that
he rejected it is purely and simply about as far from reality as you
can get. Fact: Clinton supported Kyoto, and Bush rejected it and
essentially rescinded the US signature to it.

> >> I actually did apply for a position that would have taken me to Iraq,
> >> FWIW. I didn't get the job. Happy?
> >
> >Did you apply for something for which you were QUALIFIED?
>
> Very much so.

Then I'm left wondering why you didn't get hired. Or maybe the job was
not in Iraq, maybe it could only theoretically have taken you there
briefly.

> >1. Give taxcuts to the people who need the money and will spend it.
>
> So far, I agree (though would add "or invest it")

Investment capital is not that helpful when you have as much extra
industrial capacity as the US had for the last three years, and
interest rates are already as low as they can get. You need to
stiulate consumption, not capital investment. (This is related to why
the Fed policy has not been that helpful in getting the economy going
again. To the degree it was helpful, it was by allowing a massive wave
of home mortgage refinancing that increased disposable income and
provided cash for consumer spending.)

> >2. Increase government spending in ways that will stimulate the
> >economy.
>
> Here's where we part company, in most cases. At any rate, Bush HAS
> increased government spending (even without including military
> spending).

Not in ways that are effective to stimulate the economy.

> >Bush did very little of either.
>
> I'd say history has proven you wrong on that already.

Well, what Bush did or did not do is a matter of fact. Whether what he
did or did not do was effective in stimulating the economy is a matter
of opinion. Most economists and even his former Secretary of the
Treasury will tell you that what Bush did could be only marginally
effective at best. You, as a True Believer, will no doubt have a
different opinion. We'll have to see whether this current "recovery",
jobless as it is, has any staying power.

> >> I don't think anyone should
> >> have to pay more taxes as a percentage than the rich already do -
> >> though I know we will have to agree to disagree on that.
> >
> >Since we can't balance the budget with tax rates like they are, what
> >do you propose then, raising taxes on the bottom 95%? Cut Social
> >Security benefits so that we can afford those taxcuts?
>
> There are two elements to generating tax revenue. Income and tax
> rates. They are directly proportional. You increase tax revenues by
> either increasing the tax rate OR by increasing the earnings. If you
> can stimulate the economy out of a recession by lowering the tax rate,
> ultimately the growth in the economy will produce increased tax
> revenues (I didn't buy that when Reagan first proposed turning around
> the Carter economy, but have obviously seen the light).

Everyone agrees that you stimulate the economy out of a recession with
taxcuts, but they have to go to people that will spend the money.

> >> >Give me a reference on Kerry's so-called taxcuts for businesses and
> >> >we'll talk specifics- if you dare.
> >>
> >> Read it and weep...
> >>
> >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25175-2004Mar25.html
> >
> >I knew it:
> >
> >"Kerry will offer a trade: He would cut taxes on U.S. corporations in
> >exchange for forfeiting current tax benefits for moving money and jobs
> >overseas."
> >
> >Are you saying that you are opposed to that idea?
>
> Nope. Are you still saying that Kerry didn't say he was going to cut
> taxes on business?

I NEVER said he wasn't. What I said was show me the specifics and
we'll talk about it. As I predicted, it turned out to be a business
taxcut targeted to help the American worker, in this case by trying to
stem the flow of jobs out of the US, something that Bush has refused
to address, despite the pleas of even GOP Congressmen. Note that
Kerry's proposed "taxcut" also removes present tax incentives for
moving jobs overseas.

JP

 

[Jonesy]

[email protected] (Hunrobe) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >[email protected] (Jonesy)
>
> wrote in part:
>
> >From the luna.org site, Bush and his minions equated or linked al
> >Qaeda to Iraq or Saddam many times. Let's see if you can follow this
> >huge leap of logic:
> >
> >1.) Al Qaeda took down the WTC.
> >
> >2.) Saddam/Iraq is in bed with al Qaeda, thus
> >
> >3.) Saddam/Iraq had something to do with 9/11.
> >
> >Wow, I guess it's just my superior intellect that can connect the dots
> >like that, huh?
>
> Of the 22 quotes on that site, 21 are post-9/11 yet not a single one even
> mentions 9/11.
> "Huge leap of logic"?
> So you think it's logical that he so desperately wanted to link Iraq to the
> 9/11 attacks that Bush simply forgot to even mention 9/11.

Or, instead of painting themselves into a corner that would be
impossible to get out of, they instead decided to use implication and
innuendo to accomplish the same task.

If the implication was not intended, how is it that nearly 70% of
Americans drew this conclusion?

> Is it your "superior intellect" or your emotional response to GWB that makes
> you think that passes for logic?

Since you have not pointed out the logical flaw, but instead tried to
use some red herring, I think you should reserve your logic lectures
for after your remedial coursework in it.
--
Jonesy

 

[Jonesy]

[email protected] (Hunrobe) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >Frank Krygowski [email protected]
>
> wrote in part:
>
>
>
> >But to summarize:
> >
> >Q: Did your claimed 10,000 liters of anthrax show up?
> >A: No.
>
>
> You seem very fond of simplifying (maybe even oversimplifying) complex issues
> Frank so here's a few yes/no question for you:
> 1- Were all those UN resolutions demanding Hussein account for the materials
> passed solely to satisfy someone's idle curiousity, i.e., did the UN believe
> they had evidence that he possessed such materials?
> 2- Did Hussein comply with the terms of any of those resolutions?
> 3- Were the UN weapons inspectors ever given complete and unfettered access?

4-Which one of the above constitutes a mandate to unilaterally engage
in miltary operations, in direct contravention of the governing body
mentioned above?
--
Jonesy

 

[Nate]

David Kerber wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
>
>>Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>>Mark Hickey wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Mark Hickey wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Oh, BTW, what size howitzer was used in the sarin attack in the Tokyo
>>>>>>subway?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh, and in that confined space, how many thousands were killed?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Seven.
>>
>>At worst, you are lying. At best, deceiving...Reminds me of a certain
>>administration.....
>>
>>There were 12 individuals killed. Not the 7000 that you imply!
>
>
> Oh, come on! You are intentionally mis-reading his post. He meant 7
> people, not 7 thousand people, and you know it.
>
> .....
>
>
point taken.

 

[Tim McNamara]

Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
>
>> Well, it *is* a WMD.
>
> I've long been a little dissatisfied about that phrase or acronym.
> The US has many, many weapons that can destroy much bigger "masses."
> And what we've done in Iraq certainly qualifies as mass destruction.

Agreed.

> Seems to me the meaning of the phrase is really "A weapon we don't
> allow them to have (whether or not we have it)."

Agreed 1000%.

> Not that I want (or wanted) Iraq or anyone else to have tons of high
> explosives, nuclear weapons, sarin or mustard gas or anything else.
> But it does sound like the shorthand being used ought to be followed
> by "wink, wink."

The irony escapes most Americans, just as it does the President.

 

[Keith Willoughby]

Mark Hickey wrote:

> Keith Willoughby <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>He didn't write a book - Ron Suskind did.
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>> Again, you choose to believe a guy who is obviously upset at being
>>> fired by GWB, and who made a lot of money writing a sensational book.
>>
>>If you're going to argue, at least get your facts right.
>
> It's a giant conspiracy. Why, I KNOW at least 70% of the people in
> the US THINK he wrote that book. He must have said he did. I can't
> find the quote, but it's because it was all a carefully crafted
> deception.

It's OK to admit you were wrong sometimes, you know.

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
"For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong."
- HL Mencken

 

[Frank Krygowski]

David Kerber wrote:

>
> Oh, come on! You are intentionally mis-reading his post. He meant 7
> people, not 7 thousand people, and you know it.

It's good to clear that up. After all, I directly asked "How many
thousands?" and he directly answered "Seven."


But now there's a problem. Mark was using that incident to "prove" that
primitively-deliverd sarin is a weapon of mass destruction.

A small handgun can kill seven people. So can a club.

Is there anything that is _not_ a "weapon of mass destruction," by this
standard?


--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

 

[JP]

Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (Jonesy) wrote:
>
> >You will notice Mark even defends the
> >spewings of Rush Limbaugh, *even after clearly admitting* that he
> >doesn't listen to Rush often. How on earth can you defend something
> >you have not heard yourself? Easy - Rush is conservative, so what he
> >says must be True(tm) and Right(tm). After all, conservatives are
> >never wrong, on anything, ever.
>
> What I said is that he can be entertaining (and he can...) and that
> (contrary to liberal opinion), having Rush state a fact doesn't change
> the veracity of that fact.

Unfortunately, Rush often presents lies as facts, so the problem is
how to tell the difference, and the True Believers (affectionately
known as "Dittoheads") don't even bother to try. For instance, he was
one of the main sources of the lie that Ken Lay had stayed in the
Lincoln Bedroom during the Clinton administration. I personally saw
that lie stated as fact on Limbaugh's website.

JP

 

[gwhite]

Frank Krygowski wrote:

> gwhite wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>
>>> "Less" [taxes] referred to "less than they did before the tax cut."
>>> I'm surprised there was anyone who couldn't figure that out!
>>
>> Just as I thought. Taxes are not to be questioned, they are only to
>> be paid. The guvmint knows what is best for us.
>
> Um... I'm sorry, but you're so deep into a non sequitur that you're
> absolutely impossible to follow.

I follow you. Taxes are to be blindly paid because you are morally
superior to evil rich folks.

>>> > What moron, rich, poor, or otherwise, wouldn't like to pay
>>>
>>>> less taxes?
>>>
>>>
>>> Since you ask: I'd think that people who had more money than they
>>> could ever hope of spending in any reasonable way, and who had some
>>> sense of social conscience, wouldn't care much about paying less taxes.
>>
>>
>> I see, they only need to be as moral (according to your description,
>> of course!), and have the grand social conscience that you do.
>
>
> Personally, I think that avarice is not moral. But that's just the
> opinion of me and several million religious leaders down through the
> ages. Pay us no mind.

Wow. You sure do keep track of a lot of religious leaders. And no, I
don't listen to someone because they are religious, I listen as long as
someone makes sense, which you do not.

>> I have no idea of what "spending in any reasonable way" is.
>
> Let me give you some extreme counter-examples. Read up on the personal
> fortune and spending of Bill Gates. Or, if you prefer history, Louis
> XIV of France. That level of personal luxury is not "spending in a
> reasonable way." How much palace does one person (or small family)
> really need?
>
> There are, and have been, very rich people who lived rather modestly and
> donated much to help others. There are more very rich people who live
> quite ostentatiously. I tend to admire the former.

The question isn't who is admired, or how moral one is regarding
individual wealth (as the judgement goes). The question is about
designing a political system (laws and rights) with the least amount of
defects and is best in terms of tradeoffs. Only a fool claims
perfection. The question is regarding the total balance. On the
balance, it is better to have a few filthy rich folks -- moral or not --
than to head down the road to serfdom: socialism.

> You seem to admire the latter.

You are cracked. I made no statement that could be inferred as admiration.

> Fine. But I don't think my kids and grandkids should be
> facing federal debt to help pay for Gates' mansion.

Give me a ****ing break. You could confiscate all his wealth and not
put a dent in the debt. And by the way, it isn't your kids and
grandkids money that is paying for the mansion, it is his money.
Preposterous!

>> If anything is wrong, it is to unquestionably hand over money to the
>> guvmint if one does not have to.
>
> If _anything_ is wrong? That seems to say that paying taxes ranks close
> to murder.

It causes a concentration of power. I'm not saying there are no
justifiable taxes, there are. My point is that one tactically avoids
concentration of power as much as possible.

> That's a foolish statement, indeed. And your (probably) deliberate
> misspelling doesn't make it sound any more intelligent.

The deliberate misspelling is accorded to your lemming style of "it is
right because they told me it was." Yes, the lemming is certainly lacking.

>>> I'm nowhere close to the salary level that got big dollar amounts
>>> back from Bush's tax cut plan. But, as examples, I _always_ vote for
>>> school levies, library levies, etc.
>>
>> My inclination is *not* to do so...
>
> I'm not surprised. Nor impressed.

You're punching air.

>>> I'm aware, though, that we've had school levies defeated by the
>>> people living in the McMansions out in what were recently
>>> cornfields. They have enough money to buy those places (I don't) but
>>> they don't want to give any of their money to the community.
>>
>> They are giving money to the community by virtue of them simply being
>> there
>
> Absolutely false.

You are off your rocker. You believe they somehow escape property
taxes, income taxes, sales taxes,... etcetera? LOL. Again, it is
simply that they apparently don't pay as much as one who deems himself
on the moral high ground (you) think they should.

>>>> Instead of justifying the taxes _to begin with_, which is the proper
>>>> approach, you prefer to presume that the government is the warden of
>>>> the people: over and above them. This is an abomination to free
>>>> people.
>>>
>>> I think you have very little ideea what I "prefer to presume."
>>
>> You come off like a socialist, which is anti-freedom and anti-noble.
>
> Sorry, but I am not a socialist.

You are.

> You are once again jumping to
> unwarranted conclusions.

Your confiscatory statements can be characterized classic socialist. So
I take it this fall you will be voting The American Socialist Party
(democrat) rather than The American Christian Party (republican). That
must be a tough choice for you: you need to choose between all those
millions of highly moral religious leaders and the socialist way. My
condolances, it must be tough to be in your shoes.

You are not even aware of your own ideological foundations. I can tell
you mine: they "start" (no such real thing) with works like Adam Smith's
_Wealth of Nations_ and the _Federalist Papers_. If you want to attack
the foundations, now you know where to start.

> It's clear to me that you are an ideologue who's not capable of rational
> discussion. Little wonder you don't value education, when it did so
> little for you.

I know ******** when I smell it. It did that for me.

> Buzz off.

Sounds like you've been coasting for a little too long. Time to muscle up.

 

[G.T.]

gwhite wrote:
>
>
> I follow you. Taxes are to be blindly paid because you are morally
> superior to evil rich folks.
>

He probably is but that's not the point. It's clear that those people
Frank are talking about wouldn't pay ANYTHING if given the choice. What
the **** is wrong about people paying to best of their ability. I know
plenty of rich democrats and rich republicans, and it sure ain't the
republicans who are contributing to the upkeep of our communities.


>
>
> The question isn't who is admired, or how moral one is regarding
> individual wealth (as the judgement goes). The question is about
> designing a political system (laws and rights) with the least amount of
> defects and is best in terms of tradeoffs. Only a fool claims
> perfection. The question is regarding the total balance. On the
> balance, it is better to have a few filthy rich folks -- moral or not --
> than to head down the road to serfdom: socialism.
>

There's not just a few filthy rich folks, if you haven't noticed the middle
class is disappeaing.

>
> You are off your rocker. You believe they somehow escape property
> taxes, income taxes, sales taxes,... etcetera?

Escape property taxes? No. Sales taxes? Of course not. Income taxes?
Absolutely.

>
> Your confiscatory statements can be characterized classic socialist. So
> I take it this fall you will be voting The American Socialist Party
> (democrat) rather than The American Christian Party (republican). That
> must be a tough choice for you: you need to choose between all those
> millions of highly moral religious leaders

"Millions of highly moral religious leaders"? You're joking, right? Or do
you mean war-mongering, greedy, intolerant, hypocritical Christians that
are so far from Christ's path that it's pathetic?

Greg

 

[Chalo]

David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote:
>
> [email protected] says...
> >
> > From http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/9708/msg00394.html :
> >
> > Extinguishing Media: USE METAL-X TYPE EXTINGUISHER, DRY SAND, OR ****.
> > Special Fire Fighting Proc: DON'T USE WATER.
> > Unusual Fire And Expl Hazrds: AUTOIGNITION TEMP: 1472F. PYROPHORIC IN
> > FINELY DIVIDED STATE AS A RESULT OF MACHINING OR GRINDING OPERATIONS.
> > RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL CLASS 7.
> >
> > Dust autoignites at room temperature? Don't use water to extinguish
> > it? Produces a radioactive ash particulate?
>
> No, it autoigintes at 1472F, which is a bit above room temperature.
> Except for the radioactivity, that description applies to many heavy
> metals.

A big chunk of the metal burns in air at that temperature. Uranium
_dust_ (like the stuff that you get when a uranium projectile hits
armor plate at 5000 feet/second) is "pyrophoric", as the quoted
material states, which means it combusts spontaneously in room
temperature air. If you look up some material data like the
OSHA/NIOSH document I referenced earlier, you'll see that specifically
stated.

There are very few common materials that do this.

Chalo Colina

 

[Pat]

> >
> > You seem very fond of simplifying (maybe even oversimplifying) complex
issues
> > Frank so here's a few yes/no question for you:
> > 1- Were all those UN resolutions demanding Hussein account for the
materials
> > passed solely to satisfy someone's idle curiousity, i.e., did the UN
believe
> > they had evidence that he possessed such materials?
> > 2- Did Hussein comply with the terms of any of those resolutions?
> > 3- Were the UN weapons inspectors ever given complete and unfettered
access?

> 4-Which one of the above constitutes a mandate to unilaterally engage
> in miltary operations, in direct contravention of the governing body
> mentioned above?
> --
> Jonesy

I believe that the reasons given for the recent military operations are the
facts that the first Gulf War was never ended. That is, it would have been
ended if Saddam had complied with the requirements, but he didn't.
Therefore, this second war is merely a continuation of the first, and, as
such, not in direct contravention of anything.

Pat in TX

 

[Frank Krygowski]

gwhite wrote:
>
>
>> I follow you. Taxes are to be blindly paid because you are morally
> superior to evil rich folks.

Hmmm. I don't see where I said that. Such a transparent straw man
argument isn't likely to fool anyone with any intelligence.

>> [fk:] Personally, I think that avarice is not moral. But that's just the
>> opinion of me and several million religious leaders down through the
>> ages. Pay us no mind.
>
>
> Wow. You sure do keep track of a lot of religious leaders. And no, I
> don't listen to someone because they are religious, I listen as long as
> someone makes sense, which you do not.

Well, why not be blunt about your opinion? Just tell us: do you think
avarice _is_ moral? Don't be shy!


>
>>> I have no idea of what "spending in any reasonable way" is.
>>
>>
>> Let me give you some extreme counter-examples. Read up on the
>> personal fortune and spending of Bill Gates. Or, if you prefer
>> history, Louis XIV of France. That level of personal luxury is not
>> "spending in a reasonable way." How much palace does one person (or
>> small family) really need?
>>
>> There are, and have been, very rich people who lived rather modestly
>> and donated much to help others. There are more very rich people who
>> live quite ostentatiously. I tend to admire the former.
>
> The question isn't who is admired, or how moral one is regarding
> individual wealth (as the judgement goes).

For me, those are parts of "the question." Clearly, you care much more
about other things - primarily, money in your pocket.

> On the
> balance, it is better to have a few filthy rich folks -- moral or not --
> than to head down the road to serfdom: socialism.

I doubt there is any country on earth that does not "have a few filthy
rich folks." So your fearsome armageddon of socialism ("Horrors! We
won't have the rich!!") seems pretty unlikely.

> You are cracked.

Gosh! I hadn't heard such a witty rebuke since grade 9!


>> [fk:] Fine. But I don't think my kids and grandkids should be
>> facing federal debt to help pay for Gates' mansion.
>
> Give me a ****ing break...

.... but I hear obscenity enough from other low lifes. No need to spew
more.

> You could confiscate all his wealth and not
> put a dent in the debt. And by the way, it isn't your kids and
> grandkids money that is paying for the mansion, it is his money.
> Preposterous!

To spell it out more slowly for you:

Bush's tax cuts went predominanly to Gates and other super-rich. Partly
as a result of those tax cuts, the federal deficity soared. It will
have to be repaid.

In other words, part of the money Gates lavished on his self-cleaning
bathrooms will ultimately be paid to the government by us, and by our kids.

>> [fk:] [You seem] to say that paying taxes ranks
>> close to murder.
>
> It causes a concentration of power.

Then you really _do_ believe paying (at least certain) taxes is nearly
as bad as murder??

> I'm not saying there are no
> justifiable taxes, there are. My point is that one tactically avoids
> concentration of power as much as possible.

That's libertarian nonsense. There will _always_ be concentration of
power. Absent government intervention, power will become concentrated
in those most inclined to violence, and those with the largest amounts
of money. In a short time, those two groups will become one, and will
exercise absolute power. Think of organized crime, for example - and
think of the Mafia running the country.

One main purpose of representative government is to prevent such
dominance by a few. It's not perfect, of course, but I think most
people would rather have a reasonable tax burden used to support, say,
the police and the FBI, rather than turning the country over to the
likes of Al Capone.

>>>> I'm aware, though, that we've had school levies defeated by the
>>>> people living in the McMansions out in what were recently
>>>> cornfields. They have enough money to buy those places (I don't)
>>>> but they don't want to give any of their money to the community.
>>>
>>>
>>> They are giving money to the community by virtue of them simply being
>>> there
>>
>>
>> Absolutely false.
>
>
> You are off your rocker. You believe they somehow escape property
> taxes, income taxes, sales taxes,... etcetera? LOL.

There have been several studies that have shown that expansionist
developments like the ones I described are a net drain on a community
budget. The extension of infrastructure, the increased road
maintenance, the generation of the need for new or larger school
buildings, the need for more safety forces and law enforcement
personnel, all make these things money losers. Simultaneously, they
lower the desirability of housing in most American city centers, and
thereby produce negative effects in those older neighborhoods and inner
suburbs.

So, in effect, they pay some taxes, but they don't pay their way. And
again, they've refused to help with even local school levies on several
occasions.


> Your confiscatory statements can be characterized classic socialist.

It seems clear to me that this is a question of perspective. The last
time I took a survey on my economic views, I placed quite close to the
nation's center. Doubtlessly, you would place at the extreme
libertarian edge. From your viewpoint, Attila the Hun would probably
look like a socialist!

You've found a simple ideology that you can totally embrace. In a way,
that's enviable. It's going to save you lots of headaches - the kind
that come from hard thinking.

So I won't try to convert you to any rational position. It would be a
waste of time, and perhaps a little cruel. You know, similar to
throwing a non-swimmer into deep water.

Any future responses will actually be written for the amusement of other
readers, if any. And I'll try to keep those to a minimum.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

 

[Eric S. Sande]

>Look at the quality of the Al Qaeda terrorists and tell me you think
>any of them could brew up a viable batch of sarin.

Uh, Al Quaeda terrorists are the cream of the crop. They're well
led, well organized, and when they do attack it is well planned and
executed, for the most part.

They are patient and not to be underestimated. Look at the Madrid
bombing for an example. I pick that one because one of today's
notable events was that the last Spanish troops left Iraq.

What an exquisitely evil operation, and it wasn't a suicide mission
for Al Qaeda, granted some of them died later but it wasn't some
Hammas bombing. It was well timed for the Spanish election and it
paid off to the tune of neutralizing a coalition country and vanishing
1400 troops off the battlefield.

As well as killing approximately 200 people and wounding over a
thousand. This at the cost of about 20 terrorists dead or in
custody, roughly.

I mean, if you are going to have to have terrorists as enemies,
you don't want no stinkin' second raters.

Don't make the mistake of confusing the farm team with the pros,
is my advice.

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________
------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------
__________306.350.357.38>>[email protected]__________

 

[S o r n i]

Eric S. Sande wrote:
>> Look at the quality of the Al Qaeda terrorists and tell me you think
>> any of them could brew up a viable batch of sarin.
>
> Uh, Al Quaeda terrorists are the cream of the crop. They're well
> led, well organized, and when they do attack it is well planned and
> executed, for the most part.
>
> They are patient and not to be underestimated. Look at the Madrid
> bombing for an example. I pick that one because one of today's
> notable events was that the last Spanish troops left Iraq.
>
> What an exquisitely evil operation, and it wasn't a suicide mission
> for Al Qaeda, granted some of them died later but it wasn't some
> Hammas bombing. It was well timed for the Spanish election and it
> paid off to the tune of neutralizing a coalition country and vanishing
> 1400 troops off the battlefield.
>
> As well as killing approximately 200 people and wounding over a
> thousand. This at the cost of about 20 terrorists dead or in
> custody, roughly.
>
> I mean, if you are going to have to have terrorists as enemies,
> you don't want no stinkin' second raters.
>
> Don't make the mistake of confusing the farm team with the pros,
> is my advice.

First of all, Mark Hickey wrote the comment to which you replied, even
though you posted under Hunrobe (but attributed no one).

Second of all, I'm pretty sure Mark's point was that Al Qaeda is indeed
quite capable.

Bill "other than that, well put" S.

 

[Tim McNamara]

gwhite <gwhite@hocuspocus_ti.com> writes:

> The question isn't who is admired, or how moral one is regarding
> individual wealth (as the judgement goes). The question is about
> designing a political system (laws and rights) with the least amount
> of defects and is best in terms of tradeoffs. Only a fool claims
> perfection. The question is regarding the total balance. On the
> balance, it is better to have a few filthy rich folks -- moral or
> not -- than to head down the road to serfdom: socialism.

Is it better to be the serf of Bill gates than the serf of a socialist
government? Unfreedom is unfreedom, no matter who is holding the
rains. Unfortunately, binary thinkers like yourself seem incapable of
seeing anything between libertarianism and socialism. Grow up and get
a politcal philosophy that works.

 

[Tim McNamara]

Tim McNamara <[email protected]> writes:

> gwhite <gwhite@hocuspocus_ti.com> writes:
>
>> The question isn't who is admired, or how moral one is regarding
>> individual wealth (as the judgement goes). The question is about
>> designing a political system (laws and rights) with the least amount
>> of defects and is best in terms of tradeoffs. Only a fool claims
>> perfection. The question is regarding the total balance. On the
>> balance, it is better to have a few filthy rich folks -- moral or
>> not -- than to head down the road to serfdom: socialism.
>
> Is it better to be the serf of Bill gates than the serf of a socialist
> government? Unfreedom is unfreedom, no matter who is holding the
> rains. Unfortunately, binary thinkers like yourself seem incapable of
> seeing anything between libertarianism and socialism. Grow up and get
> a politcal philosophy that works.

I apologize for my poor proofreading of this before I posted it.
Sheesh, how embarrassing.

 

[Mark Hickey]

Keith Willoughby <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>> Keith Willoughby <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>He didn't write a book - Ron Suskind did.
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>> Again, you choose to believe a guy who is obviously upset at being
>>>> fired by GWB, and who made a lot of money writing a sensational book.
>>>
>>>If you're going to argue, at least get your facts right.
>>
>> It's a giant conspiracy. Why, I KNOW at least 70% of the people in
>> the US THINK he wrote that book. He must have said he did. I can't
>> find the quote, but it's because it was all a carefully crafted
>> deception.
>
>It's OK to admit you were wrong sometimes, you know.

You mean, like admit maybe O'Neill never actually said he wrote the
book, even though somehow 70% (or more) of the US population somehow
believe he did?

You go first....

LOL.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame