Leblanc Sends Warning to Demonstrators

[Clovis Lark]

Carl Sundquist <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Clovis Lark" <[email protected]> wrote in message

>> I feel comforted knowing I learned from Martha Stewart how make my very own private ambulance
>> with a quaint and quite loud handcranked siren

> Wouldn't that be more up Graeme Obree's alley?

Ya Crrrafty bahstaarddd!

 

[Clovis Lark]

David Ryan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Clovis Lark wrote:
>>
>> David Ryan <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "David Ryan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> >> > > >> >>
>> >> > > >> >> The Statue of Liberty was a gift from France.
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> > Your point?
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> Your brilliant coverage of the origins of all these monuments was
>> >> lacking
>> >> > > >> this detail. I was sure you'd wish it included so as to show how no
>> >> tax
>> >> > > >> dollars were used.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > The statue was paid for in France by a private lottery that raised $400,000. Sorry for
>> >> > > > the omission.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > In part. But keep the details coming!
>> >> >
>> >> > Why don't you enlighten the world.
>> >>
>> >> There are no tax dollars spent in maintaining the Statue of Liberty, correct?
>> >>
>> >> K. Gringioni anti-tax fighter
>>
>> > You keep coming back around to exactly the problem, don't you
>>
>> Well, you got those big ugly monuments are over the land, those useless old cemetaries, those
>> opry houses, already paid for. Now who's going to maintain them?

> The people who pay to use them. There is an economic sense to it. If they were not build to be
> used, they wouldn't need to be maintained. At least a sensible monument that is not build to be
> used would have an endowment or the ability to elicit donations for its upkeep. If it faced that
> much apathy, what difference would it make if it crumbled?

OK, who wants to pay 2,500 to visit Liberty? Anyone for paying $1000 to visit Arlington? How
about Yellowstone? they're still diggin' out from under those fires from '88, say 10,000 clams a
pop? Waddaya say, dude? Oh, don't like it? OK, we'll pave it. Oops, we need cash to pave. You
got 100,000$?

 

[Clovis Lark]

David Ryan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thach H Nguyen wrote:
>>
>> "David Ryan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> > > HOw about building the road in the first place, eh?
>> >
>> > I have several mountain bikes. What would I have needed a road for? (And I hardly go anywhere
>> > anymore.)
>>
>> 'Dude', the first thing to do to get out of a hole is stop digging.

> "Dude", I have answered every question put to me.

As you must have in grade school. As before, your answers are wrong and you flunk!

 

[Clovis Lark]

David Ryan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Clovis Lark wrote:
>>
>> David Ryan <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > Clovis Lark wrote:
>> >>
>> >> David Ryan <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> > Clovis Lark wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> David Ryan <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> > Clovis Lark wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> David Ryan <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > Clovis Lark wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> David Ryan <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> > Clovis Lark wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> S. Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> > "Lindsay" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >> >> > news:[email protected]...
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Tour Director Sends Warning to Demonstrators
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> NARBONNE, France (Reuters) - Tour de France director Jean-Marie Leblanc on
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Wednesday warned demonstrators against disrupting the race.
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > <<snip..>>
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> "If on the other hand people attack riders or try to stop the peloton, then we
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> cannot guarantee anything. Security services will do their job and you know
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> what I mean," he said.
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > <<snip..>>
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > Heehee..wonder what he means by this?? Does anybody know if these artists are
>> >> >> >> >> >> > employed by the government? What do they do exactly?
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > Seriously curious,
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Since you are: These are seasonal artists who are employed contractually to short
>> >> >> >> >> >> term projects (festivals, specific tours, etc.) by those organizations. When not
>> >> >> >> >> >> so employed, they are out of work. They have been able to collect unemployment
>> >> >> >> >> >> compensation in the past when these opportunities were not available that allowed
>> >> >> >> >> >> them to continue focusing and refining their abilities as artists with the hope of
>> >> >> >> >> >> mainstream employment. For this reason, french aspiring artists with the technical
>> >> >> >> >> >> credentials have been able to keep table waiting and temporary office work to a
>> >> >> >> >> >> minimum. Chirac want s to curtail this. As a result the major french festivals of
>> >> >> >> >> >> Avignon, Aix, etc are closed. Businesses are hurting and support for these
>> >> >> >> >> >> festivals' futures are in doubt. For the communities who rely on this cultural
>> >> >> >> >> >> tourism, this is a nightmare. Understandably, there is a great deal of worry and
>> >> >> >> >> >> concern.
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > Scott..
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> > IOW, they can't deal with real life and want somebody else to pay their upkeep.
>> >> >> >> >> > When those other people decide they aren't worth it and keep their money, they
>> >> >> >> >> > decide to demand they're owed a living.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Try and secure a better argument. When was the last time you supported a cultural
>> >> >> >> >> institution?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > It's a great argument if you haven't been dulled your whole life by socialist
>> >> >> >> > propaganda.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Well folks, I guess that answers that question, doesn't it.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > I support what I like and what interests me with my patronage.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> When the government withdraws funding, institutions raise tickets prices to attempt to
>> >> >> >> cover the deficit. Prices reach the stratosphere and there goes the general public's
>> >> >> >> ability to attend.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > That's EXACTLY the problem - not enough general public attending.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> General public attendance is the highest it's ever been. You need to read up on this before
>> >> >> jumping in.
>> >>
>> >> > I think we are talking about two different general publics. The general public that doesn't
>> >> > go is the highest it's ever been too. But if you're right, why can't they pay for it?
>> >>
>> >> Because the demographics involved go way beyond your wine cheese brigades. It is like the
>> >> cancer institute that Lance availed himself of. He couldn't pay for that either.
>>
>> > Actually he paid far more than his share.
>>
>> Actually, what he paid was a fraction of the cost of the care. The rest came out of taxpayer
>> pockets. We aren't talking about his share. I bet Lance would tell you he isn't even close to
>> paying his share for being given a second chance at life. The cancer rides and benefits he signs
>> onto show that clearly. But you can ask him if he thinks he paid too much. According to your
>> logic, they should have withheld treatment until they saw what they could get him to pay, you
>> know, test the market...

> What do you think his care cost?

Including reaseach, construction and prior treatments that resulted in the approach? Best ask the
head of the institution. I hope you take a sedative before you hear the price. I have friends long
in this and what they'd tell you would make you blanch. Some of us who have been around for quite a
while know what these things cost.

>> >> >> > The general public fills arenas at any price if they're interested.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Not true.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > You want the general public that doesn't go to pay for those that do.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Nope, I expect we all pay into the common coffer for education and arts and utilize it
>> >> >> where we wish. This type of subsidy is far more efficiant and costsaving than the
>> >> >> alternative.
>> >>
>> >> > Cost saving is not the issue. Cost distribution is. Those who are not interested couldn't
>> >> > care less what it costs those who do care and don't want it to cost anything.
>> >>
>> >> Shall we return to the roads and highway system?
>> >>
>> >> >> > And the bias is that the less well off pay for the pleasures of the wine and cheese
>> >> >> > crowd.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Since they do not share the same tax burden, your remark is in error.
>> >>
>> >> > They go even less than their tax share. Your remark is non-sequitur.
>> >>
>> >> Wrong, in fact, the filthy rich often make huge contributions (they get a tax break, cushy
>> >> special seats). The rest pay as they are able to afford and go accordingly. You ought get out
>> >> and see who is going to these things. I don't see any evidence that you have a clue who goes
>> >> to concerts, theater, ballet, etc.
>>
>> > "The rest"? Most of "the rest" never go.
>>
>> Oh, perhaps my clarity if failing me: the rest who attend. Is that better?

> Juft a bit

Bless you...

> That's exactly my point. They are not the ones paying the cost. If we're talking in one case of a
> 10% subsidy, they can easily pay. Where it is 90%, the whole thing is pointless.

Your numbers are irrelevant. they do not reflect the actual revenues and costs. PLease go back and
get some real numbers. You're beginning to sound like a malcontent who's never happy but has never
investigated.

>> You really should stop digging if you want to get out of that hole.
>>
>> >> >> >> > I expect others will voluntarily do the same.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> The the Bushies won't do what you ask.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > I object to money being taken at gunpoint for others' pet projects and so-called
>> >> >> >> > culture. If people don't care enough to voluntarily support it, it isn't really their
>> >> >> >> > culture, now is it?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Certainly not, in your case.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> > The parasites should all starve and die (or get a job) and everyone else will be
>> >> >> >> >> > better off. Good grief, the depths they've sunk to and the lousy attitude that's
>> >> >> >> >> > been engendered by years of socialism and the sense of entitlement simply because
>> >> >> >> >> > they exist.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> How old are you?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > Looking for the ad hominem are we? What is your IQ?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> 5. Now try and top that, if you can...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > Sorry if that's the best you can do.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> At least I bought my bikes.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > blah blah blah
>> >> >>
>> >> >> giggle, looks like you didn't quite make it to 5. But thanks for playing...

 

[Clovis Lark]

David Ryan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Clovis Lark wrote:
>>
>> David Ryan <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > Clovis Lark wrote:
>> >>
>> >> David Ryan <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> > Clovis Lark wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> David Ryan <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> > Tom Paterson wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >From: David Ryan
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >When those other people decide they aren't worth it and keep their money, they decide
>> >> >> >> >to demand they're owed a living. The parasites should all starve and die (or get a job)
>> >> >> >> >and everyone else will be better off. Good grief, the depths they've sunk to and the
>> >> >> >> >lousy attitude that's been engendered by years of socialism and the sense of
>> >> >> >> >entitlement simply because they exist.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> You seem to have missed the part about communities that rely on tourism suffering
>> >> >> >> economically at the loss of these seasonal workers. IOW, "everyone" was not better off.
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> > Everyone, including all the taxpayers across the country paying the subsidies, will be
>> >> >> > better off with a market equilibrium.
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Then why is the right so concerned when cultural institutions sudden scream in fiscal
>> >> >> desperation?
>> >>
>> >> > What are you talking about?
>> >>
>> >> Because,when it comes to arts/culture there is no such thing as a market equilibrium. Perhaps
>> >> you should read up and get back to us. You might also find out that there is no market
>> >> equilibrium for bike racing here, either, or coverage of it.
>>
>> > Of course there is. It may be zero, but there certainly is.
>>
>> Well, why don't you tell us what it is. Better yet, email Henry Fogel of the American Symphony
>> Orchestra League and find out?
>>
>> >> >> >> So, construction workers who draw unemployment in the winter, are they parasites too? Or
>> >> >> >> is it just that "art" is bad?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Most construction projects do the indoor work in the winter.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Oh, like my friends who do roofing. Good to know. I'll inform them what lazy leeches they
>> >> >> are.
>> >>
>> >> > Show them how to drywall while you're at it. Hammer, nails, same basic principles. sheesh
>> >>
>> >> Why don't you just go up there, confront them and tell it to their faces. Once you've
>> >> convinced them, then march down and tell the dry wallers they are being replaced. After you've
>> >> done that, I've got some tree surgery for you to lend a hand in.
>>
>> > I don't have to do that. I just support cutting off the subsidy. When the subsidy is cut off,
>> > they will all go do drywall without any prompting from me. Miraculous how that works. Some
>> > might even do a little tree surgery for you.
>>
>> That's what I love, a glib answer based upon a book or some pixel. Real people, real employment
>> situations be damned.

> It's not glib. Perennial subsidies make the situation worse, like water piling up behind a dam.
> The subsidies entice additional excess. It eventually becomes insupportable. Then the dislocation
> is worse than if there had never been a subsidy. Meanwhile, it takes away from everybody where
> real demand exists.

> Now if you have any informed rebuttal...

I do, but since you've lumped humans into commodities, there is really no point in wasting energy.

I note you refused to email Fogel...

>> >> >> >> Or maybe that welfare (tax rebates and free stadiums for mega-wealthy sports franchise
>> >> >> >> owners) is only good for the rich?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Speaking of lousy attitudes and feelings of entitlement, where does "build me a facility
>> >> >> >> or I'll go elsewhere" fit in? "Socialism" works real well for those at the top, right,
>> >> >> >> David? How about these guys start operating in your "real world" and have to buy their
>> >> >> >> own playpens and pay taxes on them like the little guys do in their business
>> >> >> >> enterprises? --Tom Paterson
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > I agree totally, completely, emphatically with your last point. My vote and voice FWIW is
>> >> >> > always against that.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Unless maybe they want to build a velodrome ;-) (Which never happens, so I've never had
>> >> >> > to face that conflict.)

 

[Clovis Lark]

Carl Sundquist <[email protected]> wrote:

> "David Ryan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> Clovis Lark wrote:
>> >
>> > >> Because the demographics involved go way beyond your wine cheese
> brigades.
>> > >> It is like the cancer institute that Lance availed himself of. He couldn't pay for that
>> > >> either.
>> >
>> > > Actually he paid far more than his share.
>> >
>> > Actually, what he paid was a fraction of the cost of the care. The rest came out of taxpayer
>> > pockets. We aren't talking about his share. I bet Lance would tell you he isn't even close to
>> > paying his share for being given a second chance at life. The cancer rides and benefits he
>> > signs onto show that clearly. But you can ask him if he thinks he paid too much. According to
>> > your logic, they should have withheld treatment
> until
>> > they saw what they could get him to pay, you know, test the market...
>>
>> What do you think his care cost?
>>

> Clovis, do you have health insurance?

Yup, and there's aclause that in the case of catastrophic ill\ness, cancer and transplants are 2
listed, they bail. Next question? Oh, I see, you are claiming that voluntary health insurance
payments will build cancer centers. Sorreee, nope. You need big dough from parties interested in
building something beyond profits. You need folks who build med schools, but wait, there's more, you
need research departments where all they do is look at tissue cultures and lab animal, never get a
patient's dime, and then you need to make that leap through the FDA to get approval to do what you
need to do in that there hospital. You think insurance, and suckers' nickles pay for THAT?!

> What value do you put on the publicity that LANCE brought to the IU Med Center?

A great deal. I think, were you to ask him (I'm not speaking for him, but from what I've been told
about his personal moral fiber), he'd tell you, he is overly grateful, and will do whatever he can
for their benefit as long as he is able. If you disagree, feel free to ask him.

 

[G]

TritonRider <[email protected]> wrote:

> >From: "Edward Waffle" [email protected]
>
> >Almost indeed--but NOTHING is as bad as agricultural subsidies.
> >
>
> So you have no problem driving American farmers out and being dependent on third world countries
> for food. If we paid agricultural labour $0.50/hr and didn't give a **** what chemicals were
> used, or how young the workers were we wouldn't have subsidies either. Bill C

Not third world countries, but efficient producers like Australia and Canada. Australia went to war
in Iraq to get a free trade deal with the US (which is really about lowering US Agriculture
protection).

GK

 

[Carl Sundquist]

"Clovis Lark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Carl Sundquist <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Clovis Lark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>
> >> For bikers wondering about all of this and not realizing the impact, cancellation of these
> >> events is pretty much the same impact as when Celestial Seasonings and Coors pulled the rug out
> >> of the Red Zinger
stage
> >> race and Trump abandoned the later called Tour DUpont. Once the
sponsors
> >> fled (struck), the race was impossible to organize and international riders and teams quickly
> >> looked elsewhere for their events. As a
result,
> >> there are no international cycling events here of stature.
> >>
>
> > Trump was never in it for the long term. Billy Packer (sports announcer)
was
> > able to talk him into lending his name to the event to give it
credibility
> > and draw real sponsors like DuPont. AFAIK, he didn't pay anything to
have
> > the event named TdT.
>
> Doesn't change the point. It draws an exclamation point.

I think the point (related to the TdT and also the Red Zinger & Coors Classic) is that it was a
victim of the buildup to an Olympic Games on 'home soil'. It is also related to the fact that it had
an identity problem: it was named for a sponsor rather than a geographic location. If you lose you
main sponsor, you lose a large part of your identity. Kind of confusing to non rabid fans,
especially when the route changes year to year.

 

[Kurgan Gringion]

"David Ryan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> >
> > "David Ryan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > > >
> > > > When the government withdraws funding, institutions raise tickets
prices
> > > > to attempt to cover the deficit. Prices reach the stratosphere and
> > there
> > > > goes the general public's ability to attend.
> > >
> > > That's EXACTLY the problem - not enough general public attending. The general public fills
> > > arenas at any price if they're interested.
> >
> > No they don't. Otherwise arenas/stadia wouldn't need public
subsidization.
>
> They don't. I don't mean that the new stadia with the boxes and perks. They do. Stadia for the
> public like the old ones don't and didn't. Gold-plated stuff will need subsidies. But why should
> those who don't use it pay for the gold plating for those that do? They shouldn't.

I agree that stadia for privately owned franchises should not be publicly subsidized.

Problem is, our fellow citizens do not.

 

[Kurgan Gringion]

"David Ryan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

> >
> > I am as against the public subsidization of stadia as you are, but you
are
> > mistaken in blaming that phenomenon on the wine and cheese crowd. In
order
> > to avoid litigation, municipalities usually have referendums on stadium funding. Those pass
> > based upon the ignorance of Joe Six Pack.
>
> We're getting close to agreement. But it's the wine and cheese crowd that push for new
> "state-of-the-art" stadia, i.e. ones with the boxes that cater to them, in the first place. And
> then they go looking for somebody else to pay for it.

Actually, no, it's the owners that push for that, because they can charge a lot of $$$ from the
corporate crowd. It's a large revenue stream for the owners at the expense of the taxpayer. All the
wine and cheese crowd is are consumers of the luxury boxes - they aren't going to waste political
capital on that. The owner, OTOH, will since they benefit by making millions of $$$ from the
ignorance of Joe Six Pack.

 

[Carl Sundquist]

"Clovis Lark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > What value do you put on the publicity that LANCE brought to the IU Med Center?
>
> A great deal. I think, were you to ask him (I'm not speaking for him, but from what I've been told
> about his personal moral fiber), he'd tell you, he is overly grateful, and will do whatever he can
> for their benefit as long as he is able. If you disagree, feel free to ask him.
>

I don't disagree. My point was that the Med School received quite a bit of notoriety from LANCE's
treatment which benefited them in numerous ways, I'm sure. Although LANCE is very unique in this
circumstance, his 'contribution' to them was considerable and mutually quite benefiting.

 

[Kurgan Gringion]

"David Ryan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Carl Sundquist wrote:
> >
> > "David Ryan" <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > I promise that I would gladly fill any pothole that I made. Since I never drove a car, that
> > > would be very few.
> >
> > Perhaps not, but you use products and services that do use the roadways,
so
> > indirectly you did (and still do) contribute to roadway construction and deterioration.
>
> Y'all really want to strain at this roadway thing. Even if I granted that public highways are the
> best way to build and maintain thoroughfares, it has nothing to do with what most of this
> discussion was about, which is direct subsidies to individuals like the french artists in
> question.

and Halliburton. Same thing.

 

[Kurgan Gringion]

"David Ryan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> The people who pay to use them. There is an economic sense to it. If they were not build to be
> used, they wouldn't need to be maintained. At least a sensible monument that is not build to be
> used would have an endowment or the ability to elicit donations for its upkeep. If it faced that
> much apathy, what difference would it make if it
crumbled?

People would still go to see Yellowstone, The Grand Canyon, The Statue of Liberty, The Smithsonian,
The Library of Congress.

Problem with turning those into commercial enterprises is that morphing them into a moneymaking
enterprise would turn them into Disneyland. The vast majority of our fellow citizens would not want
to see that happen and they will stay in government hands, maintained by the taxpayers, for that
very reason.

 

[Clovis Lark]

Carl Sundquist <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Clovis Lark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> > What value do you put on the publicity that LANCE brought to the IU Med Center?
>>
>> A great deal. I think, were you to ask him (I'm not speaking for him, but from what I've been
>> told about his personal moral fiber), he'd tell you, he is overly grateful, and will do whatever
>> he can for their benefit as long as he is able. If you disagree, feel free to ask him.
>>

> I don't disagree. My point was that the Med School received quite a bit of notoriety from LANCE's
> treatment which benefited them in numerous ways, I'm sure. Although LANCE is very unique in this
> circumstance, his 'contribution' to them was considerable and mutually quite benefiting.

But that wasn't the point. The point was that his actual bill was less than the aggregate total cost
of bringing that cure to him.

 

[David Ryan]

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>
> "David Ryan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > Carl Sundquist wrote:
> > >
> > > "David Ryan" <[email protected]>
> > > >
> > > > I promise that I would gladly fill any pothole that I made. Since I never drove a car, that
> > > > would be very few.
> > >
> > > Perhaps not, but you use products and services that do use the roadways,
> so
> > > indirectly you did (and still do) contribute to roadway construction and deterioration.
> >
> > Y'all really want to strain at this roadway thing. Even if I granted that public highways are
> > the best way to build and maintain thoroughfares, it has nothing to do with what most of this
> > discussion was about, which is direct subsidies to individuals like the french artists in
> > question.
>
> and Halliburton. Same thing.

And Con Agra etc. Agreed.

 

[David Ryan]

Clovis Lark wrote:
>
> David Ryan <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Clovis Lark wrote:
> >>
> >> David Ryan <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> "David Ryan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> >> > > >> >>
> >> >> > > >> >> The Statue of Liberty was a gift from France.
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> > Your point?
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> Your brilliant coverage of the origins of all these monuments was
> >> >> lacking
> >> >> > > >> this detail. I was sure you'd wish it included so as to show how no
> >> >> tax
> >> >> > > >> dollars were used.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > The statue was paid for in France by a private lottery that raised $400,000. Sorry for
> >> >> > > > the omission.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > In part. But keep the details coming!
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Why don't you enlighten the world.
> >> >>
> >> >> There are no tax dollars spent in maintaining the Statue of Liberty, correct?
> >> >>
> >> >> K. Gringioni anti-tax fighter
> >>
> >> > You keep coming back around to exactly the problem, don't you
> >>
> >> Well, you got those big ugly monuments are over the land, those useless old cemetaries, those
> >> opry houses, already paid for. Now who's going to maintain them?
>
> > The people who pay to use them. There is an economic sense to it. If they were not build to be
> > used, they wouldn't need to be maintained. At least a sensible monument that is not build to be
> > used would have an endowment or the ability to elicit donations for its upkeep. If it faced that
> > much apathy, what difference would it make if it crumbled?
>
> OK, who wants to pay 2,500 to visit Liberty? Anyone for paying $1000 to visit Arlington? How about
> Yellowstone? they're still diggin' out from under those fires from '88, say 10,000 clams a pop?
> Waddaya say, dude? Oh, don't like it? OK, we'll pave it. Oops, we need cash to pave. You got
> 100,000$?

Pulling numbers out your ass. Millions visit those places. If they didn't, there'd be no point
to paving.

I saw the burnt areas of Yellowstone in '94. They had built a few walkways with some signage for
observation points in the burn area. It may surprise you, but forest fires are natural and have been
happening for eons. The trees grow back on their own.

 

[David Ryan]

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>
> "David Ryan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> > The people who pay to use them. There is an economic sense to it. If they were not build to be
> > used, they wouldn't need to be maintained. At least a sensible monument that is not build to be
> > used would have an endowment or the ability to elicit donations for its upkeep. If it faced that
> > much apathy, what difference would it make if it
> crumbled?
>
> People would still go to see Yellowstone, The Grand Canyon, The Statue of Liberty, The
> Smithsonian, The Library of Congress.
>
> Problem with turning those into commercial enterprises is that morphing them into a moneymaking
> enterprise would turn them into Disneyland. The vast majority of our fellow citizens would not
> want to see that happen and they will stay in government hands, maintained by the taxpayers, for
> that very reason.

I'd like to see that put up for a vote.

 

[Clovis Lark]

David Ryan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Clovis Lark wrote:
>>
>> David Ryan <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > Clovis Lark wrote:
>> >>
>> >> David Ryan <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> > Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "David Ryan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:[email protected]...
>> >> >> > > >> >>
>> >> >> > > >> >> The Statue of Liberty was a gift from France.
>> >> >> > > >>
>> >> >> > > >> > Your point?
>> >> >> > > >>
>> >> >> > > >> Your brilliant coverage of the origins of all these monuments was
>> >> >> lacking
>> >> >> > > >> this detail. I was sure you'd wish it included so as to show how no
>> >> >> tax
>> >> >> > > >> dollars were used.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > > The statue was paid for in France by a private lottery that raised $400,000. Sorry
>> >> >> > > > for the omission.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > In part. But keep the details coming!
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Why don't you enlighten the world.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> There are no tax dollars spent in maintaining the Statue of Liberty, correct?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> K. Gringioni anti-tax fighter
>> >>
>> >> > You keep coming back around to exactly the problem, don't you
>> >>
>> >> Well, you got those big ugly monuments are over the land, those useless old cemetaries, those
>> >> opry houses, already paid for. Now who's going to maintain them?
>>
>> > The people who pay to use them. There is an economic sense to it. If they were not build to be
>> > used, they wouldn't need to be maintained. At least a sensible monument that is not build to be
>> > used would have an endowment or the ability to elicit donations for its upkeep. If it faced
>> > that much apathy, what difference would it make if it crumbled?
>>
>> OK, who wants to pay 2,500 to visit Liberty? Anyone for paying $1000 to visit Arlington? How
>> about Yellowstone? they're still diggin' out from under those fires from '88, say 10,000 clams a
>> pop? Waddaya say, dude? Oh, don't like it? OK, we'll pave it. Oops, we need cash to pave. You got
>> 100,000$?

> Pulling numbers out your ass. Millions visit those places. If they didn't, there'd be no point
> to paving.

> I saw the burnt areas of Yellowstone in '94. They had built a few walkways with some signage for
> observation points in the burn area. It may surprise you, but forest fires are natural and have
> been happening for eons. The trees grow back on their own.

I know that. I'm in favor of letting them burn to keep forests healthy. However, as before, you
completely missed the point.

 

[Carl Sundquist]

> I don't disagree. My point was that the Med School received quite a bit of notoriety from LANCE's
> treatment which benefited them in numerous ways, I'm sure. Although LANCE is very unique in this
> circumstance, his 'contribution' to them was considerable and mutually quite benefiting.

>But that wasn't the point. The point was that his actual bill was >less than the aggregate total cost
>of bringing that cure to him.

It is like the cancer institute that Lance availed himself of. He couldn't pay for that
> > >> either.
> >
> > > Actually he paid far more than his share.
> >
> > Actually, what he paid was a fraction of the cost of the care. The rest came out of taxpayer
> > pockets. We aren't talking about his share. I bet Lance would tell you he isn't even close to
> > paying his share for being given a second chance at life. The cancer rides and benefits he signs
> > onto show that clearly. But you can ask him if he thinks he paid too much. According to your
> > logic, they should have withheld treatment
until
> > they saw what they could get him to pay, you know, test the market...


How much of LANCE’s direct care was borne by the taxpayers vs. his care in a private hospital?

How do you determine individual cost of care in a system that is built to provide for the general population, not a single individual?

 

[David Ryan]

Clovis Lark wrote:
>
> David Ryan <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Clovis Lark wrote:
> >>
> >> David Ryan <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > Clovis Lark wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> David Ryan <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> > Clovis Lark wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> David Ryan <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >> > Clovis Lark wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> David Ryan <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > Clovis Lark wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> David Ryan <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> > Clovis Lark wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> S. Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > "Lindsay" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > news:[email protected]...
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Tour Director Sends Warning to Demonstrators
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> NARBONNE, France (Reuters) - Tour de France director Jean-Marie Leblanc on
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Wednesday warned demonstrators against disrupting the race.
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > <<snip..>>
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "If on the other hand people attack riders or try to stop the peloton, then
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> we cannot guarantee anything. Security services will do their job and you
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> know what I mean," he said.
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > <<snip..>>
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Heehee..wonder what he means by this?? Does anybody know if these artists are
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > employed by the government? What do they do exactly?
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Seriously curious,
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Since you are: These are seasonal artists who are employed contractually to
> >> >> >> >> >> >> short term projects (festivals, specific tours, etc.) by those organizations.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> When not so employed, they are out of work. They have been able to collect
> >> >> >> >> >> >> unemployment compensation in the past when these opportunities were not
> >> >> >> >> >> >> available that allowed them to continue focusing and refining their abilities as
> >> >> >> >> >> >> artists with the hope of mainstream employment. For this reason, french aspiring
> >> >> >> >> >> >> artists with the technical credentials have been able to keep table waiting and
> >> >> >> >> >> >> temporary office work to a minimum. Chirac want s to curtail this. As a result
> >> >> >> >> >> >> the major french festivals of Avignon, Aix, etc are closed. Businesses are
> >> >> >> >> >> >> hurting and support for these festivals' futures are in doubt. For the
> >> >> >> >> >> >> communities who rely on this cultural tourism, this is a nightmare.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Understandably, there is a great deal of worry and concern.
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Scott..
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> > IOW, they can't deal with real life and want somebody else to pay their upkeep.
> >> >> >> >> >> > When those other people decide they aren't worth it and keep their money, they
> >> >> >> >> >> > decide to demand they're owed a living.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Try and secure a better argument. When was the last time you supported a cultural
> >> >> >> >> >> institution?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > It's a great argument if you haven't been dulled your whole life by socialist
> >> >> >> >> > propaganda.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Well folks, I guess that answers that question, doesn't it.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > I support what I like and what interests me with my patronage.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> When the government withdraws funding, institutions raise tickets prices to attempt to
> >> >> >> >> cover the deficit. Prices reach the stratosphere and there goes the general public's
> >> >> >> >> ability to attend.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > That's EXACTLY the problem - not enough general public attending.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> General public attendance is the highest it's ever been. You need to read up on this
> >> >> >> before jumping in.
> >> >>
> >> >> > I think we are talking about two different general publics. The general public that
> >> >> > doesn't go is the highest it's ever been too. But if you're right, why can't they pay for
> >> >> > it?
> >> >>
> >> >> Because the demographics involved go way beyond your wine cheese brigades. It is like the
> >> >> cancer institute that Lance availed himself of. He couldn't pay for that either.
> >>
> >> > Actually he paid far more than his share.
> >>
> >> Actually, what he paid was a fraction of the cost of the care. The rest came out of taxpayer
> >> pockets. We aren't talking about his share. I bet Lance would tell you he isn't even close to
> >> paying his share for being given a second chance at life. The cancer rides and benefits he
> >> signs onto show that clearly. But you can ask him if he thinks he paid too much. According to
> >> your logic, they should have withheld treatment until they saw what they could get him to pay,
> >> you know, test the market...
>
> > What do you think his care cost?
>
> Including reaseach, construction and prior treatments that resulted in the approach? Best ask the
> head of the institution. I hope you take a sedative before you hear the price. I have friends long
> in this and what they'd tell you would make you blanch. Some of us who have been around for quite
> a while know what these things cost.
>
> >> >> >> > The general public fills arenas at any price if they're interested.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Not true.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > You want the general public that doesn't go to pay for those that do.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Nope, I expect we all pay into the common coffer for education and arts and utilize it
> >> >> >> where we wish. This type of subsidy is far more efficiant and costsaving than the
> >> >> >> alternative.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Cost saving is not the issue. Cost distribution is. Those who are not interested couldn't
> >> >> > care less what it costs those who do care and don't want it to cost anything.
> >> >>
> >> >> Shall we return to the roads and highway system?
> >> >>
> >> >> >> > And the bias is that the less well off pay for the pleasures of the wine and cheese
> >> >> >> > crowd.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Since they do not share the same tax burden, your remark is in error.
> >> >>
> >> >> > They go even less than their tax share. Your remark is non-sequitur.
> >> >>
> >> >> Wrong, in fact, the filthy rich often make huge contributions (they get a tax break, cushy
> >> >> special seats). The rest pay as they are able to afford and go accordingly. You ought get
> >> >> out and see who is going to these things. I don't see any evidence that you have a clue who
> >> >> goes to concerts, theater, ballet, etc.
> >>
> >> > "The rest"? Most of "the rest" never go.
> >>
> >> Oh, perhaps my clarity if failing me: the rest who attend. Is that better?
>
> > Juft a bit
>
> Bless you...
>
> > That's exactly my point. They are not the ones paying the cost. If we're talking in one case of
> > a 10% subsidy, they can easily pay. Where it is 90%, the whole thing is pointless.
>
> Your numbers are irrelevant. they do not reflect the actual revenues and costs. PLease go back and
> get some real numbers. You're beginning to sound like a malcontent who's never happy but has never
> investigated.

What part of "percent" (%) did you not understand?

> >> You really should stop digging if you want to get out of that hole.
> >>
> >> >> >> >> > I expect others will voluntarily do the same.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> The the Bushies won't do what you ask.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > I object to money being taken at gunpoint for others' pet projects and so-called
> >> >> >> >> > culture. If people don't care enough to voluntarily support it, it isn't really
> >> >> >> >> > their culture, now is it?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Certainly not, in your case.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> > The parasites should all starve and die (or get a job) and everyone else will be
> >> >> >> >> >> > better off. Good grief, the depths they've sunk to and the lousy attitude that's
> >> >> >> >> >> > been engendered by years of socialism and the sense of entitlement simply because
> >> >> >> >> >> > they exist.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> How old are you?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > Looking for the ad hominem are we? What is your IQ?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> 5. Now try and top that, if you can...
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > Sorry if that's the best you can do.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> At least I bought my bikes.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > blah blah blah
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> giggle, looks like you didn't quite make it to 5. But thanks for playing...