Linux-Advocacy Digest #592, Volume #28 Wed, 23 Aug 00 12:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (ZnU)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chad Irby)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (ZnU)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 15:30:52 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > ZnU wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > ZnU wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > > Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > > > ZnU
> > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The president doesn't create the budget, he only has
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > power to approve it in it's entirety or return it to
> > > > > > > > > > congress, now who has really been creating the budget
> > > > > > > > > > deficit for the past 20 years? And who in the past four
> > > > > > > > > > has managed to turn it (the deficit) around?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If the Republicans did all the work to balance the
> > > > > > > > > budget,
> > > > > > > > > why are they trying to damn hard to unbalance it?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Are you, ZnU, smoking large amounts of crack before writing
> > > > > > > > to USENET?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Are you really denying this? In just the last few months the
> > > > > > > Republicans have tried to pass two tax cuts that would
> > > > > > > eliminate or significantly reduce the surplus, and Bush wants
> > > > > > > to take things even farther.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And I suppose the Democrats are just going to let that surplus
> > > > > > sit there reducing the debt, rather than spending it on bigger
> > > > > > government health care and *ahem* Gore's own $500 billion in
> > > > > > proposed tax cuts?
> > > > >
> > > > > Gore has promised to pay off the debt. Bush has not. Of course,
> > > > > it's rather difficult to attack Bush on the issues, since he
> > > > > almost
> > > > > never talks about them....
> > > >
> > > > Paying off the debt is already IN the budget, you moron.
> > > >
> > > > ALL treasury bills have a maturity date. To cannot retire the debt
> > > > any sooner than the maturity dates on the T-bills. To retire the
> > > > debt, all that needs to be done is to refrain from rolling over the
> > > > bonds as they mature.
> > >
> > > How will this be possible after the Republicans have starved the
> > > government giving their tax breaks?
> >
> >
> > Tax breaks stimulate commerce, idiot!
>
> Ahh. Another proponent of trickle-down economics. Of course, some people
> see that for what it really is: a way for rich people to justify their
> exploitation of the system.
That's possibly true.
But, OTOH, perhaps you can explain why income disparity between the
"rich" and the "poor" is vastly worse today than it was under the Reagan
and Bush administrations?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 15:24:18 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>Nathaniel Jay Lee escribió:
>
>[snip]
>
>Allow me to do a little collage :-)
>
>> If I see someone ask for something that I think isn't the
>> 'proper direction' to take the system, I'm going to say
>> something. Obviously you (Roberto) thought that my
>> concerns were silly.
>
>I only got into the argument when it had already reached
>the "windows clone" phase, which indeed seemed silly
>to me, so I didn't see these, which I will be happy to
>address individually, because they are NOT silly:
>
>> My basic premise is that we can attract Windows users
>> without copying every feature of Windows (including the
>> bad ones), while the current 'popular' view seems to be to
>> try copying every feature.
>
>Popular among who? Basically among those who make no
>difference, because they are not writing the code.
>Look at who is actually doing the GUIs, and you will
>find noone saying "we must clone the bad pieces of
>windows".
>
>You will find Corel saying we should clone windows, maybe.
>Well, Corel's effort hampers the effort of the rest in
>what way?
>
>> The idea of converting /etc
>> into a registry like entry (and removing the ability for
>> individual users to change personal dot files),
>
>I must say i have never seen anyone advocate that, at least
>nobody who knows what he's talking about, so I'd rate it
>as "extremely unlikely to happen".
It isn't as 'extremely unlikely to happen' when we have a
lot of coders working for companies. As this is already
happening to some extent, and it will continue to happen,
there is a chance that 'management' in the said companies
will decide it is a good idea, contrary to what those that
have a clue as to what they are talking about. I think
this is where our original disagreement stemmed from. You
agree that the idea I've stated are silly (which was my
point) and you don't think it could happen because of how
silly it is. The problem I see with that is, we should at
least say they are silly ideas, so that those thinking it
isn't silly have a more informed position in the future
(and stating it here probably isn't going to matter over
all, but....).
>
>> the idea of fully integrating X (or any graphical display)
>> into the kernel,
>
>There is merit to the idea of a limited integration of
>an architecture to access the video into the kernel,
>like the current framebuffer stuff. All of X makes
>no sense, though, and I have seen noone in XFree
>say it should go into the kernel.
No one in XFree that I'm aware of has said it, but it is
where the original conversation started. There are those
that want 'full graphical integration' in the kernel. As
long as it is modularized and remains 'optional' I have no
problem with that. But as soon as it becomes
'standardized' and it isn't optional, then I do have a
problem with it. All I ask is that it never becomes
'standard'.
>
>> the idea of integrating NFS into the kernel (and I
>> have not been impressed with the stability of this),
>
>Was NFS userspace and is going kernelspace, or viceversa?
>Because what linux used to have really sucked.
I thought userspace NFS came first. I used the old
userspace version, and some of them were a joke, but
currently the userspace version are very stable, and very
usuable (performance wise). I've tried the kernelspace
versions, and thus far have had nothing but problems with
it. Anyway, as long as it is optional (and remains
optional) then I have no problem with it.
>
>> the idea of integrating http servers into the kernel,
>> basically fully integrating things in ways that negatively
>> impact either the overall performance, or the overall
>> stability of the system.
>
>a) TUX is completely optional
>b) TUX is a heck of a lot faster than anything else so
> far, so it hardly impacts performance negatively!
>
>As far as TUX impacts overall stability, I have no idea.
>However, I know that if you don't want to use TUX, you use
>Apache, or Roxen, or whatever, and you have now more
>choice than before, including the choice to have
>something much faster than before. I can't see anything
>bad about that.
TUX is extremely fast. TUX is also a security risk (that
I don't consider worthwhile. Again, as I said before, as
long as this remains 'optional' and does not become the
'standard' then I have no problem with it. I was
originally speaking out against those the ask for 'full
system integration' through kernelspace the way Windows
does things, expecting everything to be in kernelspace,
and leaving you no option of anything else. After all (as
they argue) this is what makes Windows 'so good'. I
realize that this position is usually taken by those that
are totally ignorant of good system design, and those that
don't code, but I also want them to understand why it
isn't good design practice. And that is where my original
statements came from.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 15:33:39 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> Recognizing that 'JS/PL' isn't a real person, I "spoke into the mike"
> >> for him, and am well within the bounds of reason for ridiculing his
> >> overly-dramatic concern.
> >
> >Oh yes.. I'm a real person. But I do realize murderers have trouble
> >recognizing humans to be different from objects.
>
> You're a pseudonym, 'JS/PL', and nothing more. From the information we
> have available, you are more likely to be a murderer than I.
That's possibly true.
But that doesn't support your position that he's not real. Unless you
believe he's a bot, then he's a real person.
You don't know _who_ he is, but that doesn't make him any less real.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating
Date: 23 Aug 2000 15:41:29 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Python is a very easy language to pick up. It resembles C++/Java, but
> has an incredibly versatile library available on every install (ie, no
> need to go out and get a regexp package, etc.)
It also has a concept of syntactically meaningful indenting that sucks
rocks. It's not as bad as perl's line-noise, but what is? (Except
for APL of course! :^)
More seriously, their libraries tend to be a little low-level for my
taste; low-level might be theoretically the most powerful technique,
but sometimes its nice to just cut to the chase and write down what
you really mean by an application without all the baby steps. It
shouldn't take as long as a week to develop a networked collaborative
graphical game, for example...
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- OK, there is the MFC, but it only makes the chaos object orientated.
-- Thomas Nellessen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 15:46:22 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joe
Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > ZnU wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > > > You're setting up strawmen again. I haven't said a word
> > > > > > > > about the timeframe to pay off the national debt.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Upon maturity of the outstanding Treasury bills, you
> > > > > > > idiot.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why do you keep repeating that when it has nothing to do
> > > > > > with anything I've said?
> > > > >
> > > > > It does---you're merely to ignorant to see the connection.
> > > >
> > > > It doesn't. Please explain how Bush intends to pay off the
> > > > national debt while deficit spending. You seem to be arguing
> > > > that he can. If you're not arguing that he can, then you're not
> > > > arguing with anything I've said.
> > >
> > > What makes you so sure he will be deficit spending? (At least,
> > > that his will be any worse than Gore's.) Yes, he is cutting more
> > > taxes than Gore, but he is also spending less than Gore on
> > > programs like health care.
> >
> > And spending more than Gore on things like (broken) missile
> > defense.
> >
> > The fact is, I don't _know_ he'll be deficit spending. He's so
> > vague on the issues that it's hard to tell anything at all. But
> > he'll either be deficit spending or he'll be cutting killing rather
> > important social programs, and neither is worth it just to give the
> > average american
>
> Important to whom?
>
> I think the important thing is that the government should take the
> minimum amount of money and use it wisely.
I doubt there's anyone who doesn't believe this.
> Let's take one of your important social programs--welfare. The number
> of people on the welfare rolls is down by about 75% over the past 5
> years. Yet the total dollars being spent has hardly declined at all.
What should we do with people who can't support themselves, Joe? Let
them starve in the streets so you can keep a bit more of your income? Is
that _really_ the kind of society you want to live in?
> The government is a black hole. They'll take as much money as they
> can get away with and never try to spend it wisely.
The money doesn't just vanish. Unless defense contractors get their
hands on it, of course.
> > family a $43/year tax break. And there's certainly no chance of him
> > paying down the debt.
>
> Actually, his plan does include some debt reduction.
Does it? What's your source for this information?
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 15:47:59 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
> A harmful monopoly in a *free market* is impossible.
Not true.
All that free market theory claims is that a monopoly wouldn't last
indefinitely--not that it can't occur.
------------------------------
From: Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 15:51:32 GMT
Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But, OTOH, perhaps you can explain why income disparity between the
> "rich" and the "poor" is vastly worse today than it was under the Reagan
> and Bush administrations?
Because it took several years of accumulated Reagan-era tax breaks for
those rich guys to get so rich?
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 15:51:56 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad
Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > No they are a private company holding a monopoly over their market.
> > > > They are a monopoly in the legal sense because if I decided to sell
> > > > power in their government granted market territory, I would be
> > > > legaly prosecuted, and sued out of business.
> > >
> > > Nope.
> > >
> > > That all changed a few years ago. Now, you can sell electrical power
> > > anywhere you want, and in many places, you can even force the power
> > > companies to let you use their lines for that purpose.
> >
> > Nope, just talked to an engineer at my local rural electric service a
> > month ago whos line (and service area) ends at the edge of my
> > property. They still cannot run a line to my house by law. I must pay
> > 12 cents per kw/hr instead of 4 cents because of it.
>
> Then you need to make some calls and get a real story from someone who
> knows about the law, since the guy you talked to is certainly behind the
> times.
Actually, he may not be. Utility deregulation hasn't been approved in
all states.
More to the point, though, is that he's misunderstanding utility
deregulation. Basically, it decouples the electricity generator from the
company that runs a line to your house. Deregulation means simply that
you can buy your electricity from multiple suppliers -- not that two or
more companies will run a wire to your house.
It's basically the same as the deregulation of long distance phone
service. You could choose your long distance provider, but not your
local provider.
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 15:56:31 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Larry
Brasfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Larry
> > Brasfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > > > Larry Brasfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I believe that any attempt at criminal conviction under the
> > > > > Sherman
> > > > > anti-trust act, applied to the so-called "Microsoft monopoly",
> > > > > would
> > > > > have to fail on constitutional grounds. Getting "monopoly" to
> > > > > refer
> > > > > to winner-takes-most situations is quite an achievement in
> > > > > stretching
> > > > > a vague concept, but it is still too vague to constitute fair
> > > > > notice
> > > > > of the sort that deflects constitutional challenges to vague laws
> > > > > used to deprive people of property or liberty.
> > > >
> > > > They weren't convicted in a criminal trial. They lost in a civil
> > > > case.
> > >
> > > I understand that, thanks.
> >
> > Then why did you make the above argument?
>
> Because I believe that people should not be
> found liable in civil or criminal actions
> based on laws that are too vague to allow a
> potential defendendant to reasonably predict
> what is legal and what is not.
More obfuscation.
You took a statement about criminal law and then tried to apply it to a
civil case.
Your personal beliefs are irrelevant.
>
> > > Fairness requires the same notice for civil
> > > liability as for criminal punishment.
> >
> > Ummm, no.
> >
> > Under our criminal justice system, criminal and civil cases are treated
> > differently. For example, criminal case require that guilt be proven
> > "beyond reasonable doubt." Civil cases merely require "a preponderance
> > of evidence".
>
> That well known difference reserves punishment
> for those who are clearly guilty. Since civil
> actions and criminal actions alike are founded
> on the concept of wrong-doing ("tort"), the
> question as to just what is to be deemed "wrong"
> is equally important to guide people who are
> to be expected to obey the law.
Nonetheless, there are differences between criminal and civil law. So
your attempt to apply criminal law to a civil case is wrong.
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 15:58:48 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Courageous
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > Take Prohibition, for example. At least then they _knew_ they
> > had to have an Amendment to do that. Now, however, it appears
> > they don't. They really don't need an Amendment for much of
> > anything these days.
>
> Then why do the conservatives think they need an amendment for flag
> burning and another one for abortion?
>
> > Disturbing.
>
> What's disturbing is how close the flag burning amendment is to actually
> becoming law. Just a couple more votes in the Senate and flag burning
> will become illegal (49 of the 50 states have specifically asked
> Congress to pass the amendment, so it's a shoo-in for ratification by
> the states).
Maybe.
I'm hoping that it's just grandstanding and they are willing to let it
die in committee.
I hope.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating
Date: 23 Aug 2000 15:47:37 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> TCL is a real dumb language; one thing I don't like about it is
> that I like to structure my if statements:
>
> if (...)
> {
> ...
> }
Heretic!
> but TCL doesn't like that because the 'if' is actually a command
> requiring arguments on the same physical line, so one has to write
>
> if {...} {
> ...
> }
>
> and that makes it a bit of a pain to debug. Actually, the same
> holds true for proc and while. Feh.
(I suspect that this particular point was inducing flamewars between C
programmers back in the early seventies.)
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- OK, there is the MFC, but it only makes the chaos object orientated.
-- Thomas Nellessen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 16:01:02 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joe
Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > ZnU wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > ZnU wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > > > Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
> > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The president doesn't create the budget, he only
> > > > > > > > > > > has the power to approve it in it's entirety or
> > > > > > > > > > > return it to congress, now who has really been
> > > > > > > > > > > creating the budget deficit for the past 20
> > > > > > > > > > > years? And who in the past four has managed to
> > > > > > > > > > > turn it (the deficit) around?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If the Republicans did all the work to balance the
> > > > > > > > > > budget, why are they trying to damn hard to
> > > > > > > > > > unbalance it?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Are you, ZnU, smoking large amounts of crack before
> > > > > > > > > writing to USENET?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Are you really denying this? In just the last few
> > > > > > > > months the Republicans have tried to pass two tax cuts
> > > > > > > > that would eliminate or significantly reduce the
> > > > > > > > surplus, and Bush wants to take things even farther.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And I suppose the Democrats are just going to let that
> > > > > > > surplus sit there reducing the debt, rather than spending
> > > > > > > it on bigger government health care and *ahem* Gore's own
> > > > > > > $500 billion in proposed tax cuts?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Gore has promised to pay off the debt. Bush has not. Of
> > > > > > course, it's rather difficult to attack Bush on the issues,
> > > > > > since he almost never talks about them....
> > > > >
> > > > > Paying off the debt is already IN the budget, you moron.
> > > > >
> > > > > ALL treasury bills have a maturity date. To cannot retire
> > > > > the debt any sooner than the maturity dates on the T-bills.
> > > > > To retire the debt, all that needs to be done is to refrain
> > > > > from rolling over the bonds as they mature.
> > > >
> > > > How will this be possible after the Republicans have starved
> > > > the government giving their tax breaks?
> > >
> > >
> > > Tax breaks stimulate commerce, idiot!
> >
> > Ahh. Another proponent of trickle-down economics. Of course, some
> > people see that for what it really is: a way for rich people to
> > justify their exploitation of the system.
>
> That's possibly true.
>
> But, OTOH, perhaps you can explain why income disparity between the
> "rich" and the "poor" is vastly worse today than it was under the
> Reagan and Bush administrations?
Because the economy is much better, and the rich always benefit most
from a stronger economy. That's true to some extent in just about any
capitalist society, but much more so with the US's winner-take-all
mentality. I'd love to see something done about it, but any measure that
could accomplish anything would be considered far too radical in the
current political climate.
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
