On 10/10/06, Larry Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> North Dakota has some very good roads outside of the interstates.
> Problem is they're underwater every spring.
Same could be said for New Orleans in the Fall.
Yeah, I said it - what?!?!
-Cameron
~
>On 10/10/06, Gruss Gott wrote:
>> You argument fails on 2 counts:
>>
>> (1.) It's the haves that use the infrastructure, not the havenots, so
>> there is no exchange.
>
>I don't think all Interstates help everyone, but I can be wrong. I
>imagine an interstate in North Dakota would help the locals
hmm good point
> Also, we'd have to rely much more on local farmers to provide local
> "flavor" veggies and whatnot.
>
> essentially, it would mean no tomatoes in winter in colder climes.
>
~|
Introducing the Fusion Authority Q
> mm well there are all those south dakota products going out (whatever *they*
> are). To
> use a different state as an example, where would we get potatoes if there
> were no roads
> in Idaho?
Washington California Oregon Nebraska Kansas...pretty much locally,
much as before the Interstate Hwy
Long Island? Oh yeah, Idaho forced them all out of business years ago.
I was looking for examples where there wasn't a great demand for
national commerce.
It was more of a side note than a major point to the discussion. Carry
on as you were.
On 10/10/06, Dana Tierney wrote:
> mm well there are al
mm well there are all those south dakota products going out (whatever *they*
are). To use a different state as an example, where would we get potatoes if
there were no roads in Idaho?
>I don't think all Interstates help everyone, but I can be wrong. I
>imagine an interstate in North Dakota would
ok maybe if you look at it regionally, you're right. I was still thinking about
income levels.
>It is because States like NY, CA FL and TX pay for the roads in MS, AK and OK.
>Yes you can say that those roads are used for commerce and the schools
>are used to educate Americans but it's still taki
On 10/10/06, Gruss Gott wrote:
> You argument fails on 2 counts:
>
> (1.) It's the haves that use the infrastructure, not the havenots, so
> there is no exchange.
I don't think all Interstates help everyone, but I can be wrong. I
imagine an interstate in North Dakota would help the locals a lot mo
When someone takes my money and gives it to someone else who needs it
to go to school, that's called "re-distribution". There's no two
ways about it.
I don't, in fact, have a problem with taxes. They are required to
make the country function. However, on a federal level the entire
government w
> Sam wrote:
> It is because States like NY, CA FL and TX pay for the roads in MS, AK and OK.
> Yes you can say that those roads are used for commerce and the schools
> are used to educate Americans but it's still taking form the haves and
> giving to the havenots for the greater good of all.
>
Yo
Taxes != Evil Socialism, I don't think...
The King took. We're giving to ourselves. Heh.
At least theoretically (re: big money re: influence on "the system":)
On 10/9/06, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It is because States like NY, CA FL and TX pay for the roads in MS, AK and
> OK.
> Yes yo
It is because States like NY, CA FL and TX pay for the roads in MS, AK and OK.
Yes you can say that those roads are used for commerce and the schools
are used to educate Americans but it's still taking form the haves and
giving to the havenots for the greater good of all.
On 10/9/06, Gruss Gott w
no it's not a redistribution of wealth, however, in a sense it does create
wealth ( or more precisely the possibility of wealth) when you build
infrastructure.
It is possible to have the economy that we do in the US because Eisenhower
built the interstate system, possible in a way that it is n
> Sam wrote:
> Yes but it was also a re-distribution of wealth through highways,
> education and many others programs.
None of those are a redistribution of wealth. For example highways
provide for commerce as does education; highways are used more for
work than travel, and more kids work than no
Yes but it was also a re-distribution of wealth through highways,
education and many others programs. The idea is the every state kicks
in and the ones who need the most get it. That is where the grab bag
went wild, now it's more political clout than actual need.
On 10/9/06, Cameron Childress wrot
On 10/9/06, Cameron Childress <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/9/06, Denny Valliant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > And the lack of accountability in general, and the power they hold sway
> > over us with as a people, Re: lobbying, pork, and other methods of
> > "Buying" what they want. The democ
coming back to this aspect of the discussion, may I present:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15176444/site/newsweek/
check out the cover in the US vs the cover everywhere else. Someone else I was
talking to about this tinks it's a diversion from the repeal of habeus corpus.
Perhaps, but I think the
Well, it doesn't look like it's going to let up. Gonna make a run for higher
ground ;) Laters.
Dana
> Heh. Indeed. To be fair, I've been out to smoke a few times...
> It was raging- lightning, thunder... I love being out in it, but it's
> probably not the best thing for the ol' lapper... =]
>
Heh. Indeed. To be fair, I've been out to smoke a few times...
It was raging- lightning, thunder... I love being out in it, but it's
probably not the best thing for the ol' lapper... =]
On 10/9/06, Dana Tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> spoken like a man who doesn't have to drive home still..
ok -- that was primarily a reference to Social Security. And corporate welfare.
And since I know you're talking about federal income tax, it was a little
disingenuous. However, if you look at those as well, I'd say the statement is
true. You don't think a lot of income taxes have been redistribu
spoken like a man who doesn't have to drive home still...the temperature
dropped about thirty degrees.
>Anyway, the rain is beautiful right now... poor balloonists!
~|
Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages
On 10/9/06, Denny Valliant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And the lack of accountability in general, and the power they hold sway
> over us with as a people, Re: lobbying, pork, and other methods of
> "Buying" what they want. The democratic process isn't supposed to
> work that way, last I checked.
On 10/9/06, Dana Tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'll agree that the Democrats are not the solution to this problem. I'll
> admit that
> at the moment I don't know who is. But I'd also point out that the current
> system redistributes upwards. You don't have to think that the opposite is
> tr
> Dana wrote:
> oh my god who are you and what have you done with GG?
>
I've never disagreed with the thought, I've just not seen the program
that can fulfill the promise.
~|
Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80
On 10/9/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The intent is not for wealth distribution, it's to pay for those
> things necessary to running our government and protecting our
> citizens. And I would also say that the tax code itself is such a
> jumbled mess of fiscal policy that it's implodi
On 10/9/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Cam wrote:
> > So, I hear complaints that "companies" and "the rich" don't pay enough
> > taxes, then when they start paying more, that's also bad.
> >
>
> "The Rich" and business don't need to be paying any more in taxes and
> they should be pa
oh my god who are you and what have you done with GG?
>But the liberal argument is a good one: welfare-type programs are an
>investment because we're helping a person to become productive, or to
>move up and earn more, and that will pay us back with interest.
~
I'll agree that the Democrats are not the solution to this problem. I'll admit
that at the moment I don't know who is. But I'd also point out that the current
system redistributes upwards. You don't have to think that the opposite is true
to think that this is wrong.
Dana
>Taxes, by and large
it's called an externality. And yes, that is one of the problems with American
business today.
>The problem with business is the unaccounted for costs that Dana
>frequently brings up. For example, GE dumping PCBs in the East River.
~~~
very cool. I have been the only person here so far.
Dana
> Yuppers! Born and bred. Woot! It's a great state, for all it's
> weirdness. Not that I know, as I've never lived for any amout of
> time
> in another one. Only visited others...
~~
On 10/9/06, Cameron Childress <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/8/06, Denny Valliant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Heh. I'm SO glad there is still room for debate. Sweet.
> >
> > I guess my one-liner would be "at what cost"...
> So, I hear complaints that "companies" and "the rich" don't p
> Cam wrote:
> It's not a Bush problem, or
> a Republican problem, or a Democrat problem, it's a national goverment
> problem. And if you pay taxes, it's your problem.
>
The intent is not for wealth distribution, it's to pay for those
things necessary to running our government and protecting our
Taxes, by and large (aside from certain national defense and
infrastructure bits), are simply a wealth re-distribution mechanisim.
The entire good or bad of them rests on who controls how much is
collected and how they are re-distributed among the populace. It's no
mystery that the poor think huge
On 10/8/06, Dana Tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> interesting. You're in New Mexico? That's actually a pretty good description
> of the place. Alba Quirky?
Yuppers! Born and bred. Woot! It's a great state, for all it's
weirdness. Not that I know, as I've never lived for any amout of time
i
> Sam wrote:
> Stop it already, I can't stand to see you like this.
> Leave it alone and walk away. Nobody cares that you're wrong so just let it
> go.
>
As usual, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
~|
Introdu
Stop it already, I can't stand to see you like this.
Leave it alone and walk away. Nobody cares that you're wrong so just let it go.
On 10/9/06, Gruss Gott wrote:
> "The Rich" and business don't need to be paying any more in taxes and
> they should be paying less. The problem is with spending, p
> Cam wrote:
> So, I hear complaints that "companies" and "the rich" don't pay enough
> taxes, then when they start paying more, that's also bad.
>
"The Rich" and business don't need to be paying any more in taxes and
they should be paying less. The problem is with spending, poor
forecasting/plan
On 10/8/06, Denny Valliant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Heh. I'm SO glad there is still room for debate. Sweet.
>
> I guess my one-liner would be "at what cost"...
>
> I personally am not too surprised that big $$ business is doing better
> with Walker in Office. He's done everything possible to
interesting. You're in New Mexico? That's actually a pretty good description of
the place. Alba Quirky?
>I'd say that's the side with the money. I'm not rich, unless you compare me
>to someone with a lot less money (i.e. most of the rest of my State)... well,
>maybe upper middle class, or at lea
interesting. That's about my perception, with the names switched.
>We don't debate.
>
>AntiBushGuy: Bush is an idiot
>RegularGuy: Why
>ABG: Because of blabla
>RG: Well actually blabla
>ABG: He's still an idiot and whoever voted for him is a moron, a
>religous fundy and or a redneck
>RG: Whatever
>
ah there he is.
>Nope, not this lst.
>
>On 10/7/06, Denny Valliant wrote:
>> Are there seriously no Bush (or current administration) supporters on this
>> list?
~|
Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of ha
you haven't met Sam yet, have you. Or is this an alias whose creation I missed?
>Well, we /did/ already have a sort of exemption from the Geneva
>convention, IIRC.
>
>For years and years, I think.
>
>It's sneaky how Bush has manipulated the system. Heh. Like one man, or
>even the media, is respo
must I preface it with tags? it was only partly sarcasm.
The point about the nature of the debate was serious though.
> That's the funniest thing you've said in a long time. Do you see the
> irony in that statement :)
>
> On 10/8/06, Larry Lyons wrote:
> > No there are mainly those ancephalics
Heh. I'm SO glad there is still room for debate. Sweet.
I guess my one-liner would be "at what cost"...
I personally am not too surprised that big $$ business is doing better
with Walker in Office. He's done everything possible to make it so.
I wonder how much of that money comes from, say, t
> Sam wrote:
> You finally admit the economy is doing great but only because you
> found a way to take the credit from Bush.
Ho, boy. Ok. Let's cover this again ...
(1.) I never said the economy wasn't "doing great". The irony in your
question is that while you call yourself a conservative you
That's the funniest thing you've said in a long time. Do you see the
irony in that statement :)
On 10/8/06, Larry Lyons wrote:
> No there are mainly those ancephalics who think that the best way to handle
> any criticism of the great leader (ie GW Bush) is to personally insult and
> attach those
>How can there be huge political debates if not? ;-]
>
>On 10/7/06, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Nope, not this lst.
>>
>> On 10/7/06, Denny Valliant wrote:
>> > Are there seriously no Bush (or current administration) supporters on this
>> > list?
No there are mainly those ancephalics who thi
On 10/7/06, Gruss Gott wrote:
> > Prince Valliant wrote:
Get a room :)
You finally admit the economy is doing great but only because you
found a way to take the credit from Bush. Problem I have is I don't
see how you're doing it.
Is it:
Corporations being more profitable have nothing to do with
We don't debate.
AntiBushGuy: Bush is an idiot
RegularGuy: Why
ABG: Because of blabla
RG: Well actually blabla
ABG: He's still an idiot and whoever voted for him is a moron, a
religous fundy and or a redneck
RG: Whatever
On 10/7/06, Denny Valliant wrote:
> How can there be huge political debates
It's interesting that this article points out how alot of the tax
increases are from Corporations and the top 1% or earners.
-Cameron
On 10/7/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Prince Valliant wrote:
> >I was sad to see taxes being one of the big reasons the people who did
> > vote
> Prince Valliant wrote:
>I was sad to see taxes being one of the big reasons the people who did
> vote for bush did so. And how happy they were as he was basically tanking
> our economy and the bit of savings we had managed to magically
Well ... things aren't so bad. But DESPITE Bush and hi
On 10/7/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Dennis wrote:
> > And how could a true conservative
> > even associate oneself with the Republican party?
>
> Well, that's the good news. Maybe conservatives are finally finding
> their backbone and walking away from this administration. I'm h
How can there be huge political debates if not? ;-]
On 10/7/06, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nope, not this lst.
>
> On 10/7/06, Denny Valliant wrote:
> > Are there seriously no Bush (or current administration) supporters on this
> > list?
~
> Dennis wrote:
> And how could a true conservative
> even associate oneself with the Republican party?
>
Well, that's the good news. Maybe conservatives are finally finding
their backbone and walking away from this administration. I'm hopeful
that in 5 years or less we'll have a conservative pa
Nope, not this lst.
On 10/7/06, Denny Valliant wrote:
> Are there seriously no Bush (or current administration) supporters on this
> list?
~|
Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting,
up-to-date
>On 10/6/06, Dana Tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> yes why are we hearing so much about this? It's bad to sexually
>> harass a teenager but c'mon. It's worse to pass laws alllowing torture.
>
>Good question for the news media.
>
>-Cameron
Deception, hypocrisy outright lies, sexual abuse and t
On 10/6/06, Cameron Childress <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/6/06, Dana Tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > yes why are we hearing so much about this? It's bad to sexually
> > harass a teenager but c'mon. It's worse to pass laws alllowing torture.
>
> Good question for the news media.
>
> -C
On 10/6/06, Dana Tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> yes why are we hearing so much about this? It's bad to sexually
> harass a teenager but c'mon. It's worse to pass laws alllowing torture.
Good question for the news media.
-Cameron
~
yes why are we hearing so much about this? It's bad to sexually harass a
teenager but c'mon. It's worse to pass laws alllowing torture.
Dana
>On 10/5/06, Cameron Childress <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater
>>
>> On 10/5/06, Crow T Robot <[EMAI
On 10/5/06, Cameron Childress <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater
>
> On 10/5/06, Crow T Robot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ally calls for Hastert to suspend page program
>
I'm so sick of this story...
Kill me now before I get in my car just to
Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater
On 10/5/06, Crow T Robot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ally calls for Hastert to suspend page program
~|
Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-h
Ally calls for Hastert to suspend page program
By Amy Fagan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
October 5, 2006
A key ally of Rep. J. Dennis Hastert said yesterday that the House speaker
should temporarily shut down the congressional page program in light of
reports of former Rep. Mark Foley's sexually expl
62 matches
Mail list logo
