On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 07:35:27 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 07:33:13 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 00:45:29 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 06:57:43 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
Yet for some reason, you are -still- unable (or unwilling) to cough up
the marriage data so that it can be compared to the divorce data.

No one had asked previously.


I asked several times.

No, you asked about the divorce rate.


Play semantics all you want -- I said that half of all marriages end
up in divorce and you coughed up your statistic. Now you have to
explain how your statistic relates to my statement.


But since you have now, the percentage of
married people (Which included both spouse present and absent) is
about 53.5% from the same spreadsheet that you can't seem to read and
gather information from.


Excellent. Now, from that same spreadsheet, how many of those people
that are married have been previously married? And how many times?

Repeat marriages are not accounted for. So what? It is irrelevant.


No, it is -very- irrelevant. To prove (or disprove) that half of all
marriages end up in divorce then you must know how many marriages and
divorces occur in a given amount of time. You can't determine that
information from the static data you sourced from the Census bureau.
The data I provided was accurate, relevant, and, according to the
source of -your- data, came from -the- authoritative source on the
subject. My statement was correct.

So then how many divorcees end up remarried?




Care to help Social Security?

The best way to help it is to remove it, and divert all former SS
withholdings into individual 401K accounts. Of course that penalizes
those who have already given into the SS program for their entire
working lives. So the transition has to be gradual so to be fair to
everyone.


So your solution is to simply eliminate Social Security? Hey, neat
idea, but you can't "divert" what you don't have, and the Reps have
tapped the SS trust fund so deep that there isn't anything to
"divert".

Care to substantiate that statement with some hard facts?


Like the way -you- back up -your- statements with hard facts? Sure....
It's true because I say it's true.

In other words, you don't have any. Just another regurgitated
"factoid" written by another skilled left wing propagandist.


If you assume that the annual Federal Budget Reports from both
Congress and the White House are written by skilled left wing
propagandists then I suppose you are correct.


The federal budget reports claimed that "republicans tapped social
security"?


Not in those exact words -- you need to have enough brains to figure
out that when the SS trust fund gets tapped for spending on Republican
bills during Republican administrations, it's usually done by the
Republicans.

So I suppose that the democrats had not done the same thing when they
controlled the congress (Which they did up until 1994)?

If you want to say that congress plays creative accounting games with
Social Security, I'll agree and let it pass. But don't try to pin this
on republicans alone. Unless, of course, you truly are a blind
partisan.


If you could quote any liberal who said that America should be a
"welfare state" I might agree.

They refer to it by different names.


Which is something the conservatives -never- do, I'm sure.

Irrelevant. It doesn't change the truth of my statement.


Nope, it sure doesn't. You can call it "global warming" or "climate
change", the "estate tax" or the "death tax", an "enemy combatant" or
a "prisoner of war"..... it's all the same difference. So what liberal
has stated that America should become a "welfare state" by that or any
other name?

Any liberal who supports subsidizing any and all social programs,
starting with Welfare, and ending with Medicare. This programs are
part and parcel of a "Welfare State".


Names like "living wage", "fair
share", "universal care". But it basically means the same thing.
Taking money from people who earn it, to give to people who don't.


LOL..... I think I'll let that statement stand on it's own 'merits'!

Yea, the truth. But you wisely chose not to comment on it as the only
thing you could do is defend the practices. That's sort of like
defending the IRS. Not a very popular position to be in.


First of all, what you refer to as a "living wage" is mighty important
to millions of voters who don't make a "living wage", mostly due to
irresponsible Republican economic plans

Irresponsible Republican plans? You really area blind partisan aren't
you? What "republican (Or democrat for that matter) plan" can stop the
natural course to the free international market without seriously
altering it?

And who stops those who are making less than a living wage from
obtaining the skills necessary to rise above that? You did it. I did
it. There's no excuse for anyone so motivated to not rise above the
poverty level. Of course you'd have to stop ****ing away your pay on
drugs, booze and cheap "dates" with the professional women.

It's called "Personal Responsibility". Take charge of your own life.
Don't wait for the government to bale you out (And blame then when
they don't).

Repeat after me: "I am not a victim!"



(not to forget that 40% of
wage-earners don't make enough money to pay income taxes and therefore
didn't get Bush's 'tax rebate' that turned out to be nothing more than
a loan).

I suppose you're one of those people who feel that those who didn't
put anything into the tax system should v'e got something back. This
wasn't "giveaway money" it was a REBATE on tax money already paid in
to the system, If you didn't pay anything in, you can't very well get
a rebate on it back. Last time I went to school 100% of zero is still
zero.



Second, "fair share" is in reference to fat-cats and corporations who
skip out of paying taxes through shelters, subsidies and a variety of
other carefully legislated loopholes.

As opposed to the progressive tax scale which punishes those who
achieve by burdening them with a higher tax rate? A flat tax rate is
the fairest thing. Everyone pays the same percentage. Those who make
more, pay more as a matter of percentage of gross. But a progressive
tax rate is little more than a thinly veiled socialistic attempt to
shift the burdens of society from those who take the most, to those
who make the most.


And "universal care" is a simple concept that provides basic health
care service for anyone whether they can afford it or not

But SOMEONE has to pay for it.


-- more
specifically, the programs are targeted towards children whose parents
work two or three of Bush's new jobs and still can't pay the rent, let
alone health insurance for their children.

People who do not possess the skills or motivation to obtain gainful
jobs should not be having children. It's that "personal
responsibility" thing again. Raising children is an enormous
responsibility both financial and emotional. Potential parents should
be ready on both counts before bringing another mouth to feed into the
world and then abdicating their responsibilities on to the rest of us.

It's also targeted towards
the increasing senior population who will be SOL when the SS trust
fund dries up in a few years

Yet you guys on the left are the ones now claiming that there is no
problem with social security. Yet when Clinton was in office, it was a
"big problem". Would you please make up your minds......




"In a free society, you don't need a reason to make something legal.
You need a reason to make something illegal."

-- Donna Moss, "West Wing"

And you accuse ME of watching too much TV?


You do, and that's why I used the quote.

Yea, I'll bet. I've never even seen "West Wing", but it doesn't
surprise me that you have.


You bet I do! It's a lot better than most of the other crap that's
pushed onto the public as 'entertainment'.

That figures. West wing is very liberally slanted so I've been told.


Of course you believe everything you're told as long as you're told
it's liberally slanted.


I prefer "24". The most intense show on TV.


yawn. If I want to watch a shoot-em-up-bang-bang show with bad dialog,
shallow characters and weak plots I'll watch reruns of Rawhide.

Yet "West Wing" is any less shallow and crafted? It's Hollywood's
version of what THEY would like the government to be.

But which show stands a better chance of happening in the real world?

Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 13:34:16 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 07:35:23 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:


Yes, but the total effect on climate cannot be positively confirmed.
You have many of the pieces of the puzzle, but not enough to complete
the total picture.


So now you jump to the other side of the logical fence and claim that
absolute proof is required instead of "high statisitical probability".
Yet another flip-flop.

All we have been able to determine is that we are in a period of
global warming. Evidence has suggested that this planet has endured
many such cycles in its past. It is irresponsible to think that
mankind alone is responsible for the current phase of warming, and it
is equally irresponsible to suggest that if we were to magically stop
using fossil fuels today, that we could stop or reverse the trend. The
best we may be able to do is slow it down. But at what cost?


Well, let's take a gander at what the internet has to say:

http://www.ucar.edu/research/climate/future.shtml
http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/uba-in...-worldwide.htm
http://www.dar.csiro.au/publications/gh_faq.htm

I can provide many more links to many more authoritative sources if
you can't find them yourself.


But only for a couple years, even for a really big volcano. The
current trend of global warming has been occuring for almost a
century. That's about as much disruption as driving over a pothole
while climbing a mountain pass.

It's likely that the current warming "trend" has been going on for far
longer. We've only obtained in the last 50 or so years the technology
to track subtle climatic and weather changes. What occurred before
that is anyone's guess, and evidence obtained in soil and ice samples
only fits in a part of that puzzle, and can give us a general idea,
but not specifics.


"Anyone's guess"? Gee, that's funny -- according to the links above,
paleoclimatologists have been able to get temperature records from as
far back as the 17th century, and determined that CO2 levels haven't
been this high in 500,000 years.

As I stated before, Dave, the only one guessing is you.


I obviously know more about the subject than you, and there are
scientists that study this stuff professionally and know gobs more
than I will ever learn. You are the only one guessing, Dave.

I am not guessing at anything. I am reading what those scientists, who
know gobs more than you do, say. There is not a consensus among the
scientific community as to the degree, direction, and involvement of
humans on global warming. There are many scientists who cannot come to
the same conclusions that you seem to have bought into, due to glaring
holes in the evidence.


What holes? Humans -aren't- dumping huge amounts of greenhouse gasses
into the atmosphere? If not then where are those gasses coming from?
Not volcanos, that's for sure......

Yes, we have an effect, but to say that our burning of greenhouse
gasses is the sole reason why we're in a warming trend is
presumptuous.


Not at all. Read (if you can) the links I provided. If you browse
their sites you will find links to the top climatology labs in the
world, almost all of which debunk the politically-motivated myth you
have been led to believe.


Dave, despite what you and most of the Republican party would like to
believe, there is indeed a consensus in the scientific community that
the global temperature is rising,

No argument.


and that we are the cause.

That is where you are wrong. We are likely NOT the cause, we are
merely a contributor or accelerator. There is still much debate on
just how much effect we truly to have.


The only 'debate' is in the political arena:

http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis108/c...ml#September15


The only
disagreement is about the degree of impact this change will have on
our civilization. Oh yeah, and what to call it: "global warming" or
"climate change".

You don't read much outside of those reports which support your
foregone conclusion do you?


Sure I do. I even read some of the crap put out by the Cato Institute.
Wanna hear about the Cato Institute?

http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200207/thinktank.asp


I could give you a dozen links if you'd like. I already gave some to
Twisty previously.


Post them if you want.


I'll post one. It's an overview of the whole controversy and gives
both sides of the issue:

http://www.biologydaily.com/biology/...rsial_Issue s


Nice page! Thank you!


Led to, but not completely dependant on. Tree ring growth does follow
a certain repeatable pattern relative to solar output.


Yes it does, Dave. It may be superimposed upon other climate changes,
but can be found just like a steady sine wave in a spectrum of noise.


But there are
still other factors which can influence them. A volcanic "winter" for
instance, will deviate tree rings from the predictable pattern that
would otherwise occur with a higher than normal solar output.


A volcanic winter does not change the cycle of the sun, only it's
effects, and usually only for a cycle or two.

But a colder than normal winter over a period of years WILL effect the
thickness and spacing of tree rings irrespective of the sun's output.


If you read the links above they note that the current global warming
trend has been occuring since the beginning of the industrial
revolution, yet the cooling effect of Mt. Pinatubo (sp?) resulted in
only a brief fluctuation.


Yet for some reason, you are -still- unable (or unwilling) to provide
the names of those "senior level engineers".

And what difference would it make if I posted them? You don't know
them.


Mind if I use that excuse the next time -you- ask for references?

I've never asked you for personal references. I understand the
futility of such a request.

Then you should also understand the insignificance of any claims made
based upon sources you are unwilling (or unable) to provide.

Certainly.


Then why do you keep invoking sources that, by your own admission,
have no credibility? Are you attempting to achieve truth by
repitition? Or are you just plain stupid?


, or
a picture of your house and boat, or any other circumstantial evidence
that supports your claim. Of course you won't -- you will just come up
with more excuses.

I already have pictures of both on my website. Next?


See below.....


So why the secrecy, Dave? I graduated EWU and I'm
proud of it.

So you say. We have only your word for that.


I have no problem telling anyone where I went to school,
and for two very good reasons: First, anyone can verify that I both
attended and graduated from EWU.

No they can verify that someone by the same name (Maybe N7VCF)
graduated from EWU.


Sure, and I can just take a picture of someone else's diploma and call
it mine, just like you can take a picture of someone else's house and
boat and call it your's, right?

Keep going, you're getting warmer......


Get a clue already..... my middle
initial is D, not C. And I don't recall N7VCF ever claiming to have
graduated from EWU. Do you?

No, but it was an example of someone with a similar name. Just to
illustrate my point. But...........


If I wanted to lie, I could find a school where someone named "Dave
Hall" (And there's bound to be plenty given the popularity of my name)
attended, and claim that it was me. Then how would you know for sure?


How do I know for sure that those pictures are of your house and your
boat? I don't.

Exactly! Thank you for finally getting the point Frank. The fact is
that you can not be sure of any information one may post to "verify"
their status in life. With the skills of the internet, one can create
a completely artificial identity. So therefore, it is pointless to
continue to ask.


With the internet you can also -confirm- a true identity. But that's
not what I'm asking -- I'm simply asking for proof that you make as
much money as you claim; that you work in the engineering field as you
claim; that you attended an electronic tech school as you claim; etc.
Or should I just file those claims in the basket along with your
imaginary engineer sources?


I have far more reference material than that one book could ever
provide.


Ah yes, the internet -- the "global pornography network"; the
"poor-man's library"; the "information superhighway"..... where any
kid with a computer and some pocket change can 'source' any tidbit of
mental popcorn, fact or fiction, knowing that some gullible retard
will eventually incorporate it into his or her "core belief" system.

My, my, do I detect a bit of contempt? Maybe it bothers you that I
(and many others) can access information on the internet for free
instantly, (and currently) where it cost you hundreds of dollars to
amass in book form?


No contempt at all -- if you want to limit your resources because
you're too lazy to read a book then that's your problem.


Perhaps you're unaware of the phrase: "The paper never refuses ink".


No, I've heard it plenty of times before -- you use the cliche as if
it were God's Eleventh Commandment.


It's not just the internet where a passionate pundit can publish their
slanted viewpoints. Just because it's in hardback form doesn't mean
than an equally gullible retard won't eventually incorporate it into
his or her "core belief" system.


The paper may not refuse ink but publishers will usually refuse the
submission of a half-baked "passionate pundit". OTOH, you could modify
your favorite cliche to extend to the internet where it's much more
appropriate; where you, Dave, happen to be it's most glaring example:
"The internet never refuses ASCII".


Along those lines, I'm sure you have found the homepage for the Hudson
Institute, and if you really had any money I'm sure you be paying your
tithes to them on a monthly basis. But be careful of what political
ideologies you support, Dave -- you might end up getting drafted at
the spry young age of 60 after your neocon bretheren ever manage to
convince Bush that invading China is a good idea.

Maybe it is. Neither you nor I have any idea what is really going
through the minds in Bejing......


Dave, you have no idea what is going through the mind of any rational
person in China or anywhere else in the world. Fortunately for you,
the rest of us do.






----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 13:55:28 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
Repeat marriages are not accounted for. So what? It is irrelevant.


No, it is -very- irrelevant. To prove (or disprove) that half of all
marriages end up in divorce then you must know how many marriages and
divorces occur in a given amount of time. You can't determine that
information from the static data you sourced from the Census bureau.
The data I provided was accurate, relevant, and, according to the
source of -your- data, came from -the- authoritative source on the
subject. My statement was correct.

So then how many divorcees end up remarried?


Read my statement again, but this time stretch the limits of your
reading comprehension skills:

"Half of all marriages end in divorce."

Now think for a minute (assuming you can supress your medication that
long)..... What did I say in that statement? I said, very simply, that
one out of every two marriages ends in divorce. I didn't say anything
about divorcees getting remarried; I didn't say anything about how
many people are currently single and divorced; I didn't say anything
about -anything- other than what I said. And what I said is backed up
by marriage and divorce rates as provided by the CDC, which is the
agency that is repsonsible for collecting those statistics. What I
said is -not- undermined by census data because it doesn't have enough
information to determine marriage and divorce rates. What I said was
not an opinion or statistical abberation, nor was it a report written
by some "skilled left wing propagandist". What I said was a fact.

So are you -now- able to tell the difference between fact and opinion?
Or do you need yet -another- lesson?


Care to help Social Security?

The best way to help it is to remove it, and divert all former SS
withholdings into individual 401K accounts. Of course that penalizes
those who have already given into the SS program for their entire
working lives. So the transition has to be gradual so to be fair to
everyone.


So your solution is to simply eliminate Social Security? Hey, neat
idea, but you can't "divert" what you don't have, and the Reps have
tapped the SS trust fund so deep that there isn't anything to
"divert".

Care to substantiate that statement with some hard facts?


Like the way -you- back up -your- statements with hard facts? Sure....
It's true because I say it's true.

In other words, you don't have any. Just another regurgitated
"factoid" written by another skilled left wing propagandist.


If you assume that the annual Federal Budget Reports from both
Congress and the White House are written by skilled left wing
propagandists then I suppose you are correct.


The federal budget reports claimed that "republicans tapped social
security"?


Not in those exact words -- you need to have enough brains to figure
out that when the SS trust fund gets tapped for spending on Republican
bills during Republican administrations, it's usually done by the
Republicans.

So I suppose that the democrats had not done the same thing when they
controlled the congress (Which they did up until 1994)?

If you want to say that congress plays creative accounting games with
Social Security, I'll agree and let it pass. But don't try to pin this
on republicans alone. Unless, of course, you truly are a blind
partisan.


The blame does indeed rest with the Republicans. The Democrats have
consistently pushed to bolster Social Security since the 1960's, while
the Republicans have repeatedly dipped into the fund. Are you so out
of touch that you don't understand why the Democrats are so popular
with people that don't have a six-digit retirement portfolio? Holy
crap you are ignorant, Dave!


If you could quote any liberal who said that America should be a
"welfare state" I might agree.

They refer to it by different names.


Which is something the conservatives -never- do, I'm sure.

Irrelevant. It doesn't change the truth of my statement.


Nope, it sure doesn't. You can call it "global warming" or "climate
change", the "estate tax" or the "death tax", an "enemy combatant" or
a "prisoner of war"..... it's all the same difference. So what liberal
has stated that America should become a "welfare state" by that or any
other name?

Any liberal who supports subsidizing any and all social programs,
starting with Welfare, and ending with Medicare. This programs are
part and parcel of a "Welfare State".


A certain amount of socialism is going to be part of the system
-regardless- of who runs the country. The reason is simple: poor
people vote. So would you support a Constitutional Amendment that
would guarantee every citizen the right to vote?


Names like "living wage", "fair
share", "universal care". But it basically means the same thing.
Taking money from people who earn it, to give to people who don't.


LOL..... I think I'll let that statement stand on it's own 'merits'!

Yea, the truth. But you wisely chose not to comment on it as the only
thing you could do is defend the practices. That's sort of like
defending the IRS. Not a very popular position to be in.


First of all, what you refer to as a "living wage" is mighty important
to millions of voters who don't make a "living wage", mostly due to
irresponsible Republican economic plans

Irresponsible Republican plans? You really area blind partisan aren't
you? What "republican (Or democrat for that matter) plan" can stop the
natural course to the free international market without seriously
altering it?


Let's put it this way: For the past few decades the Republicans have
been campaigning on the pretext that they are for smaller government,
yet in -every- Republican-dominated administration the government has
increased in both size and spending. Republicans spend like they are
on a Bloomingdale's shopping spree! They claim that all the spending
is good for the economy, yet when it comes time to pay the bill for
all that spending they lose control of the budget with phrases like,
"Read my lips...." and the people get stuck with the bill. Then they
leave the books for the Democrats to balance and maybe build up a
surplus, which the Republicans end up throwing away on more spending
and tax refunds when they regain control of the budget.

It's like none of them ever learned basic fiscal responsibility: when
you get a little extra cash it's much wiser to use it to pay down the
credit cards, put back what you pilfered from the SS trust fund, and
save a little for a rainy day. Nope, the Reps just end up throwing the
money around like they were eccentric tycoons and it was -their- money
to spend. And when that money is all gone they just max out the credit
cards -- again. What they say and what they do are two very different
things. That is what I call 'irresponsible'.


And who stops those who are making less than a living wage from
obtaining the skills necessary to rise above that? You did it. I did
it. There's no excuse for anyone so motivated to not rise above the
poverty level. Of course you'd have to stop ****ing away your pay on
drugs, booze and cheap "dates" with the professional women.

It's called "Personal Responsibility". Take charge of your own life.
Don't wait for the government to bale you out (And blame then when
they don't).

Repeat after me: "I am not a victim!"


You need to pull your head out of the sand. I used to think that way
too, that everyone has the ability to take charge of their own future,
to better themselves with education, to work hard and make something
of themselves. Then I got a look at the -real- world. It just doesn't
work that way, Dave. You claim to live in the real world yet you know
nothing about it. And I'm not going to explain this aspect of it to
you. You have to go find out the facts for yourself -- assuming you
want to continue to claim that you are in touch with reality.


(not to forget that 40% of
wage-earners don't make enough money to pay income taxes and therefore
didn't get Bush's 'tax rebate' that turned out to be nothing more than
a loan).

I suppose you're one of those people who feel that those who didn't
put anything into the tax system should v'e got something back. This
wasn't "giveaway money" it was a REBATE on tax money already paid in
to the system, If you didn't pay anything in, you can't very well get
a rebate on it back. Last time I went to school 100% of zero is still
zero.


As usual, you missed the whole point: 40% of people who work don't
make enough to pay taxes. What does that tell you, Dave? And there is
no such thing as a "tax rebate" -- if government spending doesn't
decrease by the same amount then it's nothing but a loan. As it turns
out, government spending increased -dramatically- after the rebate and
-before- 9/11; Bush's plan was that the "rebate" would stimulate the
economy enough that the cost of the rebates would come back in the
form of increased tax revenue. The plan never worked before, but
apparently Bush slept through that class in college (you and Bush sure
have a lot in common).


Second, "fair share" is in reference to fat-cats and corporations who
skip out of paying taxes through shelters, subsidies and a variety of
other carefully legislated loopholes.

As opposed to the progressive tax scale which punishes those who
achieve by burdening them with a higher tax rate? A flat tax rate is
the fairest thing. Everyone pays the same percentage. Those who make
more, pay more as a matter of percentage of gross. But a progressive
tax rate is little more than a thinly veiled socialistic attempt to
shift the burdens of society from those who take the most, to those
who make the most.


I don't recall saying anything about a "progressive tax rate".


And "universal care" is a simple concept that provides basic health
care service for anyone whether they can afford it or not

But SOMEONE has to pay for it.


OF COURSE someone has to pay for it. Someone has to pay for every
aspect of the government. Do you want it to be fair? Then boil down
the cost of government per person and let -that- be the tax. If they
can't pay it then send them to debter's gulag where they can work off
their debt to the government. And don't forget to ship them off when
they're young -- heck you don't want to defer taxes to kids while they
go to college since they might end up improving their life and taking
your job in the future. And if they get sick just let them die, even
if the illness is curable. After all, if they can't produce anything
they might as well be dead anyway, right? And if they can't even meet
their tax burden then what business do they have spending money on
antibiotics to get rid of an infection, or a doctor to set a broken
leg? Survival of the fittest, to be sure. Darwinism + taxes. Good
plan, Dave.


-- more
specifically, the programs are targeted towards children whose parents
work two or three of Bush's new jobs and still can't pay the rent, let
alone health insurance for their children.

People who do not possess the skills or motivation to obtain gainful
jobs should not be having children. It's that "personal
responsibility" thing again.


Actually, it's almost verbatim from "Mein Kampf". Sterilize the weak
so they are not a burden on society. Even better, just "sterilize"
society, and that way you can eliminate the 'ghetto' stage.


Raising children is an enormous
responsibility both financial and emotional. Potential parents should
be ready on both counts before bringing another mouth to feed into the
world and then abdicating their responsibilities on to the rest of us.


Zieg Heil!


It's also targeted towards
the increasing senior population who will be SOL when the SS trust
fund dries up in a few years

Yet you guys on the left are the ones now claiming that there is no
problem with social security. Yet when Clinton was in office, it was a
"big problem". Would you please make up your minds......


Despite the countless times I have reminded you, you keep forgetting
that I'm not one of those "guys on the left". I never claimed that
there was no problem with Social Security.


"In a free society, you don't need a reason to make something legal.
You need a reason to make something illegal."

-- Donna Moss, "West Wing"

And you accuse ME of watching too much TV?


You do, and that's why I used the quote.

Yea, I'll bet. I've never even seen "West Wing", but it doesn't
surprise me that you have.


You bet I do! It's a lot better than most of the other crap that's
pushed onto the public as 'entertainment'.

That figures. West wing is very liberally slanted so I've been told.


Of course you believe everything you're told as long as you're told
it's liberally slanted.


I prefer "24". The most intense show on TV.


yawn. If I want to watch a shoot-em-up-bang-bang show with bad dialog,
shallow characters and weak plots I'll watch reruns of Rawhide.

Yet "West Wing" is any less shallow and crafted? It's Hollywood's
version of what THEY would like the government to be.


How would you know? You've never seen it.


But which show stands a better chance of happening in the real world?


COPS.






----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

David T. (The Hypocrite) Hall Jr. wrote:
The fact is that you can not be sure of any

information one may post to "verify" their

status in life. With the skills of the internet, one
can create a completely artificial identity. So

therefore, it is pointless to continue to ask.


The Hypocrite Hall is now open...
The cries and tribulations of David T. Hall Jr.:

Give me your real name and address. 5/24/05


You aren't man enough to use your real name

4/21/05


Come clean with your real name 8/19/04


Mopar what's your real name-address-?

2/10/03


Try using your real name 11/8/04


Your real name should be inserted here

11/5/99

On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 11:28:27 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote in
:

David T. (The Hypocrite) Hall Jr. wrote:
The fact is that you can not be sure of any

information one may post to "verify" their

status in life. With the skills of the internet, one
can create a completely artificial identity. So

therefore, it is pointless to continue to ask.


The Hypocrite Hall is now open...
The cries and tribulations of David T. Hall Jr.:

Give me your real name and address. 5/24/05


You aren't man enough to use your real name

4/21/05


Come clean with your real name 8/19/04


Mopar what's your real name-address-?

2/10/03


Try using your real name 11/8/04


Your real name should be inserted here

11/5/99


Yeah, I'm beginning to think he isn't who he claims -- probably one of
the real Dave Hall's genetic disappointments camped out in a trailer
in his back yard or holed up in the basement. I wonder if he's related
to Eddie, Freddie and Teddie Hall here in Spokane.....






----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 03:58:16 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

Yet for some reason, you are -still- unable (or unwilling) to provide
the names of those "senior level engineers".

And what difference would it make if I posted them? You don't know
them.


Mind if I use that excuse the next time -you- ask for references?

I've never asked you for personal references. I understand the
futility of such a request.

Then you should also understand the insignificance of any claims made
based upon sources you are unwilling (or unable) to provide.

Certainly.


Then why do you keep invoking sources that, by your own admission,
have no credibility? Are you attempting to achieve truth by
repitition? Or are you just plain stupid?

Well, gentlemen understand that certain personal experience
contributes to the insight on certain subjects. But if you want to
turn every claim into an "It's a lie until irrefutable proof positive
is offered to substantiate it", situation then ok, your point is
valid. In that case, there's no further point in debating, since that
level of proof is usually not forthcoming.

, or
a picture of your house and boat, or any other circumstantial evidence
that supports your claim. Of course you won't -- you will just come up
with more excuses.

I already have pictures of both on my website. Next?


See below.....


So why the secrecy, Dave? I graduated EWU and I'm
proud of it.

So you say. We have only your word for that.


I have no problem telling anyone where I went to school,
and for two very good reasons: First, anyone can verify that I both
attended and graduated from EWU.

No they can verify that someone by the same name (Maybe N7VCF)
graduated from EWU.


Sure, and I can just take a picture of someone else's diploma and call
it mine, just like you can take a picture of someone else's house and
boat and call it your's, right?

Keep going, you're getting warmer......


Get a clue already..... my middle
initial is D, not C. And I don't recall N7VCF ever claiming to have
graduated from EWU. Do you?

No, but it was an example of someone with a similar name. Just to
illustrate my point. But...........


If I wanted to lie, I could find a school where someone named "Dave
Hall" (And there's bound to be plenty given the popularity of my name)
attended, and claim that it was me. Then how would you know for sure?


How do I know for sure that those pictures are of your house and your
boat? I don't.

Exactly! Thank you for finally getting the point Frank. The fact is
that you can not be sure of any information one may post to "verify"
their status in life. With the skills of the internet, one can create
a completely artificial identity. So therefore, it is pointless to
continue to ask.


With the internet you can also -confirm- a true identity. But that's
not what I'm asking -- I'm simply asking for proof that you make as
much money as you claim; that you work in the engineering field as you
claim; that you attended an electronic tech school as you claim; etc.
Or should I just file those claims in the basket along with your
imaginary engineer sources?

You just admitted above that I could forge a diploma, or present
pictures of things that aren't mine and claim they are. So if I told
you the name of the schools I attended, or submitted a pay stub, by
your own admission, you couldn't be sure it was mine. So why should I
bother?


I have far more reference material than that one book could ever
provide.


Ah yes, the internet -- the "global pornography network"; the
"poor-man's library"; the "information superhighway"..... where any
kid with a computer and some pocket change can 'source' any tidbit of
mental popcorn, fact or fiction, knowing that some gullible retard
will eventually incorporate it into his or her "core belief" system.

My, my, do I detect a bit of contempt? Maybe it bothers you that I
(and many others) can access information on the internet for free
instantly, (and currently) where it cost you hundreds of dollars to
amass in book form?


No contempt at all -- if you want to limit your resources because
you're too lazy to read a book then that's your problem.

Lazy? Are you some sort of luddite purist? In the time it would take
me to drive to a library (And where I live, it's a bit of a hike),
find an appropriate book, sign it out, and bring it home, I could have
read much more similar information on-line at no cost, using no fossil
greenhouse gas fuel, and at a great saving in precious personal time.
It's not about being lazy, it's about efficiency. Working smarter.

Perhaps you're unaware of the phrase: "The paper never refuses ink".


No, I've heard it plenty of times before -- you use the cliche as if
it were God's Eleventh Commandment.

Here's another one: "If the shoe fits......."

It's not just the internet where a passionate pundit can publish their
slanted viewpoints. Just because it's in hardback form doesn't mean
than an equally gullible retard won't eventually incorporate it into
his or her "core belief" system.


The paper may not refuse ink but publishers will usually refuse the
submission of a half-baked "passionate pundit".

Really? Then I guess by this revelation, that you'd endorse the
published books by such people as Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean
Hannity, Bernard Goldberg, and Micheal Medved as being totally
correct, factual, insightful, and rational?

I guess it never occurred to you that profit motivation in the
publishing field is a far greater motivator than factual integrity.



Along those lines, I'm sure you have found the homepage for the Hudson
Institute, and if you really had any money I'm sure you be paying your
tithes to them on a monthly basis. But be careful of what political
ideologies you support, Dave -- you might end up getting drafted at
the spry young age of 60 after your neocon bretheren ever manage to
convince Bush that invading China is a good idea.

Maybe it is. Neither you nor I have any idea what is really going
through the minds in Bejing......


Dave, you have no idea what is going through the mind of any rational
person in China or anywhere else in the world.

Of course not. I don't have your crystal ball.

Fortunately for you, the rest of us do.

I doubt that you realize just how asinine that statement is.

You only know what other people tell you. The problem is, you trust
the wrong people.


Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 07:03:01 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 03:58:16 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

Yet for some reason, you are -still- unable (or unwilling) to provide
the names of those "senior level engineers".

And what difference would it make if I posted them? You don't know
them.


Mind if I use that excuse the next time -you- ask for references?

I've never asked you for personal references. I understand the
futility of such a request.

Then you should also understand the insignificance of any claims made
based upon sources you are unwilling (or unable) to provide.

Certainly.


Then why do you keep invoking sources that, by your own admission,
have no credibility? Are you attempting to achieve truth by
repitition? Or are you just plain stupid?

Well, gentlemen understand that certain personal experience
contributes to the insight on certain subjects. But if you want to
turn every claim into an "It's a lie until irrefutable proof positive
is offered to substantiate it", situation then ok, your point is
valid. In that case, there's no further point in debating, since that
level of proof is usually not forthcoming.


Yet you keep begging for proof. If you ask others for proof of -their-
claims but refuse to provide proof of -your- claims then you are a
hypocrite, a fact which you have unwittingly proven so many times in
this newsgroup.


snip
With the internet you can also -confirm- a true identity. But that's
not what I'm asking -- I'm simply asking for proof that you make as
much money as you claim; that you work in the engineering field as you
claim; that you attended an electronic tech school as you claim; etc.
Or should I just file those claims in the basket along with your
imaginary engineer sources?

You just admitted above that I could forge a diploma, or present
pictures of things that aren't mine and claim they are. So if I told
you the name of the schools I attended, or submitted a pay stub, by
your own admission, you couldn't be sure it was mine. So why should I
bother?


Because even now, after you have gone to such great lengths to avoid
giving that info, I might just believe it. At the very least it would
lend a -little- bit credibility to your claims, which so far have no
credibility at all. But if you don't want to fork over the info that's
fine -- you go right on saying how you attended some anonymous tech
school, cite the opinions of imaginary engineers, and brag about how
you are financially well-to-do -- those are just three items in a long
list of unproven claims you have made in just the past few months. So
even if you -can- prove them, who cares? You're still an idiot, a
liar, a hypocrite and a homophobe. And after your latest revelations,
probably a closet Nazi, too.


I have far more reference material than that one book could ever
provide.


Ah yes, the internet -- the "global pornography network"; the
"poor-man's library"; the "information superhighway"..... where any
kid with a computer and some pocket change can 'source' any tidbit of
mental popcorn, fact or fiction, knowing that some gullible retard
will eventually incorporate it into his or her "core belief" system.

My, my, do I detect a bit of contempt? Maybe it bothers you that I
(and many others) can access information on the internet for free
instantly, (and currently) where it cost you hundreds of dollars to
amass in book form?


No contempt at all -- if you want to limit your resources because
you're too lazy to read a book then that's your problem.

Lazy? Are you some sort of luddite purist? In the time it would take
me to drive to a library (And where I live, it's a bit of a hike),
find an appropriate book, sign it out, and bring it home, I could have
read much more similar information on-line at no cost, using no fossil
greenhouse gas fuel, and at a great saving in precious personal time.
It's not about being lazy, it's about efficiency. Working smarter.


There are resources in a public library that simply are not available
on the internet. One of the biggest reasons is because of copyright
laws, but there is also a much wider variety of reference materials
available there as well. And since so many libraries now have internet
terminals, you can do -both- at the same time. If you're so worried
about creating greenhouse gasses then don't eat so much, since methane
is 20 times as reactive as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.....
oh, but that's right, you don't think global warming is caused by
humans. Well, that blows -that- excuse all to hell. But even if you
have any doubt, ride a bicycle, take a bus, hitch a ride with a
neighbor going in that direction. Or simply plan ahead to go there
next time you're in the area.

Or you can just sit at home and make excuses, which is just fine with
me.


Perhaps you're unaware of the phrase: "The paper never refuses ink".


No, I've heard it plenty of times before -- you use the cliche as if
it were God's Eleventh Commandment.

Here's another one: "If the shoe fits......."

It's not just the internet where a passionate pundit can publish their
slanted viewpoints. Just because it's in hardback form doesn't mean
than an equally gullible retard won't eventually incorporate it into
his or her "core belief" system.


The paper may not refuse ink but publishers will usually refuse the
submission of a half-baked "passionate pundit".

Really? Then I guess by this revelation, that you'd endorse the
published books by such people as Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean
Hannity, Bernard Goldberg, and Micheal Medved as being totally
correct, factual, insightful, and rational?


Apparently you don't have enough brains to realize that such books are
published because of the author's celebrity and/or controversial
status. It's easy money.


I guess it never occurred to you that profit motivation in the
publishing field is a far greater motivator than factual integrity.


On the contrary, factual content tends to be -very- important to
publishers. Books (by celebrities and controversial personalities) are
screened by teams of lawyers looking for possible cases of libel. But
those books tend to be mostly opinion, and opinion does not constitute
libel -- which is why -you- need to learn the difference between an
opinion and a fact. Have you learned that lesson yet?


Along those lines, I'm sure you have found the homepage for the Hudson
Institute, and if you really had any money I'm sure you be paying your
tithes to them on a monthly basis. But be careful of what political
ideologies you support, Dave -- you might end up getting drafted at
the spry young age of 60 after your neocon bretheren ever manage to
convince Bush that invading China is a good idea.

Maybe it is. Neither you nor I have any idea what is really going
through the minds in Bejing......


Dave, you have no idea what is going through the mind of any rational
person in China or anywhere else in the world.

Of course not. I don't have your crystal ball.


Yep, mine works pretty darn well. It was one of the first things I
built when I went to tech school -- pretty simple stuff, I could write
a course on it.


Fortunately for you, the rest of us do.

I doubt that you realize just how asinine that statement is.


Not assinine at all -- it's people like me that keep people like you
from turning this country into a facist Christian autocracy.


You only know what other people tell you. The problem is, you trust
the wrong people.


Wrong. I trust nobody except myself. And sometimes I don't even trust
myself, but that's only because of an incident long ago involving a
fifth of Quervo and some prank calls to 911.....






----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 03:58:21 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 13:55:28 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
Repeat marriages are not accounted for. So what? It is irrelevant.


No, it is -very- irrelevant. To prove (or disprove) that half of all
marriages end up in divorce then you must know how many marriages and
divorces occur in a given amount of time. You can't determine that
information from the static data you sourced from the Census bureau.
The data I provided was accurate, relevant, and, according to the
source of -your- data, came from -the- authoritative source on the
subject. My statement was correct.

So then how many divorcees end up remarried?


Read my statement again, but this time stretch the limits of your
reading comprehension skills:

"Half of all marriages end in divorce."

That statement is disingenuous. Many people marry for the wrong
reasons once, divorce after 2 or 3 years, and then marry again, and
this time stay married. Those facts aren't reflected in your numbers.


The federal budget reports claimed that "republicans tapped social
security"?


Not in those exact words -- you need to have enough brains to figure
out that when the SS trust fund gets tapped for spending on Republican
bills during Republican administrations, it's usually done by the
Republicans.

So I suppose that the democrats had not done the same thing when they
controlled the congress (Which they did up until 1994)?

If you want to say that congress plays creative accounting games with
Social Security, I'll agree and let it pass. But don't try to pin this
on republicans alone. Unless, of course, you truly are a blind
partisan.


The blame does indeed rest with the Republicans. The Democrats have
consistently pushed to bolster Social Security since the 1960's, while
the Republicans have repeatedly dipped into the fund.

Proof please. Democrats have traditionally been of the expand
government programs, and tax people to pay for it type. While
republicans have been in favor of trimming government programs and
giving money back to the people.


Are you so out
of touch that you don't understand why the Democrats are so popular
with people that don't have a six-digit retirement portfolio? Holy
crap you are ignorant, Dave!

The reason that democrats are popular with the poor and politically
ignorant (Which appears to include you), is because they promise to
"give" them something that they don't have to earn themselves. Whether
it's welfare, Social Security, Food Stamps, free health care, extended
unemployment, or any number of "gimme" programs. Those programs are
championed by democrats, and favored by people in need, and paid for
by people who earn. It's nothing more than redistribution of wealth
and leveraging class warfare to advance their political goals. One of
those goals is to create a class of dependant people who the democrats
can continue to feed (Just enough to keep them above water, but not
enough to become truly independent), in exchange for their continued
support.

Democrats are popular with those who take.

Republicans are popular with those who MAKE.


Any liberal who supports subsidizing any and all social programs,
starting with Welfare, and ending with Medicare. This programs are
part and parcel of a "Welfare State".


A certain amount of socialism is going to be part of the system
-regardless- of who runs the country.

No, it doesn't have to be. I suppose you've heard the saying: "Give a
person a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a person to fish and
they'll eat for a lifetime"? That's one of the major differences in
ideological philosophies between conservatives and liberals. Liberals
just want to throw money at every problem and hope that it goes away.
Conservatives want to teach people to be self sufficient and to learn
to stop thinking of themselves as victims.


The reason is simple: poor
people vote. So would you support a Constitutional Amendment that
would guarantee every citizen the right to vote?

Sure, why not? Most poor people would rather earn their own keep, if
given that chance.


First of all, what you refer to as a "living wage" is mighty important
to millions of voters who don't make a "living wage", mostly due to
irresponsible Republican economic plans

Irresponsible Republican plans? You really area blind partisan aren't
you? What "republican (Or democrat for that matter) plan" can stop the
natural course to the free international market without seriously
altering it?


Let's put it this way: For the past few decades the Republicans have
been campaigning on the pretext that they are for smaller government,
yet in -every- Republican-dominated administration the government has
increased in both size and spending.

Proof please. Start in 1995 with Newt Gingrich's brilliantly executed
"Contract with America" and how, for the first time in many years, a
republican led majority in congress, slashed pork, wasteful spending,
and government programs which resulted in the balanced budget that
"Slick willie" Clinton tried to take credit for, and laid the
foundation for the tax cuts that Bush gave back to every taxpayer.

Republicans spend like they are
on a Bloomingdale's shopping spree! They claim that all the spending
is good for the economy, yet when it comes time to pay the bill for
all that spending they lose control of the budget with phrases like,
"Read my lips...." and the people get stuck with the bill. Then they
leave the books for the Democrats to balance and maybe build up a
surplus, which the Republicans end up throwing away on more spending
and tax refunds when they regain control of the budget.

You've got the cycle right, but for the wrong reasons. Democrats,
enact social programs which cost money. They therefore have to raise
taxes to pay for them. High taxes **** off a lot of people, so they
vote the democrats out and the republicans in. The republicans slash
and burn the democrats programs, give people tax relief, and cut the
budget. Then people start to bitch that they want this program and
that program, and accuse the republican administration of being
"insensitive" to the needs of these whiny special interest groups, and
they vote in a slick talking democrat who will promise them the moon,
but neglect to inform them of what it will all cost. Then the cycle
repeats.

This administration has been the lone exception. Spending has been
ridiculous for a republican administration. But remember, we were
recovering from a recession which started with the stock market crash
at the end of Clinton's term. We also had 9/11, and we're fighting two
wars. Those are not normal circumstances.


It's like none of them ever learned basic fiscal responsibility: when
you get a little extra cash it's much wiser to use it to pay down the
credit cards, put back what you pilfered from the SS trust fund, and
save a little for a rainy day. Nope, the Reps just end up throwing the
money around like they were eccentric tycoons and it was -their- money
to spend. And when that money is all gone they just max out the credit
cards -- again. What they say and what they do are two very different
things. That is what I call 'irresponsible'.

You've just described historically typical democratic spending
policies. How come it only bothers you now when it's a republican at
the helm?

Can you say "Partisan"? Sure you can.....


And who stops those who are making less than a living wage from
obtaining the skills necessary to rise above that? You did it. I did
it. There's no excuse for anyone so motivated to not rise above the
poverty level. Of course you'd have to stop ****ing away your pay on
drugs, booze and cheap "dates" with the professional women.

It's called "Personal Responsibility". Take charge of your own life.
Don't wait for the government to bale you out (And blame then when
they don't).

Repeat after me: "I am not a victim!"


You need to pull your head out of the sand. I used to think that way
too, that everyone has the ability to take charge of their own future,
to better themselves with education, to work hard and make something
of themselves.

You were right then. What happened?

Then I got a look at the -real- world.

No, you were indoctrinated by a whiney left coast liberal.

It just doesn't work that way, Dave.

Yes, yes it does. There is absolutely no reason why a person with
marketable skills cannot obtain a gainfully paying job. No one said
the path will be easy or the same for every person. But there is a
path. You just have to be willing to take it, and stay the course.

You claim to live in the real world yet you know
nothing about it. And I'm not going to explain this aspect of it to
you. You have to go find out the facts for yourself -- assuming you
want to continue to claim that you are in touch with reality.

Frank, I live in the real world, I observe real people, and am
particularly sensitive to the psychological aspects of how people
interact. There is no good reason you can give me, that will convince
me that any person, who is duly motivated, cannot achieve some level
of financial independence. There is nothing magical, genetic, or
special about people like Bill Gates, Donald Trump, Sean Fanning, or
any number of other people who took dirt and made it into something.

Some people whine that they couldn't afford to go to college. Yet
there are others who find a way to make it happen. Others whine that
they're being discriminated against. Yet there are others in a similar
group who achieve quite well. Then there are people who say that there
are just no jobs out there for them. Then there are those who are
willing to relocate to where the jobs are.

There are two kinds of people in this world Frank. Those who achieve,
and those who make excuses why they won't.

If you have a defeatist attitude, you're doomed before you start. Part
of the problem is that our culture has adopted an "Instant
gratification" aspect. Whether it be in the things we buy or the path
we choose to aspire to, we expect things to happen right away. There
is little patience involved. If your circumstances dictate that you
will not be able to earn a college degree for 10 years of night
school, while working at Wal-Mart, then many people with little
patience quit and then vote for a democrat who will give them food
stamps. Those who stick it out, will eventually receive the rewards
for their efforts. With today's technology, there are businesses that
anyone with a computer can set up on line with virtually no overhead.
There are people who make 6 figure incomes just by buying and selling
items on E-Bay.

America truly IS the land of opportunity. But it's not the land of
guarantees. You have to be willing to WORK for your success. Unless
you have a physical or mental handicap, which prevents you from
working, you have only yourself to blame if you don't succeed.



(not to forget that 40% of
wage-earners don't make enough money to pay income taxes and therefore
didn't get Bush's 'tax rebate' that turned out to be nothing more than
a loan).

I suppose you're one of those people who feel that those who didn't
put anything into the tax system should v'e got something back. This
wasn't "giveaway money" it was a REBATE on tax money already paid in
to the system, If you didn't pay anything in, you can't very well get
a rebate on it back. Last time I went to school 100% of zero is still
zero.


As usual, you missed the whole point: 40% of people who work don't
make enough to pay taxes. What does that tell you, Dave? And there is
no such thing as a "tax rebate" -- if government spending doesn't
decrease by the same amount then it's nothing but a loan. As it turns
out, government spending increased -dramatically- after the rebate and
-before- 9/11; Bush's plan was that the "rebate" would stimulate the
economy enough that the cost of the rebates would come back in the
form of increased tax revenue. The plan never worked before

Actually there are credible economic sources that claim that Bush's
tax rebate did lessen somewhat both the severity and the duration of
the recession. So it did work, to some degree.

, but
apparently Bush slept through that class in college (you and Bush sure
have a lot in common).

Interesting side note. Apparently Kerry has finally released his GPA
for the years when he was at Yale. It seems that his GPA was WORSE
than Bush's. Imagine that.......


Second, "fair share" is in reference to fat-cats and corporations who
skip out of paying taxes through shelters, subsidies and a variety of
other carefully legislated loopholes.

As opposed to the progressive tax scale which punishes those who
achieve by burdening them with a higher tax rate? A flat tax rate is
the fairest thing. Everyone pays the same percentage. Those who make
more, pay more as a matter of percentage of gross. But a progressive
tax rate is little more than a thinly veiled socialistic attempt to
shift the burdens of society from those who take the most, to those
who make the most.


I don't recall saying anything about a "progressive tax rate".

You don't have to. That's what we currently have.



And "universal care" is a simple concept that provides basic health
care service for anyone whether they can afford it or not

But SOMEONE has to pay for it.


OF COURSE someone has to pay for it. Someone has to pay for every
aspect of the government. Do you want it to be fair? Then boil down
the cost of government per person and let -that- be the tax.

I tend to liken that approach to what happens when my work group
decides to celebrate some award or other activity at a local eating
establishment. We have 10 or 15 people, who all order different
things, some order appetizers and alcoholic drinks as well. The when
the bill comes, and because it's easy, they normally just take the
amount and divide it by the number of people, and everyone forks up.

The problem is that I usually end up paying $15 for a meal which in
reality should have cost me $8.50. I end up paying for those extra
appetizers and drinks that some of the other people ordered.

So much for "fair"


I'd much rather pay for what I use.


If they
can't pay it then send them to debter's gulag where they can work off
their debt to the government. And don't forget to ship them off when
they're young -- heck you don't want to defer taxes to kids while they
go to college since they might end up improving their life and taking
your job in the future. And if they get sick just let them die, even
if the illness is curable. After all, if they can't produce anything
they might as well be dead anyway, right? And if they can't even meet
their tax burden then what business do they have spending money on
antibiotics to get rid of an infection, or a doctor to set a broken
leg? Survival of the fittest, to be sure. Darwinism + taxes. Good
plan, Dave.

Typical of liberals. Rely on a strawman argument in an effort to make
your point. But then when your point is based on an exaggeration of
reality, so to, is your credibility.


-- more
specifically, the programs are targeted towards children whose parents
work two or three of Bush's new jobs and still can't pay the rent, let
alone health insurance for their children.

People who do not possess the skills or motivation to obtain gainful
jobs should not be having children. It's that "personal
responsibility" thing again.

Actually, it's almost verbatim from "Mein Kampf". Sterilize the weak
so they are not a burden on society. Even better, just "sterilize"
society, and that way you can eliminate the 'ghetto' stage.

Well, that's a far better solution then just letting people have
children, willy-nilly without having any practical means to support
them, and then expecting society to save them from their own mess.
Ultimately the children are the ones who suffer, and statistically,
children brought up in those situations rarely exceed the economic
status of their irresponsible parents (Another cliche for you: "The
apple never falls far from the tree"). Whether it's genetic of
environmental, the result is the same.

The philosophical question is: Should a person's right to procreate
deserve greater consideration than their responsibility to properly
care for their offspring?


Raising children is an enormous
responsibility both financial and emotional. Potential parents should
be ready on both counts before bringing another mouth to feed into the
world and then abdicating their responsibilities on to the rest of us.


Zieg Heil!

Attempts to demonize a rational point about personal responsibility by
invoking an emotional reaction through a vain attempt to make a poorly
crafted and unrelated comparison to an evil regime in another place
and time are just as bogus now, as when those who employ the same
technique compare Bush to Hitler.


It's also targeted towards
the increasing senior population who will be SOL when the SS trust
fund dries up in a few years

Yet you guys on the left are the ones now claiming that there is no
problem with social security. Yet when Clinton was in office, it was a
"big problem". Would you please make up your minds......


Despite the countless times I have reminded you, you keep forgetting
that I'm not one of those "guys on the left". I never claimed that
there was no problem with Social Security.

Yet you oppose Bush's plan to change the way it works in order to save
it.? Or would you rather just dump more and more taxpayer money into
what is essentially a pyramid scheme?


Yet "West Wing" is any less shallow and crafted? It's Hollywood's
version of what THEY would like the government to be.

How would you know? You've never seen it.

I've read reviews and talked to other people who DO watch it.


But which show stands a better chance of happening in the real world?

COPS.


True, but COPS was not one of the choices.


Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

(Then why do you keep invoking sources that, by your own admission, have
no credibility? Are you attempting to achieve truth by repitition? Or
are you just plain stupid? )


Well, gentlemen understand that certain

personal experience contributes to the insight

on certain subjects.


Which necessitates the end result a personal opinion or interpretation,
not a reality or fact.

But if you want to turn every claim into an "It's

a lie until irrefutable proof positive is offered to
substantiate it", situation then ok, your point is

valid.



Not every claim, just your wild, unsolicited claims regarding
self-qualification claims you felt important enough to bring forth, but
for which not to provide even remote substantiation.

In that case, there's no further point in

debating, since that level of proof is usually

not forthcoming.

Not from you it sure isn't.

David T. Hall Jr. (N3CVJ) wrote:
If your circumstances dictate that you will not

be able to earn a college degree for 10 years

of night school, while working at Wal-Mart,

then many people with little patience quit and

then vote for a democrat who will give them

food stamps. Those who stick it out, will

eventually receive the rewards for their efforts.

Nice theory, but you can't swing that excuse in the real world. For
example, take the layoffs GM just announced. Many are single parents
with school age children who can not go back to school AND support a
family. What should they do, Dave? They lost their well paying jobs and
medical insurance for themselves and their children. If you were well
educated in the world beyond eastern Pa., you would know what the
employment scene is like in Detroit. You claim one can simply move away,
but that is based on your own lack of education and not able to realize
many can't move away for a myriad of reasons, such as caring for an
infirm parent nearby in a care facility for but a single example. More
children are now caring for parents than in any other time in our
history. Many have taken out home equity loans to pay for health care
and prescription coverage that they lost through no fault of their own.
There is an entire contingency in many demographical areas of the US in
which many are trapped in a sort of financial snare. People like you
usually get what is coming in the end and karma, luck, divine
intervention, whatever, will dictate you end up just like those you
blame for being poor, black, queer, liberal, etc. In fact, your daughter
may quit school, commonly become pregnant to an African-American or
three, have many children and volunteer at the ACLU before realizing she
is a lesbian and needs a job to pay the attorney for the crack and
prostitution charges.