On 02/23/2011 05:31 AM, dxAce wrote:


dave wrote:

On 02/23/2011 02:30 AM, dxAce wrote:

As a former union member, my homework was done a long time ago. I suggest YOU do your
homework regarding this issue vis-a vis Wisconsin. This has nothing to do with private
sector unions, but rather public sector unions.

But in typical Liberal/Democrat/Marxist/Socialist fashion, you have attempted to twist the
issue into something else entirely.

Please, try to pay attention!


Unions are a side issue. This is about Republicans over-reaching,
claiming mandates where none exist, and politically attacking
democratic-leaning institutions for purely political reasons.

Damn! I thought it was about balancing a budget.


You can't steal all the money, then claim a crisis for which the only
cure is to fire everyone. The people see a 14 billion dollar debt and a
17 billion dollar bailout of Wall Street. They see some of the thieves
trying to break up the Unions, and they are ****ed.

You almost got away with it; the people always seem to wake up just in time.

Beware the British East India Company!

On 02/23/2011 06:06 AM, dave wrote:
On 02/23/2011 05:31 AM, dxAce wrote:


dave wrote:

On 02/23/2011 02:30 AM, dxAce wrote:

As a former union member, my homework was done a long time ago. I
suggest YOU do your
homework regarding this issue vis-a vis Wisconsin. This has nothing
to do with private
sector unions, but rather public sector unions.

But in typical Liberal/Democrat/Marxist/Socialist fashion, you have
attempted to twist the
issue into something else entirely.

Please, try to pay attention!


Unions are a side issue. This is about Republicans over-reaching,
claiming mandates where none exist, and politically attacking
democratic-leaning institutions for purely political reasons.

Damn! I thought it was about balancing a budget.


You can't steal all the money, then claim a crisis for which the only
cure is to fire everyone. The people see a 14 billion dollar debt and a
17 billion dollar bailout of Wall Street. They see some of the thieves
trying to break up the Unions, and they are ****ed.

You almost got away with it; the people always seem to wake up just in
time.

Beware the British East India Company!

I meaned trillion

On Feb 23, 7:35*am, dave wrote:
On 02/23/2011 06:06 AM, dave wrote:



On 02/23/2011 05:31 AM, dxAce wrote:

dave wrote:

On 02/23/2011 02:30 AM, dxAce wrote:

As a former union member, my homework was done a long time ago. I
suggest YOU do your
homework regarding this issue vis-a vis Wisconsin. This has nothing
to do with private
sector unions, but rather public sector unions.

But in typical Liberal/Democrat/Marxist/Socialist fashion, you have
attempted to twist the
issue into something else entirely.

Please, try to pay attention!

Unions are a side issue. This is about Republicans over-reaching,
claiming mandates where none exist, and politically attacking
democratic-leaning institutions for purely political reasons.

Damn! I thought it was about balancing a budget.

You can't steal all the money, then claim a crisis for which the only
cure is to fire everyone. The people see a 14 billion dollar debt and a
17 billion dollar bailout of Wall Street. They see some of the thieves
trying to break up the Unions, and they are ****ed.

You almost got away with it; the people always seem to wake up just in
time.

Beware the British East India Company!

I meaned trillion

'Special-Dave' a Billion Times or a Trillion Times
either way you are W r o n g !

-ps- Beware the Special Dave Medical Marijuana Company !

On 02/23/2011 10:34 AM, RHF wrote:


the Tea Act taxed the tea at source (i.e. in India) so there was no tax
collection in the colonies. The act allowed the tea to go directly to
America instead of having to be imported to Britain and then re-exported
to the colonies. This made the tea 9d per lb cheaper, even with the 3d
tax. It also allowed the East India Company to sell the tea exclusively
to chosen merchants (consignees) in the American colonies. This
established monopolies in America and offended colonial merchants.

In addition the government made a loan of £1.4 million to the East India
Company which was to be allowed to ship tea directly and on its own
account to America. The Company would pay the 3d duty on the tea's entry
into the colonies but was exempt from reimbursing the English customs
for the 1/- English duty which would previously have fallen on it. The
consequence was that tea would sell at 10/- per lb in America, not the
£1 which it had fetched recently. This would increase its consumption
and so the Company would be helped out of its financial difficulties.
Furthermore, the Company aided the government by taking measures against
smuggling now that it was delivering direct to America. The tea was
consigned in known quantities and to authorized merchants acting as
Company agents. However, by that time, the colonists were suspicious of
British motives and the Tea Act led directly to the Boston Tea Party.

http://www.boston-tea-party.org/tea-act.html

On Feb 23, 2:13*pm, dave wrote:
On 02/23/2011 10:34 AM, RHF wrote:



the Tea Act taxed the tea at source (i.e. in India) so there was no tax
collection in the colonies. The act allowed the tea to go directly to
America instead of having to be imported to Britain and then re-exported
to the colonies. This made the tea 9d per lb cheaper, even with the 3d
tax. It also allowed the East India Company to sell the tea exclusively
to chosen merchants (consignees) in the American colonies. This
established monopolies in America and offended colonial merchants.

In addition the government made a loan of 1.4 million to the East India
Company which was to be allowed to ship tea directly and on its own
account to America. The Company would pay the 3d duty on the tea's entry
into the colonies but was exempt from reimbursing the English customs
for the 1/- English duty which would previously have fallen on it. The
consequence was that tea would sell at 10/- per lb in America, not the
1 which it had fetched recently. This would increase its consumption
and so the Company would be helped out of its financial difficulties.
Furthermore, the Company aided the government by taking measures against
smuggling now that it was delivering direct to America. The tea was
consigned in known quantities and to authorized merchants acting as
Company agents. However, by that time, the colonists were suspicious of
British motives and the Tea Act led directly to the Boston Tea Party.

http://www.boston-tea-party.org/tea-act.html

And today it may as well be called the 'coffee--party' . Due to it's
popularity .