"katy" wrote in message
...
Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article t,
Maxprop wrote:
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
Joe wrote:
Gilligan wrote:
http://reuters.myway.com/article/200...A-SPAT-DC.html
Baby Hugo is a wacko.

Anyone who buys Citco gasoline is putting money in his pocket.
We have one down the street, Regular is 2.07 but right across the
street Exxon Mobil is 2.09.

They are always 2 - 3 cents cheaper so they can suck in the dumb ****s
to stupid to know any better.
We should be paying $5/gallon.
I find it amusing that you and the left wing are the first to condemn
Bush for his role with big oil, but turn around and advocate $5 per
gallon gasoline.

It should be in the form of a gas tax. Big oil has nothing to do with
it.
Move to Michigan, then...they've already got heavy gas taxes that have
stretched their economy to the limit....

Indiana has recently matched Michigan in terms of tax surcharges on
gasoline. Despite that it generally is anywhere from 5 to 10 cents cheaper
to buy gas in Michigan than in northern Indiana.

Max

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 03:08:34 GMT, "Maxprop" said:

I find it amusing that you and the left wing are the first to condemn Bush
for his role with big oil, but turn around and advocate $5 per gallon
gasoline.

That's pretty much of a piece with their other positions--more taxes so
gumming bureaucrats can redistribute money from those who earned it to
those
who didn't.

Redistribution of wealth--a fundamental tenet of liberal philosophy.

Max

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 11:07:48 -0400, DSK said:

While probably true, what I meant was gummint bureaucrats.

Freudian slip?

To do the allusion right, I probably should use Twain's original
spelling--govment. But who reads Twain these days anyway.

I do. He's currently my favorite author. Amazing writer, Clemens.

I've always
thought that with his ear for dialect he should have spelled it "gummint."

I seem to recall that he did in one of his novels. Can't recall which,
however.

Max

If it hadn't been for Vietnam, the GS would have had a chance.


I would say on the whole that Johnson's 'Great Society' was
more of a success than Nixon's Viet Nam.


Dave wrote:
And if it hadn't been for the torching of our major cities.

??
Are you getting 'Great Society' confused with the Rural
Electrification Program? Torches were unnecessary.


And if it hadn't been for paying single teenage girls to stay home and make
babies.

It's about sex, isn't it? Poor people shouldn't be gettin'
any! Neither should Democrats!!

DSK

Maxprop wrote:
Redistribution of wealth--a fundamental tenet of liberal philosophy.


A proper conservative gov't would not redistribute wealth?
How do you feel about President Bush's programs of wealth
redistribution?

DSK

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 03:08:34 GMT, "Maxprop" said:

I find it amusing that you and the left wing are the first to condemn
Bush
for his role with big oil, but turn around and advocate $5 per gallon
gasoline.

That's pretty much of a piece with their other positions--more taxes so
gumming bureaucrats can redistribute money from those who earned it to
those
who didn't.


Yes, that's exactly what I want. It would, for one thing, reduce crime. It
would be far cheaper to invest in education and give people a handout than
put them in prison after they've victimized people.

You've done the math on that?


I know this upsets you. I'm sorry.

More than upsetting, it is simply wrong. When one's wealth is taken away
and given to others to equalize the relative wealth of a society, the
stimulus for self-improvement and personal growth is removed. Ultimately no
one works hard enough to accumulate enough wealth for the process of
redistribution, leading to universal poverty. See: Soviet Russia and Cuba
for examples.

Max

"Gilligan" wrote in message
. ..

"Maxprop" wrote in message
.net...

"katy" wrote in message
...
Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article , Bart Senior .@. wrote:
Gore/Chavez '08

Cheney/Robertson '08 - we're not going to live forever anyway.

Dick Cheney will never run...his health is on the brink...he'd meltdown
before the world did....

Right. I'm hoping for a Rumsfeld/Scooter Libby team in '08.

Max


Quayle/Forbes in 08. I'm going to vote for Goldwater, again.

That damned liberal??

Max

"katy" wrote in message
...
Maxprop wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
...
Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article , Bart Senior .@. wrote:
Gore/Chavez '08
Cheney/Robertson '08 - we're not going to live forever anyway.

Dick Cheney will never run...his health is on the brink...he'd meltdown
before the world did....

Right. I'm hoping for a Rumsfeld/Scooter Libby team in '08.

Max
Yuk....no way....I like the Quayle/Forbes better than that....Mark Warner
looks better and better all the time...

Hillary/Pelosi. Now there's a team.

Max

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article t,
Maxprop wrote:

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
Joe wrote:

Gilligan wrote:
http://reuters.myway.com/article/200...A-SPAT-DC.html

Baby Hugo is a wacko.

Anyone who buys Citco gasoline is putting money in his pocket.
We have one down the street, Regular is 2.07 but right across the
street Exxon Mobil is 2.09.

They are always 2 - 3 cents cheaper so they can suck in the dumb ****s
to stupid to know any better.

We should be paying $5/gallon.

Why? So the working poor will not be able to get to work? So those
without
the means to buy gasoline to fuel their cheap, older, but consumptive
vehicles will become completely insolvent, rather than just partially so?
So your Yugo will be vindicated?

So those who can afford to pay it will be forced to pay it. There
should be exemptions for the poor and for those who drive for a
living.

I, you, and most of the people on this ng can afford to pay
$5/gallon.

Of course. But many can't. How are you going to administer exemptions for
the working poor? The cost of the gummint's exemption program would
probably exceed the revenue taken in via the increased gasoline revenues.
Or hadn't you noticed how incredibly inefficient our federal gummint is?

Max

Profiling of course. If you're rich it's obvious, if you're not willing to
be obvious, you'll need to switch to a 80s model car.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article t,
Maxprop wrote:

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
Joe wrote:

Gilligan wrote:
http://reuters.myway.com/article/200...A-SPAT-DC.html

Baby Hugo is a wacko.

Anyone who buys Citco gasoline is putting money in his pocket.
We have one down the street, Regular is 2.07 but right across the
street Exxon Mobil is 2.09.

They are always 2 - 3 cents cheaper so they can suck in the dumb ****s
to stupid to know any better.

We should be paying $5/gallon.

Why? So the working poor will not be able to get to work? So those
without
the means to buy gasoline to fuel their cheap, older, but consumptive
vehicles will become completely insolvent, rather than just partially so?
So your Yugo will be vindicated?

So those who can afford to pay it will be forced to pay it. There
should be exemptions for the poor and for those who drive for a
living.

I, you, and most of the people on this ng can afford to pay
$5/gallon.

Of course. But many can't. How are you going to administer exemptions
for the working poor? The cost of the gummint's exemption program would
probably exceed the revenue taken in via the increased gasoline revenues.
Or hadn't you noticed how incredibly inefficient our federal gummint is?

Max