OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Bzzt. What if a gov't "slightly restructured an existing policy" to
eliminate a tax? No, don't tell me. The answer is invade Iraq. :-)


Your tax dollars made the Iraq invasion possible.

Tax dollars paid for the gas chambers in Germany.

WMD's all paid for with tax dollars.

All crimes against humanity done with tax dollars.

OT / My pet peeve *fatties* ...cheese
 

Maxprop wrote:

When was the last time you saw something
notable or particularly productive emanating from Norway? Gorgeous
country, but stagnant.

Ever hear of Nokia? The big cel phone manufacturer? Norway was way
ahead of the curve in cel phone technology. Still is.

Plus Nokia Hakkepallitta tires are the best snowtires you will ever have
the pleasure of driving on. Bar none.

Please stop being such an ignorant jingoist twit. Thank you.


Todd Nozzle wrote:

The US does it in spite of bordering third world countries both north and
south.

Please stop being such an ignorant jingoist twit. Thank you.

//Walt

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

I'd be all in favor of putting a stop to it, except that
every single gov't that ever existed, AFAIK, indulged in the
same thing to one degree or another.

Got any practical ideas


Dave wrote:
A number. Unfortunately, I have to do some work rather than writing a book.

So I see.

Does answering all those other usenet posts count as work ;)

DSK

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

This is the time to cut taxes?? I thought the economy is doing really well.
Why do we need to cut taxes for the rich even more?

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 10:08:56 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

What if a gov't "slightly restructured an existing policy" to
eliminate a tax?

Hey, the Reps just cut taxes a bit and the Dems screamed bloody murder.
Actually eliminate a tax? How will the members of the govmint employees'
union put food on the table?

OT / My pet peeve *fatties* ...cheese
 

"Walt" wrote in message
...

Maxprop wrote:

When was the last time you saw something
notable or particularly productive emanating from Norway? Gorgeous
country, but stagnant.

Ever hear of Nokia? The big cel phone manufacturer? Norway was way ahead
of the curve in cel phone technology. Still is.

Plus Nokia Hakkepallitta tires are the best snowtires you will ever have
the pleasure of driving on. Bar none.

Please stop being such an ignorant jingoist twit. Thank you.


Todd Nozzle wrote:

The US does it in spite of bordering third world countries both north and
south.

Please stop being such an ignorant jingoist twit. Thank you.

//Walt

Ann Arbor Librul!

OT / My pet peeve *fatties* ...cheese
 

Todd Nozzle wrote:
crap snipped


Glen, would you please do me the favor of staying in your friggin
killfile and sparing me the transparent sockpuppets?

Good grief, you don't even know how to keep your IP out of the
headers. At least Neal has that basic level of competence for all his
sock-puppetry.

Pathetic.

// Walt

OT / My pet peeve *fatties* ...cheese
 

"Walt" wrote in message
...
Todd Nozzle wrote:
crap snipped


Glen, would you please do me the favor of staying in your friggin killfile
and sparing me the transparent sockpuppets?

They are purposely transparent.



Good grief, you don't even know how to keep your IP out of the headers.
At least Neal has that basic level of competence for all his
sock-puppetry.

Even worse, you don't even have the basic level of skill to use my IP
address to killfile me.


Pathetic.


Truly.

// Walt


Walt, Gilligan was a bungling incompetent on a TV show. Search the name
"Glen Harris Milstead" you'll find he was a 300lb transvestite famous for
eating dog feces in a movie. He died in his sleep from apnea because he was
so fat. He played a character named "Babs Johnson" - the filthiest person
alive. Lloyd Bonifide is a real life sock puppet who is famous for his
cluelessness. I'm not revealing who or what Todd Nozzle is yet but there is
significance there.

I want my IP in the headers. I want to make it obvious. If it is easy then
people tend not to think. If they don't think then they are easy targets for
amusing trolls. God, do I laugh when our own Dick Tracy - Charlie Morgan -
points out "Look at the IP!" "It's Gilligan" on discovering something so
obvious.

If it really annoys you so much then report me, all the info is there. My
provider will cut service and your source of irritation will be gone. Your
world will be a better place.

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"katy" wrote in message
...
Maxprop wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
...

. . .and it doesn't convert to formaldehyde like

Nutrasweet...


Yeah, but think how well-preserved you'd be with Nutrasweet.

Max
...with Alzheimer's....

Not so bad, really. Everyone you meet is a newcomer.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..

Maxprop wrote:

Of course it's nannyism. The end product is to protect Americans from
themselves: nannyism. Penalizing advertising is, incidentally, a
legislative action, which you seemed to decry above.

No, it's fiscal policy.

That's nothing short of spin, plain and simple. Fiscal policy is ways and
means. Punitive taxation is nannyism.

I guess you think that tax deductions for charity contributions, and for
legitimate R&D, etc etc, are also nany-ism?

Nope. They aren't punitive, nor designed to protect citizens from
themselves.


Face facts. The current social & economic & legal framework within which
we all function, and all businesses & corporations too, is a result of
"legislation" if you use it as a blanket term. Why is a dollar bill worth
a dollar, why do merchants accept it? Because of legislation.

I never implied that legislation, in and of itself, constitutes nannyism.
When legislation is enacted to protect us from ourselves, then it is. Why
is this such a tough concept to grasp?


In other words, using that word as a catch-all for big bad gummint
interference (which I am also against) is friggin' stupid. There is
*alread* a huge web of rules & practices in place, which gave rise to the
situation as it exists. Oretending they don't exist, so you can whine
about how changing already-existing policy is nannyism, is not any
effective answer.

See my response immediately above.

... And it would not work unless the level of punitive taxation would
exceed the financial benefit to the company in quesiton. Bad, unworkable
idea.

I guess the current tax skews towards charity donations & R&D are also bad
unworkable ideas?

Oh dear. (sigh)

And how would a government effect such tax penalties without appearing
prejudicial?


Why worry about that? Of course it's prejudicial! The "Medicare Reform
Bill" thinly disguised bail-out for the big pharm corps was prejudicial,
as are speeding laws. Heck, the recent Supreme Court decision to make the
Treasury put Braille on all paper money is prejudicial against people with
good vision... after all, we have to pay for it.

It isn't prejudicial if it does not penalize someone or a particular group.
Does it penalize the sighted if braille is added to paper money? Hardly.
Prejudice in terms of punitive taxation would be penalizing McDonalds for
advertising high-fat food while exempting Phillip Morris because they
advertise a website devoted to helping kids avoid smoking. Phillip Morris
kills more people each year than murderers, and McDonalds, through the
Ronald McDonald Foundation, helps myriad needy families throughout the
country. My point is that when such prejudicial decisions as to whom to tax
and whom to exempt are made by those idiots in Washington we commonly refer
to as 'legislators,' the end result will be a morass.

Did somebody promise you that life was always totally fair? If so, I hope
they gave you a lollipop too.

I've been around longer than you, Doug. I know all about inequity in life.
Don't be so arrogant as to preach to one whose experience trumps yours by a
wide margin.

... Would it be acceptable to allow, say, Phillip Morris to promote their
'prevent kids from smoking' website while taxing McDonalds for pushing
Big Macs? Both companies produce potentially harmful products that
become addictive.


Maybe we should just sue both companies... no wait, somebody tried that.

Knock yourself out. Personally I just choose to avoid the products of both.
What a novel idea! I believe it's called self-reliance.



And you accuse Dave of ad hominems, particularly when they are no such
thing. This is beyond laughable, Doug. You are the cardinal hypocrite
in this NG.


Hardly. I'm not pretending to be a libertarian, nor pretending to be
against nannyism while demanding that a Race Committee protect me from too
much wind.

LOL. You sound like a friggin' broken record. Whatever.


Back to the issue: There are essentially only two alternatives.

Hardly.

.... If the government enacts *any* sort of program to protect us from
ourselves, that *is* nannyism.

Perhaps you could look at it that way... if you go far enough with this
approach, then you might as well get rid of gov't. After all, it's only a
great big nanny to protect those who shouldn't need it or want it if only
they had enough backbone.

Actually the government is really just one big nanny. They protect us from
armed combatants (the armed services), they provide for the welfare of the
needy (welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, WIC, etc.), and they mandate such things
as seatbelt laws, gun laws, labor laws, drug laws, etc. ad infinitum/ad
nauseum. They also mandate social security rather than allowing people to
invest that money in something that earns income. With the exception of the
military, I generally turn a jaundiced eye to what our government does.
That makes me a libertarian, like it or not. You, OTOH, abhor the concept
of self-reliance (your vitriolic rancor toward the GOP's attempt to
privatize retirement funds as opposed to social security a typical example)
(socialism), which makes you a socialist. Of course you claim to be a
conservative. So who's the hypocrite here?

... Couching such actions in the guise of selective/progressive taxation
or penalties is the most blatant from of denial.

Only if you're either too stupid to know the difference, or profoundly
prejudiced against looking at the situation rationally.

And your definition of rationality would be *being in unswerving agreement
with you?*

You are not fractionally as bright as you believe yourself to be. You are
interminably steeped in hypocrisy and denial. Can you spell 'dogma?'

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Martin Baxter" wrote in message
...
Maxprop wrote:
When was the last time you saw something
notable or particularly productive emanating from Norway? Gorgeous
country,
but stagnant.


How provincial.

Spoken like a true cannuck. You guys do live in provinces, doncha?

Max