On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 18:51:08 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:01:51 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:15:11 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote:


"Lu Powell" wrote in message
...

First, most excellent post. But one I might change.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job, you have the right and
obligation to look for a job. You do not have the right to be a
paracite.
We will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take
advantage of the opportunities of education and betterment of yourself
while
not whining and making excuses for your deficiencies at every turn.


I'd guess that gives folks the right to take responsibility for their
person.
--

Sometimes makes me wonder why people are so quick to let the government
control their lives. Too bad we couldn't segregate the country into too
parts and the pro-government statism types get to pay for government
managing their lives while leaving the other part to their liberty and
fiscal freedoms.

But that repect for others rights doesn't exist in the hearts of lib-dims.


Individual liberties are an impediment to good government.

You have twisted that.

Good government fosters a good environment for people to excel, and that
includes the ability to earn and retain the majority of their income.

Good government does not tax hard working successful people to bailout
corrupt and dysfunctional private companies like GM and the banks. Nor do
good governments rack up debt and print/create money so fast no one even
knows what it will do to the economy, other than the results will not be
good.

Japan tried it, recovery took over 10 years. Reagan took less from the
middle class and recovery began in a year. Go figure.


Sorry. I had gotten my tongue stuck in my cheek. Won't happen again.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:04:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:15:11 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote:


"Lu Powell" wrote in message
...

First, most excellent post. But one I might change.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job, you have the right and
obligation to look for a job.

I believe it's the case in the parallel world of progressivism that
it's the citizen's obligation and "duty" to pay taxes, and it's the
government's task to provide the jobs, health care, transportation,
social indoctrination, and the general security of the individual. I
think the charter that stands as the document that defines those
rights and obligations of government in that bizarro world is called
the "Manifesto." It's the evil alter-document to the Constitution.


I think you're talking about a rather extreme perspective. Certainly,
extreme perspectives exist on both ends of the political scale. In the US,
the mainstream political scale is quite narrow compared to the European
scale. We tend to forget this and try to lump people into groups on the
polar opposites. Most people are middle of the road in their politics. If
you want to get elected in this country to a national position, you mostly
have to appeal to the middle. That's a fact of political life.

You're right, Miss Woodhouse. It is an extreme perspective. I think
much of the difficulty in conducting a reasonable discussion on this
is that the moderate position may not track on the political spectrum
as it did mid century. Naturally, I may well be an extremist myself.
I've given considerable time measuring Mrs. Rands Objectivism, and
some of her political philosophy is intriguing.

Just for goodwill, here's a link to the first segment of an interview
with a young Mike Wallace:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ukJiBZ8_4k

The remaining four segments are easy enough to find.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:00:42 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:01:51 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
news:12jvb598rahufdupok3bhp0nbave52kgge@4ax. com...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:15:11 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote:


"Lu Powell" wrote in message
.. .

First, most excellent post. But one I might change.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job, you have the right
and
obligation to look for a job. You do not have the right to be a
paracite.
We will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to
take
advantage of the opportunities of education and betterment of
yourself
while
not whining and making excuses for your deficiencies at every turn.


I'd guess that gives folks the right to take responsibility for
their
person.
--

Sometimes makes me wonder why people are so quick to let the
government
control their lives. Too bad we couldn't segregate the country into
too
parts and the pro-government statism types get to pay for government
managing their lives while leaving the other part to their liberty and
fiscal freedoms.

But that repect for others rights doesn't exist in the hearts of
lib-dims.


Individual liberties are an impediment to good government.


True to some extent. There always has to be a balance, for example,
between
security and individuals' freedom or between exploitive capitalism and
social responsibility. There also needs to be a balance between a nanny
state and individual responsibility. But, truly good government is not
an
impediment to individual liberties.

That last sentence is true only if the 'truly good government' doesn't
tax. Once it takes your money, you've lost the freedom to spend it as
you wish.
--

John H


So, no national defense is ok with you? We don't need anything gov't
provides? Why do we have it then?

National defense is good, but why not talk of banks and corporations like
GM that now cost taxpayers thousands in future debt! Why not talk about
the billions going to Afganistan, a war the politicians don't have the
balls to win.

Why not talk about the government waste. Pork spending? Corruption?
Massive government debt for stuff people will never see the benefit of?

Its an Lib-Dim Obamanation....

?? We've been doing little else. Have you been asleep for the last year?

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:04:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:15:11 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote:


"Lu Powell" wrote in message
...

First, most excellent post. But one I might change.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job, you have the right and
obligation to look for a job.

I believe it's the case in the parallel world of progressivism that
it's the citizen's obligation and "duty" to pay taxes, and it's the
government's task to provide the jobs, health care, transportation,
social indoctrination, and the general security of the individual. I
think the charter that stands as the document that defines those
rights and obligations of government in that bizarro world is called
the "Manifesto." It's the evil alter-document to the Constitution.


I think you're talking about a rather extreme perspective. Certainly,
extreme perspectives exist on both ends of the political scale. In the US,
the mainstream political scale is quite narrow compared to the European
scale. We tend to forget this and try to lump people into groups on the
polar opposites. Most people are middle of the road in their politics. If
you want to get elected in this country to a national position, you mostly
have to appeal to the middle. That's a fact of political life.

You're right, Miss Woodhouse. It is an extreme perspective. I think
much of the difficulty in conducting a reasonable discussion on this
is that the moderate position may not track on the political spectrum
as it did mid century. Naturally, I may well be an extremist myself.
I've given considerable time measuring Mrs. Rands Objectivism, and
some of her political philosophy is intriguing.

I'm not a fan of Rand's philosophy. It sounds so independent, but when it
comes down to implementation it's a total failure (evidence being
Greenspan's admisson of error). It's also a rather cold philosophy in my
opinion... it has no heart, so what's the point. I missed the reference to
Woodhouse... sorry.


Just for goodwill, here's a link to the first segment of an interview
with a young Mike Wallace:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ukJiBZ8_4k

The remaining four segments are easy enough to find.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access



--
Nom=de=Plume

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 22:05:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:04:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:15:11 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote:


"Lu Powell" wrote in message
...

First, most excellent post. But one I might change.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job, you have the right and
obligation to look for a job.

I believe it's the case in the parallel world of progressivism that
it's the citizen's obligation and "duty" to pay taxes, and it's the
government's task to provide the jobs, health care, transportation,
social indoctrination, and the general security of the individual. I
think the charter that stands as the document that defines those
rights and obligations of government in that bizarro world is called
the "Manifesto." It's the evil alter-document to the Constitution.


I think you're talking about a rather extreme perspective. Certainly,
extreme perspectives exist on both ends of the political scale. In the US,
the mainstream political scale is quite narrow compared to the European
scale. We tend to forget this and try to lump people into groups on the
polar opposites. Most people are middle of the road in their politics. If
you want to get elected in this country to a national position, you mostly
have to appeal to the middle. That's a fact of political life.

You're right, Miss Woodhouse. It is an extreme perspective. I think
much of the difficulty in conducting a reasonable discussion on this
is that the moderate position may not track on the political spectrum
as it did mid century. Naturally, I may well be an extremist myself.
I've given considerable time measuring Mrs. Rands Objectivism, and
some of her political philosophy is intriguing.

I'm not a fan of Rand's philosophy. It sounds so independent, but when it
comes down to implementation it's a total failure (evidence being
Greenspan's admisson of error). It's also a rather cold philosophy in my
opinion... it has no heart, so what's the point. I missed the reference to
Woodhouse... sorry.


I apologize for being obscure. The Woodhouse's were the family that
was at the center of Jane Austen's novel "Emma." Too, I don't know
that there has ever been a practical adaptation of objectivism in
modern history, at least not in the sense that it has ever been fully
adopted by any government of any industrialized nation. I agree that
objectivism is too stark. But, then, I'm of the opinion that true
benifence of heart, or altruism, can only come from the individual,
not government.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"wf3h" wrote in message
...
On Sep 27, 4:35 pm, "Canuck57" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...
On Sep 27, 11:29 am, wf3h wrote:



and you don't have a right to a tax rate of 15% if you're rich. if
you're rich you pay the same rate as the middle class

Another liberal fable. The rich pay a 35% tax rate on income. It's
the rich Demoncrats in DC that pay *no* taxes, as we've all seen over
the last few months, eh?

jesus...another bag of hammers

the tax rate on capital gains is 15%.

but you don't know that 'cuz rush keeps telling you how much he pays
in taxes
-------------
And adjust that for inflation!

For example if I bought a barrel of oil 50 years ago or a bar of gold, has
it increased in value or has the currency depreciated?

This is like which weighs more, a pound of lead or pound of feathers.

If you capital appreciates at 3% and inflation is at 3% you in fact pay 15%
tax on the gain and have less value. That is, lost money.

Part of why you buy stocks is that they will appreciate with inflation. But
you want more than inflation to cover taxes or you will loose value.

You will here more on "value" investing as the value of currency is becoming
less meaniingful.

Any earnings, are taxable at full rate.

Now I know, liberla low life can't understand this, but it is why most
liberal low lives don't have money or lose it pretty quick.

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Canuck57" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:00:42 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
om...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:01:51 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
news:12jvb598rahufdupok3bhp0nbave52kgge@4ax .com...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:15:11 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote:


"Lu Powell" wrote in message
. ..

First, most excellent post. But one I might change.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job, you have the
right and
obligation to look for a job. You do not have the right to be a
paracite.
We will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to
take
advantage of the opportunities of education and betterment of
yourself
while
not whining and making excuses for your deficiencies at every turn.


I'd guess that gives folks the right to take responsibility for
their
person.
--

Sometimes makes me wonder why people are so quick to let the
government
control their lives. Too bad we couldn't segregate the country into
too
parts and the pro-government statism types get to pay for government
managing their lives while leaving the other part to their liberty
and
fiscal freedoms.

But that repect for others rights doesn't exist in the hearts of
lib-dims.


Individual liberties are an impediment to good government.


True to some extent. There always has to be a balance, for example,
between
security and individuals' freedom or between exploitive capitalism and
social responsibility. There also needs to be a balance between a nanny
state and individual responsibility. But, truly good government is not
an
impediment to individual liberties.

That last sentence is true only if the 'truly good government' doesn't
tax. Once it takes your money, you've lost the freedom to spend it as
you wish.
--

John H


So, no national defense is ok with you? We don't need anything gov't
provides? Why do we have it then?

National defense is good, but why not talk of banks and corporations like
GM that now cost taxpayers thousands in future debt! Why not talk about
the billions going to Afganistan, a war the politicians don't have the
balls to win.

Why not talk about the government waste. Pork spending? Corruption?
Massive government debt for stuff people will never see the benefit of?

Its an Lib-Dim Obamanation....

?? We've been doing little else. Have you been asleep for the last year?

I don't disagree with that. Ever since Sept 2008 the US fed has
printed/created the US government shortfall. You know this is inflationary.
When a recovery occurs, it will come with an inflation bite.

Meanwhile we will just have to laugh as the lib-dims learn you can't borrow
your way out of debt.

"H the K" wrote in message
...
On 9/27/09 9:39 PM, Don White wrote:
wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:00:42 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:01:51 -0600,
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:15:11 -0600,
wrote:


"Lu wrote in message
...

First, most excellent post. But one I might change.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job, you have the
right
and
obligation to look for a job. You do not have the right to be a
paracite.
We will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to
take
advantage of the opportunities of education and betterment of
yourself
while
not whining and making excuses for your deficiencies at every
turn.


I'd guess that gives folks the right to take responsibility for
their
person.
--

Sometimes makes me wonder why people are so quick to let the
government
control their lives. Too bad we couldn't segregate the country into
too
parts and the pro-government statism types get to pay for government
managing their lives while leaving the other part to their liberty
and
fiscal freedoms.

But that repect for others rights doesn't exist in the hearts of
lib-dims.


Individual liberties are an impediment to good government.


True to some extent. There always has to be a balance, for example,
between
security and individuals' freedom or between exploitive capitalism and
social responsibility. There also needs to be a balance between a
nanny
state and individual responsibility. But, truly good government is not
an
impediment to individual liberties.

That last sentence is true only if the 'truly good government' doesn't
tax. Once it takes your money, you've lost the freedom to spend it as
you wish.
--

John H


So, no national defense is ok with you? We don't need anything gov't
provides? Why do we have it then?


--
Nom=de=Plume

~ Snerk ~
Johnny made a career of getting big pay& benefits from Uncle Sam for
minimal output.
He's doing the same now for no output.



Don't forget that until recently he took money from one or more of the
counties of northern Virginia to pretend to be a substitute teacher and
while he was doing that he made a number of racial remarks about his
students and their families.



You'd think he'd have the common sense to be grateful to the various levels
of government for his high-flying lifestyle, instead of bad mouthing them at
every opportunity.

On 9/28/09 9:15 AM, Don White wrote:
"H the wrote in message
...
On 9/27/09 9:39 PM, Don White wrote:
wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:00:42 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:01:51 -0600,
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:15:11 -0600,
wrote:


"Lu wrote in message
...

First, most excellent post. But one I might change.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job, you have the
right
and
obligation to look for a job. You do not have the right to be a
paracite.
We will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to
take
advantage of the opportunities of education and betterment of
yourself
while
not whining and making excuses for your deficiencies at every
turn.


I'd guess that gives folks the right to take responsibility for
their
person.
--

Sometimes makes me wonder why people are so quick to let the
government
control their lives. Too bad we couldn't segregate the country into
too
parts and the pro-government statism types get to pay for government
managing their lives while leaving the other part to their liberty
and
fiscal freedoms.

But that repect for others rights doesn't exist in the hearts of
lib-dims.


Individual liberties are an impediment to good government.


True to some extent. There always has to be a balance, for example,
between
security and individuals' freedom or between exploitive capitalism and
social responsibility. There also needs to be a balance between a
nanny
state and individual responsibility. But, truly good government is not
an
impediment to individual liberties.

That last sentence is true only if the 'truly good government' doesn't
tax. Once it takes your money, you've lost the freedom to spend it as
you wish.
--

John H


So, no national defense is ok with you? We don't need anything gov't
provides? Why do we have it then?


--
Nom=de=Plume

~ Snerk ~
Johnny made a career of getting big pay& benefits from Uncle Sam for
minimal output.
He's doing the same now for no output.



Don't forget that until recently he took money from one or more of the
counties of northern Virginia to pretend to be a substitute teacher and
while he was doing that he made a number of racial remarks about his
students and their families.



You'd think he'd have the common sense to be grateful to the various levels
of government for his high-flying lifestyle, instead of bad mouthing them at
every opportunity.



Apparently herring likes to bite the hand that fed and feeds him. For an
ex-government employee like herring to be knocking the government and
government employees as much as he does, well, it seems a bit odd.






--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

On Sep 27, 11:48*am, Jack wrote:
On Sep 27, 11:29*am, wf3h wrote:



and you don't have a right to a tax rate of 15% if you're rich. if
you're rich you pay the same rate as the middle class

Another liberal fable. *The rich pay a 35% tax rate on income. *It's
the rich Demoncrats in DC that pay *no* taxes, as we've all seen over
the last few months, eh?

35% ? is that all ! They're getting off easy, with no room to whine.