On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:15:55 -0800, -rick- wrote:


waterboarding
I've read only vague assertions of effectiveness without corroboration.
If it is so benign and effective why were the video tapes destroyed?
They would have been convincing.

Perhaps a better question, if it's so benign, why is it so effective?

On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 11:59:36 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


With respect to the efficacy, it works and very well. From what I've
read, that Kahlid guy broke after 1 minute 35 seconds which was
something of a record for resistance.

Do we have any corroboration for that? I mean, besides from the guys who
think it is such a great tool?


That's efficiency.

On Feb 8, 8:26*am, wrote:
On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 11:59:36 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
With respect to the efficacy, it works and very well. *From what I've
read, that Kahlid guy broke after 1 minute 35 seconds which was
something of a record for resistance.

Do we have any corroboration for that? *I mean, besides from the guys who
think it is such a great tool?



That's efficiency.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why is something that someones big brother did to all of us as kids
making such a big problem. When they catch us they cut us to pieces
and then cut off our heads.. I just don't get the pussys crying about
a dunking similar to every public pool in the world, every day...
Especially since it seems to work so good, how do we know it works,
the democrats are screaming to stop it, that's how we know...

On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 13:06:05 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 04:46:25 -0800 (PST),
wrote:


The rich republican supporters that you hear about are the top 5% in income
who coincidently control about 40% of all the wealth in the country....- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Can't have it both ways...

1 - 40% of the wealth is held by less than 1% of the population.
Compared to years past when 70% of the nations wealth was held by .5%
of the population, I'd say that was an improvement.

2 - ALL of the Presidential candidates live in homes that are worth
more than 1.5 million dollars.

3 - 80% of Senators live in homes valued more than 1 million dollars.

4 - 73% of all Representatives live in homes valued more than
$750,000.

Think about that.

Public servants my ass.

Tom, around here, $750 is not an expensive house at all. Last year my hovel
was close to that on Zillow. It's down now, but still...
--
John H

On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 13:23:26 -0000, wrote:

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:15:55 -0800, -rick- wrote:


waterboarding
I've read only vague assertions of effectiveness without corroboration.
If it is so benign and effective why were the video tapes destroyed?
They would have been convincing.

Perhaps a better question, if it's so benign, why is it so effective?

Scary.
--
John H

On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 13:26:32 -0000, wrote:

On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 11:59:36 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


With respect to the efficacy, it works and very well. From what I've
read, that Kahlid guy broke after 1 minute 35 seconds which was
something of a record for resistance.

Do we have any corroboration for that? I mean, besides from the guys who
think it is such a great tool?


That's efficiency.

CIA guy interviewed yesterday on Fox.
--
John H

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
...
On Feb 7, 8:48?pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 09:00:54 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:
According to Uncle Chuck's Sage Financial Advice, two mid-managers
grossing $200k should *typically* be looking at a boat somewhere under
$500k.

It's also important to understand whether or not the boat will qualify
for a "second home" deduction. ?That can improve net cash flow by
quite a lot in some cases.

Yes, and you simply recover the amount of income tax paid on the money
needed to make the interest portion of the payment. A family in the
30% tax bracket would probably save about $2000/month in taxes during
the early years of a $1mm boat note. Brings the net total down to
$8,000 per month before the boat ever leaves the dock, or about half
the total *gross* income for the family. My point remains, $200k per
year families are not buying $1mm boats......not unless great aunt
Harriet kicks the bucket and leaves them $500k to use for a DP.


Just doesn't make sense to me that high earners should get a tax break on a
luxury purchase such as a boat.
The US gov't should be putting that money toward your national debt.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 04:46:25 -0800 (PST),
wrote:


The rich republican supporters that you hear about are the top 5% in
income
who coincidently control about 40% of all the wealth in the country....-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Can't have it both ways...

1 - 40% of the wealth is held by less than 1% of the population.
Compared to years past when 70% of the nations wealth was held by .5%
of the population, I'd say that was an improvement.

2 - ALL of the Presidential candidates live in homes that are worth
more than 1.5 million dollars.

3 - 80% of Senators live in homes valued more than 1 million dollars.

4 - 73% of all Representatives live in homes valued more than
$750,000.

Think about that.

Public servants my ass.

Why those self serving money grubbing assholes.

Don White wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
...
On Feb 7, 8:48?pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 09:00:54 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:
According to Uncle Chuck's Sage Financial Advice, two mid-managers
grossing $200k should *typically* be looking at a boat somewhere under
$500k.
It's also important to understand whether or not the boat will qualify
for a "second home" deduction. ?That can improve net cash flow by
quite a lot in some cases.

Yes, and you simply recover the amount of income tax paid on the money
needed to make the interest portion of the payment. A family in the
30% tax bracket would probably save about $2000/month in taxes during
the early years of a $1mm boat note. Brings the net total down to
$8,000 per month before the boat ever leaves the dock, or about half
the total *gross* income for the family. My point remains, $200k per
year families are not buying $1mm boats......not unless great aunt
Harriet kicks the bucket and leaves them $500k to use for a DP.


Just doesn't make sense to me that high earners should get a tax break on a
luxury purchase such as a boat.
The US gov't should be putting that money toward your national debt.



Well, we have bit of tax code here that should be altered or
dumped...it says you can claim a boat as a second home if it has a
toilet and suchlike, and therefore you can deduct the interest you pay
if you borrow money to buy it.

If I were rewriting tax code, I would restrict the upper amount of
interest deductible on second home purchases and I would require that
boats or any other "second homes" financed under such "deductible"
conditions have a certificate stating at least 75% manufacture in the
United States. I see no need to provide the very wealthy with additional
ways to avoid paying taxes.

HK wrote:
Don White wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
...
On Feb 7, 8:48?pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 09:00:54 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:
According to Uncle Chuck's Sage Financial Advice, two mid-managers
grossing $200k should *typically* be looking at a boat somewhere under
$500k.
It's also important to understand whether or not the boat will qualify
for a "second home" deduction. ?That can improve net cash flow by
quite a lot in some cases.

Yes, and you simply recover the amount of income tax paid on the money
needed to make the interest portion of the payment. A family in the
30% tax bracket would probably save about $2000/month in taxes during
the early years of a $1mm boat note. Brings the net total down to
$8,000 per month before the boat ever leaves the dock, or about half
the total *gross* income for the family. My point remains, $200k per
year families are not buying $1mm boats......not unless great aunt
Harriet kicks the bucket and leaves them $500k to use for a DP.


Just doesn't make sense to me that high earners should get a tax break
on a luxury purchase such as a boat.
The US gov't should be putting that money toward your national debt.


Well, we have bit of tax code here that should be altered or dumped...it
says you can claim a boat as a second home if it has a toilet and
suchlike, and therefore you can deduct the interest you pay if you
borrow money to buy it.

If I were rewriting tax code, I would restrict the upper amount of
interest deductible on second home purchases and I would require that
boats or any other "second homes" financed under such "deductible"
conditions have a certificate stating at least 75% manufacture in the
United States. I see no need to provide the very wealthy with additional
ways to avoid paying taxes.


Harry,
Do you find it very frustrating to have all of these ideas you want to
implement, and no one will take you serious?