Byrd of WV dead at 92
in [Design]
|
Prev: Archie
Next: Flexible Jumper operations
From: Jim Yanik on 29 Jun 2010 19:42 Tim Wescott <tim(a)seemywebsite.com> wrote in news:COWdnXmGdOcPh7fRnZ2dnUVZ_uKdnZ2d(a)web-ster.com: > On 06/29/2010 05:50 AM, Jim Yanik wrote: >> Tim Wescott<tim(a)seemywebsite.com> wrote in >> news:q5adnVNVssIP4bTRnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d(a)web-ster.com: >> >>> On 06/28/2010 07:07 PM, dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>>> On Jun 28, 4:36 pm, Tim Wescott<t...(a)seemywebsite.com> wrote: >>>>> On 06/28/2010 01:37 PM, Jim Yanik wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Tim Wescott<t...(a)seemywebsite.com> wrote in >>>>>> news:y8WdnT0T99dLRrXRnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d(a)web-ster.com: >>>>> >>>>>>> On 06/28/2010 09:13 AM, Jim Thompson wrote: >>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 08:40:26 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>>>> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 11:34:22 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" >>>>>>>>> <mike.terr...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> www.wvgazette.com/News/201006280099 >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Will the KKK furnish an honor guard? >>>>> >>>>>>>>> John >>>>> >>>>>>>> Doesn't exist anymore. But maybe we should bring it back to >>>>>>>> round up liberals (and Californicators ;-) >>>>> >>>>>>> Check your assumptions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KKK. >>>>> >>>>>>> There may be a local chapter near you, ready to welcome you with >>>>>>> open arms. >>>>> >>>>>> if you value the Constitution and it's principles,"liberals" aka >>>>>> "progressives",are the main threat to it and America. >>>>> >>>>> I think that one of my Libertarian friends put it best: Democrats >>>>> and Republicans may disagree on which part of the constitution >>>>> doesn't matter, but they both think that parts of it should be >>>>> dispensed with, and neither of them, on getting into office, drag >>>>> their feet on tearing up the parts that they feel get in the way. >>>> >>>> >>>> The Constitution's a control system, brilliant, with various >>>> feedbacks designed to keep government from railing. The designed >>>> feedbacks have been defeated, and that's a BIG problem. The whole >>>> original architecture was redundant, granular powers (the States), >>>> and self- governing (as in "self-limiting," as well as the other >>>> sense) and we've subverted that. >>>> >>>> You could say we've gone from an interactive "personal computer >>>> model" of government to a batch-processing "mainframe model." >>>> Economically that fails, inherently. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Do you like the second amendment but not the fourth? Vote >>>>> Republican! Value the fourth and fifth amendments? Vote Democrat! >>>>> Value the whole damn constitution, especially the first amendment? >>>>> Vote really carefully, because you don't have many allies in >>>>> Washington. >>>> >>>> Amen on the "not many allies"--we're working on fixing that. >>>> >>>> But as to the amendments, the current administration is after all >>>> of them. >>>> >>>> The 4th says you have the right to be secure in your papers and >>>> effects, just not your medical records any more. >>>> The 5th says we can't deprive BP of their property without due >>>> process of law, yet we just did. >>>> The 1st says you have the right to free speech, but the House just >>>> passed HR-5175 (the DISCLOSE Act), which is particularly designed >>>> to silence the TEA Party movement. >>>> >>>> Really, despite the label, I don't think of these guys in power as >>>> Democrats--they're something new. Something scary. >>> >>> Unless there's something new that I don't know about, the prez said >>> "BP really ought to put a bazzilion dollars into escrow" and BP said >>> "OK" -- i.e. BP caved before there was even an order to do anything. >>> >>> In fact, I recall reading late last week that there's a shareholder >>> lawsuit brewing against BP precisely for doing that. >>> >>> And I'd be a lot less worried about the DISCLOSE act if it were >>> even-handed between unions and corporations -- I'm not nearly as >>> concerned about big unions vs. big corporations as I'm concerned >>> about big anything vs. little ol' me. Big corporations are where >>> innovation goes to die, big unions have no purpose without big >>> corporations, and we'd all be better off if we didn't have these >>> corporate entities (corporations _and_ unions) growing ever larger >>> and taking over the world. >>> >>> The older I get the less far-fetched and paranoid I find the science >>> fiction that posits a future world that's controlled by >>> corporations, not governments. >>> >> >> "corporations" are just groups of people. >> Like Citizens United;they make no product,provide no services for >> sale,but are a group of people who merged their funds to make a movie >> that was blocked by the McCain-Feingold law. >> >> OTOH,unions are well-known for their violence and oppression,like >> SEIU. you must not be very informed about today's unions. > > I find it interesting that any time I try to present a balanced view > I'm immediately piled upon by wingers. Mostly right wingers these > days, because the left wingers are more likely to just hang back and > sneer to each other, but wingers from both sides none the less. This tells me that your view is not exactly "balanced". Then you turn to demonization with the use of the term "wingers". A sure sign of a failed argument. > > With just one exception every friend of mine that I know has been in a > union but isn't any more has been threatened with violence for working > too hard. So you're quite wrong about what I know about unions and > violence -- I guess since you haven't heard Rush or Glenn say > something like what I said above that you can't believe that it could > possibly be true, and since you've been listening to Glenn and Rush > you feel that the only way to respond to sensible argument is to start > flinging cow pies. You obviously didn't read about the guy who had SEIU appear outside his house while he was at work,scraringe the out of his children who were hoome at the time. Or the union drive for non-secret ballots(Card Check),so they can intimidate members who don't vote their way. I believe you either are woefully uninformed or have blinders on,or even both. You're CLUELESS if you think there's not union violence going on today. > > I assume, then, that when you see old newsreels that show Pinkerton > security personnel beating the hell out of strikers at Ford plants you > have some smooth weasel words to blame everything on the union people? > Those guys _deserved_ to be beaten until their bones broke? Please go > into lengths on that, if you will. > > And it is, of course, impossible for you to believe that there could > possibly be sin on both sides? Union people climb up from the depths > of hell, but corporate management is just visiting earth from Heaven, > spreading goodness and light while they're here? It's just totally > impossible that _any_ time you get a bunch of people together in a > closed group -- like a union or any other corporate body -- that the > bad behavior will feed on bad behavior and just get worse and worse? > > And for your "just groups of people" -- well, what's a government but > "just a group of people"? The Holocaust was "just" one "group of > people" going after certain individuals in their midst. The recent > financial meltdown was "just groups of people" who decided to stray > from their stated purpose to make big bundles of money. The KKK whose > existence Jim wants to deny is "just a group of people". Al Qaeda is > "just a group of people". Ghengis Khan's Mongol hordes were "just > groups of people". I bet you have NO IDEA what Citizens United v FEC was actually about. > > So you're right -- we shouldn't worry about international corporations > with more money than any government any more than we should worry -- Again you expose your ignorance,as -international- corporations are STILL prohibited from making contrtibutions.The recent SCOTUS ruling did not change that. But to you,only SOME groups of people get to voice their opinion politically. Select gruops. > or should have worried -- about Al Qaeda, Nazi Germany, or the Mongol > hordes. > > Thanks for straightening that out! > You're hopeless. You have no common sense. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com
From: Bill Bowden on 29 Jun 2010 21:57 On Jun 29, 8:12 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Jun 29, 2:25 am, Greegor <greego...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > JA > The 5th says we can't deprive BP of their property > > JA > without due process of law, yet we just did. > > > Due process would be the 6th Amendment. > > Right against self incrimination is 5th Amendment. > > No, I'm quite sure... > > "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due > process of law." --Fifth Amendment > > though Obamacare violates the 5th Amendment right against self- > incrimination too, in my view, since you have to report yourself > annually to the IRS. If you lie that's perjury, if you don't answer > that's a crime, and if you don't have "insurance" that's a crime too. > > -- > Cheers, > James Arthur Yes, but enforcing the insurance mandate is a problem. From what I read, IRS can only collect non-paid health insurance premiums from refunds due, so anyone not getting a refund is home free. http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/insurance/2010-04-29-healthirs28_CV_N.htm "While the IRS can impose liens or levies, seize property or seek jail time against people who don't pay taxes, it's barred from taking such actions against taxpayers who ignore the insurance mandate. In the arsenal instead: the ability to withhold refunds from taxpayers who decline to pay the penalty, IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman said this month. Still, compliance with the health reform law will be largely voluntary, says Timothy Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University. "By taking criminal sanctions and liens and levies off the table, the IRS' hands are tied, to a considerable extent." The IRS is "being put in a position where it will be sending notices that will annoy people" and not much else, says James Maule, professor of law at Villanova University and author of the tax blog MauledAgain. "It's basically designed for failure." -Bill
From: JosephKK on 30 Jun 2010 01:40 On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 00:25:05 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greegor47(a)gmail.com> wrote: >JA > The 5th says we can't deprive BP of their property >JA > without due process of law, yet we just did. > >Due process would be the 6th Amendment. >Right against self incrimination is 5th Amendment. Dude, check the text again: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
From: JosephKK on 30 Jun 2010 01:44 On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:30:57 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 14:35:25 -0600, m II <c(a)in.the.hat> wrote: > >>Spehro Pefhany wrote: >> >>> He questioned the coal industry in WV, and ended up in a casket. >>> There you go. >> >> >>Someone once said that the coal and sugar lobbies are more powerful >>than that of the oil industry. Looking around a convenience store >>convinced me of that. They make more money selling sugar containing >>products than they do selling gasoline. > >Except that those "sugar containing products" don't. > >If you want a powerful lobby, in first place is clearly the government workers >(NEA included), but a close second may be the corn lobby. See above. Bah, pikers both, try the tobacco lobby. There are still subsidies to grow it.
From: dagmargoodboat on 30 Jun 2010 07:56
On Jun 29, 8:57 pm, Bill Bowden <wrongaddr...(a)att.net> wrote: > On Jun 29, 8:12 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: <snip> > > though Obamacare violates the 5th Amendment right against self- > > incrimination too, in my view, since you have to report yourself > > annually to the IRS. If you lie that's perjury, if you don't answer > > that's a crime, and if you don't have "insurance" that's a crime too. > > > Yes, but enforcing the insurance mandate is a problem. From what I > read, IRS can only collect non-paid health insurance premiums from > refunds due, so anyone not getting a refund is home free. > > http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/insurance/2010-04-29-healthirs28_... > > "While the IRS can impose liens or levies, seize property or seek jail > time against people who don't pay taxes, it's barred from taking such > actions against taxpayers who ignore the insurance mandate. In the > arsenal instead: the ability to withhold refunds from taxpayers who > decline to pay the penalty, IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman said this > month. > > Still, compliance with the health reform law will be largely > voluntary, says Timothy Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee > University. "By taking criminal sanctions and liens and levies off the > table, the IRS' hands are tied, to a considerable extent." Nothing in the law stops the IRS from taking those measures. Their hands aren't tied, they're just holding them behind their back, for now. USA's headline and story is simply wrong. Obama's mandatory insurance purchase law treats itself as any other tax. Not paying is the same as evading your income tax. The mode of enforcement is an administrative policy decision that can be changed at any time. I'd take cold comfort in that. Your article goes on to say that Massachusetts has 98% compliance, but that they enforce penalties. How long before IRS simply changes its policy? USA Today doesn't mention that Massachusetts' insurance rates have zoomed ever since enacting their plan. Tennessee dabbled with something similar a ways back, for poor people only, and it nearly broke the whole state. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TennCare But not to worry, with Kagan on the SCOTUS we'll soon all be eating healthier. Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan was asked yesterday if a law requiring Americans to eat 3 servings of fruit and 3 servings of vegetables a day would be constitutional under the Commerce Clause. That is, "can the government force you to eat vegetables?" You'd think the answer would just be "No." She had several chances. Her answer? Bobbing and weaving...she dodged it. James Arthur |