From: unsettled on
Ken Smith wrote:

> In article <1909f$456a5341$4fe73b3$25206(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>,
> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote:

>>The price caps mentioned by Medicare leave me wondering what's
>>going on.

> If you want to kill a popular program, the first step is to make it
> unpopular by messing it up. Then the public will agree to have it
> terminated. You can also force the reduction in the size of the federal
> government by running up unsupportable debts so that they have eventually
> to either default on the loans or downsize massively. Both seem to be at
> work today.

History elsewhere has had governments default on loans.

From: unsettled on
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote:

> In article <62e38$456c4191$4fe703f$8534(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>,
> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote:
>
>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote:
>>
>>>In article <be7e8$456c3bb3$4fe703f$8391(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>,
>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article <456C2E21.87E1BD0D(a)hotmail.com>,
>>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Edward Green" <spamspamspam3(a)netzero.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Amazing! That was post 10873. All nicely archived in Google, so that
>>>>>>>>future generations may not lose one word.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I worry about that. One little buyout and the whole archive can
>>>>>>>be gone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It already has been bought out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It was deja.com before google.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>And do you know what's been lost because of that buyout?
>>>>
>>>>Actually? IMO the best of usenet.
>>>
>>>
>>>What is your definition of the best of usenet?
>>
>>The early days. 1980's.
>
>
> Nah. The best days haven't happened yet.

LOL. I'll play. It won't be usenet.

From: unsettled on
Ken Smith wrote:

> In article <MPG.1fd57546bd40b365989d18(a)news.individual.net>,
> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote:
> [....]
>
>>>And there's also the argument that health care does, too. A pandemic that
>>>starts in one state will affect the ability of people to travel to and from
>>>that state, perhpas due to quarantine, perhaps due to simple fear.
>>
>>...and you better believe the USG will take over control of that
>>pandemic, right down to shutting down interstate transport and even
>>guarantying entire states, if need be.
>>
>>At that point it does become an interstate issue. Your sniffles
>>aren't.
>
>
> That FM station in San Fransisco is not a interstate issue. The FCC has
> absolutely no right to control it. The entire FCC is completely
> unconstitutional.
>

And the FTC?
From: unsettled on
Ken Smith wrote:

> In article <ekhdvu$8qk_002(a)s1016.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <ekcs4f$g1o$11(a)blue.rahul.net>,
>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <slrnemhs15.5qi.don(a)manx.misty.com>,
>>>Don Klipstein <don(a)manx.misty.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>{... radio FCC and interstate commerce ...]
>>>
>>>
>>>> In addition, the US has this "Communications Act of 1934" IIRC. IIRC,
>>>>this one established the FCC and gave it power to regulate radio
>>>>transmissions.
>>>
>>>The question I was posing was: "Is this law constutional because it
>>>regulates things that are not interstate commerce". Some people would
>>>argue that it is.
>>
>>All of this is going to have to go through a long debate with the
>>invention and now-common use of new comm technology.
>
>
> No debate is needed. It is either constitutional or it isn't.

Those are the most complex arguments of all.
From: John Fields on
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:11:57 +0000, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>John Fields wrote:
>
>> LOL, I've never denied that I was anything _but_ a troll.
>
>Just wanted to hear that from the horse's mouth.

---
Lucky you! Everything I hear from you comes from the other end.


--
JF