From: unsettled on 28 Nov 2006 12:28 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 28 Nov 2006 12:28 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 28 Nov 2006 12:29 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 28 Nov 2006 12:30 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 28 Nov 2006 12:39
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 |