So did Clinton steal furniture or what?
And knowing is half the battle.
House. But did he?
JmG
>I wouldn't be surpised if the lying scum did steal furniture from the White
>House. But did he?
Have you noticed that the Bush 'tax cut' will go directly back into the coffers
of this oil buddies?
J
Bill Diamond
on Sat, 19 May 2001 12:30:00 GMT that ...
It'll benefit me, and the closest I get to oil is when I pump the 89
octane into my car.
Bill
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCS d++ s-:+ a+ C++ UA--- P+++ L+ E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w++
O M V PS+ PE+++ Y PGP t 5-- X- R+ tv+++ b+++ DI++++ D+
G e++ h--- r+++ y+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Guru Muda
Yeah, but at least he's honest about it. He actually *said* during a
press conference that he intended for his tax cut to offset rising
energy prices.
UFO_Charlie
>I wouldn't be surpised if the lying scum did steal furniture
Well, good. At least we know that you're unbiased, and open towards all
opinions.
>But did he?
IMHO, prolly not. Not because of any moral character, but because (a) it
would look really stupid, and (b) they don't need to steal furniture.
Clinton may not be the most honest guy, but he's certainly not stupid enough
to commit petty theft, at a time when his reputation is most valuable to
him, for an item that he doesn't even need to steal.
--
***UFO_Charlie***
Random Neural Firings - http://theRNF.tripod.com
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCS/GG/GJ/GMU/GS d s+:+ a--- C++ W+++ N++
w+ PS+ PE- Y- t@ X+ R tv++ b++ DI+++++ G e- h* r z?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
[Discombobulate my email address to reply.]
Michael Lorton
> And knowing is half the battle. <lot...@aol.comaol.com> wrote:
>
> >I wouldn't be surpised if the lying scum did steal furniture
>
> Well, good. At least we know that you're unbiased, and open towards all
> opinions.
>
> >But did he?
>
> IMHO, prolly not. Not because of any moral character, but because (a) it
> would look really stupid, and (b) they don't need to steal furniture.
> Clinton may not be the most honest guy, but he's certainly not stupid enough
> to commit petty theft, at a time when his reputation is most valuable to
> him, for an item that he doesn't even need to steal.
He did commit all sort of minor crimes and near-crimes and
look-like-crimes at that time.
M.
Guru Muda
<mlo...@civetsystems.com> wrote:
Cite?
>and near-crimes and
>look-like-crimes
i.e. "not crimes."
> at that time.
>
>M.
Michael Lorton
New York Times.
> >and near-crimes and
> >look-like-crimes
>
> i.e. "not crimes."
No. There is a huge gap between "appearance of impropriety" and the
acts of an honest man.
> > at that time.
> >
> >M.
Doug
>
> I wouldn't be surpised if the lying scum did steal furniture from the
White
> House. But did he?
No.
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.kcstar.com/item/pages/home.pat,local/3accae7d.517,.html
> No truth in White House vandal scandal, GSA reports
>
> By DAVID GOLDSTEIN - The Kansas City Star Date: 05/17/01 22:15
>
> WASHINGTON -- The General Services Administration has found that the
> White House vandalism flap earlier this year was a flop.
>
> The agency concluded that departing members of the Clinton
> administration had not trashed the place during the presidential
> transition, as unidentified aides to President Bush and other critics
> had insisted.
>
> Responding to a request from Rep. Bob Barr, a Georgia Republican, who
> asked for an investigation, the GSA found that nothing out of the
> ordinary had occurred.
>
> "The condition of the real property was consistent with what we would
> expect to encounter when tenants vacate office space after an extended
> occupancy," according to a GSA statement.
>
> No wholesale slashing of cords to computers, copiers and telephones, no
> evidence of lewd graffiti or pornographic images. GSA didn't bother to
> nail down reports of pranks, which were more puckish than destructive.
>
> Among those pranks was the apparent removal, by aides to former
> President Bill Clinton, of the "w" key from some computer keyboards and
> the placing of official-looking signs on doors, saying things like
> "Office of Strategery," after a popular "Saturday Night Live" spoof on
> Bush.
>
> But the vandal scandal, tales of torn up offices and items stolen from
> the presidential jet, was the hottest story in town during the early
> days of the Bush administration until White House furniture and
> last-minute pardons pushed it off the front page.
>
> "I think it was this calculated effort to plant a damaging story," said
> Alex S. Jones, director of the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press,
> Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University. "There was a sort of
> fertile ground for believing anything bad."
>
> Typical was Tony Snow, a syndicated columnist and former presidential
> speech writer for President Bush's father, who wrote that the White
> House "was a wreck." He also said that Air Force One, after taking
> Clinton and some aides to New York following the inauguration, "looked
> as if it had been stripped by a skilled band of thieves -- or perhaps
> wrecked by a trailer park twister."
>
> He went on to list all manner of missing items, including silverware,
> porcelain dishes with the presidential seal and even candy.
>
> "It makes one feel grateful that the seats and carpets are bolted down,"
> Snow fumed.
>
> Except none of it happened. An official at Andrews Air Force Base, which
> maintains the presidential jets, told The Kansas City Star at the height
> of the controversy that nothing was missing. Bush himself acknowledged
> the same a few days later.
>
> And now GSA has made it official.
>
> "They told me that there were papers that were not organized lying on
> the floor and on desks; there were some scratches here and there, but
> the bottom line was they didn't see anything really in their view that
> was significant and that would appear to some as real extensive damage,"
> said Bernard Unger, director for physical infrastructure for the General
> Accounting Office, which asked GSA to look into the allegations.
>
> Mark Lindsay, who oversaw the transition as Clinton's assistant for
> management and administration, said he was pleased that the record has
> been set straight.
>
> "Because of President Clinton, this was one of the smoothest transitions
> in the history of the presidency," he said. "This was nothing more than
> just lies."
>
> As for the critics, Barr's office didn't return calls about the GSA
> findings. Snow was somewhat contrite. "I'm perfectly willing to admit my
> error on the aircraft," he said, but added that he still believed his
> sources who told him about damage at the White House.
>
> "What often happens in Washington is gossip becomes news. That's not a
> good thing."
------------------------------------------------------------
pj...@_remove_.virginia.edu
>And knowing is half the battle. wrote
>>
>> I wouldn't be surpised if the lying scum did steal furniture from the
>White
>> House. But did he?
>
>No.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.kcstar.com/item/pages/home.pat,local/3accae7d.517,.html
>
>> was the hottest story in town during the early days of the Bush
>> administration until White House furniture and last-minute pardons
>> pushed it off the front page.
This article was great but it is not at all relevant to the question
of whether FURNITURE was stolen or not. The sentence above makes it
clear that this story was pushed aside when it became clear that
FURNITURE was stolen.
David Wilton
wrote:
I don't think its very honest. Offsetting energy prices is simply the
justification de jour. He proposed it a year ago, long before energy
prices were an issue. If it were a good policy, he wouldn't need to
change the reasons for it every week.
--Dave Wilton
da...@wilton.net
http://www.wordorigins.org
JmG
>It'll benefit me, and the closest I get to oil is when I pump the 89
>octane into my car.
And that gasoline goes up a buck, you'll be putting the buck Bush gave you right
back into the tank of your car. Call it Oil Company welfare in the guise of a
tax cut in the midst of a supposed energy crisis.
J
JmG
>> Cite?
>
>New York Times.
How come the Times is on your side now? I though your right wingers treated the
NYT like you treat Ted Kennedy?
J
Big Iron5
>>>Have you noticed that the Bush 'tax cut' will go directly back into the
>coffers
>>>of this oil buddies?
>>>
>>>J
>>
>>Yeah, but at least he's honest about it. He actually *said* during a
>>press conference that he intended for his tax cut to offset rising
>>energy prices.
>
>I don't think its very honest. Offsetting energy prices is simply the
>justification de jour. He proposed it a year ago, long before energy
>prices were an issue. If it were a good policy, he wouldn't need to
>change the reasons for it every week.
Well, really -- it's not there's any doubt that this would be his prescription
no matter what was going on. Doesn't make it a bad (or good) idea, but it is a
tad weaselly.
Big Iron5
>> >and near-crimes and
>> >look-like-crimes
>>
>> i.e. "not crimes."
>
>No. There is a huge gap between "appearance of impropriety" and the
>acts of an honest man.
Eh -- either it was improper or it wasn't -- while it's certainly wise for
officials to avoid the appearance of impropriety, the idea is to bring
perceptions in line with reality, not vice versa.
Bill Diamond
cut my drive in half.
Nenner, my friend. Neener.
Michael Lorton
> Michael Lorton <mlo...@civetsystems.com> wrote:
>
> >> Cite?
> >
> >New York Times.
>
> How come the Times is on your side now?
Reality finally shining through?
> I though your right wingers
I am not a right winger.
> treated the
> NYT like you treat Ted Kennedy?
I don't treat Ted Kennedy any particular way.
M.
Michael Lorton
No, a honest man avoids even the appearance of impropriety. For
example, Justice Breyer recused himself from a recent case in which he
would have had to uphold or overturn a ruling written by his own
brother. Any other action, regardless of how simon-pure in fact,
would have been indistinguishable in effect from an act of either
favoritism or spite towards a family member.
Clinton could have pardoned those people months or years ago, or left
their cases for Bush. What he did was indistinguishable from
bribe-taking.
M.
Big David
> >I wouldn't be surpised if the lying scum did steal
furniture
> Well, good. At least we know that you're unbiased, and
open towards all
> opinions.
> >But did he?
> IMHO, prolly not. Not because of any moral character, but
because (a) it
> would look really stupid, and (b) they don't need to steal
furniture.
> Clinton may not be the most honest guy, but he's certainly
not stupid enough
> to commit petty theft, at a time when his reputation is
most valuable to
> him, for an item that he doesn't even need to steal.
Then maybe you can explain why he and his wife agreed to
return certain items taken from the White House that didn't
belong to them, according to the National Park Service? Was
it all just a big misunderstanding? Its either that, or
they stole them and hoped nobody would notice. Given their
history, most people will believe the latter.
--
Big David
To send email, take out "et" and "spam". Email copies of
replies appreciated.
"The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen
and stupidity."
Big David
> On 19 May 2001 09:43:16 -0700, Michael Lorton
> <mlo...@civetsystems.com> wrote:
> >"UFO_Charlie" <dj...@bigfoot.combobulate.com> writes:
> >> And knowing is half the battle. <lot...@aol.comaol.com>
wrote
> >He did commit all sort of minor crimes
> Cite?
"I was untruthful under oath"....."My client was not
truthful under oath"....."For that, I agree to voluntarily
surrender my license to practice law in Arkansas for a
period of five years". His own words and those of his
lawyer. Most legal scholars, including the presiding judge
in one case, call that perjury. It was also a separate
crime to violate the Arkansas Code of Professional Conduct,
specifically, interferring with the administration of
justice by not telling the truth under oath, whether it
rises to the level of perjury or not.
And knowing is half the battle.
mpg the gas problem wouldn't be so big.
Rick Howard
And knowing is half the battle. wrote
> If the stupid fucking car companies would make cars that could do over
fifty
> mpg the gas problem wouldn't be so big.
The Honda Insight gasoline-electricity hybrid claims to
get 68 mph (EPA highway estimate).
http://www.honda2001.com/models/insight/index.html?honda=intro
The Subaru my wife drove in high school probably got 50 mpg
but it was too small and flimsy to meet the safety standards to
be marketed in the USA. It was so light that her friends
sometimes picked it up and carried it away as a joke.
Michael Lorton
> If the stupid fucking car companies would make cars that could do over fifty
> mpg the gas problem wouldn't be so big.
Yes, if only the stupid car companies were so stupid that they refuse
to make a car that no one will buy...
M.
Big Iron5
>> >> >and near-crimes and
>> >> >look-like-crimes
>> >>
>> >> i.e. "not crimes."
>> >
>> >No. There is a huge gap between "appearance of impropriety" and the
>> >acts of an honest man.
>>
>>
>> Eh -- either it was improper or it wasn't -- while it's certainly wise for
>> officials to avoid the appearance of impropriety, the idea is to bring
>> perceptions in line with reality, not vice versa.
>
>No, a honest man avoids even the appearance of impropriety.
Mike, while do not challenge the notion that it is preferable to have no
questions about propriety (and while we're at it, we'll craft a legal system
that guarantees that truth and justice prevail in every instance, I suppose), I
really think this is silly and largely antithetical to the notion of perceiving
reality.
For
>example, Justice Breyer recused himself from a recent case in which he
>would have had to uphold or overturn a ruling written by his own
>brother.
I suppose that would be a conflict of interest (although I also am not sure
that Justice Breyer wasn't overcome by an excessive fastidiousness in this
regard -- by that I mean I'm not sure one way or the other). Of course, the
"appearance of a conflict of interest is taking the appearances over reality
thing to an even higher degree (which many, alas, do).
Any other action, regardless of how simon-pure in fact,
>would have been indistinguishable in effect from an act of either
>favoritism or spite towards a family member.
Well, I don't doubt that this course of action was in Breyer's interests.
>Clinton could have pardoned those people months or years ago, or left
>their cases for Bush. What he did was indistinguishable from
>bribe-taking.
The Rich pardon was about the worst thing I've seen from Clinton -- I agree,
that did not pass the smell test.
Michael Lorton
> MLorton writes:
>
>
> >> >> >and near-crimes and
> >> >> >look-like-crimes
> >> >>
> >> >> i.e. "not crimes."
> >> >
> >> >No. There is a huge gap between "appearance of impropriety" and the
> >> >acts of an honest man.
> >>
> >>
> >> Eh -- either it was improper or it wasn't -- while it's certainly wise for
> >> officials to avoid the appearance of impropriety, the idea is to bring
> >> perceptions in line with reality, not vice versa.
> >
> >No, a honest man avoids even the appearance of impropriety.
> Mike, while do not challenge the notion that it is preferable to have no
> questions about propriety (and while we're at it, we'll craft a legal system
> that guarantees that truth and justice prevail in every instance, I suppose), I
> really think this is silly and largely antithetical to the notion of perceiving
> reality.
The reality, in the case of the pardons, is largely impreceptible.
Person A gives Person B a large amount of money, completely legally.
Person B uses his office to do Person A an enormous favor. Was that a
bribe? Without seeing into the heart of Person A, you cannot know.
As a matter of law, we cannot punish Person A. We as individuals can,
however, act on the obvious conclusion.
> >Clinton could have pardoned those people months or years ago, or left
> >their cases for Bush. What he did was indistinguishable from
> >bribe-taking.
>
>
> The Rich pardon was about the worst thing I've seen from Clinton -- I agree,
> that did not pass the smell test.
You mean, compared to launching military attacks to divert attention
from political problems? But of course in his heart, Clinton
considered those attacks necessary to national security. Compared to
refusing to release subpeonaed billing records? Oh, but they didn't
notice them lying around the White House. Compared to violating
civil-service privacy regs to smear an inconveniently honest
subordinate? Oh, that was a simple mistake.
It's always something.
Why people have seized on the Rich pardon escapes me. It was entirely
the modus operendi for the entire administration. Maybe it's just
that since the administration was over before that particular scandal
could come to light, you can have a sudden attack of conscience
without having to actually do anything about it.
M.
Bill Diamond
wrote in alt.fan.cecil-adams back on 20 May 2001 02:32:46 GMT that
...
>If the stupid fucking car companies would make cars that could do over fifty
>mpg the gas problem wouldn't be so big.
>
Heck, my first new car was a 1986 Chevy Sprint. It got just about 50
mpg. You could even put two people in it.
JmG
>Heck, my first new car was a 1986 Chevy Sprint. It got just about 50
>mpg. You could even put two people in it.
Mine was a 77 Honda Civic that got near 40.
J
JmG
>Clinton could have pardoned those people months or years ago, or left
>their cases for Bush. What he did was indistinguishable from
>bribe-taking.
Yawn.
J
JmG
>Then maybe you can explain why he and his wife agreed to
>return certain items taken from the White House that didn't
>belong to them, according to the National Park Service?
You've never picked a flower in a park?
J
AlanKngsly
<jmg...@bestweb.net> writes:
>>> Cite?
>>
>>New York Times.
>
>How come the Times is on your side now? I though your right wingers treated
>the
>NYT like you treat Ted Kennedy?
And they ought not to be able to use it as a cite when it supports their POV,
but reject it as impossibly biased when it goes against them.
Alan
AlanKngsly
<da...@wilton.net> writes:
>>Yeah, but at least he's honest about it. He actually *said* during a
>>press conference that he intended for his tax cut to offset rising
>>energy prices.
>
>I don't think its very honest. Offsetting energy prices is simply the
>justification de jour. He proposed it a year ago, long before energy
>prices were an issue. If it were a good policy, he wouldn't need to
>change the reasons for it every week.
Yeah--I wonder how many other people crack up over how every problem that comes
along the pike, Shrub says "hey, a tax cut wil fix that right up." It's
reminiscent of the old saw about how to the guy who only has a hammer, every
problem looks like a nail...
Alan
Big Iron5
>> >> >> >and near-crimes and
>> >> >> >look-like-crimes
>> >> >>
>> >> >> i.e. "not crimes."
>> >> >
>> >> >No. There is a huge gap between "appearance of impropriety" and the
>> >> >acts of an honest man.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Eh -- either it was improper or it wasn't -- while it's certainly wise
>for
>> >> officials to avoid the appearance of impropriety, the idea is to bring
>> >> perceptions in line with reality, not vice versa.
>> >
>> >No, an honest man avoids even the appearance of impropriety.
>
>> Mike, while do not challenge the notion that it is preferable to have no
>> questions about propriety (and while we're at it, we'll craft a legal
>system
>> that guarantees that truth and justice prevail in every instance, I
>suppose), I
>> really think this is silly and largely antithetical to the notion of
>perceiving
>> reality.
>
>
>The reality, in the case of the pardons, is largely impreceptible.
I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're saying here.
>Person A gives Person B a large amount of money, completely legally.
>Person B uses his office to do Person A an enormous favor. Was that a
>bribe?
Probably. For the purposes of criminal law? Likely not, since there is a high
standard for such things (which, of course, Republican and/or conservative
figures see, inexplicably to benefit from with some regularity).
Hey, are you working behind the scenes for Giuliani somehow?
> Without seeing into the heart of Person A, you cannot know.
But finders of fact, such as juries, are entitled to draw reasonable inferences
from the evidence.
>As a matter of law, we cannot punish Person A. We as individuals can,
>however, act on the obvious conclusion.
Well, there ya go, we're basically on the same page on that notion. Don't
forget to apply that to Ronald Reagan, Ed Meese, George H.W. Bush, etc., as a
general matter.
>> >Clinton could have pardoned those people months or years ago, or left
>> >their cases for Bush. What he did was indistinguishable from
>> >bribe-taking.
>>
>>
>> The Rich pardon was about the worst thing I've seen from Clinton -- I
>agree,
>> that did not pass the smell test.
>
>You mean, compared to launching military attacks to divert attention
>from political problems?
I think that accusation is 99% bullshit, and that's being charitable. It is,
IMO, a ludicrous accusation.
Compared to
>refusing to release subpeonaed billing records?
You're bordering on making things up, here, Mike.
Oh, but they didn't
>notice them lying around the White House.
That *was* pretty humorous how they showed up all of a sudden, but then there
was nothing untoward in them (yes, doubtless it took them months to redact the
damning evidence -- not that I think that's impossible).
Compared to violating
>civil-service privacy regs to smear an inconveniently honest
>subordinate?
Oh, please, try to be serious.
> Oh, that was a simple mistake.
>
>It's always something.
That's what people keep telling Mr. Richard Feder, of Fort Lee, New Jersey.
>Why people have seized on the Rich pardon escapes me.
Because it is far beyond the bullshit allegations that had been thrown around
by Clinton-hating neurotics for his entire term.
It was entirely
>the modus operendi for the entire administration.
Not that, you know, there's any evidence of that.
Maybe it's just
>that since the administration was over before that particular scandal
>could come to light, you can have a sudden attack of conscience
>without having to actually do anything about it.
Maybe I am burdened with the notion that allegations should be supported by at
least some evidence.
Doug
Well, believe what you want. I find it difficult to
believe that someone like a prez would "steal" furniture.
- Doug
Michael Lorton
*hic*
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought we were doing bodily-function imitations.
M.
Michael Lorton
> MLorton writes:
>>The reality, in the case of the pardons, is largely impreceptible.
> I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're saying here.
Well, it would help a lot if my demon-keyboard would stop making up
words. The word I typed was "imperceptible" -- that is, the
significant difference was in motivation, not in any observable fact.
> >Person A gives Person B a large amount of money, completely legally.
> >Person B uses his office to do Person A an enormous favor. Was that a
> >bribe?
> > Without seeing into the heart of Person A, you cannot know.
> But finders of fact, such as juries, are entitled to draw reasonable inferences
> from the evidence.
What evidence? Person A might have given the money anyway -- who
could know her motivation. Person B might have done the favor without
money -- who knows what generosity lurks in the heart of men.
[ whole buncha evidence for a scuzzy administration disregarded
without reason ]
> Not that, you know, there's any evidence of that.
You can, if you wish, stand in the forest saying, "Trees? What trees?
I don't see any trees", but it makes you look more like a liar in a
forest than an honest man in a desert.
> Maybe it's just
> >that since the administration was over before that particular scandal
> >could come to light, you can have a sudden attack of conscience
> >without having to actually do anything about it.
> Maybe I am burdened with the notion that allegations should be supported by at
> least some evidence.
There's no evidence in the Rich case, just "post hoc ergo prompter
hoc" argument. He got money from Denise, he pardoned Marc --
coincidence. He was being impeached, he blows up an aspirin factory
-- bad timing. His wife gets a hundred thou from a corrupt stock
broker -- happenstance. Tripp's confidential personnel file shows up
on TV -- an unfortunate oversight.
Look, you can argue that all these appearances of impropriety are just
that, *appearances*, and nothing more, and I'll give you credit for
consistency, if not for intelligence. You can admit that you ignored
Clinton wrongdoing while he was in office because he (occasionally)
pursued an agenda you favored, but now that he's out anyway, you'll
admit that he was Nixon with a better make-up artist, and I'll give
you credit for candor.
But if you are going to assert that all the unfortunate instances of
apparent wrongdoing were chance, coincidence, or right-wing paranoia
UNTIL that one scandal you could agree was real without having to
actually call for Clinton's removal, well, then *I* will consider
myself entitled to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence:
specifically you are the same kind of opportunistic and dishonest
weasel as the one who until recently befouled the office of president.
M.
Guru Muda
Well I'm inclined to take Dubya at his word: tax cut will offset
rising fuel prices. -- so the federal gov't is basically one huge
money laundering agency...
Guru Muda
My 1990 Sentra gets over 40 if I keep it under 65. Any speed over that
and the mileage drops exponentially.
Michael Lorton
On 20 May 2001 04:57:35 GMT, alank...@aol.com (AlanKngsly) wrote:
>Yeah--I wonder how many other people crack up over how every problem that comes
>along the pike, Shrub says "hey, a tax cut wil fix that right up." It's
>reminiscent of the old saw about how to the guy who only has a hammer, every
>problem looks like a nail...
My own hammer metaphor goes as follows:
"Should I keep hitting myself in the head with a hammer?"
"No, hitting yourself in the head with a hammer will give you
a headache."
Later: "I have a headache. Should I keep hitting myself in the head
with a hammer?"
"No, hitting yourself in the head with a hammer will make your
headache worse."
"Hey, when I didn't have a headache, you said I should stop hitting
myself in the head with a hammer. Now I do have a headache, and you
say I should stop hitting myself in the head with a hammer. Well,
Mr. Smartypants, WHICH IS IT?"
Translation for the truly clueless out there (and you know who you
are) (no, I guess you don't, but the rest of us do): High taxes are
always a bad idea.
M.
Big Iron5
>>>The reality, in the case of the pardons, is largely impreceptible.
>
>> I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're saying here.
>
>Well, it would help a lot if my demon-keyboard would stop making up
>words. The word I typed was "imperceptible" -- that is, the
>significant difference was in motivation, not in any observable fact.
Well, proving intent is always difficult, but it's not like the
business-as-usual lobbyist-bribe-official thing is somehow unique to Democratic
politicians -- indeed, that's how (alas) government/business relations often
work. Not that this is a proper defense to anyone in particular, of course.
>> >Person A gives Person B a large amount of money, completely legally.
>> >Person B uses his office to do Person A an enormous favor. Was that a
>> >bribe?
>
>> > Without seeing into the heart of Person A, you cannot know.
>
>> But finders of fact, such as juries, are entitled to draw reasonable
>inferences
>> from the evidence.
>
>What evidence? Person A might have given the money anyway -- who
>could know her motivation. Person B might have done the favor without
>money -- who knows what generosity lurks in the heart of men.
Sadly (I suppose), this is why so much of the public official ethics body of
law is inherently doomed to failure. Meanwhile, intent has been one of the
things juries have always been charged with determining (not that you would
know anything about law despite continually pretending to while being
humiliated in the process). <note -- these last harsh but true observations,
and some others below, were added after reading your parting comments asserting
that I am an "opportunistic and dishonest weasel" and a "liar." Whenever I
start thinking George is being too personally vindictive in abusing you, you go
and vindicate him. Feels good for you, I bet, huh (and certainly not
embarassing or anything)? This must be part of that high motherfucking tone
that I keep hearing used to prevail. Spit on a few homeless people for
Stafford and the Blaylocks when you go out tomorrow.>
>[ whole buncha evidence for a scuzzy administration disregarded
>without reason ]
(how convenient to have snipped that)
>
>> Not that, you know, there's any evidence of that.
>
>You can, if you wish, stand in the forest saying, "Trees? What trees?
>I don't see any trees", but it makes you look more like a liar in a
>forest than an honest man in a desert.
Well, Mike, I suppose it's more intellectually satisfying to the likes of you
to accuse others of being liars than to actually pony up with some real
evidence to back up your assertions.
>> Maybe it's just
>> >that since the administration was over before that particular scandal
>> >could come to light, you can have a sudden attack of conscience
>> >without having to actually do anything about it.
>
>> Maybe I am burdened with the notion that allegations should be supported by
>at
>> least some evidence.
>
>There's no evidence in the Rich case, just "post hoc ergo prompter
>hoc" argument.
Post hoc certainly does not necessarily mean prompter hoc, but under the right
circumstances it is certainly some evidence of prompter hoc. Meanwhile, I have
merely noted that the deal smells damned funny. But you're just yammering
anyway, since the evidence of the so-called misconduct to which you impotently
refer (which was nothing so benign as, say, running a secret war against the
express will of Congress or paying ransom in arms to the enemies of the United
States for the reurn of kidnapped citizens against the will of Congress and the
American people, and then getting burned on the deal to boot) is just as
non-existent.
> He got money from Denise, he pardoned Marc --
>coincidence.
Well, as long as you're being unburdened by honesty ...
> He was being impeached, he blows up an aspirin factory
>-- bad timing.
See, this brutally fails the test of intellectual integrity (big fucking
surprise). Exactly what periods of time during that year was Clinton not in
some sort of bullshit hot water from corrupt Republican Congressman? Oh,
yeah, right, that timing is so suspicious.
> His wife gets a hundred thou from a corrupt stock
>broker -- happenstance.
I don't think there is any question that this was some sort of sweetheart deal
(although I think your facts are slightly muddled as to the characterization of
the deal). Of course, sweetheart deals happen all the time (hell, a bunch of
businessmen bought a mansion for Reagan *while he was President*). But if
there's to be any sanity in this area, there has to at least be an arguable
quid for the quo -- in the Rich case, for instance, that part is pretty
obvious, even if it's not enough to pass muster itself as an evidentiary
matter.
>Look, you can argue that all these appearances of impropriety are just
>that, *appearances*, and nothing more, and I'll give you credit for
>consistency, if not for intelligence.
"All these" indeed.
You can admit that you ignored
>Clinton wrongdoing while he was in office
No, I can't, seeing as for the most part nobody has ponied up with any actual
evidence. Not that he's an angel any more than Gregg Allman, but it seems to
me clearly that it is more accurate to say that Clinton haters have made up far
more "misconduct" than Clinton "defenders" have apologized away.
because he (occasionally)
>pursued an agenda you favored,
No, because his enemies were so rabid, apoplectic, dishonest, and
single-mindedly destructive from the very beginning, seemingly on the notion
that the Republican Party had a Divine Right to the Presidency.
but now that he's out anyway, you'll
>admit that he was Nixon with a better make-up artist, and I'll give
>you credit for candor.
At worst, Clinton was no worse than the famous liar Ronald Reagan as far as
that sort of thing goes.
>But if you are going to assert that all the unfortunate instances of
>apparent wrongdoing were chance, coincidence, or right-wing paranoia
>UNTIL that one scandal you could agree was real without having to
>actually call for Clinton's removal, well, then *I* will consider
>myself entitled to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence:
>specifically *you are the same kind of opportunistic and dishonest
>weasel* as the one who until recently befouled the office of president.
(emphasis added)
Mike, I enjoy reading your posts generally, so please don't take this too
personally when I say you can fuck yourself in the ass, you pompous, dishonest,
sophistic, sexually frustrated, pseudo-intellectual, half-educated dilletante
of a shithead.
Michael Lorton
> MLorton writes:
>
>
> >>>The reality, in the case of the pardons, is largely impreceptible.
> >
> >> I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're saying here.
> >
> >Well, it would help a lot if my demon-keyboard would stop making up
> >words. The word I typed was "imperceptible" -- that is, the
> >significant difference was in motivation, not in any observable fact.
>
>
>
> Well, proving intent is always difficult, but it's not like the
> business-as-usual lobbyist-bribe-official thing is somehow unique to Democratic
> politicians
Is this intended as some sort of defense? That the Democrats are no
more dishonest than the Republicans? Please. Lots of Republicans
belong in jail. Lots of Democrats belong in jail. Neither gets to
use that symmetry as exculpation.
> Not that this is a proper defense to anyone in particular, of course.
Doy.
> Whenever I
> start thinking George is being too personally vindictive in abusing
> you,
Jeez, is George still stuck on *me*? That child really needs a life.
> Feels good for you, I bet, huh (and certainly not
> embarassing or anything)?
That an idiot doesn't like me? Many idiots don't like me.
> >> Not that, you know, there's any evidence of that.
> >
> >You can, if you wish, stand in the forest saying, "Trees? What trees?
> >I don't see any trees", but it makes you look more like a liar in a
> >forest than an honest man in a desert.
> Well, Mike, I suppose it's more intellectually satisfying to the likes of you
> to accuse others of being liars than to actually pony up with some real
> evidence to back up your assertions.
The evidence for each of the assertions is exactly the same as the
evidence for wrongdoing in the Rich pardon. The underlying facts are
never in dispute -- you don't dispute that Sudan and Afganistan were
bombed on the eves of important votes; you don't dispute that HRC made
tremendous sums on shaky deals while WJC was AG or Gov; you don't
dispute that Billy Dale was charged with felonies on no information,
that billing records weren't surrendered, blah blah blah.
All you dispute is the existence of mens rea (for Alan: mens or womens
rea).
Fine, but you have to dispute it in all cases -- including the pardon.
> Meanwhile, I have
> merely noted that the deal smells damned funny.
It smells exactly the same in each case.
What's with the sudden burst of Clinton-bashing any way? You had a
good thing going: "You can't prove anything, he was more popular than
either Bush ever was or will be, nyah-nyah-nyah." I was sorta getting
into it myself.
> But you're just yammering anyway, since the evidence of the
> so-called misconduct to which you impotently refer (which was
> nothing so benign as
[I'm snipping here. BI has claimed to be a lawyer, hasn't he? I
wonder if he is allowed to bring up other criminals in court trials --
"Hey, my guy may be guilty, but when you think about Tim McVeigh, you
really have to see my guy is almost innocent..."]
> > He got money from Denise, he pardoned Marc --
> >coincidence.
> Well, as long as you're being unburdened by honesty ...
Are you saying that he DIDN'T get money from Denise, he DIDN'T pardon
Marc, or that it WASN'T a coincidence?
> > He was being impeached, he blows up an aspirin factory
> >-- bad timing.
>
>
>
> See, this brutally fails the test of intellectual integrity
Are you saying he DIDN'T blow up the aspirin factory or it WASN'T bad
timing?
> Exactly what periods of time during that year was Clinton not in
> some sort of bullshit hot water from corrupt Republican Congressman? Oh,
> yeah, right, that timing is so suspicious.
Anything you do 24 hours before an impeachment vote is going to be
looked at hard.
> > His wife gets a hundred thou from a corrupt stock
> >broker -- happenstance.
> I don't think there is any question that this was some sort of
> sweetheart deal
So you agree that HRC, at least, should be disbarred for
bribe-receiving?
> Of course, sweetheart deals happen all the time
Murders happen all the time. Doesn't excuse any given murderer.
> But if there's to be any sanity in this area, there has to at least
> be an arguable quid for the quo
Actually, in the futures case, the broker in question wound up in jail
on Federal charge of (surprise!) steering (meaning people he like got
money in trades at the expense of people he didn't like) so exactly
what quid he had in mind will have to remain theoretical. But
presumably, one doesn't arrange for $100,000 to be slipped to the wife
of the attorney general without some plan.
> >Look, you can argue that all these appearances of impropriety are just
> >that, *appearances*, and nothing more, and I'll give you credit for
> >consistency, if not for intelligence.
> "All these" indeed.
Do you claim there are less then, pick a number, 15 cases in which
sworn testimony or government records or some similar sort of evidence
created at least the appearance of impropriety?
> You can admit that you ignored
> >Clinton wrongdoing while he was in office
> No, I can't, seeing as for the most part nobody has ponied up with any actual
> evidence.
Exactly my point -- no evidence. A series of unfortunate incidents,
as Lemony Snicket would say.
> Not that he's an angel any more than Gregg Allman
Are we talking about Cher's ex here?
> but it seems to
> me clearly that it is more accurate to say that Clinton haters have made up far
> more "misconduct" than Clinton "defenders" have apologized away.
Hmmm, interesting formula. If you commit fewer than 50% of the crimes
you are accused of committing, you get to be president.
> because his enemies were so rabid, apoplectic, dishonest, and
> single-mindedly destructive from the very beginning
Another good formula: if your accusors can have unpleasant adjectives
attached to them by your supporters, you get to be a two-term president.
> Mike, I enjoy reading your posts generally, so please don't take this too
> personally when I say you can fuck yourself in the ass, you pompous, dishonest,
> sophistic, sexually frustrated, pseudo-intellectual, half-educated dilletante
> of a shithead.
Well, I will try to take it in the generally constructive spirit in
which it was offered.
M.
Don Middendorf
>
> On Sat, 19 May 2001 10:19:27 -0500, Guru Muda <pemul...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 19 May 2001 12:30:00 GMT, JmG <jmg...@bestweb.net> wrote:
> >
> >>lot...@aol.comaol.com (And knowing is half the battle.) wrote:
> >>
> >>>I wouldn't be surpised if the lying scum did steal furniture from the White
> >>>House. But did he?
> >>
> >>of this oil buddies?
> >>
> >>J
> >
> >Yeah, but at least he's honest about it. He actually *said* during a
> >press conference that he intended for his tax cut to offset rising
> >energy prices.
>
> I don't think its very honest. Offsetting energy prices is simply the
> justification de jour. He proposed it a year ago, long before energy
> prices were an issue. If it were a good policy, he wouldn't need to
> change the reasons for it every week.
Because the vast majority of my donations come from the very wealthy,
and because my family and close knit network of the top half a percent
of wealthiest americans are interested in skimming off all that money
the unwashed masses made during the last eight years. As well as putting
all those newly wealthy types back in their place. Just doesn't make for
a very positive sound bite.
Don Middendorf
JmG
>>How come the Times is on your side now? I though your right wingers treated
>>the NYT like you treat Ted Kennedy?
>
>And they ought not to be able to use it as a cite when it supports their POV,
>but reject it as impossibly biased when it goes against them.
But they will. Right wingers really are a rather duplicitous bunch of whiny
bullies.
J
JmG
>Well I'm inclined to take Dubya at his word: tax cut will offset
>rising fuel prices. -- so the federal gov't is basically one huge
>money laundering agency...
You got that right.
J
JmG
>Well, believe what you want. I find it difficult to
>believe that someone like a prez would "steal" furniture.
Look who the source of information is...
J
JmG
>> >Clinton could have pardoned those people months or years ago, or left
>> >their cases for Bush. What he did was indistinguishable from
>> >bribe-taking.
>>
>> Yawn.
>
>*hic*
>
>Oh, I'm sorry. I thought we were doing bodily-function imitations.
You're right. You were farting about a past President and I was showing my
enthusiasm for Le Petomaine's old parlor tricks.
J
JmG
>Because the vast majority of my donations come from the very wealthy,
>and because my family and close knit network of the top half a percent
>of wealthiest americans are interested in skimming off all that money
>the unwashed masses made during the last eight years. As well as putting
>all those newly wealthy types back in their place. Just doesn't make for
>a very positive sound bite.
No, but the truth is the truth.
J
Bill Diamond
alt.fan.cecil-adams back on Sun, 20 May 2001 02:13:24 -0500 that ...
>
>Well I'm inclined to take Dubya at his word: tax cut will offset
>rising fuel prices. -- so the federal gov't is basically one huge
>money laundering agency...
Well, sure. How else do you explain all the wealth redistribution
mechanisms?
Bill Diamond
on Sun, 20 May 2001 04:45:17 GMT that ...
Don't even get me started about the Tidal Basin, Cherry blossoms and
the f*cking tourists who think they have the right to lop off all the
branches to take home as souvenirs.
David Wilton
<mlo...@civetsystems.com> wrote:
>Translation for the truly clueless out there (and you know who you
>are) (no, I guess you don't, but the rest of us do): High taxes are
>always a bad idea.
But they're not always the worst option.
Taxes in the US are too high. We're collecting more money than we're
spending. There should be a tax cut. The question is how big should
the cut be and how should it be structured.
A large, long term tax cut that is based on low-confidence
projections, particularly as it looks like we're in an economic
downturn, is not a bright idea. It is likely to lead to large
deficits. Better to enact a modest cut now, with further cuts in
coming years as surpluses continue to materialize (if they do).
And there are important spending priorities facing our government as
well. The Bush administration wants to increase defense spending and
include a missile defense system--whether that's wise or not is
another question but it will cost bucks. We're facing an energy
crisis, yet the Bush administration is cutting funding for alternative
energy sources, despite their rhetoric that alternative sources are
important. Many of the roads and bridges in the US need replacement.
Social Security is in trouble. I'm not talking about runaway spending,
but there are legitimate and fairly urgent needs for federal spending
in particular areas, coupled with a relatively modest tax cut, is a
wiser solution.
Further the Bush tax cut is primarily focused on the out-years--the
cuts occur starting in year five. The plan does little to put money in
the hands of the public to offset energy prices or the downturn.
The analogy to hitting yourself on the head with a hammer would be
someone who hit himself in the head throughout the 1980s (tax cuts
coupled with increased defense spending and slashing domestic
spending). On the advice of the doctor (economists), the person stops
hitting himself on the head. After a long recovery period (the 90s)
the headaches (huge debts and deficits) disappear. Feeling better, the
person starts hitting himself on the head again.
--Dave Wilton
da...@wilton.net
http://www.wordorigins.org
Mr C
US News reported last week that the Clintons spent a quarter million
dollars fixing up the WH prior to their departure. Replacing worn
linens, repairing upholstry stains and the like. Seems inconsistent
with the furniture-stealing stories.
As usual, the boring truth got about a column inch buried in
Washington Whispers, where the scandal story got front page coverage
in every news organ in the country. Consider the source indeed.
Steve "no news is good news" Campbell
Michael Lorton
> A large, long term tax cut that is based on low-confidence
> projections, particularly as it looks like we're in an economic
> downturn, is not a bright idea. It is likely to lead to large
> deficits.
Two false premises there -- that cut in the tax rate will lead to a
cut in total tax receipts and the cut in the total tax burden will
lead to deficits.
The first is just false -- a cut in tax rate often leads to an
increase in tax receipts, as we've seen again and again, just as a
retailer can increase its profits by cutting its prices.
The first is politically false -- spending in the government is
largely determined by how much money is available to spend. More tax
money leads to more spending.
> Better to enact a modest cut now, with further cuts in
> coming years as surpluses continue to materialize (if they do).
They won't. Congress has been spending like a drunken televangelist.
As a practical matter, we need to turn off the money spigot now.
> And there are important spending priorities facing our government as
> well. The Bush administration wants to increase defense spending and
> include a missile defense system--whether that's wise or not is
> another question but it will cost bucks.
As you point out, it probably isn't wise. Get rid of it.
> We're facing an energy crisis, yet the Bush administration is
> cutting funding for alternative energy sources, despite their
> rhetoric that alternative sources are important.
That's not rhetoric, that's just lying. They need to say things like
that to gloss over a number of hard realities. Alternative enery
sources are the technology of the future and always will be. Get rid
of them.
> Many of the roads and bridges in the US need replacement.
Toll roads.
> Social Security is in trouble.
Privatize now. Repudiate any shortfall.
> I'm not talking about runaway spending, but there are legitimate and
> fairly urgent needs for federal spending in particular areas,
> coupled with a relatively modest tax cut, is a wiser solution.
I hope those are't your best examples of legitimate and urgent needs
-- Star Wars and synfuels. <little chortling noises tactfully omitted>
M.
J. L. Bell
> Well I'm inclined to take Dubya at his word: tax cut will offset
> rising fuel prices. -- so the federal gov't is basically one huge
> money laundering agency...
Surely you don't mean to imply that the federal government should simply keep
the tax revenue it collects, rather than spend it in what seems like the most
productive manner.
J. L. Bell JnoL...@compuserve.com
JmG
>>You've never picked a flower in a park?
>>
>>J
>
>Don't even get me started about the Tidal Basin, Cherry blossoms and
>the f*cking tourists who think they have the right to lop off all the
>branches to take home as souvenirs.
As those cherry blossoms belong to all the people of the United States and are
being held in trust for us by the National Park Service, it is a violation of
the law to pick those flowers for personal use - just as it would be a violation
of the law to lift a coaster from the White House bar if you'd just served as
President for 8 years. One act is not any more or less weighty than the other
and we've all engaged in both quite freely.
J
--
Too sensible for the Left and too honest for the Right. [www.bongoboy.com]
tooloud10
Tell you what fellas--just send your extra tax money my way then. I'd be
glad to help you out of your role in the "money laundering".
> J
--
Jake
Remove nothing to reply
tooloud10
news:20010519223246...@ng-fv1.aol.com...
> If the stupid fucking car companies would make cars that could do over
fifty
> mpg the gas problem wouldn't be so big.
They do. Many car companies make or have made vehicles that get this, but
people don't want them. They want SUVs that get 15 mpg on the highway.
If you're looking for an actual NICE car that can carry more than two people
that you wouldn't be ashamed to drive, get a VW Passat TDI. 49 mpg on the
highway, about $18k. Not bad.
I hate when people complain about cars. There are really great cars out
there that people refuse to consider.
David Wilton
<mlo...@civetsystems.com> wrote:
>David Wilton <da...@wilton.net> writes:
>
>> A large, long term tax cut that is based on low-confidence
>> projections, particularly as it looks like we're in an economic
>> downturn, is not a bright idea. It is likely to lead to large
>> deficits.
>
>Two false premises there -- that cut in the tax rate will lead to a
>cut in total tax receipts and the cut in the total tax burden will
>lead to deficits.
>
>The first is just false -- a cut in tax rate often leads to an
>increase in tax receipts, as we've seen again and again, just as a
>retailer can increase its profits by cutting its prices.
Often, but not always. The recent elimination of the deficit and
accumulation of surpluses, the biggest gain in real tax revenues in US
history, was accomplished with rising taxes. Also, it ignores the
lessons of the Reagan administration, similar policies which led to
the biggest public debt ever seen.
>The first is politically false -- spending in the government is
>largely determined by how much money is available to spend. More tax
>money leads to more spending.
True, but I'm not saying no tax cut. Just a smaller one.
>They won't. Congress has been spending like a drunken televangelist.
>As a practical matter, we need to turn off the money spigot now.
Well, this is true. Can't argue with this.
>> We're facing an energy crisis, yet the Bush administration is
>> cutting funding for alternative energy sources, despite their
>> rhetoric that alternative sources are important.
>
>That's not rhetoric, that's just lying. They need to say things like
>that to gloss over a number of hard realities. Alternative enery
>sources are the technology of the future and always will be. Get rid
>of them.
I'm glad you acknowledge the Bush Administration is lying.
But the idea that all alternative energy sources are not viable is
simply not true. There have been significant advances in fuel cell
technology and wind generators that make this much more efficient and
economically viable in the very short time. Sure, some will never be
viable (solar springs to mind), but that doesn't mean all are.
>> Many of the roads and bridges in the US need replacement.
>
>Toll roads.
This is a demonstration of the fallacy of the idea that privatization
is the answer to all our problems. Roads are one of the fundamental
items of infrastructure that government needs to fund. They benefit
all, and tolls alone cannot generate enough funds to pay for it all.
>> Social Security is in trouble.
>
>Privatize now. Repudiate any shortfall.
I disagree. What we need to do is change what we expect from Social
Security. It should be the pension plan of last resort, the final
safety net to keep the elderly from starving. Unless we are willing as
a society to see the elderly starve, the government needs to have a
plan to prevent it. Social Security should be a guarantee, not a risk.
Consequently, we should expect its returns to be lower.
We do have lots of private options. Personally, I'm investing in a
401k, an IRA, and a VUL policy in addition to Socal Security. I like
the risk-free nature of SS; it allows me more freedom to seek higher
returns with the rest of my portfolio while still guaranteeing a
minimum return if I run into bad luck with my private investments.
Bill Diamond
back on Sun, 20 May 2001 15:35:14 -0700 that ...
>Often, but not always. The recent elimination of the deficit and
>accumulation of surpluses, the biggest gain in real tax revenues in US
>history, was accomplished with rising taxes. Also, it ignores the
>lessons of the Reagan administration, similar policies which led to
>the biggest public debt ever seen.
Reagan's tax policies -did- dramatically increase tax revenues.
However, Congress' inability or unwillingness to reduce spending was a
key problem that wasn't resolved until 1995.
AlanKngsly
<mlo...@civetsystems.com> writes:
>High taxes are always a bad idea.
Nope.
Alan
AlanKngsly
<mlo...@civetsystems.com> writes:
>You can, if you wish, stand in the forest saying, "Trees? What trees?
>I don't see any trees", but it makes you look more like a liar in a
>forest than an honest man in a desert.
Funny--I've never seen trees that were perceptible by only a minority of the
population.
Alan
AlanKngsly
<mlo...@civetsystems.com> writes:
>I am not a right winger.
>
Sure you are. You are a right wing reactionary. That's your right of course.
Alan
AlanKngsly
<mlo...@civetsystems.com> writes:
>> If the stupid fucking car companies would make cars that could do over
>fifty
>> mpg the gas problem wouldn't be so big.
>
>Yes, if only the stupid car companies were so stupid that they refuse
>to make a car that no one will buy...
You're right--it is the consumers who are stupid, and profligate wasters of
energy.
Alan
AlanKngsly
<dbo...@etspamhome.com> writes:
>Most legal scholars, including the presiding judge
>in one case, call that perjury. It was also a separate
>crime to violate the Arkansas Code of Professional Conduct,
>specifically, interferring with the administration of
>justice by not telling the truth under oath, whether it
>rises to the level of perjury or not.
<yawn>
Alan
AlanKngsly
AlanKngsly
<dbo...@etspamhome.com> writes:
>> IMHO, prolly not. Not because of any moral character, but
>because (a) it
>> would look really stupid, and (b) they don't need to steal
>furniture.
>> Clinton may not be the most honest guy, but he's certainly
>not stupid enough
>> to commit petty theft, at a time when his reputation is
>most valuable to
>> him, for an item that he doesn't even need to steal.
>
>Then maybe you can explain why he and his wife agreed to
>return certain items taken from the White House that didn't
>belong to them, according to the National Park Service?
That's not how it happened. The National Park Service never reported any
government property missing. Some private citizens who had donated furniture
complained that they had intended their gifts to stay in the White House, but
the NPS had not labelled them that way, and there was no such evidence. Still,
the Clintons said, basically, "whatever--we don't need it, we'll send it back
to the White House, sheesh!" That's a lot different from the way you describe
it. If you have evidence that the Park Service did indeed make such a
pronouncement, feel free to supply it.
Alan
AlanKngsly
<mlo...@civetsystems.com> writes:
>> A large, long term tax cut that is based on low-confidence
>> projections, particularly as it looks like we're in an economic
>> downturn, is not a bright idea. It is likely to lead to large
>> deficits.
>
>Two false premises there -- that cut in the tax rate will lead to a
>cut in total tax receipts and the cut in the total tax burden will
>lead to deficits.
>
>The first is just false -- a cut in tax rate often leads to an
>increase in tax receipts, as we've seen again and again, just as a
>retailer can increase its profits by cutting its prices.
Oh, come on, M. This supply side bit is really tired. It didn't work for
Reagan, and won't work now.
[snip]
>> We're facing an energy crisis, yet the Bush administration is
>> cutting funding for alternative energy sources, despite their
>> rhetoric that alternative sources are important.
>
>That's not rhetoric, that's just lying.
So lying to the people is the kind of governmental policy you support? Just
checking.
>They need to say things like
>that to gloss over a number of hard realities. Alternative enery
>sources are the technology of the future and always will be. Get rid
>of them.
What are you saying here? When does "the future" arrive?
>> Many of the roads and bridges in the US need replacement.
>
>Toll roads.
Regressive taxation.
>> Social Security is in trouble.
>
>Privatize now. Repudiate any shortfall.
By "repudiate any shortfall," I take it you mean "tough luck, old folks--you're
screwed." I assume you envision a suspension of the vote if you think this one
could happen.
[snip]
Alan
Big Iron5
>>Yeah--I wonder how many other people crack up over how every problem that
>comes
>>along the pike, Shrub says "hey, a tax cut wil fix that right up." It's
>>reminiscent of the old saw about how to the guy who only has a hammer, every
>>problem looks like a nail...
>
>
>My own hammer metaphor goes as follows:
>
>"Should I keep hitting myself in the head with a hammer?"
>
>"No, hitting yourself in the head with a hammer will give you
>a headache."
>
>Later: "I have a headache. Should I keep hitting myself in the head
>with a hammer?"
>
>"No, hitting yourself in the head with a hammer will make your
>headache worse."
>
>"Hey, when I didn't have a headache, you said I should stop hitting
>myself in the head with a hammer. Now I do have a headache, and you
>say I should stop hitting myself in the head with a hammer. Well,
>Mr. Smartypants, WHICH IS IT?"
>
>Translation for the truly clueless out there (and you know who you
>are) (no, I guess you don't, but the rest of us do): High taxes are
>always a bad idea.
And yet, (A) "high" is a meaningless word without some point of reference, and
(B) the US has been a low tax nation for a long time.
Big Iron5
>> A large, long term tax cut that is based on low-confidence
>> projections, particularly as it looks like we're in an economic
>> downturn, is not a bright idea. It is likely to lead to large
>> deficits.
>
>Two false premises there -- that cut in the tax rate will lead to a
>cut in total tax receipts
Well, the economy is always expanding (and plus there's inflation), so
depending on the level of the cuts it is certainly possible, probably likely,
for a tax cut not to result in a lower figure in raw tax revenue.
Of course, the inflation part of the equation applies to the government's
spending needs, too.
and the cut in the total tax burden will
>lead to deficits.
Well, that's certainly what happened in the 1980s, but it certainly is possible
to avoid it -- of course, there's little reason to think that Dubya could do it
if Reagan couldn't.
>The first is politically false -- spending in the government is
>largely determined by how much money is available to spend. More tax
>money leads to more spending.
Like in the 1980s, I guess.
JmG
>Tell you what fellas--just send your extra tax money my way then. I'd be
>glad to help you out of your role in the "money laundering".
There ain't a gonna be none. All our hard earned (and returned) tax dollars are
going to go immediately into the coffers of the Prez's buddies at ExxonMobil.
J
JmG
>>They won't. Congress has been spending like a drunken televangelist.
>>As a practical matter, we need to turn off the money spigot now.
>
>Well, this is true. Can't argue with this.
Which party is in control in Congress?
J
Big Iron5
>>Often, but not always. The recent elimination of the deficit and
>>accumulation of surpluses, the biggest gain in real tax revenues in US
>>history, was accomplished with rising taxes. Also, it ignores the
>>lessons of the Reagan administration, similar policies which led to
>>the biggest public debt ever seen.
>
>
>Reagan's tax policies -did- dramatically increase tax revenues.
Sure (I'll assume without checking for every year), but it still resulted in
less tax revenue that would otherwise have been realized.
>However, Congress' inability or unwillingness to reduce spending was a
>key problem that wasn't resolved until 1995.
Bill, please stop repeating this basic untruth -- Reagan never once proposed a
budget that was substantially more in balance than the ones Congress ultimately
approved.
The President plays a very important role in setting the budget. Despite the
partisan spin, Clinton deserves every bit as much credit for getting rid of the
deficit as the Republican Congress.
Big Iron5
>Then maybe you can explain why he and his wife agreed to
>return certain items taken from the White House that didn't
>belong to them, according to the National Park Service? Was
>it all just a big misunderstanding?
Dave, you know that is quite possible -- there may well have been a genuine
legal dispute over the matter.
Big Iron5
>> >He did commit all sort of minor crimes
>
>> Cite?
>
>"I was untruthful under oath"....."My client was not
>truthful under oath"....."For that, I agree to voluntarily
>surrender my license to practice law in Arkansas for a
>period of five years". His own words and those of his
>lawyer. Most legal scholars, including the presiding judge
>in one case, call that perjury.
That's news to me.
It was also a separate
>crime to violate the Arkansas Code of Professional Conduct,
>specifically, interferring with the administration of
>justice by not telling the truth under oath, whether it
>rises to the level of perjury or not.
That's all really one allegation, and it's not at all clear that he was guilty
of any crimes in that
Big Iron5
>>I am not a right winger.
>>
>
>Sure you are.
As the joke (mainly true) goes, a libertairian is a conservative who like to
take drugs and/or frequent prostitutes.
Bill Diamond
back on 21 May 2001 01:13:18 GMT that ...
>Bill Diamond writes:
>
>
>>>Often, but not always. The recent elimination of the deficit and
>>>accumulation of surpluses, the biggest gain in real tax revenues in US
>>>history, was accomplished with rising taxes. Also, it ignores the
>>>lessons of the Reagan administration, similar policies which led to
>>>the biggest public debt ever seen.
>>
>>
>>Reagan's tax policies -did- dramatically increase tax revenues.
>
>
>
>Sure (I'll assume without checking for every year), but it still resulted in
>less tax revenue that would otherwise have been realized.
Less than what? Tax revenues were steadily dropping from the mid-70s
onward. Starting in '83, they started going up quite a bit.
>
>
>>However, Congress' inability or unwillingness to reduce spending was a
>>key problem that wasn't resolved until 1995.
>
>
>Bill, please stop repeating this basic untruth -- Reagan never once proposed a
>budget that was substantially more in balance than the ones Congress ultimately
>approved.
Never said that he did, Bob. What I did say - and which is true - is
that Congress never supported any of the budget cuts that were
proposed.
>
>The President plays a very important role in setting the budget. Despite the
>partisan spin, Clinton deserves every bit as much credit for getting rid of the
>deficit as the Republican Congress.
And that's why Clinton submitted balanced budgets before the
Republicans took over.
Bill Diamond
back on 21 May 2001 00:54:56 GMT that ...
When are they a good idea, Alan? Where have high taxes been
beneficial?
Bill
Bill Diamond
Or .. just maybe ... it's the very people who would most like to
afford a low pollution vehicles who can't afford it because the darn
things cost more than they make in a year.
Bill Diamond
back on 21 May 2001 00:55:02 GMT that ...
Ladies and Gentlemen, I now present to you the Trees That Are Visible
Only to a Minority.
Bill Diamond
back on 21 May 2001 02:54:26 GMT that ...
How do you tell them apart from domestic liberals, then? A copy of
"Atlas Shrugged" in the backpack?
Big David
> In article JmG jmg...@bestweb.net> writes:
> >>>How come the Times is on your side now? I though your right
wingers treated
> >>>the NYT like you treat Ted Kennedy?
> >>And they ought not to be able to use it as a cite when it supports
their
> >POV, but reject it as impossibly biased when it goes against them.
> >But they will. Right wingers really are a rather duplicitous bunch
of whiny
> >bullies.
> Very well stated.
See, this is what I don't get, all this pseudo-moral superiority
(belief that their cause is somehow "better") by the left. Like they
didn't try bullying in the last election recount redoux and aren't
still whining about, just to use one example.
--
Big David
To send email, take out "et" and "spam". Email copies of replies
appreciated.
"The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and
stupidity."
Big David
> <yawn>
Wake up son, this is important shit. Pretty much puts the kibosh on
that "he didn't commit any crimes" argument, doesn't it, commie boy?
But hey, what do I know, I'm just some lawyer and your just some
fruitcake on usenet. I'll take your lack of ability to make a counter
argument as a concession.
Bill Diamond
alt.fan.cecil-adams back on Mon, 21 May 2001 04:11:41 GMT that ...
>
>See, this is what I don't get, all this pseudo-moral superiority
>(belief that their cause is somehow "better") by the left. Like they
>didn't try bullying in the last election recount redoux and aren't
>still whining about, just to use one example.
Fortunately, many of them live in California where their power is
failing and they'll soon no longer have the internet on which to spew
their invective, dis-history, and paranoid delusions.
Happy days are here again.
Big David
> Big David writes:
> >"I was untruthful under oath"....."My client was not
> >truthful under oath"....."For that, I agree to voluntarily
> >surrender my license to practice law in Arkansas for a
> >period of five years". His own words and those of his
> >lawyer. Most legal scholars, including the presiding judge
> >in one case, call that perjury.
> That's news to me.
Judge Susan Weber Johnson? the one in Arkansas who used to be his law
student? Her recommendation for discipline to the Arkansas bar makes
for interesting reading.
> It was also a separate
> >crime to violate the Arkansas Code of Professional Conduct,
> >specifically, interferring with the administration of
> >justice by not telling the truth under oath, whether it
> >rises to the level of perjury or not.
> That's all really one allegation, and it's not at all clear that he
was guilty
> of any crimes in that
I'm going to play weasely lawyer here and say no, while it arises from
the same conduct it is in fact a separate and different crime, and, if
you read the lawyer discipline case law regarding such things, it is
treated as one.
Big David
No, their conduct was more like "Lets take it and see if anyone
notices and wants it back". Given their history, I find that to be
the more likely scenario.
>That's a lot different from the way you describe
> it. If you have evidence that the Park Service did indeed make such
a
> pronouncement, feel free to supply it.
The fact that you missed it doesn't mean it didn't happen. You can
search the archives of the Washington Post on your own. Google is
your friend. BTW, common knowledge doesn't need to be cited, which is
why I admonish you to do your own research, and to, you know, read a
little. Just to throw you a bone, here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/fedpage/columns/intheloo
p/A34866-2001Apr18.html
Big David
> Good old JmG <jmg...@bestweb.net> wrote in alt.fan.cecil-adams
back
> on Sun, 20 May 2001 04:45:17 GMT that ...
> >"Big David" <dbo...@etspamhome.com> wrote:
> >>Then maybe you can explain why he and his wife agreed to
> >>return certain items taken from the White House that didn't
> >>belong to them, according to the National Park Service?
> >You've never picked a flower in a park?
Actually, no, and even if I did, there's a big difference between
picking a flower and stealing furniture worth over 25k.
tooloud10
news:8aqggt0vm4056hk5v...@4ax.com...
I can't be the only person that finds this to be a rather paranoidal view
concerning any relation between a possible tax cut and a raise in gas
prices.
> J
--
Jake
Remove nothing to reply
Crisis on Infinite Dutch Courage
>Good old alank...@aol.com (AlanKngsly) wrote in alt.fan.cecil-adams
>back on 21 May 2001 00:54:56 GMT that ...
>>In article <m3heygf...@civetsystems.com>, Michael Lorton
>><mlo...@civetsystems.com> writes:
>>
>>>High taxes are always a bad idea.
>>
>>Nope.
>>
>>Alan
>
>
>When are they a good idea, Alan?
When the programs and project the public clamors for cost money.
> Where have high taxes been
>beneficial?
The developed world, generally.
Remember, Governments have done more to better the world than any other thing.
Most of you are as old as you are because of the government.
The New DC is on the move!
Crisis on Infinite Dutch Courage
>AlanKngsly <alank...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> In article <upEN6.9159$HU.5...@news1.rdc1.tx.home.com>, "Big David"
>> <dbo...@etspamhome.com> writes:
>
>> >Most legal scholars, including the presiding judge
>> >in one case, call that perjury. It was also a separate
>> >crime to violate the Arkansas Code of Professional Conduct,
>> >specifically, interferring with the administration of
>> >justice by not telling the truth under oath, whether it
>> >rises to the level of perjury or not.
>
>> <yawn>
>
>Wake up son, this is important shit.
Wha, huh? wha? is there coffee?
> Pretty much puts the kibosh on
>that "he didn't commit any crimes" argument, doesn't it, commie boy?
Huh. I thought that was just some round of accusations from the usual quarters
to convince Al he ought to distance himself from the president, which worked
for some reason.
>But hey, what do I know,
Sometimes I wonder.
> I'm just some lawyer
Ehhh...I've seen you be wrong about law stuff more than once, especially when
you have a vested interest in the outcome, or Clinton is involved, or whatever.
> and your just some
>fruitcake on usenet. I'll take your lack of ability to make a counter
>argument as a concession.
I think a sound argument can be advanced that Clinton is mostly guilty of
being lawyerly regarding an immaterial issue during a politically motivated
legal hearing.
Michael Lorton
> Often, but not always. The recent elimination of the deficit and
> accumulation of surpluses, the biggest gain in real tax revenues in US
> history, was accomplished with rising taxes.
It was also accomplished with a huge increase in the number Brittany
Spears singles released -- and there was about as much causality.
> Also, it ignores the
> lessons of the Reagan administration, similar policies which led to
> the biggest public debt ever seen.
The Reagan cuts did not lead to a drop in revenue. The debt was due
to an increase in spending.
> I'm glad you acknowledge the Bush Administration is lying.
Why? I mean, why does that make you glad? Most people who don't like
the Republicans claim that they are lying.
"There are two parties in America: the Stupid Party, which calls
itself 'The Republicans' and the Evil Party, which calls itself 'The
Democrats'. Once in a while, they get together and do something both
stupid and evil, which they call 'bipartisanship'."
-- Dave Barry (IIRC)
> But the idea that all alternative energy sources are not viable is
> simply not true. There have been significant advances in fuel cell
> technology and wind generators that make this much more efficient and
> economically viable in the very short time.
D'oh. In the computer industry, we often schedule things for "RSN" --
"real soon now".
It would be an ad hominem argument to point out that the same people
who support blatant nonsense like solar power also support more subtle
nonsense like wind power and ambiguities like fuel cells, so I'll just
say what I always tell people about investments: "Believe it when the
check clears the bank."
> >> Many of the roads and bridges in the US need replacement.
> >
> >Toll roads.
>
> This is a demonstration of the fallacy of the idea that privatization
> is the answer to all our problems.
Perhaps an "instance", but not a demonstration until you can prove me
wrong. Privatization, incidentally, is not expected to solve commons
problems, like pollution, but roads are not a commons problem.
> Roads are one of the fundamental items of infrastructure that
> government needs to fund.
Says who, the traffic fairy?
> They benefit all,
Grocery stores benefit all, at least in the sense that road do, but
they seem to work
> and tolls alone cannot generate enough funds to pay for it all.
Again, says who? Right now, highways are paid for entirely by
gasoline taxes. If that burden were shifted onto tolls, the average
driver would not see a change in his costs.
Clearly PUBLIC roads don't seem to be working (according to you
anyway, there is supposedly a huge backload of deferred maintenance).
> Personally, I'm investing in a 401k, an IRA, and a VUL policy in
> addition to Socal Security. I like the risk-free nature of SS; it
> allows me more freedom to seek higher returns with the rest of my
> portfolio while still guaranteeing a minimum return if I run into
> bad luck with my private investments.
Nothing stops you from putting some of your money in US bonds, which
are both considerably safer and a considerably better investment than
Social Security.
M.
Michael Lorton
> Oh, come on, M. This supply side bit is really tired. It didn't work for
> Reagan, and won't work now.
Worked fine for him. Started an expansion that is still (or at least
until last quarter) underway.
>>> We're facing an energy crisis, yet the Bush administration is
>>> cutting funding for alternative energy sources, despite their
>>> rhetoric that alternative sources are important.
>>That's not rhetoric, that's just lying.
> So lying to the people is the kind of governmental policy you support?
That *I* support? I haven't checked my voicemail lately, but I don't
think I'm in the Bush cabinet.
Just because Alan keeps calling me a right-winger doesn't actually
make me one.
> >They need to say things like
> >that to gloss over a number of hard realities. Alternative enery
> >sources are the technology of the future and always will be. Get rid
> >of them.
>
> What are you saying here? When does "the future" arrive?
Maybe you should go on eBay and see if anyone is selling a clue. :-)
[Note smiley! It was a joke! Just like the overused "X of the future
and always will be" line! ]
> >> Many of the roads and bridges in the US need replacement.
> >
> >Toll roads.
>
> Regressive taxation.
Duh, just like the gasoline taxes we use to fund them now.
>>> Social Security is in trouble.
>> Privatize now. Repudiate any shortfall.
>
> By "repudiate any shortfall," I take it you mean "tough luck, old folks--you're
> screwed."
Actually, if I had to do this, I would pay off whatever funds actually
collected in age-order.
> I assume you envision a suspension of the vote if you think this one
> could happen.
In a democracy, you have to keep lying and keep supporting bad, but
popular, policies, or else people vote in someone who will.
M.
AlanKngsly
<da...@wilton.net> writes:
>>> Social Security is in trouble.
>>
>>Privatize now. Repudiate any shortfall.
>
>I disagree. What we need to do is change what we expect from Social
>Security. It should be the pension plan of last resort, the final
>safety net to keep the elderly from starving. Unless we are willing as
>a society to see the elderly starve, the government needs to have a
>plan to prevent it. Social Security should be a guarantee, not a risk.
>Consequently, we should expect its returns to be lower.
How about we just means test it? Keep it in place for all but the most
affluent twenty percent or so, or you'll have widespread voter revolt.
Alan
AlanKngsly
<nospa...@home.com> writes:
>Many car companies make or have made vehicles that get this, but
>people don't want them. They want SUVs that get 15 mpg on the highway.
As Molly Ivins says in today's NY Times:
----------
We want big. We want fast. We want far. We want now. We want 345 horsepower in
a V-8 engine and 15 miles per gallon on the highway.
We drive behemoths. We drive them alone. This country was not built on H.O.V.
lanes.
We don't have limits. We have liberties.
If we don't wear our seat belts, it doesn't matter, because we have air bags.
If the air bags don't deploy, it doesn't matter, because our cars are so beefy,
we'll never get bruised. If we need to widen the streets for our all- wheel
drives, we will. If we need to reinforce all the bridges in the country, so
that they don't buckle and collapse under our 5,800-pound S.U.V.'s, our
engineers will do that.
We'll bake the earth. We'll brown & serve it, sauté it, simmer it, sear it,
fondue it, George-Foreman-grill it. (We invented the Foreman grill.) We might
one day bring the earth to a boil and pull it like taffy. (We invented taffy.)
If rising seas obliterate the coasts, our marine geologists will sculpt new
ones and Hollywood will get bright new ideas for disaster movies. If we get
charred by the sun, our dermatologists will replace our skin.
If the globe gets warmer, we'll turn up the air-conditioning. (We invented
air-conditioning.) We'll drive faster in our gigantic, air-conditioned cars to
the new beaches that our marine geologists create.
We will let our power plants spew any chemicals we deem necessary to fire up
our Interplaks, our Krups, our Black & Deckers and our Fujitsu Plasmavisions.
We will drill for oil whenever and wherever we please. If tourists don't like
rigs off the coast of Florida, they can go fly fishing in Wyoming. We won't be
deterred by a few Arctic terns. We don't care about caribou. We don't care for
cardigans. Give us our 69 degrees, winter and summer. Let there be light - no
timers, no freaky- shaped long-life bulbs. (We invented the light bulb.)
We want our refrigerators cold and our freezers colder. Bring on the freon.
Banish those irritating toilets that restrict flow. When we flush, we flush all
the way.
We will perfect the dream of nuclear power. We will put our toxic waste
wherever we want, whenever we waste it. We have whole states with nothing
better to do than serve as ancestral burial grounds for our effluvium. It can
fester in those wide open spaces for thousands of years.
We will have the biggest, baddest missiles, and we will point them in any
direction we like, across the galaxies, through eternity, forever and ever.
We will thrust as many satellites as we want into outer space, and we will
surround them with a firewall of weapons for their protection.
We will guarantee broadband and fast connections to the Internet. We will not
permit anybody, anywhere, at any time to threaten the delivery of all the
necessities to computers, Palm Pilots and BlackBerrys: stock quotes, sports
scores, real estate listings, epicurean.com recipes, porn. (O.K., so we didn't
invent porn.)
By arming space, and protecting satellites, we ensure life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness - our 500 TV channels drawn from the ether.
We will secure the inalienable right of every citizen driving by himself in his
big car to be guided by a global positioning system. Nobody should have to call
in advance for directions to a party when the satellite can show the way.
We will modify food in any way we want and send it to any country we see fit at
prices that we and we alone determine in the cargo ships we choose at the time
we set.
Our international banking arm - the World Bank and the I.M.F. - will support
whatever dictatorships suit us best.
We will fly up any coast of any nation on earth with any plane filled with any
surveillance equipment and top guns that we possess.
We will build superduperjumbo jets so Brobdingnagian that runways will be
crushed under their weight at the most congested airports in the history of
aviation. (We invented aviation.)
We will buy, carry, conceal and shoot firearms whenever and wherever we want,
as is our constitutionally guaranteed right. (We invented the Constitution.) We
will kill any criminal we want, by lethal injection or electrocution. (We
invented electricity.)
We are America.
Michael Lorton
> MLorton writes:
>>Translation for the truly clueless out there (and you know who you
>>are) (no, I guess you don't, but the rest of us do): High taxes are
>>always a bad idea.
> And yet,
What do those two words mean in this context?
> (A) "high" is a meaningless word without some point of reference, and
> (B) the US has been a low tax nation for a long time.
Uh, well, if "high" is meaningless out of context, isn't "low"
meaningless out of context too?
"High" means "above the economically optimal amount" -- which I
personally would peg around 10%-15% for the US, but would be
interested in hearing other numbers. The US (at about, what, 40%) is
a high-tax nation, but so are most of the others.
The US is a low-tax nation only in comparison to other countries,
which seems like a silly standard to me.
M.
Michael Lorton
> Actually, no, and even if I did, there's a big difference between
> picking a flower and stealing furniture worth over 25k.
And, I might point out, not paying taxes on it.
M.
Michael Lorton
> In article <ebXN6.10075$HU.7...@news1.rdc1.tx.home.com>, "tooloud10"
> <nospa...@home.com> writes:
>
> >Many car companies make or have made vehicles that get this, but
> >people don't want them. They want SUVs that get 15 mpg on the highway.
I would be happy with an SUV that go 40 MPG so long at it seated seven
and had a bitchin' V-8 up front.
> As Molly Ivins says in today's NY Times:
[Huge copyright violation largely snipped]
> We don't have limits. We have liberties.
That's what Molly hates most of all: freedom.
> We'll bake the earth. We'll brown & serve it, sauté it, simmer it, sear it,
> fondue it, George-Foreman-grill it. (We invented the Foreman grill.) We might
> one day bring the earth to a boil and pull it like taffy. (We invented taffy.)
Is this even true? I always though of taffy as an English thing...
> Banish those irritating toilets that restrict flow. When we flush, we flush all
> the way.
Would that it were, of course. Molly hates Amerika so much she
ignores its febrile attempts to mollify the likes of Molly.
> We will have the biggest, baddest missiles, and we will point them in any
> direction we like, across the galaxies, through eternity, forever and ever.
Damn right.
> We will guarantee broadband and fast connections to the Internet. We will not
> permit anybody, anywhere, at any time to threaten the delivery of all the
> necessities to computers, Palm Pilots and BlackBerrys: stock quotes, sports
> scores, real estate listings, epicurean.com recipes, porn. (O.K., so we didn't
> invent porn.)
Nah, but we perfected it.
> Our international banking arm - the World Bank and the I.M.F. - will support
> whatever dictatorships suit us best.
Actually, the US and the World Bank/IMF people are not on the best of
terms. We support our dictators, they support theirs.
> We will buy, carry, conceal and shoot firearms whenever and wherever we want,
> as is our constitutionally guaranteed right. (We invented the Constitution.) We
> will kill any criminal we want, by lethal injection or electrocution. (We
> invented electricity.)
Molly really is an idiot.
> We are America.
And proud of it.
M.
Crisis on Infinite Dutch Courage
Date: 5/21/2001 2:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>The US is a low-tax nation only in comparison to other countries.
Most snakes are pretty small if you don't count the tail.
AlanKngsly
AlanKngsly
<bi...@nospambilldiamond.com> writes:
>>As the joke (mainly true) goes, a libertairian is a conservative who like to
>>take drugs and/or frequent prostitutes.
>
>How do you tell them apart from domestic liberals, then? A copy of
>"Atlas Shrugged" in the backpack?
That, and their lack of support for social programs, taxes, gun control....
Alan
AlanKngsly
<dbo...@etspamhome.com> writes:
>>That's a lot different from the way you describe
>> it. If you have evidence that the Park Service did indeed make such
>a
>> pronouncement, feel free to supply it.
>
>The fact that you missed it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
That is, the fact that they were quoted on CNN as saying it didn't happen...
Alan
AlanKngsly
<bi...@nospambilldiamond.com> writes:
>>You're right--it is the consumers who are stupid, and profligate wasters of
>>energy.
>
>Or .. just maybe ... it's the very people who would most like to
>afford a low pollution vehicles who can't afford it because the darn
>things cost more than they make in a year.
Yes, that's often true as well. Damn shame.
Alan
AlanKngsly
mutigho...@aol.comMMMS (Crisis on Infinite Dutch Courage) writes:
>> I'm just some lawyer
>
> Ehhh...I've seen you be wrong about law stuff more than once, especially
>when
>you have a vested interest in the outcome, or Clinton is involved, or
>whatever.
Exactly. And Bob's a lawyer, and doesn't agree with you--so your "lawyer rays"
kind of cancel each other out, and we can decide these things for ourselves.
Don't forget, pal (speaking to BD here of course), that juries are generally
not made up of lawyers.
Alan