We Needed A Big Gas Tax

Michael Johnson, PE wrote:

> Hank, unfortunately you are the classic "Bush Hater" of which the left
> seems to have an over abundance. I'm going to spare ramfm a long
> diatribe with you because there's great odds that we will NEVER agree
> politically on ANYTHING. You said your piece and I said mine. Let's
> leave it at that.

I don't hate bu$h, but I would like to see him tried and
convicted for war crimes and treason. His invasion of Iraq
is illegal, immoral, and an horrific tragedy. Eventually,
you'll realize that too. Unfortunately, you'll also come to
realize that his economic and environmental polices are
tragic as well. The price will be high - hell, it already is...


-


Ever wonder who benefits from the 150 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21

http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/
http://counterpunch.org/
http://responsiblewealth.org/
http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/pol/80315675.html

In September and October 2003, McClellan said he had spoken
directly with Rove about the matter and that "he was not
involved" in leaking Plame's identity to the news media.
McClellan said at the time: "The president knows that Karl
Rove wasn't involved," "It was a ridiculous suggestion"
and "It's not true."
Yet another in the endless stirng of bu$h's lies.


"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

"Brutal and sadistic? By what girly-man standards? Compared
to how Saddam treated his prisoners, a bit of humiliation was
a walk in the park. AFAIK, No one died or even lost any blood."
-Albert Nurick, a usenet kook and blatant liar, on the rape,
torture and murder at bu$h's Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0512-10.htm

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

"God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them. And then
he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did."
-- George W. Bush

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the
will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the
Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
-- Adolf Hitler

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, Hank wrote:

>> Fairly taxing the wealthiest top 5% percent, has nothing to
>>do with your bizarre "removing incentives" rant. You're not
>>making any sense at all.

> If you look at who actually pays the taxes in this nation I would say the
> top 5% of wage earners is currently paying 53% of the income taxes while
> earning 32% of all income. The top 50% of wage earners are currently
> paying 96% of the income taxes while earning 86% of all income.

> Could you point out what isn't fair here and in which direction?

I don't agree with your numbers. The folks who wrote the websites
below do a very good job of explaining what is and isn't fair. The
first website is produced by very wealthy people who feel guilty
accepting their tax breaks. They have the intelligence and compassion
to help the people in the lower income brackets with their struggle
struggle to make ends meet - like Jesus would. Should there really
be an interest deduction for a million dollar vacation home? That
deduction makes sense as an benefit for lower/middle class families
purchasing a home, but not as a gift for billionaires at the expense
of the working class.

http://responsiblewealth.org/
http:/ctj.org/

> I'll sum up how the two parties are the same with a quote:

> "We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the
> Russians, We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we
> reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in
> our national interest." -Sen. John Kerry, CNN, 1997.

I agree that there isn't enough of a difference between
Dems and Repubs. Both support barbaric policies like bu$h's
terrorism in Iraq, and Prohibition, and both cater to the
elite, but the Dems are clearly the lesser of two evils in
that regard. Dems are also much better environmentally. If
Al Gore has won, coal plant emission standards would be
tightened. Hell, you can't even eat Tuna now because of
the mercury in it....


-


Ever wonder who benefits from the 150 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21

http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/
http://counterpunch.org/
http://responsiblewealth.org/

In September and October 2003, McClellan said he had spoken
directly with Rove about the matter and that "he was not
involved" in leaking Plame's identity to the news media.
McClellan said at the time: "The president knows that Karl
Rove wasn't involved," "It was a ridiculous suggestion"
and "It's not true."
Yet another in the endless stirng of bu$h's lies.


"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm


"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

"God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them. And then
he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did."
-- George W. Bush

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the
will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the
Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
-- Adolf Hitler

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...

Hate can be blinding for the hater.

351CJ wrote:

> > And as
> > far as gun control, I don't think it's a big thing if someone has to
> > wait 24 hours to be checked out for a criminal record/mental health
> > issue before buying an AK-47, do you? But some seem to think doing
> > that background check is the begining of a slippery slope to banning
> > shotguns for quail hunting.

> You really need a little more information on this subject.
> The second amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with hunting or shotguns.

It's the right to bear arms. Or, basically, if you want to own a gun,
any gun, you're free to do so.

> Waiting periods are NOT about background checks. That has been covered
> since 1998 by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

Educate me. What's the waiting period for? And why is it a hassle?

> Or in the case of individuals who carry concealed weapons permits from one
> or multiple states, they have already passed one or more stringent
> background check.

Good.

> How many is enough?

I just don't want the guy who has had some "stress incidents" at work
and was seeing a doctor for maybe talking about suicide or suggesting a
little revenge on someone who ****ed him off; or the guy who just got
out of jail for armed robbery and was "just trying to get his life back
in order" being able to walk into any gun show, or worse a Wally World,
and *freely* buy a weapon. That scares me. Yeah, they could steal one
or buy one from a "dealer", but at least they obtained it illegally...
we didn't just give him a sales receipt and say have a nice day, thanks
for shopping at WalMart.

> Should you have to retake your drivers exam once a month?

We have "exams"?! I only remember having to start the car, put it in
drive, turn the wheel a little, hit the brake once or twice and then a
driver's license spit out. But what a novel idea! I'd suggest a real
road course with curves, cones, water, heavy acceleration, braking and
turning. Followed by a written test about the rules of the road --
blinker use, tailgating, obstructing the left/passing lane and lane
discipline in general, paying attention to traffic signals (not running
them, or be talking on a cell phone and stopped, after it has changed
to green 5-10 seconds ago) and requiring every licensed driver pass
both exams about every 3-4 years.

> After all many more Americans die from automobiles than guns.

I'm just glad the average American isn't in the [immediate] possession
of gun as often as they drive a car.

> Does your "no big thing" attitude apply to a person who already has one or
> more guns?

Why not? Just like I wouldn't have a problem waiting 24 hours or doing
a background check before buying a car.

> What practical difference does that person waiting to buy their 2nd, 3rd, or > 4th gun make?

Ask the folks who survived Columbine, CO. More weapons can mean more
carnage. Seen the video floating around with the high school kid
packing about 9-10 guns under everyday baggy clothing?

> If you really wanted to do something about criminals with guns, you would
> stop supporting the harassment of honest law abiding Americans, and go after
> the criminals.

We already go after criminals... the cops do a great job... they get
them locked up. Unfortunately, the punishments don't fit the crimes.

> If a criminal wants a gun they will get it with or without these silly
> little feel good infringements, and they do because they know there are no
> serious ramifications if they get caught with a gun.

Do you lock your doors at night? Do lock your car doors when you leave
it in a parking lot? Do you try to keep your house looking lived in
while you're gone out of town? Sure you do. But why do you do these
"little feel good infringements"? Because it's something... and it
helps, if even just a little.

> Law abiding Americans have an inalienable right to firearms,

I totally agree! You should be able to own an armory, as long as you
don't have a history of pointing guns at people or have serious mental
problems.

Patrick
'93 Cobra

Oh, so no one will argue with my economic theory? Well, I must be a
****ing genius. =) Or, I'm just an overeducated idiot. The jury is
still out. Who accumulates 194 semester hours and carries on like I do?

Don't bother, all, I'm checking out for an indeterminate length of time.
I am not ending this or any other argument by saying this; I'm telling
you I may never come back. But I sincerly hope to. Life sometimes
becomes very cruel, and for years on end. I'm sure some of you
understand. It just won't quit. I must deal with this ****.

This thread has been a very good discussion. I've read every word of
it. All I have to say is, I hope I still HAVE my gas guzzling Mustang
when I return (and I know you all will be quietly pining for this event)
and I hope some one will talk to me.

So, best wishes to Joe, Spike, Jim Warman and WindsorFox (even though I
know they both hate me), Patrick, ZW, Kate, ByM, Happy Mikey, and the
rest of the regs. Apologies are due to those I've not mentioned. I
don't want to be writing this right now at all.

Peace to all of you; good luck and skill; be careful. Let the good
times roll. Burn rubber and be happy.

Sincerely yours,

Jason a.k.a.

--
Wound Up
ThunderSnake #65

In article >, Hank wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article >, Hank wrote:
>
>>> Fairly taxing the wealthiest top 5% percent, has nothing to
>>>do with your bizarre "removing incentives" rant. You're not
>>>making any sense at all.
>
>> If you look at who actually pays the taxes in this nation I would say the
>> top 5% of wage earners is currently paying 53% of the income taxes while
>> earning 32% of all income. The top 50% of wage earners are currently
>> paying 96% of the income taxes while earning 86% of all income.
>
>> Could you point out what isn't fair here and in which direction?

> I don't agree with your numbers.

They come from the IRS. The link given for the raw data is:
http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls

> The folks who wrote the websites
> below do a very good job of explaining what is and isn't fair. The
> first website is produced by very wealthy people who feel guilty
> accepting their tax breaks. They have the intelligence and compassion
> to help the people in the lower income brackets with their struggle
> struggle to make ends meet - like Jesus would. Should there really
> be an interest deduction for a million dollar vacation home? That
> deduction makes sense as an benefit for lower/middle class families
> purchasing a home, but not as a gift for billionaires at the expense
> of the working class.

Why do they need the government to force them?

Most people who think there should be higher taxes to help the 'poor' and
the like are all about doing their beveolence with other people's money.

> http://responsiblewealth.org/
> http:/ctj.org/

First website seems to consist mostly of feelings. The second shows the
obvious, the Bush tax cut helped those who paid taxes. It's hard to have
a tax cut when your income tax is already zero. It's hard to have a big
tax cut when your income taxes are already small.

Now getting back to 'fair share' Tell me why those values are unfair. I
am waiting for you to make the case.

>> I'll sum up how the two parties are the same with a quote:
>
>> "We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the
>> Russians, We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we
>> reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in
>> our national interest." -Sen. John Kerry, CNN, 1997.

> I agree that there isn't enough of a difference between
> Dems and Repubs. Both support barbaric policies like bu$h's
> terrorism in Iraq, and Prohibition, and both cater to the
> elite, but the Dems are clearly the lesser of two evils in
> that regard.

Dems are not a leser evil. They are mostly we-know-what's-good-for-you
elitests who already have wealth and use the tax code and regulation to
make it difficult for anyone else to reach their level of wealth. They
foster a dependency class by giving money out of the treasury, stealing
from one citizen to give to another.

> Dems are also much better environmentally.

No they aren't. They use the environment as tool to gain control over our
lives. That's all it has become, a tool, an excuse for more power.

> If
> Al Gore has won, coal plant emission standards would be
> tightened. Hell, you can't even eat Tuna now because of
> the mercury in it....

The so called standards you are refering to under the democrats were an
all or nothing upgrade policy. Either power companies didn't change
anything or if they upgraded one component it all had to be replaced and
upgraded. This all or nothing approach just encouraged power plants to
keep patching their ancient, dirty equipment up because of the huge
expense of wholesale replacement. The evil republican changes allowed
power companies to upgrade components as they broke. Sure, replacing one
component at a time wasn't as clean as replacing everything. But, in the
real world, it was cleaner than what the all-or-nothing regs caused.

> Ever wonder who benefits from the 150 MILLION
> U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?

Going for tangents?

I could go on and on about things too. I am glad you people woke up and
are now examining government. The only problem is, a democrat will be
elected and you'll all go to sleep again and the march against our
liberty will continue on just as it did under past dem admins. At least
it's noticed when republicans do it. (notice dems never reverse what the
republicans take from us and vice versa) I just wish the media and the loud
dem followers would examine 'their' guys as closely. If they did, they
would learn what I have.

I suppose living in the chicago area all my life has allowed me to see
the scope and method of democrat party corruption and goings on that
allow me to see that they are just as bad as the republicans.

Wound Up wrote:
> Oh, so no one will argue with my economic theory? Well, I must be a
> ****ing genius. =) Or, I'm just an overeducated idiot. The jury is
> still out. Who accumulates 194 semester hours and carries on like I do?

Jason, I'd love to reply to yours but replying to Mike's is about all I
have time for now. Sorry.

Take care!

Patrick
'93 Cobra

NT

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> 351CJ wrote:
>
>> > And as
>> > far as gun control, I don't think it's a big thing if someone has to
>> > wait 24 hours to be checked out for a criminal record/mental health
>> > issue before buying an AK-47, do you? But some seem to think doing
>> > that background check is the begining of a slippery slope to banning
>> > shotguns for quail hunting.
>
>> You really need a little more information on this subject.
>> The second amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with hunting or
>> shotguns.
>
> It's the right to bear arms. Or, basically, if you want to own a gun,
> any gun, you're free to do so.
>
>> Waiting periods are NOT about background checks. That has been covered
>> since 1998 by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System
>> (NICS).
>
> Educate me. What's the waiting period for? And why is it a hassle?

THERE IS NO WAITING PERIOD!!! There is NICS, the I is for Instant.

When there was one, or in the misguided states that may still have one, it
is simply a thinly veiled attempt by the anti-gunners to further infringe
our second amendment rights.

In Washington state prior to all this anti-gun waiting period, Instant
Background Check crap, if you had a concealed weapons permit (remember the
EXTENSIVE Background Check) you could walk into any gun store lay your cash
and permit on the counter take you handgun or long gun and permit and be on
your way.

That is the way it should be for law abiding citizens.

>
>> Or in the case of individuals who carry concealed weapons permits from
>> one
>> or multiple states, they have already passed one or more stringent
>> background check.
>
> Good.
>
>> How many is enough?
>
> I just don't want the guy who has had some "stress incidents" at work
> and was seeing a doctor for maybe talking about suicide or suggesting a
> little revenge on someone who ****ed him off; or the guy who just got
> out of jail for armed robbery and was "just trying to get his life back
> in order" being able to walk into any gun show, or worse a Wally World,
> and *freely* buy a weapon. That scares me. Yeah, they could steal one
> or buy one from a "dealer", but at least they obtained it illegally...
> we didn't just give him a sales receipt and say have a nice day, thanks
> for shopping at WalMart.


You position is not logical, what if there were no record of his sudden loss
of his faculties? The exact thing you think these thinly veiled
infringements of our second amendment are supposed to protect you from could
still happen, these misguided and ineffective laws would do nothing to stop
this guy complete with "stress incidents" from legally buying his gun. THE
GUN IS NOT THE PROBLEM, neither are the law abiding citizens.


>
>> Should you have to retake your drivers exam once a month?
>
> We have "exams"?! I only remember having to start the car, put it in
> drive, turn the wheel a little, hit the brake once or twice and then a
> driver's license spit out. But what a novel idea! I'd suggest a real
> road course with curves, cones, water, heavy acceleration, braking and
> turning. Followed by a written test about the rules of the road --
> blinker use, tailgating, obstructing the left/passing lane and lane
> discipline in general, paying attention to traffic signals (not running
> them, or be talking on a cell phone and stopped, after it has changed
> to green 5-10 seconds ago) and requiring every licensed driver pass
> both exams about every 3-4 years.

The truth is, the anti-gunners want registration and licensing not for
safety, but to erect the record-keeping apparatus necessary to make
confiscation of privately owned firearms achievable in the future.

>
>> After all many more Americans die from automobiles than guns.
>
> I'm just glad the average American isn't in the [immediate] possession
> of gun as often as they drive a car.

There are over 100,000,000 gun owners in the US. are you sure you know what
you are saying?

The number of privately owned guns in the U.S. is at an all-time high. The
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) estimates that
there were about 215 million guns in 1999, when the number of new guns was
averaging about 4.5 million (about 2%) annually. A report for the National
Academy of Sciences put the 1999 figure at 258 million. According to the
Bureau of Justice Statistics, there were 30.7 million approved (new and
used) NICS firearm transactions between 2000 2003.
See BATF, "Firearms Commerce in the United States 2001/2002"
(www.atf.gov/pub/index.htm#Firearms).

>
>> Does your "no big thing" attitude apply to a person who already has one
>> or
>> more guns?
>
> Why not?

Because it is a misguided, and ineffective wasteful (man hours and money)
thinly veiled infringement of our second amendment.

Just like I wouldn't have a problem waiting 24 hours or doing
> a background check before buying a car.
>
>> What practical difference does that person waiting to buy their 2nd, 3rd,
>> or > 4th gun make?
>
> Ask the folks who survived Columbine, CO. More weapons can mean more
> carnage. Seen the video floating around with the high school kid
> packing about 9-10 guns under everyday baggy clothing?


Ask them WHAT? How many totally misguided, and ineffective anti-gun laws
were broken (hint, more than 20) while these criminals were getting the guns
they carried during that crime?

Again, What practical difference does that person waiting to buy their 2nd,
3rd, or 4th gun make? Can you honestly say you think it makes a practical
difference?


>
>> If you really wanted to do something about criminals with guns, you would
>> stop supporting the harassment of honest law abiding Americans, and go
>> after
>> the criminals.
>
> We already go after criminals... the cops do a great job... they get
> them locked up. Unfortunately, the punishments don't fit the crimes.

My point exactly! The feel good laws are totally misguided, and
ineffective! They should be going after criminal activities, NOT LAW
ABIDING CITIZENS!


>
>> If a criminal wants a gun they will get it with or without these silly
>> little feel good infringements, and they do because they know there are
>> no
>> serious ramifications if they get caught with a gun.
>
> Do you lock your doors at night? Do lock your car doors when you leave
> it in a parking lot? Do you try to keep your house looking lived in
> while you're gone out of town? Sure you do. But why do you do these
> "little feel good infringements"? Because it's something... and it
> helps, if even just a little.
>

You obviously DO NOT HAVE A CLUE what the hell you are talking about.

No I DO NOT Lock my doors at night, or when I go out (leave my property),
unless it is for overnight. I don't lock my vehicles at home either.

I do not try to keep my house looking lived in while I'm gone out of town.
In order to determine whether our home looks lived in or not you would have
to be trespassing, you would have had to navigate my closed locked
(automatic) gate traveled my 1200 foot driveway and navigate another closed
gate, then crossed my 1.5 acre fenced dog yard to see my house which is only
visible from my property, or over 1 mile away.

I carry a loaded sidearm. That is as feel good as I need it.


>> Law abiding Americans have an inalienable right to firearms,
>
> I totally agree! You should be able to own an armory, as long as you
> don't have a history of pointing guns at people or have serious mental
> problems.

No you do not totally agree, You believe many obstacles and fees are OK, I
DO NOT!!! You see nothing wrong with limitless harassment of law abiding
Americans and gun owners. I see that as a violation of my inalienable
second amendment rights.


>
> Patrick
> '93 Cobra
>

"Michael Johnson, PE" wrote:

> Hate can be blinding for the hater.

Which is why most of the folks who support bu$h's war
crimes and terrorism can't see the facts or the reality
of the situation....


-


Ever wonder who benefits from the 150 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21

"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own war crimes in Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

"God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them. And then
he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did."
-- George W. Bush

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the
will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the
Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
-- Adolf Hitler

"Brutal and sadistic? By what girly-man standards? Compared
to how Saddam treated his prisoners, a bit of humiliation was
a walk in the park. AFAIK, No one died or even lost any blood."
-Albert Nurick, a usenet kook, on the rape, torture and murder
at bu$h's Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
(http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0512-10.htm)


George W. Bush: "Intelligence gathered by this and other
governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues
to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever
devised." March 17, 2003.

http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://counterpunch.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com
http://responsiblewealth.org/
http://globalresearch.ca/
http://www.wsws.org/

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

"You know, when bu$h said that he's against nation building,
I didn't realize that he meant only the United States"
-- Al Franken

Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...