Re: OT 2000 Year Old Record Shattered

"Vito" <vito@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4390b34c$0$15591@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Dusty" <RV_phixer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
>> No! In Barbados, when he came to power there. Don't tell me that this
>> is
>> another example of what you don't know...
>
> Then they didn't experience his rise to power, which occurred in Germany,
> just the result of it.
Vito, are you just dim or a complete moron? OF COURSE it was in Germany!
He didn't rule in any others (until after he conquered 'em), and never made
it to Barbados. I wuz tryin' ta be a bit 'tongue-in-cheek'... But as with
most liberals, humor seems to be wasted on you.

>> >> What is it that GWB's done that makes him, in *your* view,
>> >> a socialist much like Hitler"? ....
>> >
>> > His record. Federal Government has grown by 1/3 under him, excluding
>> > the
>> First off, the prez doesn't get to "grow" anything. Only congress can do
>> that. In any event, *that* makes him "Hitlerian?"
>
> That's extremely naive. If a congressman or senator wants to get those big
Naive? Moi? Coming from you, that's rich.

> contributions from the D or RNC, get their supporters appointed to high
> $$$
> positions, and their pork bills signed off they do whatever the prez asks.
Well ye-A-h! That's how that stupid system works! But congress lards on
the things that congress wants. What the prez wants is interesting, but not
relevant to them... And no! I don't like that system either! Which is
probably why congress won't give the prez a line item veto.

> Been thataway since Jackson and his "spoils system". And nowdays they get
> their dirty linen washed in public if they don't. Been like that since
> Roosevelt established the FBI to dig up the dirt on them. Growing federal
> power is *one* of the things he shares with Hitler.
Geez! Are you loony lefties ever ate up with conspiracies. Roosevelt
didn't establish the FBI to dig up dirt on our congress-critters. That's
just daffy. However, he may well have used 'em to do that.

>> > .... For example, the prescription drug benefit ...
>> Ah, you're gonna need to check on just *WHO* authored and promoted that
>> bill. Methinks you'll find that it was a liberal, and not a
>> conservative.
>
> You betcha! Liberals like Teddy boy and the GOP's self-styled
> "conservatives". A GOP majority passed these socialist bills and Bush
> signed them - making them as much socialists as any liberal democrat.
Lemme see...sign for something you don't really want, or veto it, and end up
with an all out fight against those with whom you're trying to make a
bipartisan relationship...which shall I do...<big sigh!>

>> You're such a brain-dead moron! The tax break was for <... drum roll
>> ...>
>> TAX PAYERS! That most of them reside in the upper 50% of the population
>> seems to have escaped you, is hardly news. It's more an indication of
> your
>> insipid ignorance. And that most of the highest paying taxpayers are in
> the
>> top 2% of tax payers. You've really got to stop drinking that liberal
>> kool-aid, Vito. It's startin' ta 'f'-up your (what passes for)
> thinking...
>
> Speaking of brain dead morons, have you done the math or is it beyond you?
> Taxes got reduced by a percent of a percent. If you were making $10
Well yeah! They also get applied as a percent of a percent. What's so hard
to grasp about that?

> million/year and paying 50% (for example) over deductions and got a 20%
> reduction then you started paying 40% of income after deductions. OTOH if
> you were in the 20% bracket and got the same 20% reduction then you
> started
> paying 16% after deductions - a 4% vs 10% reduction. Then they eliminated
> some of the deductions making the middle class sucker pay even more. And
> you
> don't think you got screwed?
Nope. Only the arithmetically challenged got screwed. A percentage of the
whole is a percentage of the whole. When the rate is reduced by percentage,
everybody that pays taxes gets a proportional reduction. A concept a
socialist just can't seem to get his head around...

>> > elite, then had to borrow the difference (and more). Hitler
> consolidated
>> Like, wow! No government ever "borrowed" before, until GWB entered into
> the
>> oval office. Did I get that about right?
>
> No. No government ever borrowed anywhere near as much. IIRC Bush has
> borrowed more than all previous presidents combined except perhaps Reagan.
Better get that slide-rule of yours out and sharpened. The prez can't
borrow so much as a dime...

>> > ever more power into his own hands, just like Bush has done with
> "Homeland
>> > Security", calling the state militias (National Guard) into federal
>> > service,
>> Really? Was this before or after you smoked that "neat stuff" that your
> BIL
>> gave you? This is, again, 100% dimocrat clap-trap.
>
> Sorry you have to resort to juvenile name calling.
Okay, for extra credit, find the "juvenile name" I called you in the
previous paragraph.

> Does Bush have more authority than Clinton or previous presidents? Yes.
No.

> He could send you to Gitmo on a whim.
No he can't. Only in your fevered mind would that be so...

> Did he call up state militias? Yes. To fight in Iraq. Now
Well ye-A-h! That's what a president can do...just like a governor can do
that too.

> if you can refute these facts do it or admit you can't.
Sorry. You lose. Your amateur sophistry just doesn't seem up to the
task...

>> > and appointing judges hostile to states rights. Hitler provided his
>> Really? Which ones would that be (judges and rights)?
>
> How about his recent Chief Justice appointment for one.
How about him? Just cuz you don't like him doesn't mean that he's gonna
make rulings based on the messages he gets from reading sheep entrails. I
didn't like Clinton stuffing the court with that despicable ACLU bitch,
either. But that's what the guy that sits in the chair in the oval office
gets to do. Checking to see if you like it before he does it, isn't part of
his job description. And if you don't like the judges that GWB's putting in
there, then I'm all the more relieved that he's doing so.

....
> Has Bush encouraged illegal aliens by promising amnesty and refusing to
> adequately police our borders? You know he has. You just hate to admit it.
No he hasn't. But I'll be the first to stand in line and say that he's not
doing enough to stop 'em. In fact, so far, nobody has, neither your bubba
nor mine. BUT! You can always count on the fellow socialists to rush right
out and demonstrate when it starts to look like their new voters aren't
getting treated with the utmost dispatch to a new life in the USofA. In
case it escaped your feeble notice, it wasn't conservatives that were
demonstrating against the 'Minute Men' as they were standing on the
border...

....
>> Not really. It's "socialism" when the government first declares it
>> "just",
>> and then provides you with it--after first having taken it by force from
>> someone else. Which is, if my recollection is correct, EXACTLY what
>> you're
>> advocating.
>
> No wonder you don't have a clue. Your reading comprehension is too poor.
_My_ "reading comprehension"? Really? Coming from you, that's
rich...(:-o)!

When the government passes out things that those that claim to be entitled
to them want (socialized medicine, "free" or subsidized food, fuel, welfare,
unearned tax credits, transportation, subsidized housing, etc.) where is it
that you think the "government" get's them? If your knee-jerk reply is:
The tooth fairy! You go to the head of the liberal class. Cuz it's clear
you ain't got both oars in the water...

You just can't seem to grasp that first that "stuff" had to be taken--under
the threat of incarceration--from someone that earned it. You think that
taking another's private property, because you think it's "justified", is
just hunky dory? And you think that Bush is "Hitlerian"? Wow!

> Once upon a time everyone made whatever they needed. Then somebody
> discovered that he could make spears better than he could hunt and began
> swaping spears for meat - the beginning of the craft system. But along
> came
> progress and better, more expensive machinery - so expensive that
> individual
> craftsmen couldn't afford them. So they pooled their capital and guess
> what,
> we had Capitalism - the most efficient system yet. But what happens when
> technology creates factories that produce everything without labor?
> Workers
> won't be able to buy products without wages and without sales there'll be
> no
> profits and the whole system will collapse - into what. Well, suppose the
You can stop here. Your interesting little example falls apart right here.
If factories are making things without workers, then they won't have any
workers to pay. If those workers that they don't have, don't get paid, then
those workers that they don't have won't be buying anything either for or
from anybody. So your trite little description rests on a logical fallacy
(nothing new for a brain-dead liberal).

> people put up the $$$ to build the factory then kick back and enjoy its
> products free, without working? That is ideal socialism. Ah, but who
But that can't work. There'd be nobody with money to invest, therefore no
factory gets built, no raw materials get purchased, no trucks are run to
move it, and so on... So nothing at all happens. And your little diatribe
just runs out of steam.

In any event, your little example is close, but you don't get a cigar! The
"ideal socialism" would be when the spear maker "sells" a spear to the
hunter, and the hunter is then obligated, for the rest of his life, to
provide the spear-maker with meat. *That* is the essence of socialism!
Taking something that's not earned, from one who earned it, for no further
payment.

A factory (or something producing a product or service for hire) is not in
the business of generating jobs and thereby creating taxpayers. As your
little ditty so correctly started out, it is there as a "craft system", in
order to make something that someone else will want. It is there expressly
for the benefit of the stock holders. It makes that "craft" item, and sells
it to someone that wants it.

If nobody wants what they make, or the customers don't have enough money to
buy that product or service, the "factory" goes under. Buggy whip
manufacturers come to mind.

> decides what will be produced? Under capitalism the consumers decide,
> voting with their dollars. Under Russian socialism it was the commissars,
> and they screwed up so often the system was doomed. Under Hitler, it was
> a
> few favored industrialists. Under Bush ....
Ya should'a finished your line. Under Bush it's still the consumer. And
that ain't likely to change, no matter how much you'd like it so.

> Capisca?

Da! It ain't hard. Even you should be able to get that...

....
> Then who decides who gets what? Who decides who's garbage gets picked up,
> whose sewage gets treated, who gets water - you know all those "services"
> you need but don't provide yourself? Hmmmm?
The provider of those services decides. Just like the mechanic decides upon
whose car he will labor. The dentist decides upon which tooth he shall hone
his skills. The grocer that decides what products he'll carry, and so on.
One doesn't need a government to decide the simple things in life.

However, in any society, when things larger than one's needs need to be
accomplished, then some administrative functions need to be applied. That
is what seperates us from the apes--the ability organize and weild that
organization for a purpose. *That* should be the function of government.
The standards for what constitutes appropriate water, gas, sewer, or other
such services; should be set. And then one goes to the marketplace to find
someone that's willing to build it and so on. There are plenty of private
firms that build roads, bridges, and so on. What we DON'T need are
governments generating a whole plethora of UNIONIZED overpaid and
under-worked laborers, to do simple jobs best done by the private sector.
When the government mandates the use of their own workers, there will NEVER
be competitive bids! All projects will be costed to the absolute top-dollar
that can be made..and then there'll be endless overruns. If companies can
bid against each other, then the work will be done by the best, the fastest,
the most efficient deliverers of that product or service. Instead, we
carefully select and then proudly reward failure.

....
>> eliminated! You can never "reduce" something by making it the goal of
>> someone that's working to service it!
>
> Right - aare you saying we should let children of indigents starve??
Nope. That's not what I said, that's what you said. I'm all for one hot
meal, and a one-way trip to their embassy. Then their embassy becomes
responsible for making sure they get fed and/or home on their own dime.
They should also be fingerprinted, photographed, and DNA sampled before
they're released into their country's embassy. And once caught like that,
that person CAN NEVER, EVER legally get into this country again. THAT will
stop the flood of illegal's!

....
> Nor am I. I provide my own water, sewage treatment and trash pick up. Do
> you?
At this address, no. At my other, yes. I also provide my own power, heat,
telephone, internet, cable TV, and communications.

....
> Bwahahaha! Right.
Yes I am. Thank you!

Well, although it's not been fun, it has been interesting... Gotta go...

Dusty


.

Quantcast