From: Bill Graham on

"Neil Harrington" <not(a)> wrote in message
> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
> news:gcadnTKTJ6igCSnXnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d(a)
>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)> wrote in message
>> news:ZdednRcmdaTX3CnXnZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d(a)
>>> "Bob Larter" <bobbylarter(a)> wrote in message
>>> news:4ab3366f$1(a)
>>>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>>>> "Bob Larter" <bobbylarter(a)> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4ab10bc3$1(a)
>>>>>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>>>>>> "Douglas Johnson" <post(a)> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:bm0la513ptifqd2htorhffbk4a24j9sbtg(a)
>>>>>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> .....Can I blame the liberals for it? After all, it is a socialist
>>>>>>>>> idea. Can
>>>>>>>>> anyone get food simply by putting their feet on a supermarkets
>>>>>>>>> property? If
>>>>>>>>> so, then would you go for the idea today that food should be
>>>>>>>>> socialized? How
>>>>>>>>> about getting a room for the night by simply setting foot on a
>>>>>>>>> hotel's
>>>>>>>>> property?
>>>>>>>> So you have a heart attack. The paramedics show up. Should they
>>>>>>>> require proof
>>>>>>>> of citizenship or ability to pay before starting CPR? Or before
>>>>>>>> they transport
>>>>>>>> you to the hospital? Should the hospital require it before they
>>>>>>>> treat you?
>>>>>>> In my world, yes, yes, yes. Everyone (all 300 million of us
>>>>>>> citizens) should have a government ID card, and/or a chip implanted
>>>>>>> in us that identifies us as US citizens in good standing, and if we
>>>>>>> are sick, then the chip should get us the treatment we need. Today's
>>>>>>> technology is more than adequate to accomplish this.
>>>>>> Jeez. Ever read 1984?
>>>>> I don't remember whether they had illegal aliens living off the dole
>>>>> in "1984".
>>>> *whooosh!*
>>> Where's the "whooosh!," Bob?
>>> Most of us, adults at least, already carry ID routinely. I can't legally
>>> drive my car without it, can you? I can't legally carry a pistol without
>>> it, either. Of course if you live in Australia or someplace like that
>>> you can't do the latter anyway, but there you are: having to carry ID
>>> doesn't take away a right that I have and you don't whether you carry ID
>>> or not.
>> Nonsense! - this is an unenforceable law....Nobody knows what I have in
>> my pocket, and they aren't likely to ever know. I have been carrying a
>> gun all of my adult life, and I have always refused to get a permit for
>> it. Why? Because such permits are unconstitutional, and therefore
>> illegal.
> I don't think so, Bill. "[T]he right to keep and bear arms shall not be
> infringed," the Second Amendment says, but that does not mean it cannot be
> regulated, and in fact such regulation is also implied in the amendment.
> The requirement for a permit may be a reasonable type of regulation. It
> also may NOT be reasonable, depending on the details.
> Much of this depends on where you live. The law varies from state to
> state, even from city to city, and in some cases I believe the law is so
> restrictive, or so restrictively enforced, that it actually is
> unconstitutional. On the other hand, Vermont has no state law at all
> regarding concealed carry, except to say that a gun may not be carried for
> criminal purposes. That is about as liberal as you can get (here using
> "liberal" in its original sense of "free," not leftist).

Yes, and they should compare the crime rate in Burlington with that in New
York City.....

>> I even took one to Europe with me back in the late 1980's. And carried it
>> all over there, too. Sure, I could have been busted, but it is better to
>> be alive and on trial for murder than it is to be dead, while someone
>> else is on trial for your murder. Or, as someone said once, "Better the
>> man catches you with it, than the boy catches you without it."
> Or as the other saying has it (in an only slightly different context),
> "Better to be tried by twelve than carried by six."
> But the argument on this point is about carrying ID generally, not
> necessarily a pistol permit. I see nothing wrong or intrusive about
> requiring that. I assume you had a passport and carried other types of ID
> when you went to Europe, and if you drive I assume you carry a driver's
> license.
Of course.....I rented a car and drove all over Southern Germany and
Switzerland, as well as Austria. But regardless of where I am, I have always
felt very safe when I had a pistol in my pocket......It's a pity they didn't
let people carry them on airplanes, or 9/11 never would have happened.

From: Bill Graham on

"George Kerby" <ghost_topper(a)> wrote in message
> On 9/19/09 7:53 PM, in article
> DJmdnavrobi84CjXnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d(a), "Bill Graham"
> <weg9(a)> wrote:
>> "George Kerby" <ghost_topper(a)> wrote in message
>> news:C6DA89F8.34DBE%ghost_topper(a)
>>> On 9/19/09 12:42 PM, in article 4ab5180c$0$1630$742ec2ed(a),
>>> "Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)> wrote:
>>>> Bill Graham <weg9(a)> wrote:
>>>>> <stephe_k(a)> wrote in message
>>>>> news:h916ml$lne$3(a)
>>>>>> Well I was pissed watching GWB spending BILLIONS on a war while
>>>>>> giving
>>>>>> MASSIVE tax breaks to the wealthy. I was pissed watching him do
>>>>>> NOTHING
>>>>>> other than watching the economy fail. Were you? Some of us didn't
>>>>>> just
>>>>>> "wake up" because a republican wasn't in the white house. If Obama
>>>>>> had
>>>>>> been handed a healthy country and done this, I'd be pissed right
>>>>>> there
>>>>>> with ya, but that isn't what happened.
>>>>>> Stephanie
>>>>> I still don't understand about these, "massive tax cuts to the
>>>>> wealthy".
>>>>> the
>>>>> last time I checked, the more money you make, the greater percentage
>>>>> you
>>>>> have to pay, .....that's what the tax tables in the form 1040 tell
>>>>> me.....
>>>> That's the sort of ignorant thinking that gets rightards into trouble.
>>>> There are many ways the wealthy get to pay lower taxes. Her's one:
>>>> Long-term capital gains and dividens aren't taxed as regular income.
>>>> It's a flat 15% even before you find any deductions. So, if you own a
>>>> ton of stock that pays you $250/yr in dividends then you pay no more
>>>> than 15% of that as income tax. If you are given $100,000,000 in
>>>> stock by the company and you sell it a year later, you pay 15%.
>> This is utter BS. All of my income is, "long term capitol gains" and I
>> pay
>> my taxes from the same tax tables that you do.....I am retired and living
>> off my 401K.....
> Uhhh, that's FishHeadRot's work, not mine, Bill.
I knew that, (I think)......:^)

From: Ray Fischer on
Bill Graham <weg9(a)> wrote:
>"mikey4" <lakediver(a)> wrote in message
>> "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)> wrote in message
>> news:4ab5de38$0$1590$742ec2ed(a)
>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>> Bill Graham <weg9(a)> wrote:
>>>>> TO PAY. That's regressive taxation in anyone's book.
>>>> As usual, graham is wrong on both counts.
>>>> A "regressive" tax structure charges more for LOWER incomes.
>>>> The very welathy can actually pay a LOWER tax rate because their
>>>> income is not always in the form of salaries.
>>> Sales tax, and the horribly misnamed "FairTax" are the most regressive
>>> because lower income people spend a far greater portion of their income
>>> on taxable goods than rich people.
>> Then *all* taxes are regressive as the lower income group has less in
>> their pocket after the taxes then the higher income group.
>How about just charging people for the government services they use? If the
>Army doesn't fight harder for Bill Gates than it does for anyone else, then
>they shouldn't charge him any more than anyone else.....How about them

There's an idea only a fanatical lover of bureaucracy could want.

Ray Fischer

From: Ray Fischer on
Bill Graham <weg9(a)> wrote:
>"Miles Bader" <miles(a)> wrote in message
>> rfischer(a) (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>> The very welathy can actually pay a LOWER tax rate because their
>>> income is not always in the form of salaries.
>> Ah.. that must be why the repubs are forever trying to get rid of
>> capital gains taxes...
>> -Miles
>Yes.....We republicans believe in investing our money for our futures,

Which is why republicans screech in outrage whenever anybody proposes
investing in the future. More money for infrastructure? Hell no!
Money for education? Screw the kids! Invest in people's health? Not
if it means a loss of profits for multi-billion dollar corporations.

> and
>capitol gains taxes are just having to give some of its growth back to the
>government, so they discourage saving, which is criminal, to me.

Rightard criminals don't believe in paying for what they get. They
prefer to steal instead.

Ray Fischer

From: Ray Fischer on
Bill Graham <weg9(a)> wrote:

>>>The very welathy can actually pay a LOWER tax rate because their
>>>income is not always in the form of salaries.
>Does the high income earner need the soldier to shoot more bullets for him
>in battle than the low income earner?


Ray Fischer