From: Savageduck on
On 2010-01-08 06:24:51 -0800, Walter Banks <walter(a)bytecraft.com> said:

> HEMI-Powered wrote:
>
>> The term "tax and spend liberal" was coined for good reason.
>> Conservatives have the outlandish feeling that people should be
>> self-reliant and not depend on the goverment, so it follows that
>> people should be able to spend their money better than bureaucrats.
>> Liberals feel just the opposite. They think people are stupid and
>> helpless and so the government must help them. So, they grow
>> government and confiscate your money. Might be marginally OK except
>> that it has NEVER worked because of waste, fraud, and corruption.
>
> One of the stranger dichotomies is the Democratic governments
> in the the US for the last 40 years or so is that they have been
> more fiscally responsible that Republican governments. The biggest
> republican failure has been that they have failed in many cases to
> fund their spending.
>
> The US was essentially bankrupt a year ago. GNP was seriously
> down, they were involved in two unfunded wars, revenue was
> lower than the costs of essential services at the local level.
> Infrastructure was being funded lower than the depreciation.
> Private interests were siphoning off about 6% of GNP in
> healthcare "overheads".
>
> I have rarely heard anyone talk about the real reason that
> the Reagan tax cuts appeared to work. At the time inflation
> was greater than 10%. Reducing tax rates at the same time
> as increasing everyone's income into the next tax bracket was
> a political shell game. At the same time long term debt was
> effectively reduced by the inflation rate. Blue smoke and
> mirrors was the phase at the time
>
> Walter..

IIRC our fiscal woes have been exacerbated by a certain "borrow &
spend" and "program destruction" philosophy which was honed to
perfection by The Reagan & GWB administrations, tying us to those fine
capitalists, the Chinese, forever.

At least the "tax & spend" philosophy is one which tends to be sound
budgetary thinking in that, as in any good household, borrowing beyond
your means to spend on luxuries (war) is not good thinking.

I can think of a fiscally unsustainable war, which has served to
effectively destroy our national treasure, entered into by a certain
group of prominent Republican conservatives, none of them could be
described as fiscal conservatives.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

From: George Kerby on



On 1/5/10 6:14 PM, in article peqdncysuv9qSN7WnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com,
"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:

>
> "George Kerby" <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:C76922A7.3B7E8%ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/4/10 11:52 PM, in article
>> jNydnQNdDckwTt_WnZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d(a)giganews.com, "Bill Graham"
>> <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "George Kerby" <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:C767E67D.3B719%ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com...
>>>
>>>>>>> So people dying is a good thing.
>>>
>>> Some people dying is a good thing. I carry a gun for my own protection.
>>> this
>>> is very reasonable, because the police can't protect anyone from crime.
>>> Their job is to investigate crimes after the fact, and hunt down and
>>> apprehend the perpetrators of those crimes. If you want to PREVENT the
>>> crimes from occurring before the fact, then you have to protect yourself,
>>> and I want to do this, so I carry a gun to do it with. This is a very
>>> reasonable thing to do. I realize that the liberals can't understand
>>> this,
>>> so I don't expect you to understand it. I don't know why this is, but I
>>> know
>>> it to be true, because I have said it hundreds of times, and I haven't
>>> gotten any liberal to understand it to date, so if you can't understand
>>> it,
>>> don't feel bad......You are not alone. I know that it is a defect in the
>>> liberals ability to reason, because I know hundreds of conservatives and
>>> libertarians who understand it very well, and many of these are engineers
>>> and physicists and doctors and other very intelligent people, so I know
>>> that
>>> it is a very reasonable thing to understand. But when I try to explain it
>>> to
>>> liberals like you and Tony Cooper, their eyes glaze over and they go off
>>> into the mist mumbling about that carton of milk they have to pick up on
>>> their way home.......
>>>
>> Err-- Bill you really need to trim before you post.
>>
>> 1. I did not post the quote you are referencing above.
>> 2. I do not have any know defects (I think)
>> 3. I AM NOT A FRIGGIN LIBERAL!!!!
>>
>> Good day...
>>
> Sorry.......I have trouble telling who's who........In my world, I am
> completely surrounded by dumb liberals......When I am struggling to survive,
> I sometimes lash out at the wrong ones......
>
I understand. Idiots like Fish-Rot will try to take you down to their level.
It will take a toll on even the most level-headed.

From: HEMI-Powered on
Peter added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

> YOu forgot: "stupid."
> The term applies to all who had different ideas and
> philosophies.
>
Yeah, like when Galileo and Capernicus tried to change the Earth-
ctric view of the universe. But, you are right, there are those who
think people who disagree with them are stupid. I often find this
with Far Left Loons and Green Nazis who somehow have their facts all
wonky OR they have no facts at all.

--
Jerry, aka HP

"Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less: A Handbook for Slashing Gas Prices
and Solving Our Energy Crisis" - Newt Gingrich
From: Bill Graham on

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2010010801530050073-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2010-01-08 01:33:50 -0800, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> said:
>
>> In message <4b46a58f$0$1622$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
>> <rfischer(a)sonic.net> writes
>>> Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> Easy to generalize, isn't it? Why don;t you address the central point?
>>>> Why
>>>> can't a bartender operate a "smoking bar" in the city of Palo Alto,
>>>> California.
>>>
>>> Because cigarette smoke is poisonous.
>>
>> It is not the bar tender who decides it is the bar owner... The problem
>> is the staff. They have rights too. Unless *all* the staff (bar staff,
>> cleaners, cloakroom staff, security, kitchen staff, waiters etc and the
>> owner want to smoke you can not inflict it on them.
>>
>> We discussed this in a private club I attend. As it is private we
>> reasoned it was up to us not the law to decide. However the problem is
>> not all the staff were smokers. Some would prefer not to work in a smoky
>> environment.
>>
>> We also have a bar and serve food including meat. Non-alcohol drinkers
>> to not have to drink alcohol, vegetarians do not have to eat the meat
>> but if people smoke no one gets the choice about inhaling smoke.
>>
>> Everyone has equal rights.
>>
>>>> Smoking is legal on the street.
>>> The open air doesn't concentrate snoke.
>>
>> That is the excuse for putting a lot of pollutants into the air. :-(
>>
>>>> It is the libertarian view that this should be the law, and that to
>>>> force
>>>> all bars to be non-smoking is a transgression of the owner's property
>>>> rights.
>>>
>>> The libertarian view seems to be that one's own rights are more
>>> important than the rights of anybody else.
>>
>> The problem is Bill is NOT an American.
>
> You may be correct. It seems Bill is a product of the planet Graham
> (located somewhere in Oregon), where any foreign thought is declared
> liberal or socialist regardless of the actual political bias of the
> originator of those foreign thoughts.
>
> Bill is also immune to historic fact, and finds all Laws to be written by
> conspiratorial liberals trying to steal his money, and to control his
> life.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Savageduck
>

weg9 says: We are talking about owner-operated bars. A guy who happens to
smoke cigarettes buys and open his own bar.....He is the bartender. It's his
place. His friends and other patrons smoke. Then the city of Palo Alto
California makes a law that prevents smoking in any building where the
public may go. So he can't operate his bar, and has to either stop smoking
and turn his smoking friends away, and operate a non-smoking place, or sell
out and go to a different city. Palo alto is a fairly large city of over 50
thousand people. There are lots of bars, There is no basic reason why there
can't be some smoking bars there. Smoking is not illegal. The normal laws
that govern drinking establishments should not restrict smoking, since you
can smoke on the street right outside any building there.

I have heard all of your objections to this, and none of them hold water. To
me, it is a direct imposition of the owners rights to prevent him from
operating a "smoking bar" in that, or any other city. If someone's rights
are transgressed by another person exercising his rights, then there is a
constitutional conflict. This happens all the time, and the courts have to
frequently decide which person's rights take precedence. In this case, no
ones rights are at stake but the owner of the bar. Other people who can read
can see that the bar is a smoking bar, and can go down the block to another
bar, (many other bars in Palo Alto) and drink in one of those without being
subject to any second hand smoke. But the bar owner of whom I speak, plus
all the people who smoke and would like to relax in their own smoking bar
cannot do so because of this highly discriminating law. Palo Alto is one of
the most liberal cities in a very liberal state. If smoking is bad for
people to do, then let the state or country ban it altogether, as they have
done with heroin and cocaine. If it isn't that bad, and shouldn't be
illegal, then why not let someone operate a, "smoking bar"? A stranger might
enter someone's home who smokes also. People who smoke cigarettes don't have
to put a sign on their front doors stating that entering the premises will
expose one to second hand smoke. So just entering the home of any smoker in
town is more dangerous than going into a smoking bar, because there is no
warning sign. The law is illogical and discriminatory on the face of it. I
can see that, so why can't you geniuses see it?

From: Bill Graham on

"Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4b474c6f$0$31303$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>>> We also have a bar and serve food including meat. Non-alcohol drinkers
>>> to not have to drink alcohol, vegetarians do not have to eat the meat
>>> but if people smoke no one gets the choice about inhaling smoke.

If they don't smoke, then they have no business being in my bar in the first
place. They should have read the sign on the front door that tells them to
beware of entering, because of the second hand smoke, and gone down the
block to one of the many places where there is no smoking. How many times do
I have to tell you this? I have described the situation at least a half a
dozen times now.....Can't you people read? - That must be the problem. You
liberals can't read, so you can't read the sign on the front door that warns
you about the second hand smoke, and you come inside the door anyway, and
start to choke from the second hand smoke.......Perhaps it is a good law
after all. It is on the books because liberals can't read, and therefore
have no way to protect themselves......I should have realized that to begin
with. The liberal government of Palo Alto California is just trying to
protect itself from an obvious hazard. Sorry, guys......I stand corrected.