From: Bill Graham on

"Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4b4750b7$0$19496$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
> "Walter Banks" <walter(a)bytecraft.com> wrote in message
> news:4B474033.F4781782(a)bytecraft.com...
>> 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
>>
>
>
> The Bush administration was never a true conservative regime. It used the
> conservatives and religious right as an excuse to line their pockets and
> those of their buddies. Extreme left does not work and leads to a tyranny
> of the left, as proved in the now defunct Soviet Union. A tyranny of the
> right needs no further example. It was only after China started to move to
> the right that it moved into the position it is now in. The major problem
> with labeling and pigeonholing is that it allows for no middle ground.
> There are times when the government has an obligation to step in and times
> when it should just let businesses sort things out. The lack of
> restrictions on giving the bailout funds is an example of what happens
> when the government steps in and gives business carte blanche. If I were
> the CEO of any of those banks, I probably would have done the same thing.
> If anyone here says any thing to the contrary, I truly question their
> veracity. I see no clear line when government should and should not act.
> Indeed, to be truly effective the line must be flexible. The cry that
> government is taking over our lives when it steps in on the health care
> bill, is patently false. the Sara Palins of this world have no conscience
> when they promote such lies as the bill includes "death panels." I wonder
> why she promotes those lies. In her case it may just be stupidity.
> </end mini rant>
>
> --
> Peter

weg9 says: Actually any plan, public or private will have to include,
"death panels". There is no way any insurance company, or any health plan
can do whatever is necessary to keep anyone alive indefinitely. We are all
mortal, and there will have to be some end point to preserving the health of
everyone sooner or later. No matter what insurance plan they come up with,
there will have to be some point where your health can no longer be
supported, because of age, or some condition for which there is no practical
cure, and someone will have to be allowed to decide when this point is
reached, and the "plug" has to be pulled. That's the way it is now, and
that's the way it will have to be in the future.

From: Bill Graham on

"George Kerby" <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:C76CB397.3BA91%ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com...
>
>
>
> 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.
>
Well, I have him kill-filed, but it does very little good....I still get to
read most of what he babbles second hand, because others still do not have
him in their kill files.

From: Bill Graham on

"HEMI-Powered" <none(a)none.gn> wrote in message
news:Xns9CFA7F176D91ReplyScoreID(a)216.196.97.131...
> 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.
>
weg9 says: I have to admit that I am one of these. I try to understand
the mind of the liberal, because there are so many of them, and some of them
have higher degrees from well known universities, but it does me little
good.....I put forth something that seems very logical and perfectly obvious
to me, and the liberals just can't seem to understand my point at all. They
continue to repeat the same stupidity regardless of all the logical
arguments I throw at them, and they refuse to address the central point of
my argument. When those rare cases where they actually convince me that I am
wrong occur, I am chagrined, and gratified at the same time, because I learn
something new. But that is very rare......Usually, I am frustrated by a
bunch of idiots who seem to be unable to read and/or think logically.

From: tony cooper on
On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 13:10:42 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net>
wrote:

>
>"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.

You keep whinging on about the perceived infringement of "property
rights". There are legal limitations on all property rights.

You own a house? Your property? Try adding a room without applying
for permits or meeting local codes. Try turning your garage into a
store without checking on the zoning laws. Try putting up a windmill
in your front yard so the power company doesn't steal your money. Try
opening a gun range in your back yard. Lord help you if your house is
in an area with a Homeowner's Association. They can tell you what
color your house has to be and whether or not you can park your boat
in your own driveway.

California doesn't make any laws. California legislators initiate
laws, and they are people that you elect.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Savageduck on
On 2010-01-08 13:10:42 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> said:

>
> "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?

Your argument is sounding more, and more hypothetical than reality. As
a thought experiment it fails miserably.


--
Regards,

Savageduck