From: Bill Graham on

<stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hqbev2$5gr$1(a)news.albasani.net...
> Bill Graham wrote:
>>
>> <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:hq8rd5$otd$1(a)news.albasani.net...
>>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:hq7q1r$8q1$1(a)news.albasani.net...
>>>>
>>>>> I just don't see why the "religious right" in this country thinks they
>>>>> should be allowed to control how other people live.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stephanie
>>>>>
>>>> I agree with this, but why don't you expand the concept and say, "I
>>>> just don't see why anyone in this country thinks they should be allowed
>>>> to control how other people live." Only government and the law should
>>>> have that kind of power, and even they should be subject to the
>>>> restraints of the constitution. If there are no one else's rights
>>>> involved, then someone should be able to do whatever he/she damn well
>>>> pleases.
>>>
>>>
>>> I have to agree with that. As long as what they do doesn't have a
>>> negative impact on my life (like stealing from me or burning down my
>>> house etc) or violate -my- rights, they should be allowed to do whatever
>>> they want.
>>>
>>> Stephanie
>>
>> Right. And, it's the job of the courts to decide when exercising your
>> rights infringes on someone else's rights and shouldn't be
>> allowed....there are always conflicts in this realm, and the courts are
>> kept busy as a result......Now, please tell me why the bartender in Palo
>> Alto shouldn't be allowed to put a sign on his entrance door saying,
>> "This is a smoking bar. If you come in here, you will be subjected to
>> second hand smoke. There are lots of non-smoking bars in town....Please
>> go to one of them if you don't like second hand smoke." Whose rights are
>> being violated by that sign, and are the violations bad enough to
>> overshadow the right of the bar owner to operate a smoking bar?
>
>
> I've got NO real problem with that. I honestly have to say though, I am
> VERY glad they made smoking illegal in public buildings where I live. I've
> had too many nice meals ruined by a smoker at the next table who seemed to
> be waiting for my food to arrive to fire up a smoke and blow it at me
> while I was trying to eat. Then after he finished his smoke, ruining my
> meal, he would leave. Why couldn't he leave and then smoke? Or at least
> notice someone was eating. Notice the smoker would always put out their
> smoke when THEIR food arrived..
>
> I can see in a bar why people would like to smoke while they drink
> though. But as in the above, if smokers had used just a tiny bit of common
> courtesy, this probably wouldn't have been outlawed.
>
> Stephanie

Yes. People have to go into public buildings and the taxpayers can't be
expected to pay for dual buildings for smokers and non-smokers. But a bar is
an individual owners place of business, and there is no reason why the owner
can't operate it for himself and his smoking patrons.....The world is full
of other bars where no smoking is allowed.

From: Bill Graham on

<stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hqbf60$5gr$2(a)news.albasani.net...
> Bill Graham wrote:
>>
>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>> news:2010041600274510672-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>> A tax code, which taxes proportionately according to income, and the
>>> ability to pay without regard to marital status.
>>> A tax code which addresses low income, and lower middle income
>>> proportionately.
>>> A tax code which is not regressive, and does not provide massive
>>> loopholes for those more than able to pay their fair share. That
>>> includes corporations such as Exxon which had billion in profits had
>>> off-shore subsidiaries pay foreign taxes, but not a cent to the US
>>> Treasury.
>>
>> It may be obsolete, and perhaps, "unfair", but it is a fact that the oil
>> companies were given these tax breaks, or "loopholes" because they used a
>> lot of their profits to explore for new oil fields or reserves. this is
>> similar to the railroads being given land on which to build their
>> tracks.....My dad, who was an Exxon executive used to tell me about
>> things like this.
>
>
> Irregardless of that, I think what he is talking about is the companies
> who do a majority of their profit making in this country, using an
> offshore "office" as their headquarters to avoid paying US taxes and pay a
> small amount to some island country instead.
>
> Stephanie

Yes. And there are individuals, like Elizabeth Taylor, who, after making
scads of money here, retire to Ireland where, as "artists" they can enjoy
tax free status, and they invest their millions in Irish businesses and
don't pay the US Taxpayers a dime of their profits. I am retired, but all of
my stock market profits are taxed.....(Actually, for most of my retirement,
I have lost money, so I don't really have to pay any taxes at all.) But in
another world, at another time, I might have been heavily taxed.

From: Bill Graham on

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:201004162232492196-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2010-04-16 21:58:23 -0700, "stephe_k(a)yahoo.com" <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com>
> said:
>
>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>>
>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>>> news:2010041600274510672-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>>> A tax code, which taxes proportionately according to income, and the
>>>> ability to pay without regard to marital status.
>>>> A tax code which addresses low income, and lower middle income
>>>> proportionately.
>>>> A tax code which is not regressive, and does not provide massive
>>>> loopholes for those more than able to pay their fair share. That
>>>> includes corporations such as Exxon which had billion in profits had
>>>> off-shore subsidiaries pay foreign taxes, but not a cent to the US
>>>> Treasury.
>>>
>>> It may be obsolete, and perhaps, "unfair", but it is a fact that the oil
>>> companies were given these tax breaks, or "loopholes" because they used
>>> a lot of their profits to explore for new oil fields or reserves. this
>>> is similar to the railroads being given land on which to build their
>>> tracks.....My dad, who was an Exxon executive used to tell me about
>>> things like this.
>>
>>
>> Irregardless of that, I think what he is talking about is the companies
>> who do a majority of their profit making in this country, using an
>> offshore "office" as their headquarters to avoid paying US taxes and pay
>> a small amount to some island country instead.
>>
>> Stephanie
>
> What I was talking about is a corporation such as Exxon which publicly
> complains about paying high taxes, alleging such high taxes threaten
> "energy innovation". When examined corporations such as Exxon have $100
> Billion of their tax burden shifted onto the US Tax payer. For example two
> out of every three US Corporations paid no Federal income taxes from 1998
> through 2005.
> Last year Exxon Mobil reported a record $45.2 billion profit, paid the
> most off shore taxes of any corporation, however not one cent was paid to
> the US government, we carried that for them.
>
> Then there was General Electric which last year had 10.3 Billion pre tax
> income, was handed $1.1 billion in tax BENEFITS!
>
> ...and they have the nerve to claim the wage earners are not carrying
> their weight.
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Savageduck
>
As long as they are obeying the law, they are not at fault. If you want them
to pay more in taxes, then change the law. Ronald Regan had the same
problem, He suffered real estate losses in his southern California
properties while he was California governor, and as a result, he didn't have
to pay any income tax. Some liberal newspaperwoman from Sacramento loudly
proclaims that, "The Governor doesn't pay any taxes" This was utter hogwash.
He filed a valid return, and when he balanced his measly 50 grand Governor's
salary against the over a million dollar losses he had, of course he didn't
have to pay any taxes....But she made it sound like he was cheating, and he
was just obeying the law. By the same token, the oil companies are in
competition with one another, and they all have the same right to take maxim
advantage of whatever tax breaks are offered to them, If you don't like it,
then petition your government to change it, but don't lambast the executives
who are beholder to their share holders.....Another thing you can always do,
is buy Oil company stocks, and become an "owner" yourself....:^)

From: Bill Graham on

<stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hqbi4k$ah7$2(a)news.albasani.net...
> Bill Graham wrote:
>>
>> "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
>
>>> Why don't you pay any attention to what I keep telling you?
>>>
>>> I AM NON-RELIGIOUS.
>>>
>>> I AM NON-RELIGIOUS.
>>>
>>> I AM NON-RELIGIOUS.
>>>
>>> I AM NON-RELIGIOUS.
>>>
>>> Let me know when and if that finally sinks in. Do it in the first line,
>>> or I won't read the rest.
>>>
>>> Discussing anything with you is like talking to a door knob, and I don't
>>> have that much time to waste.
>>>
>> If you are not religious, then what do you have against gays getting
>> married?
>
> He thinks if you allow them to marry, they will go down the street, kidnap
> a child and kill them?
>
> Stephanie

Amazing....I have never heard of a non-religious person who was against gays
getting married before.....Neil is the first!

From: Bill Graham on

"David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hqcm30$nh1$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>
> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:isudnfCS16YWdVXWnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
>> ...There is only one thing to blame, and that is the god damned liberal
>> democrats, who are really socialists in sheep's clothing. they are the
>> Robin Hooders who want to take the personal responsibility away from the
>> people and turn them into a bunch of welfare puppies....The Barney
>> Franks, Chris Dodd's, and Nancy Pelosi's that I have hated all of my
>> adult life.....People like Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer. They don't
>> even answer my letters....Try emailing Nancy Pelosi sometime, if you want
>> an exercise in futility.....We don't have a representative any more in
>> this country. We are being run by a bunch of fellow travelers who make
>> separate laws for us to follow, and won't even talk to us........This
>> country is heading for a revolution....I only wish I could be around to
>> see it (and help it) happen.
>
> Y I K E S ! ! !
> Sheesh, why don't you just try voting, huh? Stop
> complaining that some people DID win 'cuz a majority
> of us REALLY DID WANT THEM TO! So now you
> are into overthrowing our elections?!?!? STUPID! And,
> BTW, if you got thousands of letters, could you answer
> them all, or even a lot of them, especially in detail, and
> especially if they were generalized, "philosophical", and
> maybe bordering on hate mail types? Get real... And,
> BTW, so long as you are civil, you can actually visit your
> representatives (either in DC, or when they visit their
> local headquarters) since they do have office hours and
> then say what's on your mind in person (which should
> preferably be constructive, and not just a blast like the
> above). Work for candidates you like, and contribute to
> them, and don't be such a "baby" if your candidate loses!
> Also BTW, often revolutions result in REAL tyranny,
> since the institutions that protected the people are swept
> away. Try thinking some, instead of just reacting with
> prejudices...
> --DR
>
There is no way in hell I can combat 100 million stupid liberal democrats,
and you know it......My only escape now is death. My father was wrong.....I
should have left this country over 50 years ago, when I still had the chance
to get away from you bastards. I just wish I could be here to see the mess
that your 10 or 20 trillion dollar deficit is going to cause our
grandchildren. I just hope they realize who to kill first. If they read my
private papers and letters they will know that it wasn't my fault.