Home > Archive > Cobol > April 2006 > Re: US Presidents; an outside view WAS: Any comments? (Evolution - was Answers to Pet
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: US Presidents; an outside view WAS: Any comments? (Evolution - was Answers to Pet
|
|
| Alistair 2006-04-17, 6:55 pm |
|
LX-i wrote:
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
> [speaking of Kennedy]
>
> Sure, I could see why the *world* would forgive him - they weren't the
> ones who still had a Communist dictatorship 90 miles from their
> shores... :)
Pardon? You had a communist dictatorship West of Alaska already. That's
what? 18 miles?
>
> I thought you were writing about foreign policy. Carter's
> administration was one of the most disastrous when it came to foreign
> affairs. Appeasement at every turn.
I thought that the worst thing he ever did was to cancel the neutron
bomb project.
>
>
> Our economy is actually doing better now than it was during that time -
> but, if you only watched the evening news, you'd never know it.
Is your economy still bankrupt?
>
>
> The first is repealing the 17th amendment. This is the amendment that
> changed Senators from being appointed by the state legislatures to being
> elected by popular vote, the way Representatives are. This, in effect,
> took away the participation of the states' governments in the
> legislature. The Senate was supposed to be the voice of the states (you
> know, that whole "United STATES of America" thing), and the House of
> Representatives was the voice of the people. These two bodies had to
> agree on Federal law before it was enacted. Allowing the states to
> appoint Senators would give us people holden to the state, not special
> interests - and would provide balance to the legislative process.
Wouldn't that just push the money vote down to Governor level?
>
> Past that, local management is generally much more efficient (and where
> the power should be). The disbursement of education money in Idaho, for
> example, probably needs to be done differently than it does in Alabama,
> New York, or California. Yet with every budget, Congress tells the
> states how they must divvy up part of the funds they receive from the
> Federal government. This brings up a good question - why are they
> receiving funds from the Federal government for education at all? Take
> Washington, D. C. out of the loop! It could very well be that different
> states need different levels of funding for their various programs. Why
> should *my* tax money, paid in Alabama, support some program in
> Wisconsin? (I've got nothing against Wisconsin - but they have people
> there paying their own taxes.)
>
> I'm sure there are lots of folks who'll love to poke holes in this - but
> I've never heard anyone make the argument that it wouldn't help with
> some of the problems we're having today. Bureaucracy is expensive -
> eliminate it, and you've saved money. If that money is tax money,
> you've just let every person in this country keep a little more than
> they've earned.
That presumes that by empowering states you really do make savings.
However, instead of a national bureaucracy you will have 50 state
bureaucracies so I suspect this will be a more expensive option. Still,
it is your money.
>
> Those are interesting terms - "haves" and "have nots". People who are
> wealthy, generally speaking, are doing things that make them wealthy.
> Ditto for the poor. This country isn't the land of equal outcomes, it's
> the land of equal opportunity.
If you start with less then it will be so much harder to acquire the
wealthy status of those who start with a few inherited millions in
their back pockets.
| |
|
| In article <1145284864.785254.124850@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Alistair <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>If you start with less then it will be so much harder to acquire the
>wealthy status of those who start with a few inherited millions in
>their back pockets.
Reminds me of a cartoon I saw... someplace, a few decades back. The scene
is a classic Gentleman's Club, in the foreground are two overstuffed,
walrus-mustached, older men sitting in overstuffed, leather chairs and
watching a younger, brash man *striding* across the room... the caption
read something along the lines of 'There's young Anderson. His father
left him twenty million and he turned it into a *fortune*!'
DD
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-04-17, 6:55 pm |
|
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:e20a55$9iq$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <1145284864.785254.124850@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> Alistair <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> Reminds me of a cartoon I saw... someplace, a few decades back. The scene
> is a classic Gentleman's Club, in the foreground are two overstuffed,
> walrus-mustached, older men sitting in overstuffed, leather chairs and
> watching a younger, brash man *striding* across the room... the caption
> read something along the lines of 'There's young Anderson. His father
> left him twenty million and he turned it into a *fortune*!'
>
LOL!
It reminded me of Dudley Moore as Arthur.... "I lost $180 million dollars.
And that was in the days when 180 million was WORTH something..."
Pete.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-04-19, 6:55 pm |
| On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 14:14:28 -0400, Donald Tees
<donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>Now, if your kids were starving, would you accept a welfare cheque?
Or would you use an ambulance service that is subsidized by the state
to get them to the hospital? Along with public roads - paid for by
the state? With physicians who went to state subsidized schools?
Without worrying about invaders blocking your road because of state
paid-for National Defense?
Virtually everybody wants *some* socialism. (We all are conservative
and we all are liberal as well, if we do enough searching for issues).
| |
| Richard 2006-04-20, 6:55 pm |
| > Think of the example of "more stuff" as "enough food to feed your
> family".
The corporate image of which is KFC or McDonalds or instant everything.
> Today, most starvation is in countries with civil war.
> War is a negative sum transaction.
Except for the arms dealers, which are usually corporates.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-04-25, 6:55 pm |
| On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 12:06:13 -0400, Donald Tees
<donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>yes, I agree with you. With a caveat. Unless that force is tempered
>with law, and that law is universal, we will never have peace or
>security. The unniversality is a key.
Let's start off with a simple law - speed limits. Make a universal
speed limit on all roads.
Universal law makes as much sense as universal programming languages.
The law shouldn't be our master, it should be our servant.
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-04-25, 6:55 pm |
| On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 11:35:54 -0400, Donald Tees
<donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Unniversal speed limits that apply to all people, not to all roads. Do
>you favour speed limits that only white people have to adhere to?
I didn't understand. No, I don't. But let's clarify what
"universal laws" means.
Does it mean that all laws apply equally to children and for adults?
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-04-25, 6:55 pm |
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:eblp429qeev978sf2pcv8igkbd26hrj0mv@
4ax.com...
> On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 12:06:13 -0400, Donald Tees
> <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
> Let's start off with a simple law - speed limits. Make a universal
> speed limit on all roads.
Good point.
>
> Universal law makes as much sense as universal programming languages.
>
> The law shouldn't be our master, it should be our servant.
But then we wouldn't need to obey it, would we?
Pete.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-04-25, 6:55 pm |
|
"Donald Tees" <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:uf63g.483$1V4.48354@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Howard Brazee wrote:
>
> Unniversal speed limits that apply to all people, not to all roads. Do
> you favour speed limits that only white people have to adhere to?
>
> Donald
>
Nice one, Donald :-)
Pete.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-04-25, 6:55 pm |
|
"Donald Tees" <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:yRa3g.801$fx.136614@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Howard Brazee wrote:
>
> They do in Canada, I do not know in the states.
>
> Donald
>
Do Canadian kids get jailed if they cheat on their taxes :-)?
Pete.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-04-28, 6:55 pm |
| On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 13:59:58 GMT, "Oliver Wong" <owong@castortech.com>
wrote:
> AFAIK, we have all of the above mentioned laws, restrictions,
>don't-allows, etc. I was surprised to learn, though, that the age of consent
>was 14 here. I say was, because the conservative party which recently went
>into power is changing it to 16 now.
I believe New Mexico has the age of consent of 14. It varies from
state to state in the U.S.
| |
|
| In article <4884525rvci89p75rugkj9cjkgpv93pe43@4ax.com>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 13:59:58 GMT, "Oliver Wong" <owong@castortech.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>I believe New Mexico has the age of consent of 14. It varies from
>state to state in the U.S.
According to http://www.webistry.net/jan/consent.html (copyright 1999) New
Mexico is 17; Hawaii and Idaho are 14.
DD
|
|
|
|
|