OutSourcedNews-Group » NOTHING

“Nope, no southern schools stopped blacks from attendance”

admin — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:52:40 +0000

On 1/25/2012 2:27 PM, @&*$?%Jurgis.net">Yoorghis @&*$?%Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:51:46 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>
>>> Seems that was the only way an arch-conservative would agree to
>>> integration—was to march in with National Guard troops and force
>>> cooperation.
>>
>> NOT likely…
>
> Are you now saying that the National guard did not escort Black
> Children to attend a public school in Arkansas in the 50′s (after
> Brown v Board was handed down)?

Were black children integrated in the North? If so then given the
choice, why would blacks live in the South where life was so bad? Why
NOT just move north?

So the symbolism of the action in Arkansas is just that…. it is
symbolism.

To here you tell it, there is still so much racism that you have
actually accomplished NOTHING with that grandstanding.

You boast of your accomplishment and success against a *DEMOCRAT*
Governor, and then call us all racists. That is just too funny.

County Sheriffs Push Back Against Feds!!!>>>> All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States

admin — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 20:18:36 +0000

On 1/21/2012 7:52 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>> “If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the
>>> constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction
>>> they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be
>>> answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not
>>> to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It
>>> is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to
>>> enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to
>>> that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that
>>> the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people
>>> and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter
>>> within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of
>>> the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A
>>> constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a
>>> fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its
>>> meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from
>>> the legislative body.” Federalist No. 78
>>
>> There are a lot of opinions but what counts is what actually made its
>> way into the text of the constitution. All else is just opinions.
>
> The court’s opinions count. Yours don’t.
>
>> YOU are filling in the white space with your opinions,
>
> Actually, he filled it with Hamilton’s opinion.

His opinion of Hamilton’s opinion. He supposed that Hamilton was
correct, my opinion is that Hamilton got it wrong and it’s NOT in the
constitution so I am probably correct.

We used the constitution to end Torture and the Kings violations of the
colonies by ending the KINGS misuse of the court with ex post facto laws
and many other abuses and I contend that interpretation was never added
to the constitution because it is a misuse of power.

Since you can’t find the power to torture and you likewise can’t find
the power to interpret the law given to the courts, I say that they have
neither power.

NOTHING is a “given” it is either spelled out as a power or it is NOT a
power.

Hamilton being a smart guy knew that what was NOT in the
constitution…. is NOT a government power, whether he liked it or NOT.

” A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a
fundamental law.”

Since when do judges change or write new fundamental laws?
Where is that power delegated?

If BIGGER GOVERNMENT WERE THE ANSWER ….Obama would have already fixed everything

admin — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 16:04:06 +0000

On 1/20/2012 10:24 PM, Sid9 wrote:
>
> “First. Post” wrote in message
> news:2r3kh798em7la9fnlb8jcokfmq42trst7k @&*$?%4ax.com…
>> On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 19:42:26 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/20/2012 3:39 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>>>>>>> January 19, 2012
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Taxes at the Top
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> By PAUL KRUGMAN
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The main reason the rich pay so little is that most of their
>>>>>>>> income takes
>>>>>>>> the form of capital gains, which are taxed at a maximum rate of
>>>>>>>> 15 percent,
>>>>>>>> far below the maximum on wages and salaries. So the question is
>>>>>>>> whether
>>>>>>>> capital gains – three-quarters of which go to the top 1 percent
>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>> income distribution – warrant such special treatment.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>> Why do capital gains warrant such special treatment?
>>>>>>> 1. The funds are invested for a long term, rather than for
>>>>>>> example, being
>>>>>>> used to flip real estate.
>>>>>>> 2. The funds are invested in a manner that the GOVERNMENT wants.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> No mention was made of the taxes paid by the “rich” when spending
>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>> profits.
>>>>>
>>>>>> A sales tax is the same for the rich as for the poor for necessities,
>>>>>> and that’s not a rate but on a per head basis.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Land value taxation is much more progressive than a sales tax.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bret Cahill
>>>>>
>>>>> If you have $3million, why is that bad?
>>>>
>>>> Sometimes it isn’t
>>>>
>>>> That’s why we need to hike taxes on the rich. So everyone will be
>>>> closer to being worth 3 million.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Like farting in a hurricane…. Obama could have spent that deficit he
>>> created $5 trillion, by writing checks to the NON millionaires already.
>>>
>>> But he chose to give it all to the BIG CORPORATIONS.
>>
>> If you took the total of all of the stimulous bills that Obama is
>> responsible for and divided the money up among those in the workforce
>> (includes those working as well as those seeking employment) then a
>> married couple would have received roughly $40,000.
>> 150 million people each getting a $20,000 check would have stimulated
>> the economy a hell of a lot more than giving hundreds of billions each
>> to a select few banks and corporations and phoney “green” outfits like
>> Solyndra.

But then why did the government have that money in the first plsce, that
is the question. If all they did was take it abd then give it back that
is NOT the definition of taxing and “to pay the bills”.

>> The greatest stimulator of the economy is to put more money in the
>> pockets of the consumers.

Those are called jobs…. so the best thing is to encourage jobs.
Instead the government encourages *REGULATIONS AND TAXES* .

>> Progressives can piss about taxing the top,
>> the middle, hell anyone they want. But more taxation does not put a
>> single penny into the pockets of the consumers.

Exactly.

>> Higher taxes will not
>> generate demand for goods and services. Higher taxes will not promote
>> consumer spending.

TRUE.

>> You and I both know that higher taxes only promote more bureacracy and
>> government spending on c&*$?%p that does little if anything to boost the
>> economy.

*If BIGGER GOVERNMENT WERE THE ANSWER* ….Obama would have already
fixed everything as he has increased the cost and size of government.
But 3 years of Obama’s *BIG GOVERNMENT* and *NOTHING is fixed*.

> It depends on tax policy. Tax the wealthy they wont spend a nickel less.
> Step up government spending infrastructure and education, for example.
> You create jobs and permanent public capital assets.

You create useless government jobs, basically welfare…. and that is a
drag on the Private economy.

> Those assets may be bridges, water works, and such, plus educated people
> who will earn more educated than they will uneducated…

All things the private sector can create when needed…. blindly
building for what your crystal ball says is the future is silly and
wasteful. Why didn’t the government create transistors and airplanes
when we needed them….

> Therefore, they will ultimately pay more in taxes from their increased
> earnings.

Thanks to Microsoft, more millionaires pay more taxes than ever before.
So we became more efficient with the Private sector building computer
infrastructure than with the government hiring people to write software
code for massive government projects.

Cuba Has Lower Infant Mortality >> YET NO SOCIALIST MOVIE STARS GO TO CUBA TO HAVE THEIR BABIES???? WHY

admin — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 20:27:44 +0000

On 1/11/2012 3:15 PM, Bible Studies with Satan wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>
>> On 1/11/2012 8:06 AM, Möebius Pretzel wrote:
>>> Cuba: 4.9% infant mortality rate in 2011: The United States, which has
>>> maintained its criminal economic blockade of the country for more than
>>> 50 years, records an infant mortality rate of 7.0
>>>
>>> http://www.granma.cu/ingles/cuba-i/5ener-mortality.html
>>
>> Stop the propaganda, they count babies different, like you count a baby
>> in the uterus as NOTHING while I count it as a live human, and a person.
>>
> That’s because you’re in outer space. What do they call a pedophile that wants
> to f&*$?%k a fetus?
>

They call you….

Hey you “ s&*$?%t for brains” that says Cuba has a better infant mortality
rate.

…..and you always answer.

Cuba Has Lower Infant Mortality Than US Despite Criminal Economic Blockade

admin — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 18:23:00 +0000

On 1/11/2012 12:36 PM, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
> On Jan 11, 11:20 am, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>> On 1/11/2012 12:09 PM, Sid9 wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> “jane.playne” wrote in message
>>> news:jekf49$bde$1 @&*$?%dont-email.me…
>>>> On 1/11/2012 11:33, Sid9 wrote:
>>
>>>>> “BeamMeUpScotty” wrote in
>>>>> messagenews:4F0DB52C.3020501 @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com…
>>>>>> On 1/11/2012 8:06 AM, Möebius Pretzel wrote:
>>>>>>> Cuba: 4.9% infant mortality rate in 2011: The United States, which has
>>>>>>> maintained its criminal economic blockade of the country for more than
>>>>>>> 50 years, records an infant mortality rate of 7.0
>>
>>>>>>> http://www.granma.cu/ingles/cuba-i/5ener-mortality.html
>>
>>>>>> Stop the propaganda, they count babies different, like you count a baby
>>>>>> in the uterus as NOTHING while I count it as a live human, and a
>>>>>> person.
>>
>>>>>> CUBA is NOT a medical Paradise, that is a Socialist MYTH and proof is
>>>>>> that you don’t race off to CUBA to get better health care than you get
>>>>>> in the USA. NO millionaire Socialist Movie stars like Michael Moore
>>>>>> are down in Cuba waiting to be cured of disease or deliver their
>>>>>> babies.
>>
>>>>>> You’re so dumb it’s pitiful, and then you expose your stupidity so
>>>>>> effectively that it’s easy to see.
>>
>>>>> .
>>>>> .
>>>>> Dream on.
>>>>> Cuba trades with all the rest of the world.
>>>>> There’s no medicine or medical equipment they can’t buy from European
>>>>> countries.
>>>>> They also have a brisk income form European tourism.
>>
>>>>> Our embargo of Cuba only hurts American manufacturers and exporters.
>>
>>>>> “The relationship cultivated between Cuba and Venezuela in recent years
>>>>> has resulted in agreements in which Venezuela provides cheap oil in
>>>>> exchange for Cuban “missions” of doctors to bolster the Venezuelan
>>>>> health care system. Cuba, with the second-highest per capita number of
>>>>> physicians in the world (behind Italy), sends tens of thousands of
>>>>> doctors to other countries as aid, as well as to obtain favorable
>>>>> economic terms of trade.”
>>
>>>>> from:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Cuba
>>
>>>>> The embargo is the most stupid artifact of the cold war still in effect.
>>
>>>> I agree with you completely regarding the absurdity of the US embargo.
>>>> HOWEVER, I am in complete disagreement with you on their economy; I
>>>> have been there.
>>
>>>> “Under the scheme, according to the newspaper, more than 2.1m
>>>> pensioners will receive increases of about $2 (£1) a month, raising
>>>> minimum monthly pensions to $9.50 (£4.70).” -
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7370304.stm
>>
>>>> You said, “There’s no medicine or medical equipment they can’t buy
>>>> from European countries.” You don’t know the difference between the
>>>> words “can” and “may”. Cuba “may” buy equipment but they “can” not
>>>> buy it. The following is an excerpt from an article illustrating that
>>>> Canada is donating its obsolete medical equipment to Cuba.
>>
>>>> ” December 7th Manitouwadge General Hospital delivered a used but still
>>>> useful ultrasound machine to Medical Equipment Modernization
>>>> Opportunity (MEMO) for use in equipment poor Cuba. …In Canada it is
>>>> considered older technology but in a third world country it is
>>>> considered “State of the art”…“We are very pleased that this
>>>> obsolete equipment will find good use in Cuba.”… Cuba suffers from a
>>>> severe shortage of modern functioning medical equipment.” -
>>>> http://www.karinahunter.com/?p=21722
>>
>>>> AND from the wikipedia article that YOU referenced, a doctor makes
>>>> $700 per month:
>>>> Typical wages range from factory worker’s 400 non-convertible Cuban
>>>> pesos a month to doctor’s 700. That is only around 17-30 U.S. dollars
>>>> a month. However, the Human Development Index of Cuba still ranks much
>>>> higher than the vast majority of Latin American nations.[40] After
>>>> Cuba lost subsidies in 1991, malnutrition resulted in an outbreak of
>>>> diseases and general hunger.[41] Despite this, the poverty level
>>>> reported by the government is one of the lowest in the developing
>>>> world, ranking 6th out of 108 countries, 4th in Latin America, and
>>>> 48th among all countries.[42] Pensions are among the smallest in the
>>>> Western hemisphere at $9.50. In 2009, Raul Castro increased minimum
>>>> pensions by 2 dollars, which he said was to recompense for those who
>>>> have “dedicated a great part of their lives to working… and who
>>>> remain firm in defense of socialism”.[43]
>>
>>> I make no claim that the Cuban economic system is efficient.
>>> It isn’t.
>>> There are many poor nations in the Caribbean. Cuba is one of them.
>>
>>> However, my objection is to our embargo.
>>> Politically driven, this embargo, an artifact of the cold war does not
>>> benefit the United States.
>>
>>> I believe that the Castro brothers with their Communist system would
>>> have been long gone had our embargo ended years ago,
>>
>>> Effectively America kept Communism alive in Cuba.
>>
>> Your claims are ignorant and based on Leftist propaganda, you don’t
>> think or use your own brain to ask any questions, you just swallow that
>> garbage they feed you.
>>
>
> > They count a baby as NOT born in many parts of the world,
> > until it has survived 24 hours. We deliver unusual and premature
> > and count them as live from the moment they are born.
>
> Cite? URL? Reference? Or (most likely) lie???
>
> Your statement is an insult to science and logic. Then again, you
> baggers do not believe in such things.
>
> -Ramon
>
You are funny, I’ll let you learn something, prove me a liar…..

You’ll learn more if you do the work, and show your work when you reply.

Cuba Has Lower Infant Mortality >> YET NO SOCIALIST MOVIE STARS GO TO CUBA TO HAVE THEIR BABIES???? WHY

admin — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 16:13:32 +0000

On 1/11/2012 8:06 AM, Möebius Pretzel wrote:
> Cuba: 4.9% infant mortality rate in 2011: The United States, which has
> maintained its criminal economic blockade of the country for more than
> 50 years, records an infant mortality rate of 7.0
>
> http://www.granma.cu/ingles/cuba-i/5ener-mortality.html

Stop the propaganda, they count babies different, like you count a baby
in the uterus as NOTHING while I count it as a live human, and a person.

CUBA is NOT a medical Paradise, that is a Socialist MYTH and proof is
that you don’t race off to CUBA to get better health care than you get
in the USA. NO millionaire Socialist Movie stars like Michael Moore
are down in Cuba waiting to be cured of disease or deliver their babies.

You’re so dumb it’s pitiful, and then you expose your stupidity so
effectively that it’s easy to see.

Obama’s 11% UNEMPLOYMENT RATE compared ot Bush’s 4.4 %

admin — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 17:49:21 +0000

On 1/10/2012 12:47 PM, @&*$?%Jurgis.net">Yoorghis @&*$?%Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 10:45:20 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/10/2012 2:00 AM, @&*$?%Jurgis.net">Yoorghis @&*$?%Jurgis.net wrote:
>>> On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 18:06:34 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Obama and his ilk are manipulating all the economic data.
>>>>
>>>> –
>>>
>>> Just when we thought you couldn’t get more stupid—off you go
>>> again…
>>
>>
>> Wasn’t it you who said Bush was Manipulating the information coming from
>> the CIA?
>
> Considering it’s a proven fact now, yep.
>
>> So Bush didn’t manipulate the CIA data….
>
> He did. Else why was NOTHING Bush claimed proven to be true?
>
> CIA intel is under a whole different set of secrecy rules and laws,
> you mindless idiot. Some of which constitutes treason for ignoring
>
> Not so general economic data.
>
Obama is manipulating the economic DATA.

That’s what separates me from the Animals in the forest and the Liberals that walk among us, I respect the constitution.

admin — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:02:02 +0000

On 1/6/2012 12:57 PM, Wayne wrote:

>>
>> With polls a day before the Iowa caucuses showing him getting a late
>> surge as he tries to coalesce the evangelical vote, Rick Santorum is now
>> pushing something we’ve been told is anathema to conservative values:
>> forcibly breaking up marriages — plunging families into chaos — as well
>> as giving “special privileges” to people based on sexual orientation.
> -
> An entirely reasonable position, and it removes “special privileges”
> erroneously given to homosexuals.

It is ex post facto law and unconstitutional, IF they were legally
Married then there is NOTHING that can be passed to undo it.

> If homosexuals want equal legal rights, they are available (or should
> be) via legal unions, not via sham “marriages”.

That is reasonable and should be what happens, but you can’t make a
legal marriage un-legal.

I beat up the gay “marriage” idea all the time but I have to follow the
constitution. That’s what separates me from the Animals in the forest
and the Liberals that walk among us, I respect the constitution.

Why growth is more important that worrying about deficits

admin — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 00:26:19 +0000

On 1/5/2012 7:25 PM, @&*$?%anony.net">habshi @&*$?%anony.net wrote:
> Consider a trillion dollar economy like Britain if given a
> $30b stimulus , say $10b a year to build 100 miles of 200mph
> underground rail network linking all cities and ports , so within a
> decade all heavy traffic is taken off the motorways for EVER, just how
> much would that save in oil costs if you powered the trains by wind or
> solar farms , and India should build these underground rail networks
> as well

Save NOTHING because no one will ride them……

> Now if that $30 raised production by just 1% ie 1% of
> 1,000b or $10b a year , then within three years you have recovered
> your money and the economy will keep paying an extra $10b a year from
> then on. That is why the Republican candidates droning on mindlessly
> about deficits are economic ignoramii.
> Last weeks TIME article showed that if the USA raised its
> growth from 2 to 3% as it is doing under Obama and under Raegan who
> spent like there was no tomorrow! then in a decade or so it would add
> a TRILLION dollars to the economic output and wealth of the nation.

Wealth of US Citizens Fell as Obama & Congress’s Tripled

admin — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 06:48:14 +0000

On 12/28/2011 11:55 PM, David Johnston wrote:
> On 12/27/2011 12:22 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> On 12/27/2011 2:16 PM, David Johnston wrote:
>>> On 12/27/2011 8:11 AM, ØBAMAGGØT ØCCUTARDS wrote:
>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2078964/Growing-wealth-gap-members-Congress-rule-survey-reveals.html#ixzz1hk8pAfrq
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Another Abomination from the Hussein Administration!
>>>
>>> I was unaware that the Obama administration had been in power for 25
>>> years.
>>
>>
>>
>> Are you unaware that Progressive-Socialists have been pursuing
>> /Obama/Pelosi/Reid/ policies for about 100 years?
>>
>
> Nope. But then again the spread between rick and poor was about as wide
> a century ago as it is now.

That indicates that *ALL* the hundreds of thousands of
Progressive-Socialist laws and regulation enacted over the last 100
years to correct that have *FAILED*

Another Progressive-Socialist Failure, All the taxes and other
regulation that accomplished ZIP NADA NOTHING.

Former ATF head blamed aides for not informing him of Fast and Furious

admin — Mon, 26 Dec 2011 20:28:21 +0000

On 12/26/2011 3:18 PM, JohnJohnsn wrote:
> Report: Former ATF head blamed aides for not informing him of Fast and
> Furious
> By Meghashyam Mali – 12/25/11 11:13 AM ET
>
> Kenneth Melson, then-head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms
> and Explosives blasted subordinates in a deposition taken in July
> claiming they failed to inform him of a controversial gun-tracking
> program which may have led to the death of a Border Patrol agent.

Doesn’t this amount to saying that your kid stole your gun from the top
of a night stand, and then used it to kill 18 students?

In those cases the Attorney general “usually” then goes after the parent
for contributing to the deaths by leaving the gun accessible to
children…..

Why is it suddenly when in government….. that idea of the same
person NOT protecting the public from governments deadly weapons and
force it’s NO longer legitimate?

*NOTHING LESS THAN JAIL TIME IS ACCEPTABLE*
(90% of the Obama administration belongs in prison)

Corporations and everyone paying as much tax as Warren Buffett’s Secretary.

admin — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 19:44:14 +0000

On 12/19/2011 2:40 PM, P&*$?%s wrote:
> On 12/19/2011 11:35 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/19/2011 10:38 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>> On 12/19/2011 1:02 PM, P&*$?%s wrote:
>>>>> On 12/18/2011 9:09 AM, cpt banjo wrote:
>>>>>> On Dec 17, 9:05 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The owner can buy insurance protection and also offset his
>>>>>>> liability by
>>>>>>> hiding assets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If there were no insulation of corporate shareholders there would be
>>>>>> no insurance to buy, since no one would invest in an insurance
>>>>>> company. Would YOU invest in a company that insured an oil company
>>>>>> like BP if you knew all of your personal assets were at risk in the
>>>>>> event of an oil spill?
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope. This would therefore lead BP to practice safely and securely in
>>>>> order to foster investment.
>>>>>
>>>>> Consider the existing alternative:
>>>>>
>>>>> Invest with impunity; in the event of a spill, the general public
>>>>> picks
>>>>> up the tab and deals with the consequence.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Except BP paid Billions in reparations and clean up.
>>>
>>> What percentage of the total cost was their part?
>>>
>>>> It cost those
>>>> investors billions in profits and cost BP by dropping their value and
>>>> their marketability and people were hesitant to buy their stock or
>>>> invest in BP….. It showed them to be less than Well run. Why
>>>> invest
>>>> in a poorly run and risky company when there are other better
>>>> investments?
>>>
>>> Irrelevant to discussion.
>>>
>>>>> I suggest that if the investor /had been/ at risk for the BP
>>>>> (actually:
>>>>> Transocean) spill, there would have either been: more safeguards in
>>>>> place, including insurance OR the risky operation would not have taken
>>>>> place.
>>>>
>>>> The failure was management NOTHING more.
>>>
>>> Irrelevant.
>>>
>>>> That failure means that I am NOT interested in investing there.
>>>
>>> Irrelevant.
>>>
>>>>> So, with your insulation of liability, who won and who lost? The
>>>>> owners
>>>>> won, the public lost. That doesn’t sound reasonable to me, does it
>>>>> to you?
>>>>
>>>> Owners lost Billions and the company lost any growth potential due to
>>>> the fact their management is questionable and people don’t want to
>>>> invest and lose their principal.
>>>
>>> Irrelevant.
>>>
>>>> If you lost more than your principal then the markest would shrivel and
>>>> die, no one would invest their extra cash, for fear of losing it and
>>>> more for simply putting your own money into use.
>>>
>>> So, who picks up the tab when the consequences exceed the liability
>>> limit?
>>>
>>> It doesn’t just disappear, you know.
>>>
>>>> That would suggest that buying a quart of oil makes you also liable
>>>> when
>>>> BP has a spill because your money was used by BP to drill.
>>>
>>> No. I’m not an owner when I purchase a product. I am a consumer.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yet you wanted the owners to be reimbursed by taxpayers for their loss
>> when they sold a mortgage to a consumer that you hold liable for having
>> been duped into buying the mortgage they couldn’t pay…..
>
> What are you talking about?!

*KEEP PLAYING DUMB, IT LOOKS GOOD ON YOU*

Corporations and everyone paying as much tax as Warren Buffett’s Secretary.

admin — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 19:35:35 +0000

> On 12/19/2011 10:38 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> On 12/19/2011 1:02 PM, P&*$?%s wrote:
>>> On 12/18/2011 9:09 AM, cpt banjo wrote:
>>>> On Dec 17, 9:05 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The owner can buy insurance protection and also offset his
>>>>> liability by
>>>>> hiding assets.
>>>>
>>>> If there were no insulation of corporate shareholders there would be
>>>> no insurance to buy, since no one would invest in an insurance
>>>> company. Would YOU invest in a company that insured an oil company
>>>> like BP if you knew all of your personal assets were at risk in the
>>>> event of an oil spill?
>>>
>>> Nope. This would therefore lead BP to practice safely and securely in
>>> order to foster investment.
>>>
>>> Consider the existing alternative:
>>>
>>> Invest with impunity; in the event of a spill, the general public picks
>>> up the tab and deals with the consequence.
>>>
>>
>> Except BP paid Billions in reparations and clean up.
>
> What percentage of the total cost was their part?
>
>> It cost those
>> investors billions in profits and cost BP by dropping their value and
>> their marketability and people were hesitant to buy their stock or
>> invest in BP….. It showed them to be less than Well run. Why invest
>> in a poorly run and risky company when there are other better
>> investments?
>
> Irrelevant to discussion.
>
>>> I suggest that if the investor /had been/ at risk for the BP (actually:
>>> Transocean) spill, there would have either been: more safeguards in
>>> place, including insurance OR the risky operation would not have taken
>>> place.
>>
>> The failure was management NOTHING more.
>
> Irrelevant.
>
>> That failure means that I am NOT interested in investing there.
>
> Irrelevant.
>
>>> So, with your insulation of liability, who won and who lost? The owners
>>> won, the public lost. That doesn’t sound reasonable to me, does it
>>> to you?
>>
>> Owners lost Billions and the company lost any growth potential due to
>> the fact their management is questionable and people don’t want to
>> invest and lose their principal.
>
> Irrelevant.
>
>> If you lost more than your principal then the markest would shrivel and
>> die, no one would invest their extra cash, for fear of losing it and
>> more for simply putting your own money into use.
>
> So, who picks up the tab when the consequences exceed the liability limit?
>
> It doesn’t just disappear, you know.
>
>> That would suggest that buying a quart of oil makes you also liable when
>> BP has a spill because your money was used by BP to drill.
>
> No. I’m not an owner when I purchase a product. I am a consumer.

Yet you wanted the owners to be reimbursed by taxpayers for their loss
when they sold a mortgage to a consumer that you hold liable for having
been duped into buying the mortgage they couldn’t pay…..

Something is wrong, when you want to help the Business and you ignore
and let the liability and cost hit the consumer, that purchased loans
and created the disaster?

You are making the consumer pay for the disaster and NOT making the
corporations pay for the disaster….. Which is opposite of what you
are saying now.

You supported Obama/Democrats making taxpayers help the CORPORATIONS.

YOU are a flip-flopper….
You are a hypocrite
You are a liar
OR
you are an idiot
the choice is yours

Because we “all” know it wasn’t to really help anyone but the Democrats
and Obama re-election, it was in reality a money laundering scheme.

Corporations and everyone paying as much tax as Warren Buffett’s Secretary.

admin — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 19:17:19 +0000

On 12/19/2011 2:05 PM, P&*$?%s wrote:
> On 12/19/2011 10:38 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> On 12/19/2011 1:02 PM, P&*$?%s wrote:
>>> On 12/18/2011 9:09 AM, cpt banjo wrote:
>>>> On Dec 17, 9:05 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The owner can buy insurance protection and also offset his
>>>>> liability by
>>>>> hiding assets.
>>>>
>>>> If there were no insulation of corporate shareholders there would be
>>>> no insurance to buy, since no one would invest in an insurance
>>>> company. Would YOU invest in a company that insured an oil company
>>>> like BP if you knew all of your personal assets were at risk in the
>>>> event of an oil spill?
>>>
>>> Nope. This would therefore lead BP to practice safely and securely in
>>> order to foster investment.
>>>
>>> Consider the existing alternative:
>>>
>>> Invest with impunity; in the event of a spill, the general public picks
>>> up the tab and deals with the consequence.
>>>
>>
>> Except BP paid Billions in reparations and clean up.
>
> What percentage of the total cost was their part?
>
>> It cost those
>> investors billions in profits and cost BP by dropping their value and
>> their marketability and people were hesitant to buy their stock or
>> invest in BP….. It showed them to be less than Well run. Why invest
>> in a poorly run and risky company when there are other better
>> investments?
>
> Irrelevant to discussion.
>
>>> I suggest that if the investor /had been/ at risk for the BP (actually:
>>> Transocean) spill, there would have either been: more safeguards in
>>> place, including insurance OR the risky operation would not have taken
>>> place.
>>
>> The failure was management NOTHING more.
>
> Irrelevant.
>
>> That failure means that I am NOT interested in investing there.
>
> Irrelevant.
>
>>> So, with your insulation of liability, who won and who lost? The owners
>>> won, the public lost. That doesn’t sound reasonable to me, does it
>>> to you?
>>
>> Owners lost Billions and the company lost any growth potential due to
>> the fact their management is questionable and people don’t want to
>> invest and lose their principal.
>
> Irrelevant.
>
>> If you lost more than your principal then the markest would shrivel and
>> die, no one would invest their extra cash, for fear of losing it and
>> more for simply putting your own money into use.
>
> So, who picks up the tab when the consequences exceed the liability limit?

The same people as when it exceeds, all the investors assets.

In the end, there is no guarantee and there NEVER WAS and who paid for
Chernobyl when the Government created a disaster?

Who is responsible for an earthquake and a tidal wave?

Who is responsible when a BUS runs off a cliff?

> It doesn’t just disappear, you know.

Nor does any risk but without accepting risk the Society will stagnate
and die.

Pompeii was too close to a Volcano, they took a risk and NO one had to
live there.

Do we have to have a Department of Meteor Deflection?

We managed to live through the Danger for 200 years without a Department
of Meteor Deflection. Human disasters on the Magnitude you suggest are
just as rare if NOT more than a meteor of that magnitude.

Corporations and everyone paying as much tax as Warren Buffett’s Secretary.

admin — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 18:38:41 +0000

On 12/19/2011 1:02 PM, P&*$?%s wrote:
> On 12/18/2011 9:09 AM, cpt banjo wrote:
>> On Dec 17, 9:05 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The owner can buy insurance protection and also offset his liability by
>>> hiding assets.
>>
>> If there were no insulation of corporate shareholders there would be
>> no insurance to buy, since no one would invest in an insurance
>> company. Would YOU invest in a company that insured an oil company
>> like BP if you knew all of your personal assets were at risk in the
>> event of an oil spill?
>
> Nope. This would therefore lead BP to practice safely and securely in
> order to foster investment.
>
> Consider the existing alternative:
>
> Invest with impunity; in the event of a spill, the general public picks
> up the tab and deals with the consequence.
>

Except BP paid Billions in reparations and clean up. It cost those
investors billions in profits and cost BP by dropping their value and
their marketability and people were hesitant to buy their stock or
invest in BP….. It showed them to be less than Well run. Why invest
in a poorly run and risky company when there are other better investments?

> I suggest that if the investor /had been/ at risk for the BP (actually:
> Transocean) spill, there would have either been: more safeguards in
> place, including insurance OR the risky operation would not have taken
> place.

The failure was management NOTHING more.

That failure means that I am NOT interested in investing there.

> So, with your insulation of liability, who won and who lost? The owners
> won, the public lost. That doesn’t sound reasonable to me, does it to you?

Owners lost Billions and the company lost any growth potential due to
the fact their management is questionable and people don’t want to
invest and lose their principal.

If you lost more than your principal then the markest would shrivel and
die, no one would invest their extra cash, for fear of losing it and
more for simply putting your own money into use.

That would suggest that buying a quart of oil makes you also liable when
BP has a spill because your money was used by BP to drill.

DO NOTHING Obama and the do nothing Democrats

admin — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 16:40:00 +0000

DO NOTHING Obama and the do nothing Democrat run Senate refuses to pass
a tax cut for working America, because they refuse to build an oil
pipeline which will also create more jobs for the unemployed.

Democrat-Socialists are against JOBS and TAX CUTS for working Americans.

( Capitalist America) vs (Socialist America)

admin — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 20:11:50 +0000

Making everyone responsible and partners and dependent on success of the
Nation(They live in Capitalist America) THE REST GETTING FREE GOVERNMENT
MONEY(They live in Socialist America).

On 12/9/2011 1:54 PM, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
> On Dec 9, 9:38 am, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>> On 12/8/2011 11:45 PM, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 8, 8:24 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> wrote:
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/5a79bfb7fd8ce74b
>>
>>> laughing, wow i suspect gingrich will break/melt down in the same
>>> manner you did above, when he is confronted with his own idiocy.
>>
>> How much income and sales and other miscellaneous tax did you pay this
>> month so that you could buy your cable TV….
>>
>> How much did the actual cable service cost, not including the tax you
>> paid when you earned the money and when you spent the money.
>>
>> You paid
>>
>> Income tax 20-38%
>> SS tax 7.5%
>> medicare tax 2%
>> unemployment tax ?
>> state income tax 7%
>> state sales tax 8%
>> corporate income…. tax a reasonable 8% profit at 35%
>> misc tele-comm tax 7%
>>
>> You had to earn enough money to pay all these taxes for the privilege of
>> buying your cable.
>>
>> take your cable bill and calculate what each cost you.
>>
>> Then deduct it from your cable bill, what is left is what actual cable
>> with NO government costs.

> First, you are *assuming* that reduction of fixed costs associated
> with an entity would 100% directly translate to reduction of a price
> charged for a service, that is very doubtful.

NO, I was showing you how much tax you pay….. by showing how much
you have to earn, to pay for $100 of product.

Not that the price was going to be more or less dependent on taxes being
more or less. You are out in the weeds with your suggestion.

The problem is government NOT the corporation.

> In my opinion the first
> thing that would likely happen is such reductions would be factored
> into market expectations i.e. performance per share.

Why do I care? I was showing you one thing, your fear took you down this
road.

> You have not
> produced a reduced price schedule from a company based on such a tax
> scheme, you only have theoretical market responses offered by
> political hacks or right wing think tanks.

I predict NOTHING… I was showing how many dollars you had to earn so
that you could buy $100 of product.

I did it for mine and I need to earn $150 to buy $92 worth of cable TV.

That is about a 50% tax rate.

> Secondly, reduction of
> government revenues would have a negative impact by shrinking the
> social safety net during a time of global recession.

Are you sure? Why would you be so defensive when I was simply showing
you what part of that product is NOT the cost of the product but is the
cost of government. You must be worried at the conclusion others will
take from this fact.

> Maintaining a
> strong social safety net keeps a workforce employable, and able to
> market their skills in todays information based workplace when the
> economy picks up.

It also holds back the economy.

> Thirdly the infrastructure used by corporations
> (internet, and non-internet) to conduct commerce is possible because
> of the national investments made from the tax revenues you want to
> eliminate.

Texas instruments created the technology….. Computers are NOT
government and neither is TV or telephone and neither is manned flight.
CHEAP COMPUTERS WERE NOT GOVERNMENT PRODUCED but
*without cheap computers* there would be NO private sector internet.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Government stole the technology and used it poorly and tried to make an
indestructible military network. That “plan” or idea was expanded and
improved and redesigned by the private market and PORNOGRAPHY and became
the internet. So before you spread the LIE that government created
everything, remember that they stole most of it from private industry.

The government pays the private sector to build their stuff because
Government hasn’t got the smarts to make the things they ask for.

Who invented DRONES….. was it R/C model airplane builders or
government?

> Elimination of such revenues would reduce the ability to
> invest and repair infrastructure.

And eliminate waste and theft and misuse.

Obama already got trillions of tax dollars to repair infrastructure and
he has NOTHING to show for it and wants trillions more for
infrastructure to fix what he has already been paid to fix but didn’t.

> Lastly, elimination of state sales
> tax in states like california would be devastating to local schools,

Yet raising and adding taxes doesn’t devastate “Private business” and
the private sector economy? Interesting how YOU BELIEVE that taxes are
a one way street. Taxes are GOOD for everyone? Taxes can’t devastate
the private sector but less taxes will absolutely devastate the
government?

*What a crock of s&*$?%t you are peddling*

> and public services. Your type of economics favors the very wealthy,
> and hurts our country.

MY PLANS help the Nation while making everyone responsible and partners
and dependent on success of the Nation(They live in Capitalist America).

Your plan DIVIDES THE NATION and makes half the Nation have zero
interest in the economy and the success of the National economy because
they get government money regardless of economic health(They live in
Socialist America).

John Edwards was correct, there are TWO AMERICAS, he was wrong on what
they are. One is Capitalist America where we participate in the
economy, the other America is Socialist America where they Live off the
Government.

making everyone responsible and partners and dependent on success of the Nation(They live in Capitalist America) THE REST GETTING FREE GOVERNMENT MONEY(They live in Socialist America).

admin — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 19:49:40 +0000

Making everyone responsible and partners and dependent on success of the
Nation(They live in Capitalist America) THE REST GETTING FREE GOVERNMENT
MONEY(They live in Socialist America).

> First, you are *assuming* that reduction of fixed costs associated
> with an entity would 100% directly translate to reduction of a price
> charged for a service, that is very doubtful.

NO, I was showing you how much tax you pay….. by showing how much
you have to earn, to pay for $100 of product.

Not that the price was going to be more or less dependent on taxes being
more or less. You are out in the weeds with your suggestion.

> In my opinion the first
> thing that would likely happen is such reductions would be factored
> into market expectations i.e. performance per share.

Why do I care? I was showing you one thing, your fear took you down this
road.

> You have not
> produced a reduced price schedule from a company based on such a tax
> scheme, you only have theoretical market responses offered by
> political hacks or right wing think tanks.

I predict NOTHING… I was showing how many dollars you earned so that
you could buy $100 of product.

I did it for mine and I need to ear $150 to buy $92 worth of cable TV.

That is about 50% tax rate.

> Secondly, reduction of
> government revenues would have a negative impact by shrinking the
> social safety net during a time of global recession.

> Maintaining a
> strong social safety net keeps a workforce employable, and able to
> market their skills in todays information based workplace when the
> economy picks up.

It also holds back the economy.

Texas instruments created the technology….. Computers are NOT
government and neither is TV or telephone and neither is manned flight.

Government stole the technology and used it poorly and tried to make an
indestructible military network. That plan was expanded and improved
and redesigned by the private market and PORNOGRAPHY and became the
internet. So before you spread the LIE that government created
everything, remember that they stole most of it from private industry.

The government pay the private sector to build their stuff because
Government hasn’t got the smart to make the things they ask for.

> Elimination of such revenues would reduce the ability to
> invest and repair infrastructure.

And eliminate waste and theft and misuse.

Obama got trillions of tax dollars to repair infrastructure and he has
NOTHING to show for it and wants trillions more for infrastructure to
fix what he has already been paid to fix but didn’t.

> Lastly, elimination of state sales
> tax in states like california would be devastating to local schools,

> and public services. Your type of economics favors the very wealthy,
> and hurts our country.

MY PLANS help the Nation while making everyone responsible and partners
and dependent on success of the Nation(They live in Capitalist America).

John Edwards was correct, there are TWO AMERICAS, he was wrong on what
they are. One is Capitalist America where we participate in the
economy, the other America is Socialist America where they Live off the
Government.