O/T: BLOG POST OF THE DAY

Page 9 of 10  


http://www.knowledgeproducts.net/html/con_files/const.cfm looks interesting, but I am more leaning to an interactive lecture set at the local community college.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/23/2012 1:29 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

then-unprecedented court-packing expansion of the Commerce Clause for that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/23/2012 05:08 PM, Just Wondering wrote:

That's part of it, but the Right has been just as guilty of these kinds of excesses. It has been the Right that has insisted we stick our nose into the business of other nations even though we have no national interest at stake. It is the Right that has decided to be everyone's Daddy and tell them what they can drink/smoke/snort and in what manner they may have sex and whether their romantic arrangements will be recognized by law. The fact is that neither side wants freedom, it wants the power to push and shove and tell everyone else what to do. Sadly, the people would rather be coddled by imaginary government goodness than be free citizens...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/23/2012 4:23 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Who got the USA into the Korean war? "Give 'm Hell" Harry Truman. And it was Republican President Eisenhower who got us out. Are you too young to remember how the USA got big-time into the Vietnam conflict? It was Kennedy who first sent combat troops there. It was Johnson who got us into a full-scale war there. And it was Nixon, a Republican, who got us out. Carter stuck the US military nose into El Salvador. Under Clinton, a USA-led NATO force engaged in military strikes in Yugoslavia. Clinton also stuck the US military nose into Serbia, Afghanistan and Sudan, and.forced a regime change in Haiti. When did Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton join the Republican party? Face it, your assertion that "It has been the Right that has insisted we stick our nose into the business of other nations" is just divisive partisan drivel.

Actually, your next statement is more nearly correct, although it's the Left more than the right that wants "Big Brother" type control over us.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/24/2012 03:17 AM, Just Wondering wrote:

PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Agree. The sad thing is that the Gulf of Tonkin type stuff always riles up the masses (right and left) and makes them ready to go to war, declared or not.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/24/2012 8:24 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Wars are the quintessential "sticking your nose into another's business." My point is that trying to pin that label on the Right and not the Left simply ignores history.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Somebody has to be the world's policeman. For over a hundred years it was the British. Now us.
If not us, then there are two choices:
* International anarchy, the likes of which is exemplified by Sudanese pirates, or * Some other country takes on the job.
If the latter, who would you prefer? China? Russia? Iran? Guatamala?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/24/2012 05:31 PM, HeyBub wrote:

I would prefer for the Anglosphere to hang together insofar as we have a lot of common culture and interest. If the rest of the world wants us to police their neighborhoods, the least they could do is pay us to do so.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 08:47:32 -0500, Tim Daneliuk

Damn stupid naive statement. Payment comes in many forms. As with any country, the US is motivated by self interest in whatever it does abroad. If it's not getting some advantage by assisting an oil rich country in need, then it's protecting itself from possible future aggressions.
Even if it's only assisting some region of the world because of public outcry, it benefits from not looking bad.
As to your borderline prejudicial, "Anglosphere to hang together" statement, a significant bulk of the US population is not "Anglosphere".
I've said it before and I'll say it again. You're an ass Daneliuk. The only reason you're here in this newsgroup is to inflame rhetoric. You don't and never have posted any woodworking content.
What are you doing here?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Another disaster that was engineered by the powers in charge (Johnson), just like Bush's Iraq wars. From Wikipedia on the Gulf of Tonkin resolution: The house was unanimous in favor, and "It was opposed in the Senate only by Senators Wayne Morse (D-OR) and Ernest Gruening (D-AK). Senator Gruening objected to "sending our American boys into combat in a war in which we have no business, which is not our war, into which we have been misguidedly drawn, which is steadily being escalated"." And indeed, it was Nixon (tricky Dick) who got us out, and who got us friendly with the Chinese. Two things for which I will always admire him. Now the other stuff ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/24/2012 12:49 PM, Han wrote:

sticking the collective U.S. nose into other nation's affairs, and that to single Repubs alone out for that sort of behavior ignores history.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Very, very true ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Just Wondering wrote:

We do it because we're here. Just us. No one else, lad. Now face the front and mark your target as he comes.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/24/2012 4:33 PM, HeyBub wrote:

responding to someone who does have a problem with it, and tried to stick it to Republicans alone. Sometimes, though, we as a nation should be just a little more circumspect where we go poking our collective nose.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Just Wondering wrote:

I understand. And we ARE pretty circumspect.
The US has military missions in a LOT of countries (145 if memory serves). I'm not counting Marine embassy guards; I'm referring to military assistance, training, coordination, joint maneuvers, and so on. We teach them to use our weapons, our tactics, how to collect and share intelligence, we build base for them (and us).
Point being, we're involved in many things, most we don't hear about.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Veery much so.

I believe the excess is taxed. Just the $6k is written off, until it's cashed in.

How do we get all the richies to do this, Han? Then again, how much of their wealth was created outside the US? Most richies are men/women of the world, with MANY international business dealings.

Good question.
-- And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom. -- Anas Nin
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/20/2012 11:29 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote:

Certainly.
That Romney paid a lesser rate implies that he took advantage of tax breaks, deductions, etc., built into the tax code.
Now these exemptions and so forth were placed in the tax code by our betters to further various social goals such as contributions to charity, home mortgage interest, and the like. To the degree that Romney sought out and participated in those social goals, he should be commended!
Ross Perot, as an exemplar, paid NO taxes on his millions in income because his income was solely in the form of tax-exempt mutual bonds.
Because Romney evidently helped fund various social goals, cities are improved, children don't go to bed hungry, the homeless find succor, alcoholics have access to treatment programs, and, for all I know, stray dogs and cats get three hots and a cot.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, and I take "advantage" of the breaks too, specifically the huge loophole that transfer of appreciated stock to charity offers (a total charitable deduction for FMV, without regard to basis or cap gains).
Perhaps we should have an automatic sunset to those social goals. Equally to depletion allowances and subsidies to green technologies. (I have no idea what the law says on these at the moment, just that they have supporters and detractors on the left and the right).
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.