 | | Re: Tax relief?
|
|
(...) Well, you could always exempt earnings below a subsistence level income -- that's one solution still easily understood and uncomplicated. Another, probably better, solution would be a federal sales tax on non-perishables/luxury type items. But (...) (21 years ago, 19-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Tax relief?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Costello writes: <snip> (...) The real problem with a flat tax is that lower income lose out the most. To a person making $20,000 a year, 10% means a lot more than it would to a person making $200,000 a year. I (...) (21 years ago, 19-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Tax relief?
|
|
(...) No I checked the latest bill pretty thoroughly, and all brackets recieve relief, actually if the original plan for marriage penalty relief was still in force I would pay almost no federal income tax at all. (...) Exactly, which is why I want (...) (21 years ago, 19-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Tax relief?
|
|
(...) "Some"? Might want to check those facts, Costello. (...) The extravagantly wealthy have access to loopholes and other measures that negate their taxes. See previous postings in this forum by yours truly. (...) Totally agree. (...) No, revenue (...) (21 years ago, 18-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch
|
|
(...) I find arguing about these distinctions in a thread about the way fiction as reality is being foisted upon us by the current administration increasingly laughable. Where are the WMD? When precisely are we pulling out of Iraq? Why were the (...) (21 years ago, 18-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch
|
|
Fix a small typo... capitalized area of repair for emphasis (...) SHOULD read Or would you tend to view all sources with equal credulity? I would think not, and further, I would think that a source that tends to be factually correct, even if their (...) (21 years ago, 17-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Tax relief?
|
|
Alright, time for me to stop defending this administration and to voice my opposition. It looks like tax relief is finally going to be passed, and from the looks of it there will be some tax relief across all brackets. Those are the good things, I (...) (21 years ago, 16-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch
|
|
(...) Excellent advice. But you'd agree that some sources are more credible than others, right? Or would you tend to view all sources with equal credulity? I would think not, and further, I would think that a source that tends to be factually (...) (21 years ago, 16-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> (...) Well, I'd start with a variety of sources, instead of just one or two that tell us what we want to hear, or worse, tell us what they want us to hear and filter out that which may (...) (21 years ago, 16-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch
|
|
(...) *WRONG* there is no "must". One only has to pay if the household has a TV. (...) It is collected by the BBC [well actually their appointed agent]. (...) You are squirming. (...) *sigh* I see your point Larry… but its pretty tenuous. The fact (...) (21 years ago, 16-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch
|
|
<reinserted a few quotes that David snipped, but I think i've got the attributions right, apologies if I flubbed> (...) Sorry, how is a license fee that one *must* pay (or be in violation of law), and which is collected *by the government*, and then (...) (21 years ago, 16-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Just name one thing that has changed in the past 30 years--This has got to stop
|
|
(URL) years ago. And the killing and the blaming and the bombing and the fighting and the pillaging and the retaliation and the blaming some more still continues. I don't care who started it. I don't care who you think the fanaticals are. I don't (...) (21 years ago, 16-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes: <snip> (...) And not made up like the NY Times... Ooops--US news sources are fallible! Did I say that out loud? If you want to keep your head in the sand, then that's your choice. Don't admonish those (...) (21 years ago, 16-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch
|
|
(...) *shakes head* Scott A (21 years ago, 16-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch
|
|
(...) Are you saying it can't be trusted? Shame on you sir! (...) Nonsense! It is funded by the public through a licence fee [~UKP100 / US$160] for every viewing household & through sales of its products. Fantastic value when you think about it. (...) (21 years ago, 16-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch
|
|
(...) You mean like when he landed on the aircaft carrier? ;) Scott A (21 years ago, 16-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch
|
|
(...) Nevertheless, your mistrust is not at all misplaced. The BBC, despite being government funded, isn't exactly hewing to reality, much less hewing to the Labour party line, at least according to some observers. Your mileage may vary, of course. (21 years ago, 16-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch
|
|
(...) I realize that you have some internal connect between politics and religion, but for me I tend to keep those two worlds completely separate. My political views have little to do with my religious views, please try to stay focused. (...) My (...) (21 years ago, 15-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch
|
|
(...) Crazy world, eh David? Nobody over here seems to understand that truth dealing is the way to make the U.S. a better place -- it's always some nonsense about patriotism, or national security, or counter-terrorism. And here I thought the truth (...) (21 years ago, 15-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Costello writes: <snip> (...) Ahh, there it is. If it isn't USA, it's no way. Got it. Perhaps you wish to reconsider? Dave K (...) (21 years ago, 15-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch
|
|
(...) This criticism still amazes me, although it wasn't unexpected. Presidents, and other political leaders have been misusing taxpayer money on these kinds of things for years. If Bush was simply looking for a photo-op he would have done this in (...) (21 years ago, 15-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch
|
|
Because we all know how the BBC is prone to hperbole, and "faking the truth" whenever it can... (URL) it still a 'conspiracy nutter' story now? Or is it perhaps closer to the truth? Stop with the talk of anything that doesn't conform to the US (...) (21 years ago, 15-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch
|
|
(...) So which point do you take exception to, Scott? "We know that SH has WoMD and we know where they are!" (pause long enuf to have a war about it) "Well, we're withdrawing our inspectors next month 'cause we didn't find anything..." Conspiracies? (...) (21 years ago, 15-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch
|
|
(...) I wonder if they used that same film crew that rigged up that whole moon landing thing. I file this whole discussion right there along with Elvis sightings and the black helicopters. Scott C. (21 years ago, 15-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch
|
|
(...) Jessica's rescue, the toppling of the statue, Colin Powell's briefing--all faked for the mass television audience. And yet, there's the majority of the US audience, just gobbling it up. Standing ovation for the wonderful acting to all (...) (21 years ago, 15-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | "Saving" Private Lynch
|
|
This makes good reading: The truth about Jessica (URL) was like a Hollywood film. They cried, 'Go, go, go', with guns and blanks and the sound of explosions. They made a show - an action movie like Sylvester Stallone or Jackie Chan, with jumping (...) (21 years ago, 15-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Too weird for daylight...
|
|
(...) Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar? JOHN (21 years ago, 15-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Too weird for daylight...
|
|
"The Oily Americans: Why the world doesn't trust the U.S. about petroleum: A history of meddling" (URL) a little too flimsy on the Iraq issue, probably didn't want to come off as "unpatriotic" -- whatever that means nowadays.] ---...--- New Policy (...) (21 years ago, 15-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Here's the next contender...
|
|
(URL) which Cuban diplomats were expelled from Washington and the UN due to 'spying'. Or they could have been expelled so that they have no potential to hear any plans against their country (if you read b/w the lines and are swayed towards (...) (21 years ago, 15-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Saudi Arabia? [Re: Kissing heinie at its finest]
|
|
(...) Surely you mean Saudi Arabia? ;) Scott A (21 years ago, 14-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Kissing heinie at its finest
|
|
(...) Not in Scotland. Search for "the auld alliance". eg: (URL) the resident Canadian: ==+== The Royal Ecossais remained a regiment of the French army. Indeed after the failure of the '45 Rising two other French regiments were formed from Jacobite (...) (21 years ago, 14-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Kissing heinie at its finest
|
|
(...) We all seem to have our own form of arrogance. The American forte is arrogance through naivety. The English arrogance is more through belief that they are naturally superior, and the French is not so much that they are superior so much that (...) (21 years ago, 14-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Kissing heinie at its finest
|
|
(...) What is funny is the one thing that my brother in law, who live in England, and I have in common is French jokes. Contempt for the French and their arrogance seems to be a great unifier among nations. (...) Those two things are true, and (...) (21 years ago, 14-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Sex Scandal: U.S. President had sex with Intern!
|
|
(...) Thanks for the clarification. Sorry for keeping ya up, Bruce! Yes, religious debate can sometimes get tiresome, but I've wanted to keep it as interesting as possible. Honest I have! Dave K -who puts people to sleep wherever he goes (21 years ago, 14-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Sex Scandal: U.S. President had sex with Intern!
|
|
(...) Column. The last row tends to consist of really, really, unstable elements. Sorry for being anal about row-column, just trying to hijack this away from religion (Zzzz...zzzsnore). -->Bruzzz...zzz... (21 years ago, 14-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Sex Scandal: U.S. President had sex with Intern!
|
|
(...) The point I was trying to make with John, and seems to be pushed to the wayside, is that mayhaps the church, and doctroines thereof, need to be revisited--whether you personally accomodate homosexuals in your life is nice and all, but (...) (21 years ago, 14-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Pagans and Xtians (was Re: Sex Scandal etc)
|
|
(...) I'm pretty sure it has a lot do with the prohibition concerning idolatry via the decorating of trees in Jeremiah: ---...--- 10:1 Hear ye the word which the LORD speaketh unto you, O house of Israel: 10:2 Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way (...) (21 years ago, 13-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Sex Scandal: U.S. President had sex with Intern!
|
|
(...) The intolerance I was refering to is that of those who take issue with religions or religionists for their beliefs, basically telling someone that they must unconditionally accept your chosen lifestyle. One of my best friends has recently (...) (21 years ago, 13-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Pagans and Xtians (was Re: Sex Scandal etc)
|
|
(...) I know they are pre-christian; Easter I had always thought as having been conveniently adopted by Christianity from Judahism. Which in turn may have had it adopted from another pagan belief - quite honestly, I find that of little consequence, (...) (21 years ago, 13-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Sex Scandal: U.S. President had sex with Intern!
|
|
(...) My bible says this for Luke 14.26: "If people come to me and are not ready to abandon their fathers, mothers, wives, children, brothers, and sisters, as well as their own lives, they cannot be my disciples." This makes more sense in the (...) (21 years ago, 13-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
