 | | Re: Saudi Arabia is starting to "Get it"
|
|
(...) Why don't you take your facetious little poll in Arab countries? Maybe it won't be so easy after all. JOHN (21 years ago, 21-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Saudi Arabia is starting to "Get it"
|
|
(...) thought 9/11 was engineered by Americans or Israelis? Today I noticed that the sky appears to be blue, and clouds are often puffy and white. -- Hop-Frog (21 years ago, 21-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Saudi Arabia is starting to "Get it"
|
|
(URL) is very encouraging. Perhaps the US and Israel *aren't* the root of all evil after all.... JOHN (21 years ago, 20-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Sex Scandal: U.S. President had sex with Intern!
|
|
Annoyingly, I was unable to post to LUGNET for a few weeks and wasn't able to contribute in my usual, brilliant fashion. I apologize for the late response to Scott's posting, but this was just about my first opportunity to do so. (...) It should be (...) (21 years ago, 20-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> (...) Well, I don't treat my life like it's made up of binary management--if we remove certain criteria, then we allow *everyting*. I thought it would be inferred by my slam towards the Nat. (...) (21 years ago, 20-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Newsbits
|
|
"US Compromises at UN but Keeps Control of Iraq Oil" (URL) United States is asking the Security Council to authorize it to do a series of things that would otherwise violate international law under the guise of ending sanctions," said Morton (...) (21 years ago, 20-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Interesting idea...?!
|
|
"Free State Project" (URL) Free State Project is a plan in which 20,000 or more liberty- oriented people will move to a single state of the U.S., where they may work within the political system to reduce the size and scope of government. The success (...) (21 years ago, 20-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Tax relief?
|
|
(...) But what happened to all of that money in the meanwhile? This is why I despise the republicans. To be honest, we might actually get somewhere with someone if voters could for just once focus on the money -- in a way, all the president should (...) (21 years ago, 19-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Tax relief?
|
|
(...) I definately agree with your last statement, I tend to vote more for Republicans because they often seem to talk like small government types, but rarely act that way when they get into office. True the Democrats give us better social welfare (...) (21 years ago, 19-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Tax relief?
|
|
(...) I am not sure that they are at all related, but I'd rather pursue programs and measures that might actually increase security instead of merely depriving citizens of their constitutional rights or engaging in a frivolous war. "Thousands of (...) (21 years ago, 19-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
