Lefty

Lol? EDIT: Actually, that's too nice. Kallend, what a dumb post. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Story Again, *sigh*. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Man, I love when I log on to see all these new posts from the main forum page...until I find out that it's just Lucky having diarrhea of the keyboard again. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

No way is anyone that crass. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

While most of your post was tripe, I very much agree with the sentiment above. The burglar has already shown that he will break the law when he entered your house illegally. How do you know his intent is to just stop at taking stuff? At that point, having already violated my property, he does not get the benefit of the doubt from me as I ponder where his stopping point is. In any case, is the life of some burglarizing scum more valuable to me than the lives of my family or myself? (Hint: No.) Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Man, I don't care if it would cost me jail time. I'd tell that officer to go fuck himself if he came after my dog with no proof of something like that. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

What you seem to have missed (for your whole life, apparently) is the fact that the government's appetite for money can never be satiated. You seem angered that this tax increase is going towards a system whose funding should already be taken care of. It even has its own tax structure in place. Well, surprise! That's government for you. It's the same trait that many of us here have been lambasting for a long time, and that you've been seemingly OK with as Rookie pointed out. Now, I absolutely agree with you that this proposed tax is BS and should not happen. What is compelling me to post is the fact that you pick this tax on aviation to start sounding like someone who is fed up with the government's reckless tax policies. Au contraire. The aviation trust fund is not in deficit so there is no reason for change. All Bush's proposal does is shift the burden from the primary beneficiaries (the airlines) to the GA community. The general fund, OTOH, is seriously in deficit so there is every reason to change. Like I said, the government can never have enough money, in its own opinion. Whether there is a deficit or not is irrelevant, as this particular instance demonstrates quite well. Why you keep thinking they act any more responsibly in dealing with the general fund is beyond me. Now, by "change" in your last sentence, what exactly do you mean? Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Touche. That's still no reason why we shouldn't question what he's doing. If the oil companies are looked at suspiciously every time they advocate something that can turn a profit for them, we should give Gore the same courtesy. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

What you seem to have missed (for your whole life, apparently) is the fact that the government's appetite for money can never be satiated. You seem angered that this tax increase is going towards a system whose funding should already be taken care of. It even has its own tax structure in place. Well, surprise! That's government for you. It's the same trait that many of us here have been lambasting for a long time, and that you've been seemingly OK with as Rookie pointed out. Now, I absolutely agree with you that this proposed tax is BS and should not happen. What is compelling me to post is the fact that you pick this tax on aviation to start sounding like someone who is fed up with the government's reckless tax policies. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

You can post that link all you want. It won't magically insulate you from the scrutiny your position is receiving. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

That's easy too. The gas taxes already pay for what they are supposed to pay for (aviation services through the aviation trust fund) and are efficient and automatic to collect. User fees will require a whole NEW government bureaucracy to collect. The other taxes you mention support the general fund, which is NOT solvent thanks mostly to Bush's spending like a drunken sailor. Increasing aviation taxes will not change the deficit one iota. Increasing general revenues will. In other words: "Even though I don't like the creation of a new government bureaucracy, I think the old one's work just fine and should therefore glut upon the income and capitol gains taxes of people who have more money than is good for them, anyway. This aviation tax is different, though. The government already has the money it needs and shouldn't take any more of mine!" Does that sound about right? Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

But why is this tax increase so bad? You don't seem to have problems with other tax hikes. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

I still like proof that something works before I buy it. To do otherwise would show a lack of common sense. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Start giving some facts to back up the accusations that you phrase in the form of questions. Hypotheticals should be used sparingly to make a point. When they are your whole point, though, it gets tiring. Lying and fraud are unacceptable. Provide some concrete and real examples for us to comment on, and maybe we can reach an understanding. See my previous post. One very basic example dating back 28 years or so. Ok, it's a start. However, any controversy there was got laid to rest when Microsoft and SCP settled. The creator of DOS even went to work for Microsoft afterwards. Not the actions of a man who feels he was defrauded. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Start giving some facts to back up the accusations that you phrase in the form of questions. Hypotheticals should be used sparingly to make a point. When they are your whole point, though, it gets tiring. Lying and fraud are unacceptable. Provide some concrete and real examples for us to comment on, and maybe we can reach an understanding. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Ah, these are the real victims in the cut-throat society of business...all the mom-and-pop paving companies. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Sorry. Try again. That is not fraud. Please give some examples, then. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

That's because it's all the President's fault. Where does your buck stop? With the people who deserted. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Bravo, Bush...you "conservative" you. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Couldn't have said it better. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

It's easily solvable. The stockbrokers just need to shop at the grocery store instead of the food bank. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

My thoughts exactly when I posted the article about the rape victim getting lashed. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

More specifically, it's about the scientists who study it. Be warned, the article is pretty long. However, it's written by Orson Scott Card so it's a bit more engaging than most writings on this type of subject. Anyway, check it out. Clicky P.S. - Yes, I know it's old. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

You had me up until "at republican owned companies." Then everything just got silly. Do you really think most business owners are Dems? Kind of an irrelevant question. We're discussing who hires the illegals, not which party's members are more intrepid and successful. I thought it was about who hires illegals, and which party those employers are likely to support. Bsides there was NOTHING in Jeanne's post after "at republican owned companies." so what exactly was silly after that? Amazon clearly meant Republican-owned companies. The likelihood that a given company is owned by a Republican has no bearing on the likelihood that his/her company will hire illegals. Forgive my language error...I didn't think anyone would care. Since you feel like nit-picking, though..."bsides" isn't a word. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin