In article >,
"Paul M. Cook" > wrote:

> "Omelet" > wrote in message
> news
> > In article >,
> > "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Omelet" > wrote in message
> >> news > >> > In article >,
> >> > "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >> This is the world of the rich. They do not spend it on things like
> >> >> >> new
> >> >> >> businesses, they either horde it or blow it on trinkets. That is
> >> >> >> their
> >> >> >> option I suppose but it dispels the myth that trickle don is a
> >> >> >> viable
> >> >> >> economic practice.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Paul
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It can work... but it depends on the individual.
> >> >> > The trick is teaching them social consciousness.
> >> >>
> >> >> I could teach my cats to knit easier. And they have no thumbs and are
> >> >> easily distracted.
> >> >>
> >> >> Paul
> >> >
> >> > Good analogy... but do you think the dem's are any better?
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > To me, they seem to be a bunch of socialistic power hungry elite.
> >>
> >> They have changed, yes.
> >>
> >> > "We are the government, we are here to take care of you".
> >>
> >> No, that is not what it is all about. Bringing this country to the level
> >> of
> >> a true world class society, that is what it is all about. If what we did
> >> here was so great, Om, how come no country in the world wants to emulate
> >> it?
> >> We can and need to do better. The free market is not a panacea and in
> >> many
> >> ways has caused vast damage. We must do better. The people that are
> >> telling you the government is evil are the very people making vast sums
> >> of
> >> money off the government. That should tell you everything.
> >>
> >> Paul
> >
> > You may have already noted that I'm not a fan of an uncontrolled free
> > market...
>
>
> McCain is. Obama is not. Nor am I.
>
> Paul

Please state specifics, with cites.
(for Obama and McCain).
--
Peace! Om

"If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." --Mark Twain

"Omelet" > wrote in message
news
> In article >,
> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
>
>> "Omelet" > wrote in message
>> news
>> > In article >,
>> > "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> > Mmmm... Free market capitalism at it's worst?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No, fascism at its worst. It is facism, pure and simple.
>> >> >
>> >> > Oh?
>> >> > Sorry, I have to disagree with that definition.
>> >>
>> >> One of the elements of fascism is a marriage of government and big
>> >> business
>> >> to the point were they become indistinguishable. We are very much a
>> >> fascist
>> >> country at the moment. Corporations actually write their own
>> >> legislation.
>> >> They call the shots. The own this country.
>> >
>> > I won't argue with that. That asshole in the whitehouse that I hate
>> > down
>> > to my very soul made it that way because he's one of them.
>> >
>>
>> And McCain voted with him 90 percent of the time. That is very important,
>> Om. McSame is Bush. There is no difference.
>>
>> Paul
>
> I'm not so sure...
>
> Being in power changes things.

McCain was holding out for Joe Lieberman as his running mate. Perhaps the
only man in the senate McCain truly trusts. He was told to pick Palin - it
was not his pick. Who is in charge? McCain, or Bush's boys? Karl Rove is
running McCain's campaign as well as 169 lobbyists. Obama has 0 lobbyists
working for him.

A vote for McCain is a vote or Bush's third term. I wager even Dick Cheney
will be kept on the payroll.

Paul

"Omelet" > wrote in message
news
> In article >,
> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
>
>> "Omelet" > wrote in message
>> news
>> > In article >,
>> > "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Omelet" > wrote in message
>> >> news >> >> > In article >,
>> >> > "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> >> This is the world of the rich. They do not spend it on things
>> >> >> >> like
>> >> >> >> new
>> >> >> >> businesses, they either horde it or blow it on trinkets. That
>> >> >> >> is
>> >> >> >> their
>> >> >> >> option I suppose but it dispels the myth that trickle don is a
>> >> >> >> viable
>> >> >> >> economic practice.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Paul
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > It can work... but it depends on the individual.
>> >> >> > The trick is teaching them social consciousness.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I could teach my cats to knit easier. And they have no thumbs and
>> >> >> are
>> >> >> easily distracted.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Paul
>> >> >
>> >> > Good analogy... but do you think the dem's are any better?
>> >>
>> >> Yes.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > To me, they seem to be a bunch of socialistic power hungry elite.
>> >>
>> >> They have changed, yes.
>> >>
>> >> > "We are the government, we are here to take care of you".
>> >>
>> >> No, that is not what it is all about. Bringing this country to the
>> >> level
>> >> of
>> >> a true world class society, that is what it is all about. If what we
>> >> did
>> >> here was so great, Om, how come no country in the world wants to
>> >> emulate
>> >> it?
>> >> We can and need to do better. The free market is not a panacea and in
>> >> many
>> >> ways has caused vast damage. We must do better. The people that are
>> >> telling you the government is evil are the very people making vast
>> >> sums
>> >> of
>> >> money off the government. That should tell you everything.
>> >>
>> >> Paul
>> >
>> > You may have already noted that I'm not a fan of an uncontrolled free
>> > market...
>>
>>
>> McCain is. Obama is not. Nor am I.
>>
>> Paul
>
> Please state specifics, with cites.
> (for Obama and McCain).

McCain says the only solution for the health care crisis is the free market.
Ignoring the fact that the free market is how we got here.

McCain is for unconditonal drilling for oil companies after he got paid 2
million bucks by them. Unconditonal as in the oil goes to the highest
bidder and right now that is China. Obama said we can allow drilling with
conditions such as some of it has to be sold domestically only.

McCain's economic advisor, former senator Gramm said Americans are just a
bunch of whiners. There is nothing to change.

Paul

"Omelet" > wrote in message
news
> In article >,
> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
>
>> "Omelet" > wrote in message
>> news
>> > In article >,
>> > Goomba > wrote:
>> >
>> >> So what you're saying is it *is* okay to be rich, as long as you're a
>> >> Democrat and rich? Is that where the Kennedy's fit in?
>> >
>> > <lol> Applause!
>>
>> The Kennedy's have almost 80 years of very extensive community service.
>> They have been doing this all along. Joe Kennedy always believed they
>> had
>> to give back. He said it was the Christian thing to do. Many Kennedy's
>> have spent their whole lives in public service. Most for no pay.
>
> And they've gotten away with a lot of illegal stuff.
>
>>
>> When Ronald Reagan retired, he played golf. Bush Senior fishes and plays
>> golf. Bush II's daughters do nothing , they live off their trust funds
>> and
>> drink tequila and run around naked in hotels after their "careers" of 6
>> months as teacher interns.
>>
>> Paul
>
> Did I ever once say I respect the Bush family?
> --

Indirectly. A vote for McCain is a vote for Bush. He's already said he will
continue with Bush's policies.

Paul

On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 07:40:23 -0500, Omelet >
wrote:

>Geeze Bob... We have BILLIONS of gallons of oil in the ground that we
>are not drilling!
>
>If we need it, it's there.
>
>And we need it NOW.

We need alternative energy now, not more oil.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

"Omelet" > wrote in message
news
> In article >,
> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
>
>> > I don't trust Obama as far as I could throw him.
>>
>> A vote for McSame is a vote for Bush's third term.
>>
>> Paul
>
> Sorry, but I don't agree with that.
>
> A vote for Obama is to vote in Socialism/Marxism.
> --

Differentiate the two, please. How are they similar and how are they not.
20 points.

Paul

Goomba > wrote in
:

> Michael "Dog3" wrote:
>> Goomba >
>> : in
>> rec.food.cooking
>>
>>
>>> Letsee... Michelle O'bama made something like $400,000.00
>>> one recent year. They live in a house that cost over a
>>> million dollars. And you think they are closer to the
>>> average "commoner"?????
>>
>> No, I'd say she took initiative and made something of
>> herself. Cindy McCain is from inherited wealth. Last
>> estimates of her net worth I could find was something like
>> $100 million. Vast difference between $400k a year, a
>> million dollar house vs. $100 million wouldn't you say?
>>
> Probably not to the guy making 35K and living in a 75K
> house in small town America. How many houses one owns is a
> silly discriminator for an election, if you ask me? How
> many houses do the Kennedy's own?

you say Kennedy's like they are a single family unit. they
are not. there were/are the Kennedy children (JFK, RFK, Teddy,
et al) & now the Kennedy great grandchildren... all of whom,
i'd assume, have seperate houses, perhaps even seperate summer
houses & houses in DC. i would expect there are *dozens* of
"Kennedy houses" at this point.
besides that, exactly which Kennedy is currently running for
president? none? then why start talking about their houses?

> So what you're saying is it *is* okay to be rich, as long
> as you're a Democrat and rich? Is that where the Kennedy's
> fit in?

again, what do the Kennedy's have to do with this?
i believe the point is that wealth from actual working is
morally superior to inherited wealth. let's face it though,
*unless* one has a great deal of wealth (no matter how one
aquires it), one won't get far running for national office
these days.


lee
--
Last night while sitting in my chair
I pinged a host that wasn't there
It wasn't there again today
The host resolved to NSA.

"Paul M. Cook" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Omelet" > wrote in message
> news
>> In article >,
>> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
>>
>>> > We are capable of solving our own energy issues if people would get
>>> > off
>>> > their asses and quit being quite so greedy!
>>>
>>> Cannot be done in a capitalist society. Sorry, can't. You'd have to
>>> change
>>> everything,. You have no control over prices other than your own
>>> consumption. What helped to lower oil prices was when we all of a
>>> sudden
>>> quit driving. That is called conservation. But that is the only
>>> mechanism
>>> you have at your disposal in an capitalist system. So you thinking
>>> commie
>>> now, dear?
>>
>> The "fair tax" taking the place of income tax would do us a world of
>> good.....I've read the book and I'm all for it.
>>
>
> Nope, the worst tax idea there is. The rich love it though. But it
> cannot and has nevr worked. Here is why: a person making 25K a year
> spedns 100% of his money on living expenses. A person making 250K a year
> spends quite a bit less, let's say 20%. So a person making 25K a year is
> in he 100% tax bracket and a person making 250K a year is i the 20%. That
> is a regressive tax. A person making 250K a year does not have to spend
> any more on food than a person making 25K. You see the problem?
>
>> It would net me an additional 10k per year of net income.
>>
>> It's a consumption tax rather than an income tax.
>
> And the rich can control that consumption because they will only spend a
> fraction of their income on the same expenses you do such as food,
> clothing and shelter. To them it is trivial, to you it absorbs 100% of
> your income. Is that fair taxation?
>
>> Income tax was the biggest mistake the US ever allowed!
>
> Somebody had to pay for the wars. Wasn't going to be the wealthy, they
> could hide their income. Still can.
>

Damn, Paul. Nice post. This makes a lot of sense. I guess you're melting
down, too.

Speaking of melting down .... those Sonic commercials have me wanting a real
banana split, and I have not had one since my sister and I popped balloons
at Woolworth's lunch counter.

"enigma" > wrote

> i have tried to
> reduce usage as much as possible... and what happens? PSNH is
> selling less power so they need to raise the rates... it turns
> out to be a net wash for them & *i* lose money because i'll
> never see a return on the energy saving investment.

Unbelievably, the water company did the same thing here. After two years of
being forced to conserve water or be fined (or have our water turned off
with repeated offenses) they raised their rates because they were not making
enough money.

"Paul M. Cook" > wrote in message
>>
>> The "fair tax" taking the place of income tax would do us a world of
>> good.....I've read the book and I'm all for it.
>>
>
> Nope, the worst tax idea there is. The rich love it though. But it
> cannot and has nevr worked. Here is why: a person making 25K a year
> spedns 100% of his money on living expenses. A person making 250K a year
> spends quite a bit less, let's say 20%. So a person making 25K a year is
> in he 100% tax bracket and a person making 250K a year is i the 20%. That
> is a regressive tax. A person making 250K a year does not have to spend
> any more on food than a person making 25K. You see the problem?

In every fair tax proposition there have been some consideration for those
of low income. Exemption to a certain income range, exemption of certain
commodities from sales taxes and the like. There are many possible changes
tax code that can work, that can be fair to the lower income. Why don't we
have them? Ask the tax accountants and tax lawyers that would be out of
work. They can be structured to be very fair.

Remember the luxury tax? As soon as it took effect, the rich stopped buying
their yachts, planes, etc. Who got hurt? The $10 an hour worker at the
places that built those items. If you buy diamond earrings for $290,000
very few people get a benefit, but buy a $20,000,000 yacht and a lot of
middle class workers that make the components and assemble it will benefit.

"Bob Terwilliger" > wrote in message
...
> Ed wrote:
>
>>> We already spend more on out military than thenext 60 countries
>>> combined.
>>
>> Places like Luxemburg, Andorra, San Martino are hard pressed to keep up
>> with us.
>
>
> "How many tanks does the Pope have?" --Stalin
>
>
> Bob, who's *been* to San Marino, and knows how it's spelled

Leave it to a vacuous, puffed up piece of shit like you to employ a typo
lame when he can't counter the argument. Yes, I know, I'm a crack whore
who's just jealous of an ugly, ugly mother****er. Ugly inside, ugly outside,
and one foot in the grave from what I hear.

"Bob Terwilliger" > wrote in message
...
> Paul wrote:
>
>> I don't use spell checkers. I just type it out and hit send. I am
>> especially bad typing at the laptop. Nice of you to make an issue of
>> typos. Clearly they show me as a deranged psychotic worthy of dismissal.
>> Well, that is the accepted wisdom anyway.
>
> Nah, you're an O.K. guy. I'm just playing devil's advocate anyway; I am
> not
> enamored of any particular candidate, and I consider political punditry to
> be mostly a waste of time. (I just happen to have time to waste tonight.)
>

Right. Like every other night, Elephant Man.

"George Cebulka" > wrote
>>
>> George, if McSame gets in those guys aren't going anywhere. I wager
>> Cheney will be retained as a "consultant."
>>
>> Paul
>
> Now that is a scary thought....

Hopefully he won't last that long.

Omelet > wrote in
news
> Ditto. I work in health care, now for a board that has over
> 20 hospitals in the system.

well, actually you work for the "health industry". if there
were not specific laws *requiring* any of those hospitals to
provide at least rudimentary care to the poor, they wouldn't.
under the free market system, which McCain supports, health
care is only going to get more expensive & available to fewer
people. while i am not a fan of government health care, i
think the "system" needs a good clean out. there is 'for
profit' and there is greed...
lee
--
Last night while sitting in my chair
I pinged a host that wasn't there
It wasn't there again today
The host resolved to NSA.

"Bob Terwilliger" > wrote in message
...
> Wayne replied to Steve:
>
>>> Ahh, another convertee. Now if I could only get you interested in
>>> women...
>>>
>>
>> I'm really very interested in women, just not sexually. I'm perfectly
>> happy and content in the 16 year relationship I'm in.
>
> That should have been obvious from your message headers:
>
> "Organization: Cox"
>
>
Jesus. The most dismal thing about you (aside from your looks) has to be
what passes for wit in your fat head. You and Greg went to the same school.

Yes, yes, my pimp let me out to use the computer today. And you're still
ugly.

"enigma" > wrote in message
. ..
> Omelet > wrote in
> news >
>> Ditto. I work in health care, now for a board that has over
>> 20 hospitals in the system.
>
> well, actually you work for the "health industry". if there
> were not specific laws *requiring* any of those hospitals to
> provide at least rudimentary care to the poor, they wouldn't.
> under the free market system, which McCain supports, health
> care is only going to get more expensive & available to fewer
> people. while i am not a fan of government health care, i
> think the "system" needs a good clean out. there is 'for
> profit' and there is greed...
> lee
> --

And as long as Om gets her fat ass examined at a decent cost twice a year,
she doesn't give a ****.

"Paul M. Cook" > wrote in
:

>
> "Goomba" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>
>>> Yes they have Om. They have proposd ending the "Enron
>>> Loophole" which is causing extreme speculation through
>>> dark markets. It was stonewalled by the republicans.
>>> They have proposed releasing oil from the Strategtic
>>> Reserve, shot down by the republicans.
>>
>> I understand that releasing oil from the strategic
>> reserves would last something like.... THREE days. That
>> isn't a solution, that's just a silly publicity stunt. We
>> need a solution or alternatives, not 3 days of fuel that
>> won't be there if ever there was a crisis.
>
> It has been done before, lasted months, not days and
> lowered gas prices. Clinton did this as did Bush I, and
> they put the oil back when the price came down so it was a
> wash. A win win.

unlike Bush II who filled it up when oil was at it's highest
price...
i *might* be persuaded to allow use of a small portion of the
strategic reserves to be refined as kero or heating oil, but
NOT to lower prices at the pump. less driving is a good thing
all around (keeping in mind i live rural & have to drive 30+
minutes to shop. i just organize my trips more efficiently
now).
lee



--
Last night while sitting in my chair
I pinged a host that wasn't there
It wasn't there again today
The host resolved to NSA.

Goomba wrote:

> ChattyCathy wrote:
>> Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>
>>> Vogue magazine wrote about the dress Cindy McCain wore at the
>>> RNC opening night party. A very private affair and she wore a
>>> $300,000.00 dress. That is 6 years worth of before tax income for
>>> the average American. And this is supposed to be the "common man."
>>> I don't think so.
>>
>> Good grief! She paid *HOW MUCH* for a dress? I could buy a nice house
>> for that price 'round here. I thought wealthy movie stars didn't even
>> spend that much for a single dress... Guess I'm, waaay behind the
>> times. Sigh.
>
> She didn't pay that much for a dress. Lots of sour grapes being
> reported, IMO.
> Her entire outfit (including family jewelry) was priced out. The
> dress
> was an Oscar de Lorenta and did cost a couple notes but it was the
> family jewels were what jacked up the price of the "outfit".

Fair enough. I didn't see the article Paul was referring to, but I am
sure the whole 'ensemble' was still worth a big chunk of change to the
average US citizen.

> Some seem
> to hold it against her that she inherited oodles of money from her
> father and dares to ....spend it!

I had no idea she was *that* wealthy, and spending a lot of money on
clothes etc. would seem like small change to her...

However, the way I interpreted Paul's post was that he thought that it
didn't fit in with the 'common man' image that the McCain clan is
trying to give. IOW, how many voters can afford to dress up in the same
way? Maybe I was wrong. <shrug>


> I consider her spending money a good thing. It provides jobs for
> people, right?

But then by the same logic, burgling houses or murdering people is good
too, as it provides jobs for policemen and judges, right?
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

There is no such thing as a little garlic. ~A. Baer

On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 12:39:14 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:

> Wayne Boatwright > wrote:
>
>> Who gives a flying **** what you're doing? Why the hell can't you at least
>> have the decency to mark such posts as "OT"? Oh, that's right, most of
>> your posts would be marked "OT".
>>
>> I'm fed up with your ramblings and gibberish about nothing related to rfc.
>>
>> Bye bye!
>
> Ahh, another convertee. Now if I could only get you interested in
> women...
>
> -sw

home-wrecker!

your pal,
cindy

On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 13:04:32 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:

> Sqwertz > wrote:
>
>> Ahh, another convertee. Now if I could only get you interested in
>> women...
>
> ...women other than Gregory Morrow, that is.
>
> -sw

pish-tosh. morrow's no woman; women have much more sense.

your pal,
blake

On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 15:01:07 -0500, Gregory Morrow wrote:

> Sqwertz wrote:
>
>> Sqwertz > wrote:
>>
>>> Ahh, another convertee. Now if I could only get you interested in
>>> women...
>>
>> ...women other than Gregory Morrow, that is.
>
>
> "Oooooooh, Steve..............you really SEND meeeeeeeee............I'll
> wear my extra - big pair of fake tittties for ewe
> tonight......................"
>
> <blushing>

i still doubt he'll let you suck his dick.

blake

blake murphy > wrote:

> i still doubt he'll let you suck his dick.

At our last local Usenet food get-together I actually was
propositioned with that exact offer (with Om as my witness!). I
tried to break it to him gently and good naturedly, but he was still
pretty disappointed. At least I know who to call if I ever get that
urge.

Greg, OTOH, I wouldn't be so good-natured with. Stand in line,
Greg. I've got plenty of better suitors to choose from in the
meantime.

-sw

Omelet > wrote:

> In article >, Andy <q> wrote:
>
>> Wayne,
>>
>> Are we having a bad day?
>>
>> Andy
>> "Living in the free world"
>> --Neil Young
>
> No, you are a loser.
>
> And have been for quite some time.

Ouch. At least there's a sentiment that you and Goomba can both
agree on ;-)

-sw

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> Omelet > wrote:
>
>> In article >, Andy <q> wrote:
>>
>>> Wayne,
>>>
>>> Are we having a bad day?
>>>
>>> Andy
>>> "Living in the free world"
>>> --Neil Young
>>
>> No, you are a loser.
>>
>> And have been for quite some time.
>
> Ouch. At least there's a sentiment that you and Goomba can both
> agree on ;-)
>

And are probably somewhat expert on, from the point of view of the "it takes
one to know one" crowd.

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 13:04:32 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:
>
>> Sqwertz > wrote:
>>
>>> Ahh, another convertee. Now if I could only get you interested in
>>> women...
>>
>> ...women other than Gregory Morrow, that is.
>>
>> -sw
>
> pish-tosh. morrow's no woman; women have much more sense.
>

We also smell a lot better. Even on our worst days.

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 15:01:07 -0500, Gregory Morrow wrote:
>
>> Sqwertz wrote:
>>
>>> Sqwertz > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ahh, another convertee. Now if I could only get you interested in
>>>> women...
>>>
>>> ...women other than Gregory Morrow, that is.
>>
>>
>> "Oooooooh, Steve..............you really SEND meeeeeeeee............I'll
>> wear my extra - big pair of fake tittties for ewe
>> tonight......................"
>>
>> <blushing>
>
> i still doubt he'll let you suck his dick.
>
I love it when you talk dirty. *brushing my Charo wig*

Omelet wrote:
> In article >,
> "Bob Terwilliger" > wrote:
>
>> Paul wrote:
>>
>>> Vogue magazine wrote about the dress Cindy McCain wore at the RNC opening
>>> night party. A very private affair and she wore a $300,000.00 dress.
>>> That is 6 years worth of before tax income for the average American. And
>>> this is supposed to be the "common man." I don't think so.
>> The dress itself cost only one-one-hundredth of that price:
>>
>> Oscar de la Renta dress: $3,000
>> Chanel J12 White Ceramic Watch: $4,500
>> Three-carat diamond earrings: $280,000
>> Four-strand pearl necklace: $11,000-$25,000
>> Shoes, designer unknown: $600
>> Total: Between $299,100 and $313,100
>>
>> Obviously, the diamond earrings were the big-ticket items, not the dress.
>>
>> Bob
>


And who knows, she may have BORROWED the diamonds from her favorite
basketball player's ears. (Yeah, right.)
;-)

gloria p

"cybercat" > wrote in
:

> And as long as Om gets her fat ass examined at a decent
> cost twice a year, she doesn't give a ****.

the government supports research at the pharmacutical
companies, but they also allow the same companies never ending
patents on the products the funding supported. this is why
there are so few generics of newer drugs.
my anti-cancer med, that i have to take for at least the next
5 years (& probably for the rest of my life, which i expect to
be another 40 or more years), costs me $320/month. it has been
on the market for 20 years, so there should be a generic
version now, but there's not.
the real fun part is that, even if i find someplace that will
sell me health insurance now, cancer will be a pre-existing
condition & therefore not covered.

lee
--
Last night while sitting in my chair
I pinged a host that wasn't there
It wasn't there again today
The host resolved to NSA.

--
http://www.judithgreenwood.com
> "Omelet" > ha scritto nel messaggio newsmpomelet-
>
>> I have thyroid issues. I need to keep my thermostat at 72. ;-)
>
> I do not even have a thyroid and I have never heard this suggested as the
> mildest of help. In thirty years of treatment in three countries, no one
> has told me to override my body's thermostatic abilities. My two sisters,
> both medical professionals, also are being treated for thyroid problems
> and they also never heard of this.

"Omelet" > ha scritto nel messaggio
> "Giusi" > wrote:
>> We live in Europe with much higher energy costs. We try hard not to
>> waste
>> energy because it costs too much. There's still a lot to do, but believe
>> me
>> when I say that paying over $4800 a year for heat and lights and minimal
>> car
>> use for a single person is hardly getting a bargain.
>
> I pay a lot more than that! My MONTHLY utility for power, water, sewage >
> and garbage runs me no less than $400.00. This month was $480.00. My
> monthly fuel bill for mine and dads cars (I commute 32 miles per day
> round trip) is costing about $250.00 per month. That's $600.00 to
> $700.00 per month, or $7,200 to $8,400 per year.

1. you are two people
2. you included things I did not such as rubbush and water
3. you commute.

I have been rationing myself to 30 liters of gas per month for some time
now. If I go on a job which uses more than 10 liters, there is a trip
charge. I use public transport which where I live is not easy.

"Omelet" > ha scritto nel messaggio > "Paul M. Cook"
> wrote:
>
>> >> > Good grief! She paid *HOW MUCH* for a dress? I could buy a nice
>> >> > house
>> >> > for that price 'round here. I thought wealthy movie stars didn't
>> >> > even
>> >> > spend that much for a single dress... >> >>
>> >> Paul
>> >
>> > And men put up with this from women... why? So they can wear Rolexes?
>> > <g>

She's the one with the money, how can McCain have anything to say about it?

>> > Seriously, if she spent HER money on it and not tax payers money, I'm
>> > ok
>> > with it. It's her money after all...
>> > and that makes jobs. :-)

I suspect it paid some handworkers in Paris and China.
That is their
>> option I suppose but it dispels the myth that trickle don is a viable
>> economic practice.
>>
>> Paul
>
> It can work... but it depends on the individual.
> The trick is teaching them social consciousness.

That is your job. I am empowering you to teach Ms McCain to have a social
conscience.

On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 15:13:38 -0400, Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

> "Saerah Gray" > wrote in message
>>
>> What's so bad about higher taxes if it benefits us as a whole?
>>
>>
>
> Higher taxes have NEVER benefited us as a whole. It you want to give away
> more of your money, give to charity, not funding a government pork project
> or other inefficient program.

yep, no one ever benefited from roads, public health, public schools, or
national defense. everything you have was wrested from the earth with your
own two hands so you deserve EVERY GODDAMN BIT OF IT.

my hat's off to you, really.

blake

On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 19:16:21 GMT, Saerah Gray wrote:

> "Edwin Pawlowski" > fnord
> news >
>>
>> "Saerah Gray" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> What's so bad about higher taxes if it benefits us as a whole?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Higher taxes have NEVER benefited us as a whole. It you want to give
>> away more of your money, give to charity, not funding a government
>> pork project or other inefficient program.
>>
>>
>>
>
> I agree that the money is often wasted, but higher taxes, in and of
> themselves, are not always a bad thing.The lowering of taxes isn't the
> panacea it is often made out to be.

no, no, no. lowering taxes is only good if you *lower them on people who
are already rich*. middle class people would just blow the money on gas or
food or something.

your pal,
george

On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 05:14:26 -0500, Omelet wrote:

> In article >,
> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
>
>> "Omelet" > wrote in message
>> news
>>> In article >,
>>> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> A better question is just how are we going to pay for 9 trillion dollars
>>>> in
>>>> republican debt?
>>>
>>> Drill for oil in Alaska.
>>> --
>>
>> They already do. Lots of it. Millions of barrels per year. They sell it
>> all to Japan. If we want to use it, we have to buy it back from Japan or
>> the commodities market. They being those oil companies who have extraction
>> rights that include no strings attached as to who gets it. Alaska gasoline
>> is very expensive easily double what we pay now. Why do you suppose that
>> is? More drilling makes Exxon richer but does nothing to lower our national
>> debt. You seem to think we have nationalized oil companies when in fact
>> they are multi-national corporations. They are not even American companies,
>> they just incorporate here.
>>
>> Paul
>
> And that needs to be changed! It's f-ing BS that American oil gets sold
> on the commodities market! We need to use American oil in AMERICA and
> only sell off the excess.
>
> We SHOULD have nationalized oil companies!

tsk, tsk. how communistic of you.

since the u.s. consumes a *whole lot* more than it consumes, it's hard to
say where this 'excess' would come from.

blake

In article >,
Gloria P > wrote:

> And who knows, she may have BORROWED the diamonds from her favorite
> basketball player's ears. (Yeah, right.)
> ;-)
>
> gloria p

Or, more likely, from Harry Winston, like the Hollywood stars do.

--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://web.mac.com/barbschaller, and here's the link to my appearance
on "A Prairie Home Companion," <http://prairiehome.publicradio.org/
programs/2008/08/30/>

On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 06:13:30 -0500, Omelet wrote:

> In article >,
> "Giusi" > wrote:
>>
>> Cue hysterical laughter...
>>
>> that's not only a Socialist take it's like incredibly naive and lacks
>> understanding of a free market. US oil IS a commodity. It is bought and
>> sold on the world market to who will pay. If you make it unavailable on the
>> free market, then the rest of the world may decide to keep their oil from
>> the US market. Since the US market is the most wasteful and greedy of all,
>> that would leave the US with only Alaskan and Texan and Gulf of Mexico oil,
>> pretty much.
>> Better turn everything off, Om, because your solution could flip the switch
>> for the entire country. You think "What's mine is mine and what's yours is
>> mine also."
>
> Babe, all I know is that right now, the cost of energy is hurting and
> even killing a lot of people.
>
> There has to be a way to fix that.
>
> The needs of our nation, our tax payers have to come first.
> The damn Dem's are living in fields of unicorns and have not really
> shown me anything that will help soonest.

drilling for more oil might help in ten years, *maybe*. what about thirty
years after that, when *everyone* runs out of oil?

blake

On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 04:50:37 -0700, Bob Terwilliger wrote:

> Paul wrote:
>
>> They have proposed releasing oil from the Strategtic Reserve, shot down by
>> the republicans.
>
> Much as I despise GWB and think he's an idiot and a tool, I have to agree
> with him on this one. The Strategic Reserve exists to deal with a critical
> shortage of oil, not as a mechanism for lowering oil prices.
>
> Bob

i think you're right about this. the oil should be left there for
something *really* catastrophic, not political diddling.

blake

In article >,
says...
> "Omelet" > ha scritto nel messaggio
> > "Giusi" > wrote:
> >> We live in Europe with much higher energy costs. We try hard not to
> >> waste
> >> energy because it costs too much. There's still a lot to do, but believe
> >> me
> >> when I say that paying over $4800 a year for heat and lights and minimal
> >> car
> >> use for a single person is hardly getting a bargain.
> >
> > I pay a lot more than that! My MONTHLY utility for power, water, sewage >
> > and garbage runs me no less than $400.00. This month was $480.00. My
> > monthly fuel bill for mine and dads cars (I commute 32 miles per day
> > round trip) is costing about $250.00 per month. That's $600.00 to
> > $700.00 per month, or $7,200 to $8,400 per year.
>
> 1. you are two people
> 2. you included things I did not such as rubbush and water
> 3. you commute.
>
> I have been rationing myself to 30 liters of gas per month for some time
> now. If I go on a job which uses more than 10 liters, there is a trip
> charge. I use public transport which where I live is not easy.
>
>
>

Right now my commute is about 60 miles via commuter and subway rail, but
driving would be 40 miles.

I'm looking at cars for the two of us and have settled initially on a
Smart twofour, and then a few months later a Honda Civic Hybrid. Both
cars get 40MPG or greater highway which is what I want.

I calculated the cost to run the Smart on an 80 mile a day commute. It
has an 8 gallon tank so highway range would be 320 miles or 4 days of
round trip commute. Being that I work from home 2 days a week it means a
tankful lasts two weeks.

With gas at $4 a gallon (my estimate) my monthly would be about $64, I
budget $100 a month. I also budget $100 a month for insurance, 100/300
liability and comprehensive without collission since I'll be paying cash
for the car. If it's involved in a collision that isn't my fault, I'll
just subrogate it through my insurance company.

I also added $50 per month for a repair fund. I estimate over the first
3 years maintenance items will be < $200 per year. But I'll have banked
$1,800 less $600 means $1,200 for the big repairs that'll start mounting
in years 4 through 10.

So that brings the total cost to run the Smart to $250 per month.
Curiously my commuter pass for the MBTA costs me $250 a month but the
car gives me so much more freedom.

blake murphy > wrote:

>On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 15:13:38 -0400, Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

>> "Saerah Gray" > wrote in message

>>> What's so bad about higher taxes if it benefits us as a whole?

>> Higher taxes have NEVER benefited us as a whole. It you want to give away
>> more of your money, give to charity, not funding a government pork project
>> or other inefficient program.

>yep, no one ever benefited from roads, public health, public schools, or
>national defense. everything you have was wrested from the earth with your
>own two hands so you deserve EVERY GODDAMN BIT OF IT.

>my hat's off to you, really.

It's pretty easy to demonstrate that the most successful
economies, historically, have had fairly high rates of taxation
(United States in the 20th century, the Roman Empire, etc.).
The only other success stories had high levels of
mercantilism -- direct government ownership of businesses --
like the British Empire through much of its history. That
is just another form of tax.

There is no such thing as a successful, low-tax state, unless
you want to count offshore tax havens.

Steve

On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 06:55:00 -0500, Omelet wrote:

> In article >,
> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
>
>> "Omelet" > wrote in message
>> news
>>> In article >,
>>> "Giusi" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Omelet" > ha scritto nel messaggio
>>>> >
>>>> > And that needs to be changed! It's f-ing BS that American oil gets sold
>>>> > on the commodities market! We need to use American oil in AMERICA and
>>>> > only sell off the excess.
>>>> >
>>>> > We SHOULD have nationalized oil companies!
>>>> > --
>>>> > Peace! Om
>>>>
>>>> Cue hysterical laughter...
>>>>
>>>> that's not only a Socialist take it's like incredibly naive and lacks
>>>> understanding of a free market. US oil IS a commodity. It is bought and
>>>> sold on the world market to who will pay. If you make it unavailable on
>>>> the
>>>> free market, then the rest of the world may decide to keep their oil from
>>>> the US market. Since the US market is the most wasteful and greedy of
>>>> all,
>>>> that would leave the US with only Alaskan and Texan and Gulf of Mexico
>>>> oil,
>>>> pretty much.
>>>> Better turn everything off, Om, because your solution could flip the
>>>> switch
>>>> for the entire country. You think "What's mine is mine and what's yours
>>>> is
>>>> mine also."
>>>
>>> Babe, all I know is that right now, the cost of energy is hurting and
>>> even killing a lot of people.
>>>
>>> There has to be a way to fix that.
>>>
>>> The needs of our nation, our tax payers have to come first.
>>> The damn Dem's are living in fields of unicorns and have not really
>>> shown me anything that will help soonest.
>>> --
>>
>> Yes they have Om. They have proposd ending the "Enron Loophole" which is
>> causing extreme speculation through dark markets. It was stonewalled by the
>> republicans. They have proposed releasing oil from the Strategtic Reserve,
>> shot down by the republicans. And this has worked in the past. So they
>> have tried and each time the republicans obstructed it. The republicans
>> want leases sold with no strings attached and that by the DOE analysis won't
>> do anything for years.
>>
>> The republicans have had years to deal with this and they did nothing. Now
>> in an election year they want to make hay with it.
>>
>> Paul
>
> Time will tell... My mind is seldom totally closed about things like
> this, but I need to be shown by _action_.
>
> Actions always speak louder than words!
>
> We need fixes NOW. Not in 20 years.

bush thought a good fix would be to invade iraq, and thus control their
reserves.

there are no fixes for *now*.

blake