Bob Myers wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> "??? Let's see, my dictionary lists the following
> > > possibilities for that word:
> >
> > It's common, and valued by people with vastly more money than taste.
> >
>
> "Common" is hardly a failing; air is common, and yet I'll bet
> we all still like having it around.

That's a different meaning of common, and I think you know it.

You were feigning confusion over "vulgar", and I attempted to help you
out. I guess I failed. Let's try again. A Ford Explorer is common,
and vulgar; a Mercedes-Benz CL65 AMG is not, although mostly vulgar
people with more money than sense will buy them.


>
> The rest should, of course, include a disclaimer noting that this is
> only in your apparently not-so-humble opinion.
>
> Forgive me if I seem a bit defensive, but I happen to be among
> those who have chosen a Corian-like countertop material,

Oh - quelle surprise!


> and for what I consider to be some very valid reasons.

Only one: your wish to appear richer than you are.

Asmodeus wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')"
> > wrote in
> :
>
> > There is an amendment allowing the income tax at the federal
>
> Yes, there is. There is nothing, however, in the Constitution
> that grans the Federal goverment the power to set up socialist
> welfare programs.

....

OTOH, neither is there anything prohibiting the passage of laws setting
up social programs.

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote

> Bob Myers wrote:

>> and for what I consider to be some very valid reasons.
>
> Only one: your wish to appear richer than you are.

Why do you say that, I wonder. I regret that I didn't get
granite when I redid my kitchen, I can assure you it's for
a reason so far removed from trying to appear rich it's
not even funny. I'm sure Bob, equally, couldn't care less
what people think of his financial status.

nancy (bought pre-shredded cole slaw yesterday just
because she felt like it)

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Malibu Skipper wrote:
> > Duane Bozarth wrote:
> > > Malibu Skipper wrote:
> > > ...
> > >
> > >>... is an economy which requires constant growth, and the
> > >>only way to achieve that growth is through equally unprecedented levels
> > >>of debt. ...
> > >
> > >
> > > There's where you're wrong. It isn't required although some indeed do
> > > do so. That's their specific failing.
> >
> > No, that's our economy's failing. If we all started living within our
> > means tomorrow,
>
> How is it the economy's failing that you don't live within your means?
> Just DO it: drive a smaller and older car; live in a smaller house;
> don't buy the latest gee-whiz consumer electronics; get rid of the
> jet-ski and other recreational vehicles; cook more of your meals at
> home, using fresh ingredients; go to the library three times as often
> as you go to the movies.
>
> There are myriad ways you can cut back, while still leading a
> satisfying life.

Yes, and the things you mentioned seem to put us back in touch with who
we really are, and give us a quality of life. We always seem to need to
be distracted from our lives, and _rampant_ consumerism seems to
function as a type of drug. And I admit -- I"ve been very guilty of it.
But now it has no meaning, and I'd rather simplify my life, and save
money <though it all seems to be going into the gas tank and for health
insurance, anyway>.

I like the library, I like cooking meals at home and I like a more
simplified, community oriented life.

I just don't _NEED_ all that stuff.

Living within your means feels good, and it frees you from having to
keep up with the Joneses, so to speak, which is quite a relief.

We can remove ourseves from the consumer competetion which forces us to
always one up our friends and neighbors in the goods department.

It's not bad to want things -- I consider my ipod a godsend -- but I
don't realy need that $8,000 big screen TV or that 45,000 dollar car.

I want a better quality of life.


> > there would be no paper money to fund the constant cycle
> > of growth, and the pyramid would collapse. As I said, it's a ponzi scheme.
>
> You don't know your ass from your face. "Paper" money is but a tiny
> fraction of the total money supply.

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
ups.com...
"??? Let's see, my dictionary lists the following
> > possibilities for that word:
>
> It's common, and valued by people with vastly more money than taste.
>

"Common" is hardly a failing; air is common, and yet I'll bet
we all still like having it around.

The rest should, of course, include a disclaimer noting that this is
only in your apparently not-so-humble opinion.

Forgive me if I seem a bit defensive, but I happen to be among
those who have chosen a Corian-like countertop material, and for
what I consider to be some very valid reasons. They might not
line up with your particular set of preferences, but hey, lots of
people are going to have preferences different from yours - I
suggest you get used to it.

Bob M.

Duane Bozarth > wrote in
:

> OTOH, neither is there anything prohibiting the passage of laws
> setting up social programs.

Yes there is. It's called the Tenth Amendment. Look it up.


--
/"\ ||
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN || Oderint Dum Metuant
X AGAINST HTML MAIL || VRWC Proud Life Member
/ \ AND POSTINGS || http://www.rightwingnation.com

Ernst Blofeld wrote:
> Malibu Skipper wrote:
>
>>No, that's our economy's failing. If we all started living within our
>>means tomorrow, there would be no paper money to fund the constant cycle
>>of growth, and the pyramid would collapse. As I said, it's a ponzi scheme.
>
>
> It isn't inherent. If the savings rate went up to five or ten percent
> there would
> be a dip in consumer demand for a while, then everything would return
> to
> pretty much as before, perhaps with a lower growth rate.
>
> the "inherent" stuff is swerving pretty close to the old Marxist canard
>
> that Capitalism was doomed, doomed!
>
Well, I suspect that capitalism is doomed, doomed. At best, it has
another five billion years.

But the form of hyperactive consumer capitalism we're practicing now is
probably doomed a lot sooner than that. We're on the edge a numerous
bubbles right now -- if the Chinese decide they're tired of of holding
our paper, or if the real estate bubble bursts, or if the price of oil
takes another monster leap, we'll be in real trouble. For some reason,
we seem to have decided that we're immune to the laws of economics.

But we aren't.

"Bob Myers" > wrote in
:

> The "general welfare of the United States" (with "United States"
> assumed to also cover its citizenry as individuals) is what is
> assumed to cover social programs

Only if you've never read the Federalist Papers, know nothing
of American history, and believe you can "interpret" the Constitution
to mean anything you want it to mean.

Course, that era of the SCOTUS is about to be over. Thank God.

--
/"\ ||
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN || Oderint Dum Metuant
X AGAINST HTML MAIL || VRWC Proud Life Member
/ \ AND POSTINGS || http://www.rightwingnation.com

"Asmodeus" <bondcATrightwingnationDOTcom> wrote in message
. 97.142...
> Duane Bozarth > wrote in
> :
>
> > OTOH, neither is there anything prohibiting the passage of laws
> > setting up social programs.
>
> Yes there is. It's called the Tenth Amendment. Look it up.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or
to
the people.

However, within the body of the Constitution itself, we also find:

Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and
Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general
Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be
uniform throughout the United States;

The "general welfare of the United States" (with "United States"
assumed to also cover its citizenry as individuals) is what is assumed to
cover social programs, which have been held to be legal so long as
(per the remainder of this portion of Sect. 8) the taxes which
fund such things are "uniform throughout the United States."

If you disagree with this interpretation, you are of course free to
challenge whatever "social programs" annoy you the most on
Constitutional grounds. Lotsa luck...


Bob M.

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> > and for what I consider to be some very valid reasons.
>
> Only one: your wish to appear richer than you are.

Or at least, so you assume. Frankly, I could not possibly care
less how my kitchen "appears" to other people (other than
"clean," which seems to cause other people to be more likely
to actually eat what I prepare there - go figure). The
countertop material I chose met my requirements of providing
a smooth, easy-to-clean-and-maintain surface, and one which
(unlike Formica) would not have the problem of the color
layer wearing through with extensive use. As you're most likely
NOT following this thread in the same group I am (rec.food.cooking),
I perhaps need to point out that many of us who are responding
with comments on this subject actually use our kitchens for
(miracle of miracles!) COOKING.

Bob M.

"Dee Randall" > wrote in
:

>
> "enigma" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Dee Randall" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>>> Oh, since granite is not so fashionable now, is there
>>> anything else within reason (price and weight &
>>> cleanability) that people like? Any comments will be
>>> helpful (and USEFUL!) Thanks,
>>
>> i *hate* my ceramic tiled floor in the kitchen! it came
>> with the house, it's nothing i'd ever put in. i'd love to
>> get rid of it & put in real linoleum...
>> if you don't live on a farm ceramic might be ok, but with
>> all the mud & dirt that comes in, it gets scratched,
>> chipped & ugly... and there's no way to wax it or
>> otherwise 'fix' the problem.
>> i'm planning on replacing my formica with slate. it's
>> durable, looks good & goes with an 1815 house. if i can't
>> afford slate, maybe concrete... looks kinda like slate, is
>> durable & can be tinted.
>> lee
>
> I had a slate entrance in a house we bought a long time ago
> in the state of Washington. It was nice, but always looks
> pretty dull. And it sure would keep a lot of mud and dirt
> IN the crevices. Isn't slate mostly unavailable anymore?

no, slate countertops (& maybe sink). slate comes from VT so
it's pretty local here.
i had slate floors in a house once too. they were a pain to
maintain... in my case the builder had used very wide cement
joints between the slate pieces, which were just patio slate.
the cement held dirt pretty badly, but the slate looked good
with a damp mop once/week.
another good surface for a kitchen floor is cork. i've heard
bamboo is good but i haven't actually seen a bamboo floor.
lee
--
war is peace
freedom is slavery
ignorance is strength
1984-George Orwell

"Sheldon"

> As a child I grew up...

You LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!








Shaun aRe

3D Peruna wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:
>
> >
> > Asmodeus wrote:
> >
> >>"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')"
>
> >
> >>>Aren't you paid in society's money?
> >>
> >>No, I am paid by my employer, not society. It is my employer's
> >>money until I get paid.
> >>
> >
> > The money says that it is a "Federal Reserve Note" printed right on the
> > top front, along with "The United States of America" topish right side
> > front. I think that should make it clear who the ultimate arbitrator is
> > for transactions done with that currency at least.
>
> In 1913 the Federal Reserve Bank was established without any
> Constitutional authority to do so. When the gold standard was removed
> (which was a primary long term purpose of the FRB), the Federal
> government was able to "make" as much money as it wanted...which is a
> whole different discussion. But that Federal Reserve note also states
> "for all debts public or private." With that statement the government
> doesn't really matter much does it (until it no longer exists and makes
> having any of those papers useless).
>
> In 1913 two other events happened which sowed the seeds for the mess
> we're in today. 1) The constitutional amendment authorizing congress
> to collect income taxes. 2) The popular vote of senators instead of
> senators being appointed by states' legislatures. These three things
> have done more damage to the republic than any other events before or
> since. The gave congress the ability to have a hand in our pocket,
> print the money it couldn't steal (for unconstitutional expenditures)
> and made sure that the people would vote for those who promised the most
> from the public treasury.

A rather novel presentation, not particularly novel interpretation, but
not particularly accurate, either.

I don't see a Constituional provision that was violated by the FRB, nor
by the removal of the gold standard (nor any other arbitrary standard,
for that matter).

The assertion that Senators being appointed by State Legisatures
removing them from partisanship and politicing is simply specious on its
face--since the State legislatures are elected to start with.

3D Peruna wrote:
>
> chris.holt wrote:
>
> > Peter Aitken wrote:
> >
> >> "chris.holt" > wrote...
> >
> >
> >>> When I
> >>> first saw pre-grated cheddar cheese, I was startled. Now
> >>> I see pre-sliced lettuce, carrots etc. And usually it's
> >>> lower income people I see buying it, the ones for whom
> >>> five minutes in the kitchen cannot possibly be worth the
> >>> markup.
> >
> >
> >> How does "pre-grated cheese" differ from "grated cheese?"
> >
> >
> > Well, I think of grated cheese as something you get when
> > you take a block of cheese and a grater and then grate it.
> > I don't mind simplifying it, since saying "buying grated
> > cheese" carries the meaning, just as "buying chopped
> > lettuce" does. But in contexts where the 'buying' part
> > isn't obvious, the prefix can help to distinguish whether
> > it was done in the kitchen or in the supermarket (or before
> > that).
> >
> > Parmesan is different of course; anyone who wants to buy
> > blocks of parmesan probably wants to eat it that way too.
> > Yum.
> >
> >
>
> No...that's gross. Pre-grated parmesan cheese is icky, and according
> the EU rules, isn't really Pareesan cheese, but something different.
> Only cheese from the Parma region gets to be called Parmesan cheese.

That goes under the guise of "a rose by any other name"---the same
culture produces the same cheese irrespective of where it may originate
geographically--EU rules notwithstanding.

As for the grated vs non, one might as well argue against sliced bread
for most consumers....

Duane Bozarth > wrote in
:

> I don't see a Constituional provision that was violated by the FRB

Other than the tenth amendment.

--
/"\ ||
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN || Oderint Dum Metuant
X AGAINST HTML MAIL || VRWC Proud Life Member
/ \ AND POSTINGS || http://www.rightwingnation.com