A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The governmant is so insidious. They tax EVERTHING



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 7th 04, 03:31 AM
Daniel J. Stern
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 7 Mar 2004, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:

> We simply no longer had
> time to wait to try to achieve UN consensus.


Yeah, 'cause if we'd waited any longer, Saddam would've used those weapons
of mass distraction he didn't have...right? Pffft.

DS
Ads
  #2  
Old March 7th 04, 08:04 PM
Daniel J. Stern
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 7 Mar 2004, Louis Hom wrote:

> >I agree had that been possible in a reasonable time frame.
> >Unfortunately, most governments in place today are too much like France
> >and don't have the spine to take on terrorists. We simply no longer
> >had time to wait to try to achieve UN consensus.

>
> But it seems like we didn't have any such problem waiting to
> organize against the threat in Afghanistan.


And hey, we're still waiting -- probably fornever -- to invade China. It
is, after all, an unfree country run by brutal dictators, possessing
weapons of mass destruction. They conduct economic terrorism against the
US every day, and have been doing so for the last 15 years. They've even
got lots of oil. Oh wait, that's right, we haven't attacked them because
we'd lose, and because the MBAs of America have a permanent hard-on for
China.

Hello, double standard?


  #3  
Old March 8th 04, 03:53 AM
Greg Houston
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The governmant is so insidious. They tax EVERTHING



Greg Houston wrote:

> The USA announced that it was going into Afghanistan on September 19, 2001. This
> was a mere eight (8) days after the worst terrorist attack in history.


Correction: That should say "in US history."

  #4  
Old March 8th 04, 02:45 PM
Louis Hom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article k.net>,
Joseph Oberlander > wrote:
>
>People wonder why California is bankrupt.


At least some part of it is due to Prop 13, and the expenses that
over the decades have bubbled up toward the state level. The huge fires
of this past year left many to comment that you either pay for it along
the way in taxes or you pay in one huge lump sum when nobody might expect
it.

P.S. I think my friends at *.saturn are getting tired of this thread.
Maybe we should go to e-mail.
--
__________________________________________________ ____________________________
Lou Hom >K'93

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/
  #5  
Old March 8th 04, 03:52 PM
Louis Hom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, Greg Houston > wrote:
>
>about the deficits, than you worry about tax cuts. The deficits are a result of
>spending, which is a function of the US fighting for security. Another


Deficits are the result of spending more than you take in. Either
you're spending too much, taking in too little, or a combination of both.
You seem to blame it all on spending. I blame it on some of the tax cuts.
--
__________________________________________________ ____________________________
Lou Hom >K'93

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/
  #7  
Old March 9th 04, 03:23 AM
James C. Reeves
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Bill Putney" > wrote in message
...
|
| Another couple of critical questions: When did Clinton get the UN
| approval to invade and topple Kosovo? How many nations were involved in
| the "multinational" UN-approved invasion of Kosovo?
|
| Bill Putney
| (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
| address with "x")
|

He didn't. The UN told Clinton specifically to stay out of it, if memory
serves me. It's interesting that Bush keeps getting blamed for the policy of
pre-emption, but Clinton set the precedence, as you basically point out.

But having said that, what does this topic have to do with cars? ;-)



  #8  
Old March 9th 04, 07:59 AM
hiroshima facts
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Tony P. > wrote in message >. ..
>
> As to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, evidence is now coming out that the prime
> motivation was to scare the USSR more than force the Japanese surrender.


There is no evidence coming out that says anything at all like that.
All evidence shows that the point of the bombs was to force Japan to
accept Potsdam.




> Most people now believe that Japan was prepared to surrender even before
> the Hiroshima device was dropped.


It is a shame that Japan was not prepared to surrender on our terms.

The way out for them was to accept Potsdam. Trying to surrender on
unacceptable terms was a non-starter, and a mistake that got them
nuked twice.




> Nagasaki was just a bonus and a test of a slightly different device.


Nagasaki was an attempt to force Japan to accept Potsdam.
  #9  
Old March 9th 04, 12:16 PM
Brandon Sommerville
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 14:04:04 -0500, "Daniel J. Stern"
> wrote:

>And hey, we're still waiting -- probably fornever -- to invade China. It
>is, after all, an unfree country run by brutal dictators, possessing
>weapons of mass destruction. They conduct economic terrorism against the
>US every day, and have been doing so for the last 15 years. They've even
>got lots of oil. Oh wait, that's right, we haven't attacked them because
>we'd lose, and because the MBAs of America have a permanent hard-on for
>China.
>
>Hello, double standard?


Well, China can hit back. Why do you think there are such kid gloves
for North Korea?
--
Brandon Sommerville (remove ".gov" to e-mail)

Her name was Valerie Plame, and she was a NOC. She was keeping weapons of mass
destruction out of the hands of terrorists. What was the Bush administration doing?
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/022404A.shtml
  #10  
Old March 9th 04, 12:16 PM
Brandon Sommerville
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 02:23:51 GMT, "Matthew S. Whiting"
> wrote:

>I agree had that been possible in a reasonable time frame.
>Unfortunately, most governments in place today are too much like France
>and don't have the spine to take on terrorists. We simply no longer had
>time to wait to try to achieve UN consensus.


Why did we have no more time? Because the inspectors weren't finding
anything? Because the "coalition of the willing" was falling apart?
Because Ms. Gun had to blab about UN members being illegally bugged to
get information to coerce them to come aboard?

Or was it because Saddam was about to pull the trigger on the WMDs
that no one can seem to find?
--
Brandon Sommerville (remove ".gov" to e-mail)

Her name was Valerie Plame, and she was a NOC. She was keeping weapons of mass
destruction out of the hands of terrorists. What was the Bush administration doing?
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/022404A.shtml
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The DMV is so insidious. They are allowed to tax used propertysales. [email protected] General 0 February 29th 04 10:09 PM
The DMV is so insidious. They are allowed to tax used property sa Tony P. General 0 February 26th 04 02:19 AM
The DMV is so insidious. They are allowed to tax used property sales. Louis Hom General 0 February 25th 04 02:45 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.