OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid

Where did you see anyone say that there should be NO taxes? I sure
didn't say it. Some level of taxation is necessary to perform those
minimal services as the federal government is intended to do, such as
national defense, etc...

The Republicans didn't lie to take us to war. You could argue that
Bush lied, but he is not "The Republicans" any more than KKK Grand
Master Robert Byrd is "The Democrats".

 

Absolutely, it is. And that is just plain wrong, and possibly
unconstitutional. Taxes are a requirement to keep the government
running. But the Federal Government, as defined in the Constitution,
is not there to be our nanny.

 

You should try living in a country where people pay little or no taxes.
You might be surprised, even educated.

 

You might try not obsfuscating the issue. I have never advocated for
a society without taxes. I advocate a society that matches the intent
of the founders of this country. An extremely limited federal
government, and more powerful state and local governments. While, in
my world, federal taxes would be lower, local and state taxes would
likely be a bit higher than they are now, though they would be voted
on by lawmakers that are much more answerable to the voters...

Instead of trying to decide who I am, perhaps you could address the
actual issues we are discussing. I'd hate to think that they are all
over your head, and your just trying to appear to be a part of this
conversation that you don't really grasp...

 

you are only half right. the greenies are stiffling any attempt to put
up any new plants, as no one wants one in THERE back yard.

here you are conpletly full of it. It has been higher than one to one
fo a very long time. many independent sourses agreea on that. also it is
increasing in efficiency all the time. also most ethanol plants are
majority owned by farmer investors not Archer. also a tax reduction is
NOT a subisidy. allowing one to keep there own money is not a subusidy.
Oil on the other hand is massively subusized.

once again you got it wrong!!! the price of crops has gone up because of
the price of fuel and increase in world demand for food, and mostly
because of the huge drop in the dollars value because the government is
pumping massive amounts of paper into the system to try to pay off its
depts with inflated cheeper money. Both branches are guilty of this
because no one will cut spending. actuall spending has not been cut in
probably 50 years or more.

the reality is most goods will skyrocket in price as almost everything
uses oil in some form. it will likely destroy what is left of our
abality to compete in the world as no one else will be affected, because
no one else is dumb enough to do it. they won`t cripple there economies
this way.

communist countries do that. excuse me socialist countries.
because most people are stupid enough to vote for the one that says
they will do the most for them insead of what is the best for the
country.

again your full of crap but in this case it doesn`t mater. neither would
have been any better. neither party has a nickles worth of difference
between them and they are both so far to the left you can`t even see to
the right. also both are ignoring the constitution so much we might as
well not have one.
A true constitutionl government would have 90% of the congress and
judges impeached and may shot for anti constituional behaveure.
KB

 

"The solution to any problem is NEVER more taxes."

This is the silly statement to which I responded. It isn't over my head.

 

Clearly, it is...

 

I suppose we could continue to let the market fix the problem. Sure worked
well over the last 30 years...... lol

Republicans claim that government doesn't work. When they win office they
prove it.

What kills me is the assumption that the market and private industry is so
efficient. Explain Enron to me please.....

 

It's real simple - it was an extremely unethical company. One out of
how many?

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

Someone call George Bush I and let him know about this ('cause he's
the one that recognized that Reagan's excesses could only be paid down
with new taxes...)

Notice that Bush II decided to follow Reagan's path of record setting
deficits - thereby insuring that his successor will have to do what
his Dad did to pay down more record deficits.

 

The oil problem started in 1999 when Phil Gramm added a bill to an
appropriations bill at the last minute which deregulated the commodity
markets. This part of the bill had been proposed separately three times
, but failed. The part added to the appropriations bill was written by
Wendy Gramm, Phil's wife who was a lobbyist for Enron at the time.

This was after Enron had already manipulated the electric market in
California. Everyone except the Congress new this was a mistake, but
passed it anyway. This is why we now have such price spikes in the oil
and commodity markets. It is not from normal supply and demand, it is
from perceived supply and demand issues.

Thank you Phil Gramm and the Republican Party.

 

So Gramm's bill raised GLOBAL oil prices and demand to current levels..?

Are you really this naive..?

 

He was the start of it all.

 

Waiving the right to remain silent, Carroll Boardway

I suppose he's also responsible for the extraordinary demands for oil by
the Chinese and Indians..?

 

Oh - you're no fun!! LOL!

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

Bush looks like a Constitutional Scholar when you compare him to a
Democrat or liberal. These groups believe the Constitution meaning can
be changed when they can't push their bills into law. Just get judges
in there that will liberally interpret the laws the way they want it.
No need for Constitutional amendments -- it is a "living" document.

It is "The Constitution of the Day".

Ask all the unborn children who have been murdered -- more than the
entire population of Canada.

 

In message Jim

What Article and Section contains the phrase "Unitary President"?

 

In message Jim

But sadly, not Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Wolfie, Condi, Ledeen, Franklin, Feith,
etc.

 

I can see that you are one of those who immediately assumes that
anyone who dislikes Bush and opposes what he's done from a
Constitutional viewpoint must be a Democrat and described by the
scandalous "L" word. You're wrong. I'm way more constitutionality
conservative than you. I believe in a very strong and strict
Constitution - Bush and friends believe in whatever furthers their
personal agenda.

I pray that future presidents can restore the integrity of the
Constitution but I fear some of the damage is irreversible.

As for the "living" document - A document written in the late 1700's
is going to require some interpretation hundreds of years later. You
can't avoid that. You can still do it strictly. As for "making up the
law on the fly" - look into signing statements and get back to me.

The RNC and their management core (the neo-cons) don't give two bits
about your abortion issue. They use it to gather your votes and those
of other in order to elect themselves in office so they can work
towards their real objective: fattening their wallets through
government expenditures and laws that benefit them personally. (Look
into the dictionary definition of fascism when you get a chance).

 

First, your figures are suspect. Current estimates are that 1 million
abortions performed per year. If your simply taking the number of
abortions performed *today* and multiplying it time the years since
Rowe v. Wade, there's a problem: the number of abortions performed in
1973 was not anywhere near the same level.

Second, there's a balance between the rights of the individual and the
rights of the "unborn" as you choose to call it. People have rights to
control their own bodies (there's that constitutional conservatism
again). When does a fertilized egg become a "life"? The courts seems
to say that it's when the life becomes independently sustainable. I
don't know about that, but I'm pretty sure it isn't the say after an
egg is fertilized either. FYI - This comes from the Bible: Leviticus
17:11 says, "For the life of a creature is in the blood." That would
move your definition of life beginning at conception out a ways.

Third , some religions claim that it's against the Bible to use drugs
or surgery. Should they be allowed to apply that belief to their
children? Or should a court be able to step in and order medical care
for the benefit of the child to protect the child's right to life? I'd
be interested in your view.

Fourth, are you one of those hypocritical anti-abortion, pro death
penalty folks? Those folks seem to be OK with an obvious taking of
human life as long as the timing works out. Seem most anti-aortionists
are, aside from the clergy. Let me know.

Get back to me on these issues, I'm interested in your views.