rhaig

No, but they still buy them and it hurts them more than it hurts me. Which was the exact point I made when I said a consumption tax hurts the poor more than the 'rich'. (I read your post, you just didn't seem clear on the idea... perhaps I didn't make my point clearly) so why do they buy them? priorities... for fuck sake. if they're poor, and down on their luck, I hope they're smart enough to reduce spending. but if they're poor because they buy the new plasma TV and an iphone, then they're poor because they're stupid. And if you're gonna be stupid, you gotta be tough. that would indicate that I actually intended to reply to your points. which I do not because you have youre mind made up. You don't come here to collect data or ideas (in my opinion). were I to say more, it would probably be a personal attack, so I won't. *** Tax-free days cause shoppers to shift their spending, not increase it, Robyn says. Which also supports my other position. no shit!! of course they shift their spending. That is the idea!! (see, clearly I didn't get my point through) the whole point of having a tax-free weekend in conjunction with a consumption tax is to provide those who shouldn't be taxed at a high rate a way to get household items that are needed without paying taxes on them. Maybe it's one weekend a month if you have the tax-free eligible card. shit, I don't know... but the whole point was to shift the spending. You apparently mis-understood the point of that comment in my original post. tax free weekends and tax-free essentials keep those who shouldn't be taxed from paying the high tax rate. When they don't have the extra money to spend and spend it anyway, they get punished by the tax man. not regressive. hopefully instructive. -- Rob

so the plasma tv, the new cell phone, the beer... those are all staples for your poor? my point is that if they are that poor, they can choose not to pay taxes by not buying luxery items. the rich buy more luxury items, and if we're having a sales tax, lets not do it half-assed. reasonable proposals have been made for as much as 23% (with elimination of income tax). put the whole paycheck in the pocket of the consumer and tax luxery items (like that soda, the beer, the iphone, and the new TV) dont want to pay the tax, cant afford to pay the tax, dont buy the non-staple items. -- Rob

Consumption tax hurts the poor more than the rich. tripe. how? if you don't tax produce and staples, then you are taxing luxury spending. if the poor are spending that much on luxuries, they aren't poor. So you would create ANOTHER govt program? You would have most Americans waiting each mth on a check from the Govt.... totally wrong direction to go in, IMO. which is why I proposed the other option. Not a bad thing. Then you cut tax revenue and do not increase spending... Instead you have people waiting on those weekends to spend. they do that in TX right now. doesn't seem to be hurting our economy here. you've given us a classic knee-jerk response. thank you. -- Rob

And alarmists but what about the coal plants!! think of the children!!! -- Rob

Considering the American population,3000 on 9-11 is a very small percentage. As a matter of fact the war dead surpass that number. The casualties of the war far surpass that number. Want to play games with those numbers,Bill? Peace, DJ you labor under the misconception that the terrorists goal is to kill americans. Their goal (one of them) is to create terror thus destroying our way of life. On that front we have lost. Perhaps that's why politicians want to continue the fight, to try to look good in the faces of their constituents whose rights they've trampled. Creating terror isn't a game of percentages. It's a game of absolute numbers. 3000 dead is a big number on it's own. Sure, not when you put it up next to the population of just about any place. But it's a lot of people to die at once. (not strung out over years, but at once) Yes, we've lost the at-home war on terror. Mostly due to overreaction. We have destroyed our own way of life. It started with a scared congress passing the patriot act. and now it's down to the TSA admitting they're singling people out for the patdown because they have boobs. (yes, true story, in recent news, google it). you attracted attention with your initial rant. is that what you wanted? congrats. You've also lost what credibility you might have had. enjoy the flamewar. -- Rob

This line of argument is old, you must have missed it the last several times it was brought up here. state laws require insurance, not federal. Take it up with your state legislature. Also you're not required to buy auto insurance unless you want to drive on public roads. You're being required to buy insurance because you're alive. that's a 4 sentence summary of the discussions we've had on it in the past. I'm sure it won't stop anyone from the rehash. -- Rob

so rather than tax income, let's tax spending. consumption tax please. either go the prebate route like fairtax outlines, or don't tax produce, staple foods, and allow some tax-free weekends for clothing and household spending. -- Rob

I was carrying on the way to a concert once and got wanded at the front gate. They didn't have signs up and was expecting verbal notice and to have to go leave the gun in the car. But the wand never squawked. Really made me wonder about their security. -- Rob

Well according to southpark the saying should be "to patronize and annoy...." so true...unless you're a white boy living in detroit...hell, even the thugs won't mess with you... This is very interesting to me...any references? this is twice in one day I felt left in the dark...seriously though... first google hit: http://www.allsafedefense.com/news/CopsDontProtect.htm this was 5+ years ago. -- Rob

Say the Govt shutting down this website since they do not like the content. That would be a violation of the 1st. if the government went in and told the owners of the servers to take something down that wasn't against the law (like illegally shared copyrighted works) then a first amendment argument could be made. But really the way that happens is that someone from some state department office calls a server owner and asks politely. Then the content is voluntarily removed bu the site owner, not by the order of the government. In that case no 1st argument could be made really. -- Rob

which parts of it? The vast majority of it is privately owned servers like this one. In fact I can't think of any government owned servers where I am allowed to post content openly. -- Rob

In my unscientific personal experience, I would put the rate at about 2-3% of CHL holders who make a habit of actually carrying. I was going to suggest the average was less than 5%. Probably less than 1% that carry ALL the time, some that don't ever carry, and some (like me) that carry 5-10% of the time. I know people that have recently gotten a CHL solely so they can go through the express security line at the state capitol. -- Rob

when was the last time you saw "protect and serve" on a police car? I haven't for a long time. SCOTUS ruled they don't have to protect you. -- Rob

Are you applying that to just this particular situation in Uganda or is that applicable to the U.S. in general. If a general application then I would have to argue against that thought. Where is the line between looking out for our own interests and interfering with the workings of a sovereign entity? Can you think of any situations like that? I was referring to this situation. I wish we weren't used to playing world cop. Most of it is none of our damn business. -- Rob

The problems isn't that the US is playing the global cop, the problem is that the way you are acting is not fair. Cops should follow the laws. If you want to be a cop you should enforce the laws, not help people break them. from the article: But Lanier continued: "Uganda understands the need to consult with the US in advance if the [Ugandan army] intends to use US-supplied intelligence to engage in operations not government [sic] by the law of armed conflict. Uganda understands and acknowledges that misuse of this intelligence could cause the US to end this intelligence sharing relationship." this sounds to me like we will continue to share the information until it was mis-used. This is an embassy, not a peacekeeping force. They share info to get favors (it's what they do). The info was misused. The question is "was further information shared after the mis-use happened?" so you (evidenced by your comments) expect us to be a cop and we're not. You assume (by likely not reading closely enough) that the US officials at the embassy shared the information in order to see the war crime committed. -- Rob

it sounds like they're pissed that we're not playing global cop. Yet when we play global cop, others are pissed that we're playing global cop. can't please everyone all the time... fuck-em! -- Rob

science is not a popularity contest. -- Rob

just guessing here.... you don't shoot a glock. -- Rob

rock island armory 1911's are no-frills, pretty cheap, good quality. can get one with a nice dove-tail safety and decent sights. not night sights, but that's fixable for pretty cheaply. (less than $100 installed around here) -- Rob

educate yourself about your options. I outlined some of how bankruptcy can apply to student loans in my post. which is why you should consult with a bankruptcy lawyer who knows the ropes and can tell you if you have a chance of getting your loan modified or dismissed. It's foolish for me to assume I know enough to tell you what to do. I know enough to know I don't know near enough to advise anyone. I get the attitude that you pay your own way. I'm digging out of a debt hole right now when I was advised to file bankruptcy. In the end, that might have been the better option. My credit is still taking a beating during the 5-yr payoff of my credit cards, and I'm out about 100K in that 5 years paying it all off. Bankruptcy might have cleared it all away, and while I would have had crap credit for 7 years, I would have had that $$ in my pocket. But that's not my style. I pay my way. And this way I think there's more of a lesson learned. In your case, with laws written specifically to allow for bankruptcy to apply in cases of hardship, I might be more likely to take advantage of the laws. There are also some bills that were written this year to bring student loans back under the consumer protection umbrella. and for my wise-ass remark earlier... no ill will intended. you gotta learn to make fun of yourself. It's either that or the stress of the situation consumes you. I noticed a physical difference in myself when I started making fun of myself for being a years salary in debt to credit cards. -- Rob

It's not paid for... they're repossessing his education. :) -- Rob

that was me. I should have said "if you feel you're being treated illegally, get a lawyer" you're not being treated illegally. you, through sickness, were unable to work, and your loan went into default. Thus the massive balance you now have to pay. Is it your fault you got sick? No. But were the terms of the loan made available to you before you signed? Did you take the time to understand them? the answer should be yes to both of those. It seems the answer to the last question is no. Sucks to be in your position. I'm not making light of that. Having a sickness that prevents you from working I would think shows a "substantial hadship" of the type that is needed in order to get student loans dismissed under bankruptcy. There are also hardship discharges of student loans available. So back to the get a lawyer tack... this time, get a consult with a bankruptcy lawyer. Generally student loans aren't dischargable under bankruptcy code, but with substantial hardship shown, they can have their balances adjusted or dismissed alltogether. -- Rob

capabilities vary. I can hit a 12" target at 100yd on open sights. I have have seen people do the same at 500yd. I'm still learning. -- Rob

I've typed up a few replies to this. I'm not going to post any of them. Bottom line? We're talking about the fed govt. They're thieves. PERIOD. Student loans fall outside almost every consumer protection law there is. That's by design, Einstein. It gives them all sorts of freedom to play games once you're in repayment. Did you know they can pull your professional license w/the slightest hiccup in payments? There are Doctors who had a health problem for a few months or a year. Their licenses were pulled because they missed a couple of payments. Their loan principles went from $150K to $500K or more. Now they've no way to pay it back, or to get the debt cleared. People are being killed over this. These MFrs make dirty lending practices in other markets look like the Boyscouts. This program has become quite the cash cow in Washington. Even the thieves are conceding that they'll have to stop stealing so much, eventually. There's a lot of this on that website I posted. You should take a look. Then, you might have a slight fuqqin clue what you're running your mouth about. There's no way it takes 25yrs? That's a standard repayment period from the feds. Students were defaulting in droves. So, slick Willy upped the repayment schedules to 25yrs. I'm getting the distinct feeling your daddy paid for your schooling... Have you ever had to deal w/any of this? I don't know you, Jason. I don't want to, either. You're not worth the jail time. Feel free to talk this kind of garbage in your travels. It won't take long. Watch what happens to you. This conversation is over. without adding fees, or upping the intrest rate, how does it take longer to pay off $26000 at $350 per month? This is math I learned in high school. Changing the payment schedule doesn't force you to pay less. Irecently finished paying off my wife's student loans every month. They payment requested by the payment schedule was $50. As I didn't want to wait that long to pay it off, I doubled the amount sent, and you know what? It got paid off sooner. (this is stuff from my algebra 2 class in 10 grade) I get that you're pissed about the way your loans have been handled. I don't like that student loans are exempt from a bunch of policies (as you stated). So I made the choice to gtfo from under them. I know too many people that bitch about their student loans, while they watch the game on cable TV in front of their 42" HD TV. Priorities.... pay off your debts first, then buy the TV. If you're being treated unfairly, get a lawyer. -- Rob

so what you're saying is that it's a territory war. Gee... that never happens in nature between two species. Deer are one of the many natural resources we (the human species) have decided to exploit for our use. It is our responsibility to care for the natural resources we (as a species) decide to exploit so that they will be around for others in a few generations. It is also our responsibility to train those next generations to have the same attitude towards preservation of natural resources (note that preservation and conservation are not synonyms). To that end, it is possible to responsibly hunt deer and other species while both preserving the species and enjoying the exploitation of them. -- Rob