davjohns

Please tell me that was a joke. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Odd that he waited so long to get one (assume it was his mother). I guess he didn't need it in Indonesia? But why was it sent to Connecticut? Odd. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I just glanced at it. He made just less than $21M. He gave a little over $4M to charity and paid just over $3M in federal taxes. He easily put more into the federal treasury in one year than I ever will. He gave even more to charity. Meanwhile, he was working for free as Governor. And people complain he isn't doing his 'fair share'? Since I've seen no assertion that he cheats on his taxes, I'm guessing people think he should ignore the tax law and instead donate larger portions of his income to try to appease his detractors? I think some people define the word 'fair' as roughly, 'I want more of someone else's stuff'. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2012/president/candidates/romney/romney_tax_return_1040_2011/ Romney returns I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Whos' Shah? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Lerooooooy Jeeeeenkins! I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Plus we could get a lot more jumpers on the plane if we sat boy-girl-boy-girl. I'd sit as close as I could.

This is one of those times that pictures = bad. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I barely recall the argument, but I agree that they are not in the best protected position. But as someone else pointed out, there aren't many protected positions if you want to walk....er....erect? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

There are actually many reasons. I'll be reporting to Belgium in a couple of months. Want to guess where I'll be banking? They have some of the best banking practices in the world. I think anyone who finds this significant already disliked the guy and is trying to find a reason. This is not a legitimate reason, but most people seem to make up their minds without being bothered with facts. I'm not trying to be insulting. I just think this is nothing worth mentioning. If it is the best his opponents can come up with, he must be pretty clean. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Reasoning? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Sorry. Yours was just the last post. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Sorry. Had to stop reading as soon as the author called three Justices 'right wing'. They might be conservative. But lately I've noticed anyone right of the speaker is called 'right wing'. It appears to be an attempt to marginalize the voice of another without actual intelligent discussion. I've just started shutting those people out. He might have had some good points or information, but lost me when he started out attacking Justices wantonly. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Fair point. I shouldn't use the superlative. Not EVERYONE. But a Swiss bank account is very common for people with significant assets. And when you couple that with someone who lived in France and travels, it is hardly a suspicious thing. Then, when you add that it is reported in his tax returns? Come on. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Yes. Reporting your offshore holdings in your tax returns every year is a clever way to hide them. The report describes his $3Mil taxes as 'paltry'. Want to guess the political leaning of the writer? Every intelligent investment advisor says you should be diversified in the domestic and international markets. Everyone with significant assets has a Swiss account for various reasons. To claim he is hiding something by openly reporting it is ridiculous. To claim a diversified portfolio is proof of suspicious activity is ridiculous. I'm happy to know the guy's faults, but this is just nasty smear tactics. Let me know when you find a legitimate flaw in the guy. When you throw out stuff like this, it just makes me like him more. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I have no idea if it mandates lower cost or not. I've heard statements in different directions. Could you provide a cite, please? Lowering cost by mandate has always been a good idea. Look at how cheap gasolibe was in the 1970's. That's why I would like to read that portion of the 2,000 pages that determines how rates will be determined. I can't come up with a good way. I'll be surprised if the government did. I'm guessing they created a board to provide oversight and cost to the system. But I haven't read the document and don't really intend to. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I have no idea if it mandates lower cost or not. I've heard statements in different directions. Could you provide a cite, please? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Dreamer. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

That's the point. Everything has to be acceptable to both parties before it passes. Otherwise, the party that does not have the presidency can't agree to it for fear of the veto. The only way one party would be able to bully the other is if one party had both the LIV and the majority in both houses to push things through without compromise. But that would give one party all power even without the LIV anyhow. Basically, I think less would get passed, but what did get passed would be a whole compromise and not a bunch of bits and pieces. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Roger. I assume it would have a 2/3 majority override just like a regular veto. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Communism is actually a beautiful ideal. It even works in small communities in Israel. In small communities, everyone can put pressure you to produce and when you have a need, everyone knows if you are deserving of help or not. On a federal level? Not a chance. Too easy to abuse. Sad, but reality. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Got to thinking about this at the gym. I have traditionally been against the idea because I mistakenly was thinking that it meant during one party's regime, the POTUS would strike all of the other party's items. But for some reason, it never crossed my mind that would not be the case. In reality, the existance of the LIV would change legislation fundamentally. There would not be any "I'll go along with your pork if you'll go along with mine". The party that did not have the presidency would never go for that. So, I think legislation would have to be mutually acceptable to pass the Senate and House. The two sides (in our two party system) would have to find common ground and legislation would not go back and forth depending on who held power currently. I'm not saying we would always get better legislation, but it seem probable. With that reasoning, I have to be in favor of it. Did I miss something? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I took the comments more generally addressing Christianity and not Ron in particular. I don't know Ron and don't pay too much attention to the posting habits of individuals on here. I focus on opinions and ideas. But if you guys all understood that you were engaging in individual insults, I guess I can stay out of it. It's frequent enough around here that there's no reason to point out this one. I thought it was a swipe at all religion. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

But you don't have healthcare (by the way, we've been discussing health insurance this whole time. I take issue with everyone pretending we have done anything with healthcare. Part of my issue with the media twisting words). You just have a new tax because you did not purchase insurance. And there's nothing you can do about it. Even if you did not require any medical attention during the year, you pay the tax...right? And I predicated the analogy on home schooling. I'm not convinced it is a perfect analogy, but it makes a point. You can now be taxed for doing something different. Apparently different is bad. You can't be trusted with your own choices. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I'm absolutely convinced that you do not read my posts before arguing wtih them. School attendance is not mandatory if you home school. It was in the first line that you ignored. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.