On 10/7/2014 6:43 PM, steve harley wrote:
on 2014-10-03 17:42 P.J. Alling wrote
On 9/29/2014 9:08 PM, steve harley wrote:
on 2014-09-28 20:16 P.J. Alling wrote
It was widely believed
that the law would not stand, as the constitution strictly forbids
Ex Post
Facto legislation.
… for
on 2014-10-03 17:42 P.J. Alling wrote
On 9/29/2014 9:08 PM, steve harley wrote:
on 2014-09-28 20:16 P.J. Alling wrote
It was widely believed
that the law would not stand, as the constitution strictly forbids Ex Post
Facto legislation.
… for criminal law only
The Constitution makes no
On 9/29/2014 9:08 PM, steve harley wrote:
on 2014-09-28 20:16 P.J. Alling wrote
No, first Clinton administration, his party owned both houses, In
March of
his first year, congress passed and Clinton signed a tax increase
retroactive to the beginning of his administration.
and Reagan signed a
On 9/29/2014 9:08 PM, steve harley wrote:
on 2014-09-28 20:16 P.J. Alling wrote
No, first Clinton administration, his party owned both houses, In
March of
his first year, congress passed and Clinton signed a tax increase
retroactive to the beginning of his administration.
and Reagan signed a
Enough of this shit, both of you.
On 28/09/2014 8:27 PM, P.J. Alling wrote:
Yes you did, I was keeping away from naming names or parties, just
ragging on Government in General. However I've given you enough of the
specifics and yes My taxes went up retroactively and I was paying on
1099s so
on 2014-09-28 20:16 P.J. Alling wrote
No, first Clinton administration, his party owned both houses, In March of
his first year, congress passed and Clinton signed a tax increase
retroactive to the beginning of his administration.
and Reagan signed a retroactive tax into law in 1987; and Ford
Oh, yes. He screwed an intern.
While Reagan and the two Bushes screwed the whole country.
I'm still looking for specifics on whose taxes were raised
retroactively. Now, I want to know exactly *when* it happened as well.
On 9/27/2014 3:51 PM, P.J. Alling wrote:
Shit! Did you not live through
No politics please. There are sites where you can debate this endlessly.
Paul via phone
On Sep 28, 2014, at 1:56 PM, John sesso...@earthlink.net wrote:
Oh, yes. He screwed an intern.
While Reagan and the two Bushes screwed the whole country.
I'm still looking for specifics on whose
I didn't inject politics into the discussion. Under the circumstances I
don't believe I deserve censure.
... nor censoring.
On 9/28/2014 3:18 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
No politics please. There are sites where you can debate this endlessly.
Paul via phone
On Sep 28, 2014, at 1:56 PM, John
No, first Clinton administration, his party owned both houses, In March
of his first year, congress passed and Clinton signed a tax increase
retroactive to the beginning of his administration. It was widely
believed that the law would not stand, as the constitution strictly
forbids Ex Post
Yes you did, I was keeping away from naming names or parties, just
ragging on Government in General. However I've given you enough of the
specifics and yes My taxes went up retroactively and I was paying on
1099s so I'm very aware of it, unlike those who paid in advance out of
their payroll,
New rules wouldn't apply to any photos you had already taken before
those rules went into effect anyway.
On 9/26/2014 7:16 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
That is certainly more better :-)
Now I can feel free to make a calendar of places in my favorite parks
from photos I took 30 years ago
Hurray
That had occured to me, but wasn't sure - and of course I still would
like to take more
ann
On 9/27/2014 11:33, John wrote:
New rules wouldn't apply to any photos you had already taken before
those rules went into effect anyway.
On 9/26/2014 7:16 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
That is certainly
Tell that to those who's taxes have been raised retroactively, in
contravention of clear constitutional principals, yet that law was found
to be constitutional. This shouldn't even be a decision of the
bureaucracy, it should no matter how trivial it seems be a matter for a
vote in congress,
Can you provide specific information as to whose taxes have been raised
retroactively? Name names?
On 9/27/2014 12:51 PM, P.J. Alling wrote:
Tell that to those who's taxes have been raised retroactively, in
contravention of clear constitutional principals, yet that law was found
to be
Shit! Did you not live through the Clinton administration?
On 9/27/2014 2:35 PM, John wrote:
Can you provide specific information as to whose taxes have been
raised retroactively? Name names?
On 9/27/2014 12:51 PM, P.J. Alling wrote:
Tell that to those who's taxes have been raised
Follow-up:
http://petapixel.com/2014/09/26/forest-service-delays-decision-controversial-permit-rules-amid-public-outcry/
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 7:43 PM, steve harley p...@paper-ape.com wrote:
on 2014-09-24 16:07 Darren Addy wrote
I can perhaps understand the rationale for film crews, but
That is certainly more better :-)
Now I can feel free to make a calendar of places in my favorite parks
from photos I took 30 years ago
Hurray for the outcry
ann
On 9/26/2014 18:37, Darren Addy wrote:
Follow-up:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 06:36:08PM -0400, Bruce Walker wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 6:07 PM, Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote:
It strikes me as very odd that an environmentalist like Ansel Adams
might be precluded from photographing in Yosemite (if he were alive
today) when it
On 9/25/2014 2:09 PM, John Francis wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 06:36:08PM -0400, Bruce Walker wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 6:07 PM, Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote:
It strikes me as very odd that an environmentalist like Ansel Adams
might be precluded from photographing in
John Francis wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 06:36:08PM -0400, Bruce Walker wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 6:07 PM, Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote:
It strikes me as very odd that an environmentalist like Ansel Adams
might be precluded from photographing in Yosemite (if he were
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 12:27:30 PM
Subject: Re: U.S. Forest Service proposes photo permit rules (still video)
John Francis wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 06:36:08PM -0400, Bruce Walker wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 6:07 PM, Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote:
It strikes me
on 2014-09-24 16:07 Darren Addy wrote
I can perhaps understand the rationale for film crews, but the still
photography requirement is SILLY, IMHO:
http://petapixel.com/2014/09/24/us-forest-service-proposes-controversial-expensive-photo-permit-rules/#more-146255
today Denver Post digs in a
I can perhaps understand the rationale for film crews, but the still
photography requirement is SILLY, IMHO:
http://petapixel.com/2014/09/24/us-forest-service-proposes-controversial-expensive-photo-permit-rules/#more-146255
The article above links to the Federal Parks Service comment page, if
Ugh. I will write a comment, but this one makes me too mad to even
write anything approaching rationality at this moment. The first
amendment issues alone are troubling.
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 6:07 PM, Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote:
I can perhaps understand the rationale for film
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 6:07 PM, Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote:
It strikes me as very odd that an environmentalist like Ansel Adams
might be precluded from photographing in Yosemite (if he were alive
today) when it was his photographs that helped spur the care and
conservation of
The workshops I have participated in were mostly within National Forest Service
lands, and the organizers had the proper permits. I wouldn't take a workshop
with anyone who was not following the rules, any more than I would buy firewood
from someone cutting in a National Forest without a
/kennethwaller
- Original Message -
From: Stan Halpin s...@stans-photography.info
Subject: Re: U.S. Forest Service proposes photo permit rules (still video)
The workshops I have participated in were mostly within National Forest
Service lands, and the organizers had the proper permits. I
28 matches
Mail list logo
