Linux-Advocacy Digest #674, Volume #28 Sun, 27 Aug 00 03:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Peter
Ammon)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (ZnU)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (ZnU)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Courageous)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Courageous)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 02:35:41 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...]
>> >Your ISP seemed to have agreed with me, now didn't they.
>>
>> No, they sent me an email. I have threatened them with legal action
>> should it turn out that you did not provide them with your real name and
>> identity, though obviously not much will come of an email.
>>
>> I will remind you, again, that I will not be warning you via Usenet if I
>> have decided to pursue legal action against you.
>>
>> >Death threats,
>> >whether or not you actually now the persons name are highly illegal, (and
>> >lame). Now drop it or I'll forward the second threat you posted and you'll
>> >be searching for a new ISP by Monday.
>>
>> Go ahead. Make my day.
>
>I would call this "agreeing" that your continuing to abuse their network
>with your unlawfull acts.
That's not what you said last time. Before you got a copy of their
email, you just said "pffftt" (<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
>To: T. Max Devlin:
[...]
>Also please note that newsgroup postings
>are archived, and that anything posted by
>you can be found by legal authorities, future
>employers, and anyone else who wants to check
>into your personal history.
This is the part that I pointed out to them, which opens them up to
legal liability, as it might easily be read as a clear threat to someone
for posting their honest views on Usenet. The question, I guess, is how
someone who *didn't* already know this would interpret it. Not being
one, I'd have to admit that I can't conclusively say whether it could be
interpreted as a suppression of free speech to email them such a veiled
threat. If it comes down to it, I'm quite willing to let a judge
decide.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 02:36:03 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> Considering they're still getting richer, and the poor are still
>> >> getting
>> >> poorer, I fail to see why this would be so.
>> >>
>> >> >You have to make something like $20 to 30 K before you pay any taxes.
>> >> >Meanwhile, I'm paying 50% of my income in taxes (all taxes combined).
>> >> >
>> >> >That's an absurd difference.
>> >>
>> >> Maybe from your perspective. Try living on $24,000 a year with a
>> >> family
>> >> of 3.
>> >
>> >Who's fault is that?
>>
>> I don't assign fault.
>
>No. You just give money away without doing anything about the real
>problem.
What real problem would that be, Joe?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 02:38:08 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
[...]
>> Maybe from your perspective. Try living on $24,000 a year with a family
>> of 3.
>
>It wouldn't be too much to ask to REFRAIN FROM HAVING KIDS THAT
>YOU FUCKING CAN'T AFFORD, would it?
Yes, I'm afraid it would. Certainly to the extent that you indicate.
Every citizen has the right to have children if they desire, and a
society which prevents them from doing so economically is no less
unsatisfactory than one that does so through any other means.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 02:36:17 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Peter Ammon wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > >
> > > Peter Ammon wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Joe Ragosta wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > You may not need statistics, but several people on this group questioned
> > > > > it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Apparently, they really believe that the poor are paying a higher
> > > > > percentage of their income in taxes than the rich.
> > > >
> > > > That's obviously false...the rich do pay a higher percentage of their
> > > > income in taxes. But they also can afford to, since the marginal
> > > > utility of money is higher for the poor than the rich. After all, a
> > > > poor person needs each additional dollar more than a rich person.
> > > > What's not so obvious is whether the poor pay a smaller percentage of
> > > > what they can afford.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not saying that "everyone pays an equal percentage of what they can
> > > > afford" is necessarily a just taxation system, but it does seem to be
> > > > the philosophy behind a progressive tax.
> > >
> > > And by that same philosophy, if the guy earning $10,000/year pays
> > > $1.50/pound for hamburger, then the guy earning $30,000/year should pay
> > > $4.50/pound (or more) for hamburger.
> >
> > Why do you think that movie theaters offer reduced prices for children
> > under 12? Why do you think that senior citizens get discounts on so
> > many things?
>
> Because even at the reduced prices, the businesses are STILL making
> a profit **AND** the hope is that the seniors will drag other,
> "regular price" family members in with them.
It's because seniors are less likely to go to the movies, so the
business lowers the price to attract them. If they charged the same
price to seniors as they do to everyone else, they would turn LESS of a profit.
IOW, non-seniors are willing to pay more for the same goods and services.
>
> >
> > (There's an economics term for charging people different amounts
> > depending on who they are or the quantities they buy, but I forget it.)
> >
"Price discrimination" is the term.
> > Ironically, charging people different amounts based on what they can
> > afford and are willing to pay is the ultimate expression of a monopoly.
>
> So, what you're saying is, Progressive income tax rates are
> representative of the behavior of the WORST price-gouging monopolies.
...except that monopolies keep the money as profit. The government
redistributes it.
The premise of a progressive tax is to flatten out the utility of the
taxes that people pay. IOW, in the ultimate expression of a progressive
tax, everybody pays the same percentage of what they can afford, not how
much they earn. It's analagous to "price gouging," as you put it, in
the sense that what you pay is based on how much you can pay instead of
what you get.
I'm not saying that's just...after all, "everyone pays how much they can
afford" is akin to "everyone gives according to ability," and I'm no
communist. But there are good arguments for it.
I often see conservatives advocate a flat sales tax. This is actually a
regressive tax, where the poor pay a higher percentage of their income
than the rich, in disguise, because the poor spend more of their income
than the rich.
>
> Thank you very, very, very much for that admission.
>
Well, it's the truth.
> GAME
> SET
> MATCH
>
Huh? I wasn't arguing for a progressive tax...just trying to point out
the rationale behind it.
For the record, I'm in favor of using a progressive tax to ensure that
everyone has enough to eat, access to basic medicine, etc.
> Progressive income tax rates are akin to price-grouging.
Correct...but remember that the government doesn't keep the money, but
pumps it back into the country via social programs, purchasing goods and
services, offering jobs, and more ethereal services (like protection).
-Peter
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 02:41:36 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>ZnU wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> > > >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> > > >You have to make something like $20 to 30 K before you pay any taxes.
>> > > >Meanwhile, I'm paying 50% of my income in taxes (all taxes combined).
>> > > >
>> > > >That's an absurd difference.
>> > >
>> > > Maybe from your perspective. Try living on $24,000 a year with a
>> > > family
>> > > of 3.
>> >
>> > It wouldn't be too much to ask to REFRAIN FROM HAVING KIDS THAT
>> > YOU FUCKING CAN'T AFFORD, would it?
>>
>> I think people are pretty clear on the issue. But they have the kids
>> anyway. What are you going to do? Let the kids starve?
>
>How many parents do you know who have let their kids starve to death?
That's the point; they'll become outlaws in a society which threatens
this outcome. So in order for you to enjoy the benefits of your own
labor, you must contribute to the public welfare. And if that becomes
an onerous demand, then you're obviously not doing enough to provide for
social welfare and democratic access to capital.
Personally, I'm lazy, so I'd rather pay taxes so the government can hire
social workers and provide subsistence for those who might have to make
a choice between citizenship and parenthood. I refuse to take away
their right to be parents to begin with, and refuse to let their kids
starve to death, both.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 02:42:31 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said ZnU in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
[...]
>> Let's send them to your house, you love paying for them.
>
>So what do you think should be done with them? Do you agree with Aaron
>that the children of poor people are genetically inferior and should be
>allowed to starve to death?
Nice troll, ZnU. Or should I call it a leprechaun?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 06:43:07 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ZnU wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > > > >Joe Ragosta wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > >> Yet I managed to get a scholarship and loans for Penn State,
> > > > >> worked my way through school, got into graduate school at
> > > > >> Cornell, progressed through several jobs of increasing
> > > > >> responsibility and ended up as President of a small company
> > > > >> where I'm making quite a lot of money (certainly far more than
> > > > >> the level that Democrats consider wealthy, although I think
> > > > >> their cutoff is way too low).
> > > > >>
> > > > >> So what part of the things you cited is impossible?
> > > > >
> > > > >According to Liberals....it's not fair...because...YOU SUCCEEDED!
> > > >
> > > > According to the liberals, he's a data point. You don't run
> > > > government based on anecdotal evidence.
> > >
> > > Ah yes, whenever anyone points out that the liberal "gloom and doom"
> > > scenarios don't jive with reality, it's always the old 'anecdotal
> > > evidence' routine.
> >
> > You should talk. Your hero Reagan was the king of anecdotal evidence.
>
> Anything which contradicts Leftist propaganda is "anectdotal evidence"
>
> Puhhhhhhhhhlease.
>
> We can all see through that rouse.
>
> It's old
>
> Really old
I never said anything of the kind. Have fun playing with your little
strawman.
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 02:50:53 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...]
>> >Read what I said again. Wouldn't you expect that when the number of
>> >people needing welfare drops by 75% that there might be a reduction in
>> >government welfare expenditures?
>>
>> Well, you didn't say there was a drop in the number of people "needing"
>
>Most of them never "needed" it in the first place.
I'd say you're not qualified to judge, actually. Are you a social
worker? I didn't think so.
>If they did "need" it, then there would have been people 'starving
>in the streets' the first month they started cutting off massive
>segments of the welfare rolls.
You overestimate the amount of damage I'm willing to do to our social
fabric in order to test your point. Would I take everyone at their word
if they claimed to need assistance? Of course not, and I don't. And I
support any "welfare to work" programs, and recognize that without a
mandate to decrease welfare, they would not be very successful. But I
live in Pennsylvania, and we were particularly hard hit by this whole
"dump the welfare rolls" craze. I recall some statistic from a local
paper stating that 80% of the people dumped were unemployed two years
afterwards. Seems like they might have needed assistance. Not all of
them, maybe, but enough to concern me. Especially knowing that the
prison industry is one of the fastest growing commercial activities in
Pennsylvania, as well.
>The fact that these people IMMEDIATELY went to work indicates that
>they were using the government "safety net" as a hammock.
The fact that they were forced off welfare does not mean they
immediately went to work; it just means they were immediately dumped off
welfare, under the pretense they would be given jobs, which I find just
as problematic, to be honest. The government safety net fell apart,
without even checking to see if they were napping or just unconscious.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 02:51:48 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Isn't it funny that the party that is oooooooooooooh so fucking worried
>> about debt reduction is the SAME goddamn party that ran up the debt
>> in the first place....
>> --
>
>Actually, in all fairness, both the Republicans and Democrats
>contributed to the National Debt. They just want to spend the money in
>different ways.
>
>To that extent, the Libertarians are right.
I'll agree with both of you on that. But I'm sure the extent of that
argument is not as large as either of you might figure.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 02:53:31 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>JS/PL wrote:
>>
>> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>
>> > Have you compared the income disparity during the Reagan years to the
>> > administrations before that?
>>
>> Yea EVERYONE had the privilege of being poor under Carter, I remember
>> well....you could finance a home loan for a mere 18% annual interst. And
>> inflation was at about the same level.
>>
>> Income tax was ungodly, nobody could find a job, energy crisis, Iran was
>> making the US the laughing stock of the world, the Presidents alcoholic
>> brother was pissing on peoples lawns while the president was busy talking of
>> his own "lustfull urges".
>
>And the scary thing is...Some people look up to Carter..
>
>BWAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHAHAAHHA
Carter has devoted his post-presidential life to public service, for
which he's been widely given honors and respect, as he deserves. How
many homes for those stricken by poverty have you built, Aaron? "Let
them build their own houses, out of mud, and get a job" is your
attitude, eh?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 06:53:23 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ZnU wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > > > > > >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > > > > > >You have to make something like $20 to 30 K before you pay any
> > > > > > >taxes.
> > > > > > >Meanwhile, I'm paying 50% of my income in taxes (all taxes
> > > > > > >combined).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >That's an absurd difference.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maybe from your perspective. Try living on $24,000 a year with
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > family
> > > > > > of 3.
> > > > >
> > > > > It wouldn't be too much to ask to REFRAIN FROM HAVING KIDS THAT
> > > > > YOU FUCKING CAN'T AFFORD, would it?
> > > >
> > > > I think people are pretty clear on the issue. But they have the
> > > > kids
> > > > anyway. What are you going to do? Let the kids starve?
> > >
> > > Let's send them to your house, you love paying for them.
> >
> > So what do you think should be done with them?
>
> LET THEIR PARENTS FEED THEM
And if they can't or won't?
> And if their parents let them starve to death, then throw those
> same parents in the clink for child neglect.
That costs more than feeding and educating the kids, and you don't get
any return on investment.
> Why do you think *I* have any responsibility for some teenage slut
> and her litter of criminals-in-training.
Right. Why should you have any responsibility for the public good?
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 06:56:37 GMT
> Carter has devoted his post-presidential life to public service, for
> which he's been widely given honors and respect, as he deserves.
Quite true. Carter was an awful President, but seems to be
an outstanding humanitarian. Credit where credit is due.
C//
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 02:59:19 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said david raoul derbes in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (david raoul derbes) wrote:
>>> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>>Fun Facts about the hostage rescue attempt:
>>
>>One of the folks responsible for refueling the planes on-ground at
>>Desert One (where everything fell apart) was one Oliver North...
>>
>>Gee. What a coincidence.
>
>As much as I didn't like Col. North, I really don't believe that he or
>anyone else deliberately sabotaged the hostage rescue attempt. It was
>mostly terrible weather, and probably some bad decisions at various
>places. Bad luck may also have been a factor.
I really don't *want* to believe that he or anyone else deliberately
sabotaged the hostage rescue attempt. And if it weren't for Iran/Contra
and all, it might be easier to believe that.
>Some things are bigger than politics. Very few Americans were glad
>that the rescue failed, killing, if I remember correctly, eight brave
>soldiers. Had it worked, undoubtedly Carter's chances in the election
>would have been vastly improved. But it's hard for me to imagine that
>anyone was glad that it failed.
The question is whether that "very few" included Ronald Reagan, George
Bush, and Oliver North, I think. It is hard for anyone to imagine that
anyone could have done such a thing, but there is evidence that it might
be the case.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 07:01:06 GMT
> Yes, I'm afraid it would. Certainly to the extent that you indicate.
> Every citizen has the right to have children if they desire, and a
> society which prevents them from doing so economically is no less
> unsatisfactory than one that does so through any other means.
"Society" is prevents them from nothing. Rather, in our
current context, We, The People, have decided that we
will perchance bankroll their efforts to have children.
If we decided not to, we would not be taking away; we
would simply not be offering our *charity*.
If you'd like to argue inaction as grounds for immorality,
feel free, but I should warn you that it's a lost cause.
I have not yet in my life, not even once, seen someone
able to argue this position without crumbling like so
much feta cheese. The position is indefensible, IMO.
C//
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
