THe GW Scan Is Still Alive, Amazingly
in [Drive]
|
Prev: Besides the Revolution, what influence do the French hve in USculture?
Next: Ridiculous Speed Limits
From: Larry G on 24 Jul 2010 06:52 On Jul 24, 12:48 am, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy- Everyth...(a)Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote: > On 7/23/2010 11:28 PM, Dave Head wrote: > > > > > > > On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 03:19:13 GMT, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net > > (Matthew Russotto) wrote: > > >> In article <k3kk46dnmh23kimivej7hln45ium28k...(a)4ax.com>, > >> Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote: > > >>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 19:09:16 -0700 (PDT), Larry G > >>> <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>> Go ahead, ignore the fact they they're poor... compared to us. > > >>>> they are not "poor" compared to the rest of the world - right? > > >>> Screw the rest of the world - I'm only interested in NOT falling to > >>> their particular level of poverty. > > >>>> they are healthier.. have cars, appliances, cell phones, TV, > >>>> computers, heating and air conditioning, plumbing, etc. and they > >>>> live longer. > > >>> Or it seems longer, since the time passes more slowly when your > >>> options don't include anything expensive. > > >> There's one well-known and well-studied way to greatly increase > >> lifespan. It's called a restricted calorie diet. And I mean really > >> restricted, on the edge of starvation. And I'm sure you feel every > >> second of that increased lifespan.... > > > Yeah, I read about that - the mice were really, really thin and they > > lived a really, really long time, in mouse years. > > Does this mean that *Liberals sending food to Africa* are the same as > someone who supplies a smoker with free cigarettes? > > These Liberals are shortening the lives of all the Africans on caloric > restrictive diets. ya'll are a stitch!
From: Dave Head on 24 Jul 2010 07:03 On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 03:51:26 -0700 (PDT), Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Jul 23, 11:19�pm, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) >wrote: >> In article <k3kk46dnmh23kimivej7hln45ium28k...(a)4ax.com>, >> Dave Head �<rally...(a)att.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 19:09:16 -0700 (PDT), Larry G >> ><gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> Go ahead, ignore the fact they they're poor... compared to us. >> >> >>they are not "poor" compared to the rest of the world - right? >> >> >Screw the rest of the world - I'm only interested in NOT falling to >> >their particular level of poverty. >> >> >>they are healthier.. have cars, appliances, cell phones, TV, >> >>computers, heating and air conditioning, plumbing, etc. � �and they >> >>live longer. >> >> >Or it seems longer, since the time passes more slowly when your >> >options don't include anything expensive. >> >> There's one well-known and well-studied way to greatly increase >> lifespan. �It's called a restricted calorie diet. �And I mean really >> restricted, on the edge of starvation. �And I'm sure you feel every >> second of that increased lifespan.... > >I don't think any of the folks in the rest of the industrialized >countries are on the "edge of starvation" guy. They actually have >fatties also. The Euros are known for their overall much-thinner-than-Americans population.
From: Dave Head on 24 Jul 2010 07:04 On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 03:47:45 -0700 (PDT), Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Jul 23, 10:37�pm, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote: >> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 19:12:05 -0700 (PDT), Larry G >> >> <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >they already essentially don't tax them >> >> US corporate income tax is 35%, the state taxes take about another >> 4.5% on average, and that makes them 2nd highest in the world only a >> few tenths of a percent behind Japan. �When the Bush tax cuts expire >> the 1st of next year, the 35% goes to 39%, and we will be the highest. >> That's when the real depression will set in. >> >> >and they subsidize their >> >insurance costs by capping their liability at 10 billion... that's the >> >opposite of taxing them - that's taxing us to give to them - to the >> >investors. >> >> I'd just as soon take a risk as doing without nukes. �We _can't_ do >> without nukes in the long run. �Just take some risk and have done with >> it. �Build the D things. > >all I'm trying to understand is if you think the govt and taxpayer >should subsidize them "socialistically"? > >do you think the govt should use tax money to do what is right for >society or not?
From: Dave Head on 24 Jul 2010 07:06 On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 03:47:45 -0700 (PDT), Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Jul 23, 10:37�pm, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote: >> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 19:12:05 -0700 (PDT), Larry G >> >> <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >they already essentially don't tax them >> >> US corporate income tax is 35%, the state taxes take about another >> 4.5% on average, and that makes them 2nd highest in the world only a >> few tenths of a percent behind Japan. �When the Bush tax cuts expire >> the 1st of next year, the 35% goes to 39%, and we will be the highest. >> That's when the real depression will set in. >> >> >and they subsidize their >> >insurance costs by capping their liability at 10 billion... that's the >> >opposite of taxing them - that's taxing us to give to them - to the >> >investors. >> >> I'd just as soon take a risk as doing without nukes. �We _can't_ do >> without nukes in the long run. �Just take some risk and have done with >> it. �Build the D things. > >all I'm trying to understand is if you think the govt and taxpayer >should subsidize them "socialistically"? > >do you think the govt should use tax money to do what is right for >society or not? The only way that should happen is if the gov't dissolves all the electric power companies completely, and becomes the Nation's only electric provider. THEN they should build nuclear power with public money. Of course, with typical gov't efficiency, the power would be costing us 30 cents per KwH.
From: Otto Yamamoto on 24 Jul 2010 07:25
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 07:03:36 -0400, Dave Head wrote: > The Euros are known for their overall much-thinner-than-Americans > population. I'm 'overall much thinner' than most of the population. Why? Because my job consists of lifting heavy weights throughout most of the day. I walk a lot. I don't eat a lot of fast food and avoid fried foods in the main. I probably could be even thinner if I took up an exercise programme at a gym. I move a lot faster than a lot of people half my age. It's called 'not having a sedentary lifestyle'. -- Otto Yamamoto |