cruise ships

How can you have an income tax without deductions? With being able to deduct the COGS, you end up with a gross receipts tax (a particularly horrible tax that Vermont tried to institute a few years back).

Slowman *is* bizarre. I don't know why you try to educate him. It's never worked before.

unfair.

I never said that. I want tax policies that encourage productive and responsible behavior and discourage waste and inefficiency and wealth acumulation at the general expense.

I wonder if you are

Not really. They have different agendas.

If it

He has certainly created a million more jobs than the average janitor.

Me? I am an ordinary people. I work and design electronics, lots of it, and get paid a salary for it.

What do you do?

If it weren't for

Everybody depends on the law to provide an orderly and predictable society. Without government, we'd be warring tribes living in teepees.

Fortunately, people can decide for themselves whether they prefer California or Nevada or New York or Texas.

Maybe not. Mining camps were rather small in size, but the literature pretty much paints them as overwhelmingly peaceful, with the odd horror of drumhead justice. People generally get along, and expenditures on law enforcement in the good ole USA have generally led crime in the time domain.... modulo Prohibition and the cocaine era of the '80s...

Those "warring tribes living in teepees" didn't do much homicide per se ( it was too expensive ) unless there was a perturbation like the advent of the horse leading to the Sioux dominating the US interior. War was "counting coup", which was a "I coulda " sort of move, not an act of violence per se. You touched the enemy to score points, shoing at once that you could have killed him and that you didn't. I say "expensive" because you still were liable for significant cost when you killed an enemy in battle, depending on how it was ruled on.

This varied; well-fed tribes like the Great Lakes tribes were more violent once the demography began to phase younger. And the Mongols were famously brutal, but it's hard to call them primitive...

London in 1780 was *significantly* more violent than was say, Colorado.

-- Les Cargill

Then what the f*ck happened to you?

You should see the way you act in here without the rose colored glasses.

The term is Lakota and it is tipi.

They call it a 'Merger' instead of marriage. It's 'Divestiture' or Spin-off' instead of divorce. The stockholders can and should vote, and they are the corporation.

And Bain Capital (Mitt "Gordon Gekko" Romney) "parts out" the remains ;-) ...Jim Thompson

-- [On the Road, in New York]

| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at

The shareholders of a corporation cannot necessarily vote. They may be foreigners, other corporations, or even felons.

They can vote where they live, and some governments give the right to vote back to felons. :)

Not quite sure of Spehro's spin, but ex-con stockholders _can_ vote their stocks. ...Jim Thompson

...unless they're are Democrats (they've taken the Chicago plan national).

A lot of them have taken the option of not even being alaive to keep voting. :(

Well, they're all brain-dead.

Obama's anti-zombie insurance plan!

wants the

rest of

become

unions.

natural

whole

suspect

be

and

It seems i should, i am nowhere near as blindly trusting in SCOTUS as you are. Their track record is none too reassuring.

?-)

unfair.

that

Ignorance is bliss, especially willful ignorance.

?-)

unfair.

that

(zero

no

But it is only talk, no action, no pressure.

They don't and they can't, they can't survive without labor and they know it. Labor on the other wants to destroy business, even knowing they = can't survive without it.

They do own some, and big labor owns more.

^^^^^^^^^ big unions politically

It's not a matter of trust, it's a matter of law. Short of a constitutional amendment, they have the final say on what's legal.

Besides, they made the right call on this one. Going for more free speech is always the right decision.

Wow. It is hard to believe that you are that ignorant. What possible good to the country or the economy could there be in planning for = billions of dollars spent on companies that intentionally go belly up? Especially when it is more taxpayer dollars? BTW Bush did it too.

?-)