Politics As Usual

[Secret_Agent_Man]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html

"U.S. Raids Chalabi's Compound"

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Is there a provision requiring the president to buy? It does not sound like there is. Therefore, it seems unlikely that there would be a provision about stopping buying. Also, it seems like some article or other would mention the fact that the president is required to buy, if that were a fact.

There's not. There are statutory restrictions on when sales can be ordered.

But we ought to clarify one other thing. We're not "buying" oil for the reserve. Rather, we use "royalty-in-kind" payments of oil in lieu of paying federal royalties on extracted oil. While it takes the oil off the market, the government is not making actual cash payments.

Also, hte reserve is nearly full, so it's not like the "purchases" are taking too much out of the market.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
First time I've seen anyone lose an argument here by comparing themselves to Hitler.

BTW - Your sources suck!

S_A_M

I think you need to read a bit more carefully. When a discussion on what effects various religious beliefs might have on culture and development is ultimately met with the throw-away "well, now you're being racist" (or the religious equivalent), then that person calling "slur" has thrown the Hitler label, and surrenders. If a poster wants to call some subjects off-limits, that should be done before entering into the discussion.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
When a discussion on what effects various religious beliefs might have on culture and development is ultimately met with the throw-away "well, now you're being racist" (or the religious equivalent), then that person calling "slur" has thrown the Hitler label, and surrenders. If a poster wants to call some subjects off-limits, that should be done before entering into the discussion.

So, you're expanding the "'Nazi" rule to cover express or implied allegations of racism?

Ok. I guess we should come up with a corrresponding list of words or phrases that conservatives are more likely to use which will cause them to automatically lose arguments.

For starters, I nominate the following:

(1) traitor
(2) unpatriotic
(3) aid and comfort to the enemy
(4) communist (when used as a slur)
(5) socialist (ditto)
(6) Clinton (when they are not the direct subject of the post)
(7) Waco (ditto)
(8) Ruby Ridge (ditto)
(9) murder marchers

Other nominations are welcome.

S_A_M


eta: These are later dubbed "Samuels", which I note only to facilitate use of the Search function.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you include boondocks-

http://www.co.oakland.mi.us/exec/ini.../economic.html

Oakland County is the 2nd wealthiest county in per capita income ($42,378) for counties over one million population in the U.S.

Hey, you guys have the Ryder Cup this year! I'm sure the Republican xenophobes will give all of those none-UK europeans some good ol' backwater hecklin'! Freedom fries for everyone!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
(6) Clinton (when they are not the direct subject of the post)
S_A_M

Can I get grandfathered on this one?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
There's not. There are statutory restrictions on when sales can be ordered.

But we ought to clarify one other thing. We're not "buying" oil for the reserve. Rather, we use "royalty-in-kind" payments of oil in lieu of paying federal royalties on extracted oil. While it takes the oil off the market, the government is not making actual cash payments.

Also, hte reserve is nearly full, so it's not like the "purchases" are taking too much out of the market.

So it is free oil? Cool. Though, that seems implausible.

I thought club was saying we wanted to get to 1 billion barrels reserve in a few years and were at fewer than 700 million barrels? That seems not close to full, but maybe barrels are smaller than I think they are. like, thimbles or something.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
So, you're expanding the "'Nazi" rule to cover express or implied allegations of racism?

I'm saying that each person has his or her own limits as to what intellectually vacuous approaches will trigger the end of participation. I found mine. You can use whatever floats your boat.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Can I get grandfathered on this one?

No, ass. And I was not participating with Ty in the urban argument. And NY, NY was on the list of top 10 in USA Today; that does not seem boondocky to me. Obnoxious, yes; boondocky, no.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The one thing that unites Republicans is the thought that we can spend money today and have our kids pay for it tomorrow. Sooner or later, the grownups will put a halt to these sorts of tax cuts without concomitant cuts in spending, and then the party will be over.

Actually, Bush and his friends are more about finding ways to tax the wealthy less while shifting more of the burden to the poor and middle class in ways that can be more easily sold. That's why the Republicans are so eager to find a way to sell the so-called "flat tax" and consumption taxes. That way they pay less, the poor pay more, but nobody can point to higher rates to lay the blame.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Actually, Bush and his friends are more about finding ways to tax the wealthy less while shifting more of the burden to the poor and middle class in ways that can be more easily sold. That's why the Republicans are so eager to find a way to sell the so-called "flat tax" and consumption taxes. That way they pay less, the poor pay more, but nobody can point to higher rates to lay the blame.

that is so weird, because I could swear that to have a revenue-neutral flat tax, the flat tax rate would have to be higher than the lowest marginal rate. But I'm sure you are right. Because, well, you are you.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
So it is free oil? Cool. Though, that seems implausible.

I thought club was saying we wanted to get to 1 billion barrels reserve in a few years and were at fewer than 700 million barrels? That seems not close to full, but maybe barrels are smaller than I think they are. like, thimbles or something.

Yes "free." We forgo royalty revenues instead of paying.

We're at 660m barrels. Capacity is 700m barrels.

More here

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
No, ass. And I was not participating with Ty in the urban argument. And NY, NY was on the list of top 10 in USA Today; that does not seem boondocky to me. Obnoxious, yes; boondocky, no.

Oh. I'm sorry that I was curt with you. You make some very valid points. Let's be friends.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Yes "free." We forgo royalty revenues instead of paying.

We're at 660m barrels. Capacity is 700m barrels.

More here

OK.

Club, when you get in, please resolve the 1 billion versus 700 million issue. 40 million below where we want to be is a lot less than 340 million below where we want to be.

I would think it would be nice to get some royalties in to, you know, help pay for like that war-type thing (or whatever we are calling it right now). At least for a while. If we are only 40 million away from where we want to be instead of 340 million, then that seems doable.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
that is so weird, because I could swear that to have a revenue-neutral flat tax, the flat tax rate would have to be higher than the lowest marginal rate. But I'm sure you are right. Because, well, you are you.

I think you should read "nobody" to mean "people without a political voice," which it kind of does anyway.