KRC

I know some are specified amounts, so the total price/gallon makes no difference in the revenue to the gubment. Which taxes are based on sale price? Generic sales tax?

If you are not going to answer your question, then you are serving no purpose here.

Why won't you answer your question? Are you too lazy to look it up?

Holy Hell, you are an idiot. Do you even believe the pretzels you are twisting here, or do you just keep making sh-- up hoping that you can deflect things far enough away from you that people will just give up? I asked a question. You asked me for the answer to my question (which is pretty stupid) just so you can B word that I did not answer my own question (even more stupid). Now, let's use your "debating" tactics here. You are complaining that I am not answering your question. Why are you not answering your question? What, are you too lazy to answer your question? This is four times that you refused to answer your question. What the hell is your problem? Ahhh...The "I know you are, but what am I" retort. You are so predictable. What is next, "I'm rubber and you are glue?" lalalalalala...I can't hear you....lalalalalalalalala

It is not a deflection when it was originally about you. Remember, the question mark thingy? Wow. This is getting beyond embarassing for you. Not even Mickey was this bad. What is next, the "I know you are, but what am I" retort?

Got it. You didn't understand what a question mark is for. Thanks for clearing that up for me. I will remember to give explainations of basic punctuation in the future, so that you can keep up. (That last dot-looking thingy was a period. It marks the end of a sentence. It can also be used after abbreviations, but that is not the case here.) Jews bad, right? (The squiggly thingy at the end of this sentence is a question mark. We already discussed why this is used. If you forgot, please refer to your notes.) No wonder you understood it so well and the rest of us wanted clarifications. (Again, that dot-thingy is a period. In this case, it is used to mark the end of the sentence.) Listen, I understand that you are embarrassed that you did not know what a question mark is for, but trying to deflect things to make it about me is pathetic. Just accept the fact that you did not understand what a question mark is for and we all can move on.

Hence the question mark. Too difficult for you to understand basic punctuation? No, Mickey would just tell you what you opinion is while not even reading what you posted, just because he wants to B word about something. I specifically stated, "if I understand it correctly." Having trouble following along today? I know the anti-Jew discussion would bring you out of the woodwork, but I was not expecting that you would be so excited that you could not even read the posts correctly. Try a little harder next time, OK?

Actually, wasn't it UN Resolution 181 that forced the Palestinians out? Why take it out on the Jews? As I mentioned earlier, following your logic (if I understand it correctly), all the Jews have to do is hang in there for a few more centuries and they are in good shape. Water under the bridge.

But, if the Jews were to just hold out for a few more centuries, then they have a right to remain on that land and not have to worry about the Palestinians, correct? Just trying to follow the logic here.

How long must people be on land before it becomes theirs? The state was created about 58 years ago. Is that long enough for it to be theirs? Do they need it to be there for a couple of centuries? If that is the case, after a couple of centuries, then the Jews rightfully own the land, correct?

Whoever was there most recently?

Eastern Conference 1 Ottawa vs 8 Tampa Bay - Ottawa in 4 2 Carolina vs 7 Montreal - Carolina in 5 3 New Jersey vs 6 NY Rangers - NJ in 5 4 Buffalo vs 5 Philadelphia - Sabres in 6 Western Conference 1 Detroit vs 8 Edmonton - Detroit in 5 2 Dallas vs 7 Colorado - Dallas in 5 3 Calgary vs 6 Anaheim - Calgary in 5 4 Nashville vs 5 San Jose - Nashville in 6 Keep in mind, I have not watched a single game this season.

Actually, he is in England, so the Native American part does not apply. The point is taken, however. It is simple to solve the dispute. Who was on that land first: Jews, Arabs or someone else? Later conquerers do not count. Until this question is accurately answered, the two of you will just be spinning your wheels.

Yup. Pandering is great, isn't it? They do not even have to impliment the "politically friendly policies." They just have to say that they will impliment them while they are campaigning and they will win. Once the vote is counted, all bets are off because they know that the populous will not hold them accountable for their actions (or inactions). It's a good gig. It depends on the president. Some can be good and you want them in for a second term. Others, you want to get rid of quickly.

Amazing, isn't it? It is hard to put more into the economy when it is being taken away from you before you even receive it.

Depends on who is in charge. Some believe in cutting taxes. Others want to raise taxes because the government is not providing enough handouts. It happens here, too. The Fed cuts taxes. The states raise taxes to offset the reduction in federal revenue. Vicious cycle.

...and we pay taxes on top of that.

It depends on what happens with the rest of the world. Allow the DPRK and Iran to develop nuclear weapons, then no. That fact is that the U.S. is working towards the goal. There is no way that it will happen in the foreseeable future because of the size of the programs built up during the Cold War. Where we differ is that the U.S. is working towards elimination. Iran and the DPRK are going in the opposite direction. It is not hypocritical to push other countries in the same direction as the U.S., which is elimination of nuclear programs.

We pay taxes for the priviledge of living in our townships.

I am fully aware of what is in the NPT. According to the U.S. State Department: -The U.S. has eliminated almost 90% of their non-strategic nuclear stockpile. -The U.S. has eliminated over 13,000 nuclear weapons since 1988. -The U.S. is on pace to reduce 50-80% of their strategic nuclear stockpile by 2012. -In September of 2005, it was announced (through the Megatons for Megawatts program) that the equivalent of 10,000 warheads of Russian HEU was converted to LEU for U.S. nuclear reactors at the cost of the U.S. -The U.S. only has one nuclear enrichment facility left in the country (in KY, I believe). -From 1994 through 1997, the United States eliminated nearly 1000 strategic nuclear missiles and bombers, and reductions continue. -The United States has removed nuclear weapons from all surface ships and attack submarines, and NATO has reduced the number of types of nuclear systems in Europe from five in 1991 to just one today. -The number of NATO storage sites for NSNW has been reduced by 80 percent. -The United States has withdrawn worldwide and eliminated more than 3000 tactical nuclear warheads, consisting of artillery shells, warheads for short-range missile systems, and Navy depth bombs. -Completing fulfillment of the U.S. commitments made under the 1991 Presidential Nuclear Initiatives (PNIS), the last of these 3000-plus warheads were dismantled in 2003. -The United States has removed 34 tons of plutonium and 174 tons of highly enriched uranium from its military stockpile, placed some of this material under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, and converted approximately 60 tons of this material to civil reactor fuel. -The United States has not produced highly enriched uranium (HEU) for nuclear weapons since 1964, and production of plutonium for nuclear weapons was halted in 1988. -All U.S. plutonium production reactors at Hanford and Savannah River have been shut down. The Oak Ridge K-25 plant was completely closed in 1987. -The United States ceased HEU production for any purposes at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in 1992. -The overall U.S. nuclear weapons production infrastructure has been significantly downsized since the end of the Cold War. It looks like we have different definitions of "I do not see much sign of that." Just an FYI: The NPT does not prohibit nuclear weapons states from modernizing their nuclear forces. All of the nuclear weapons states have continued to modernize their nuclear weapons stockpiles during the period in which the NPT has been in effect.

If you do not see the hypocrisy of the U.N. telling Iran that they need to disarm and then putting them in the number two spot for the Disarmament Commision, then there is not much else to discuss.

I figured that was a another thread. Does the U.N. even realize how ridiculous they are by doing things like this? Combine that with their complete ineptitude to handle things like: DPRK Haiti Sudan Congo Iraq The jury is still out on Iran, but it is not looking good. All of this just recently. Why the hell should they be taken seriously?

Yup. You are correct. My bad.

Linky Thingy What, was the DPRK unavailable?

She is also the daughter of Gloria Allred. I imagine that also played a part in going to law school.