Taro T

w/ Pink Floyd playing in the background: Big Guy - "Do I hear dogs barking?" Johnny - "I do."

Not sure if they are illegal in the US, but I know it's illegal to manufacture / sell them in the US.

Well you've all come up with a lot of good ones, but the best lyrics for a TV show (although they were only played in the 200th episode in the case of the former and not at all for the latter) have to be Cheers (Where Everybody Knows Your Name - 2nd Verse) and M*A*SH (Suicide is Painless). "Roll out of bed, Mr. Coffee's dead, morning's looking bright. And your shrink ran off to Europe and didn't even write. And your husband wants to be a girl. Be glad there's still 1 place in the world ..." The lyrics for Suicide is Painless were in the movie. Great songs. (I also liked WKRP's theme song but it wasn't nearly depressing enough!)

Close. It was chronicled in the documentary "Canadian Bacon" and was narrated by John Candy in his final stage play. Although he does appear on the classic game show "Dead or Canadian" quite often now as a trick question.

Ist off, I'm not certain where you got your numbers from because they don't match up with info on the IRS web site. That is neither here nor there for the point of this discussion. 2nd off, you seem to basically understand SS, but don't seem to fully grasp it. What you seem to be unable or unwilling to grasp is that the money that is not collected by the government is going to be put to much better use by the individuals and corporations that are generating it than the government will. As YOU have stated in your earlier posts, overall revenues went up. This would imply that the money that was not taxed initially was put to productive use and generated additional taxable revenue that would otherwise have not existed. If the government had taken the money out of the system, overall GDP would have been lower than actual and although the tax rate would have been higher than it actually was the total taxes collected would have been lower. Or to put it another way, the income had to have grown by a larger percentage than the tax cut (as you posted), or else overall revenues would have decreased. That hypothetical $365 appears to have had at least a 100% return on investment as the overall revenues increased (again, per your previous posts). I will not have the time to try to look it up until sometime after this weekend, but government revenues increased in the '20's, '60's, and '80's after tax cuts were introduced. My point in my earlier post, which you have not addressed, is that the deficit went up because SPENDING increased more than revenues did. Your final point in your reply to GG shows that you don't factor spending into the equation at all. Lowering tax rates and increasing the output of the economy will never result in a surplus if they are always accompanied by massive increases in spending.

How many quatloos for Shahna? Can the bidding start at 10?

I don't know why, but that one cracked me up.

IF the Bills get into the playoffs they will have a home game as the only way they get in is as the East Division winner. They'd probably have to host either Cincy or Jacksonville. On the outside chance they surpassed that hurdle, that is when the hurting begins. They most likely would have to go to Indy, and I don't see any way the Bills stay within 2 touchdowns of the Colts. It's all moot anyway, as the Patriots need to play very poorly over the last 6 weeks (w/ 2 games against the Jets and 1 against Miami) and the Bills at a minimum need to go 4-2, and probably 5-1 or 6-0 due to the Pats' remaining schedule.

I know some players in Europe have died from getting hit directly on the heart, haven't heard of any having it happen in NA, but if I'm not mistaken Chris Pronger collapsed a few years back after getting hit with a slap shot directly over his heart. As others have stated, thank God that Fischer appears to be ok.

PLEASE don't make me have to argue for the Keynesians! I don't follow your argument that revenues need to increase as a %age of national income in order to have truly increased. If that were the case, the only way to ever maximize revenues to the gov't's coffers would be to have a 100% tax. By lowering the tax rate, you increase revenues, but by definition have lowered the percentage of the GDP that the revenues make up. (Obviously, there is some tax rate where overall revenues will decrease, but my guess is that we are still comfortably on the high side of the inflection point.) As you admit, the economy picked up after the tax cuts, (I realize you believe that would have occured with or without the tax cuts) had spending been anywhere close to where it was prior to 2001, then the percentage of GDP shown as expenditures would at a minimum remain constant; it actually SHOULD decrease much as the revenues as a %age decreased. The fact that it grew by more than a full %age point indicates that spigot got opened a heck of a lot more than the tax cut would have accounted for. Had expenditures remained constant, or even close to constant, the deficit would have been a lot lower. I will not state that all of the increased spending was necessarily bad, as much of the military budget increases were necessary due to the US being at war. A certain amount of the discretionary spending was also necessary to get out of the brief recession. There was, however, a lot of unnecessary spending and that definitely ballooned the deficit. I agree with you 100% that the true deficits are worse than they look due to the SS "surplus". I wish the politicians were forced to keep them separate from the rest of the gov't's funds so people would see just how bad Congress is at staying in a budget.

The tax cuts did NOT increase the deficit. They led to increased government revenues. The deficit increased because spending increased more than the increase in revenues. Had the tax cuts not been enacted, the deficits would have increased even more as revenues would have been lower, assuming as you do that all else remains constant - i.e. that the increase in spending would have occured regardless of revenue. Had spending remained constant, the tax cuts would have REDUCED the deficit as they increased revenues. Deficit = Spending - Revenue when Spending > Revenue. If spending < revenue, you get a surplus. By the way, the '90's "surpluses" were not true surpluses as they were created using SS money that has been earmarked for future outlays.

As to your 1st point, my guess is that that is an issue that was argued here long before I started posting on this board, namely, was the US led invasion of Iraq a dispute between the US and Iraq or was it an enforcement of the 18 or so SC resolutions that Iraq was violating. My opinion is that it was the latter and I assume from your other posts that your view is it was the former. My guess is that one or both of us will have carpal-tunnel before we reach an agreement and as you mention, the point is moot. I agree with your other point about what the current concern should be. I tend to agree generally with BiB's and SnR's posts regarding Iraq, Mickey's protests that nothing specific is being stated at any level notwithstanding.

Hopefully at least 14 of them were against the annoying blonde in the beige suit sitting behind him who seemed to be the official Democrat applause starter. Hopefully the last hit was against whoever was the Republican applause starter. How in the world can these people be so fat when they have to jump out of their seats every 20 seconds to lead the wave throughout the chamber?

Yeah, but then, when it appeared the thread would drop below the toilet level, the Tidy Bowl man floated in on what was left of the Ella Fitzgerald to save the day.

Campy, I went back through the UN Charter again and "upon further review" do not believe that the US has an obligation to absolutely follow any "recommendations" of the GA. Article 2, Principle 5 states: The only place where "actions" are referred to is in dealing with issues before the Security Council (Articles 25, 36-42). Since the "recommendations" of the GA are NOT actions I do not see where under KRC's hypothetical "Chinese guns are now illegal" would be enforceable against the US (or any other member state for that matter). I come to the conclusion that GA recommendations are not actions because the SC can make recommendations and/or take actions. Actions and recommendations are specifically referred to separately for the SC. Because the US has it's veto on the SC, I don't see much possibility of overly ambitious busybodies being able to jerk the US around too much, but the possibility definitely is there. As a side note, because the SC CAN essentially declare war or impose significant economic sanctions on whomever it wants, provided it gets 9 votes and no vetos, I would never want the US to unilaterally withdraw from the UN. I see far too real a possibility that in the future some combination of the French, Chinese, and Russians would find some reason to declare war or sanctions on the US and drag the rest of the world with them. Also, it appears that the UN Charter was amended on at least 3 occasions. Do you by any chance have any information regarding whether the US Senate re-ratified the Charter after any / all of the amendments? I have no information regarding that and was curious.

That should teach her to go sticking her nose where it doesn't belong.

No, it wasn't Red Foxx, it was Red Green. The only reason he won the fight was due to the extra roll of duct tape he had hidden in each of his gloves. If Mr. T hadn't been there protecting him, there'd have been heck to pay.

I understand that the plaintiffs were arguing that they had exclusive rights in regards their children's education and I agree that they are probably wrong IMHO about that. I do not have a problem with the 1st part of the ruling, but do have a problem with the next sentence (the one that starts "we also hold"). The wording is such that parents have NO ... RIGHT, not no exclusive right, but no right. I am reading that as stating that if you enroll your child in public school, then no matter what the teachers, or in this case "volunteers", want to expose your children to, you just have to send the kid to class and hope that you can undo whatever damage it causes. I agree with you that prior to the ruling everyone agreed the parents had rights. I am not certain that that is the case after the ruling due to the wording.

Thank you for the clarification of your post. I now see why you feel all the UN resolutions / actions are binding on US law. I do not interpret Article 2 as broadly as you do, but will admit I may be misinterpreting it. (I doubt it, but it definitely is possible.) As for the Sabres, for some reason the game wasn't on DirecTV CI in Rochester last night so I didn't get a chance to watch it. I only knew they were winning big and then knew that they had won. Fortunately didn't get any of the gory details.

I'm a beer drinker myself, so most of these mixed drinks are emetics in my opinion. I'd probably actually consider it a moron's martini, but I think we're getting down to semantics.

Well considering legislators are actually elected and the "volunteer" that came up with this mess wasn't in any way, shape, or form I think that it is different. My concern, and why I claim the Court is activist is that it stated, in my reading of it, that parents now have no right to control or oversee what a teacher or "educator" wants to present to their children. Considering the fact that this survey had to have "parental approval" in the form of a misleading consent form, I think that even this school board and the "volunteer" running the program believed that parents have some rights regarding their children's educations. If my reading of the decision is correct, and parents do not have that right according to the 9th/8th court, I have a big problem with that, as it is almost impossible to get rid of a poor teacher with tenure in many school districts. If I am mistaken in what the Court actually decreed, then cool. But every time I read the decision, I keep coming back to the same place, that is that parents were just denied one more opportunity to keep "education" within the framework they are comfortable with. (By the way, I don't see this as a clearly right wing loss; I can definitely see "liberal" parents in Kansas or other more conservative regions thinking that they took it up the back side as well.)

1 oz gin 2 tsp sweet vermouth, dry vermouth, & orange juice several drops curacao Combine w/ ice, shake well Strain, add ice.

Well, I'll respect your opinion on this, but I just can't keep from seeing it from the flip side that these words in this ruling are actually stating that "educators" don't need to take the views of the parents into consideration before letting loose with any other program that is this moronic. I am still taking out of this ruling that the district doesn't even need to point out to the parents beforehand that they want to do something this poorly thought out. I hope that I am just reading it wrong.

Please point out to me where in the UN Charter it says anything about member nations being bound by General Assembly resolutions. As near as I can tell, and I admit I may be missing something, the General Assembly makes RECOMMENDATIONS and reports. I saw nothing binding in any of it. The Security Council is a different matter, but we have a veto on that one, so I'm not too worried about anything biting our butt from there. And you can go blank yourself with the "you didn't read the Constitution" crud. I have read the Constitution on several occasions and even bothered to relook at it before posting to you. My issue isn't with reading the bloody thing. My issue is that I don't see where any "resolutions" have been ratified by the Senate as PER THE CONSTITIUTION. I ASKED for CLARIFICATION of YOUR STATEMENTS and you suggested I go reread the Constitution, thus the point about being "snippy". The Charter is a treaty, you are correct. However my point was that the Senate has to ratify any treaties and the way you have been describing things, it would imply that you think once a treaty has been signed any and all modifications are necessarily binding on the US. I do not come away with that impression. That definitely is not the case with "normal" treaties. IF the UN Charter IS a different beast, please point me to the direct reference as I DON'T SEE IT THERE.

Campy, I see your point, but disagree with you about UN resolutions being "treaties" that the US is bound to. Unless the Senate RATIFIES a treaty it is NOT the "law of the land". (The Kyoto treaty that Clinton signed being a prime example.) I don't understand how the US becoming a member nation more than half a century ago automatically forces the US to follow something that was added in the interim. The US is party to GATT, but if/when that gets revised, it won't be binding on the US until the Senate ratifies the revisions. I don't see how this is any different. PS Thanks for the snippy answer about reading the Constitution.