Frederick Jerome wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:14:41 GMT, John Carrick <jcarr@no-spam>
> wrote:
>
>
>>That is essentially correct. If a baseball player can get a long-term
>>contract for a quarter of a *b*illion dollars, as Alex Rodriguez has,
>>who has the right to say that he doesn't deserve it? If daycare
>>workers can't get much above minimum wage, who is to say that they are
>>worth much more? Ours is a *demand* economy. In the long run we all
>>get what we're worth in the general scheme of things.
>>
>
>
> I have the right, and I say no fucking way he "deserves" that kind of
> money.
>
> The high standard of living we enjoy is the product of 100,000 years
> of human development and wanton exploitation of the third world . It
> is not the result of our work.
What would the 'third world' be if we didn't utilize them (or exploit
them as you say)? The 'fourth world'?
We receive an enormous social benefit
> when we cash our paycheques.
How's that?
A multilingual, competent, high IQ
> teacher in St. Petersburg earns 1/10 the real income of an
> incompetent, stupid teacher in Toronto .
You actually pay your teachers based on where they live? And based on
their IQ? You are way ahead of us. We have this socialist system that
says all teachers get paid the same ... the only difference is how long
they have worked!!!
Few in North America "earn"
> or "deserve" what they receive.
Just me I guess!!!
Todder
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:08:12 GMT, John Carrick <jcarr@no-spam>
wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 02:54:38 GMT, .BitHead. <bithead@no-spam>
>wrote:
>
>
>>>It is typical of you to read every disagreement with your overly
>>>selfish values as some sort of weakness.
>>
>>Put more correctly, it's typical of me to point out your weaknesses to
>>you, and typical of you to try and blame them on someone else.
>
>You have the most amazing gall.
Yes, I've noted that about you, previously.
>
>You some here in a cowardly fashion, unwilling to identify yourself,
Eric Florack, Rochester NY.
That's pretty much public understanding.
http://home.rochester.rr.com/bitheads/
>and then you have the "chutzpah" to accuse *someone else* of weakness?
Yes. Repeatedly.
Because you show it. Repeatedly.
And you're still dodging, Carrick.
----
_____________________________________________________________
/BitHead's Place: Political commentary from the REAL world. /\
/ http://home.rochester.rr.com/bitheads/ _/ /\
/Bit's weekly commentaries also available internationally: / \/
/ http://www.rightpoint.ca/ \ /
http://greysanctuary.com/columnists/bithead/index.asp /\
____________________________________________________________/ /
____________________________________________________________\/
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:43:38 GMT, John Carrick <jcarr@no-spam>
wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 02:26:37 GMT, nobody in particular <none@no-spam>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <r3lcfv07d2in902qq5eqd77db9om43hj07@no-spam>,
>> John Carrick <jcarr@no-spam> wrote:
>
>>> And when there is a widespread feeling that taxation is inadequate for
>>> the provision of a level of services that most people desire - as in
>>> Ontario today - we throw the under-taxing government out on its ass.
>
>>So basically, if 6 people out of 10 decide to tax the 4 richest to
>>subsistence levels, that's alright, huh? After all, it's democratic!
>
>[1] Please, don't employ the solecism "alright" in your posts to me,
>unless you also intend to use "alwrong".
>
>The term is "all right".
>
>All right?
The term is "socialist nitwit"
OK?
>[3] Yes, Parliament is supreme. If a tax regime were introduced
>that reduced Frank Stronach to poverty, that would be perfectly legal
>under our system.
>
>There are several reasons that is not going to happen.
Mostly because the socialists don't have the mono-political situation
they desire.
Yet.
>
>a) It would be counter-productive, since it would wipe out incentives
>for Canadians to found and operate successful enterprises.
Already been accomplished, in major part.
>
>b) Most of our major political parties have been financed and
>controlled by the Stronachs of Canada. Who pays the piper calls the
>tune.
>
>c) Canada is a largely free-enterprise democracy where effort is seen
>to deserve rewards. Most Canadians do not begrudge hard-working
>entrepreneurs a reasonable level of financial success.
Lie. 60-70% of Canadian income goes for taxes. Apparently, you
consider those levels "reasonable"
----
_____________________________________________________________
/BitHead's Place: Political commentary from the REAL world. /\
/ http://home.rochester.rr.com/bitheads/ _/ /\
/Bit's weekly commentaries also available internationally: / \/
/ http://www.rightpoint.ca/ \ /
http://greysanctuary.com/columnists/bithead/index.asp /\
____________________________________________________________/ /
____________________________________________________________\/
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
>>Then why run from them? Why not defeat the arguments?
>>Is it possibly because you can't?
>>
>So why exactly does someone in Rochester NY feel the need to troll
>through Canadian the newsgroups (bc.politics, ab.politics,
>sk.politics,ont.politics, can.politics)? Maybe he's getting his ass
>whipped in US newsgroups and figures life is easier here?
Perhaps you'd not noticed, that I'm still there.
Concept; being less than 60 miles from the border, I'm as affected by
Canadian politics in many ways, as you are.
----
_____________________________________________________________
/BitHead's Place: Political commentary from the REAL world. /\
/ http://home.rochester.rr.com/bitheads/ _/ /\
/Bit's weekly commentaries also available internationally: / \/
/ http://www.rightpoint.ca/ \ /
http://greysanctuary.com/columnists/bithead/index.asp /\
____________________________________________________________/ /
____________________________________________________________\/
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 03:24:19 GMT, Mountain Goat
<rmgoatNO@no-spam> wrote:
>>So basically, if 6 people out of 10 decide to tax the 4 richest to
>>subsistence levels, that's alright, huh? After all, it's democratic!
>
>Name someone who has been taxed to 'subsistence levels'. You cannot
>and you know you cannot so this is a red herring (sorry if you don't
>like 'red' things).
Actually, it's fairly easy to point up.
Consider the damage tax hikes do to the economy, and the hgood that
tax cuts do. Clearly, the levels are too high when even a small cut
has such a pronounced effect.
----
_____________________________________________________________
/BitHead's Place: Political commentary from the REAL world. /\
/ http://home.rochester.rr.com/bitheads/ _/ /\
/Bit's weekly commentaries also available internationally: / \/
/ http://www.rightpoint.ca/ \ /
http://greysanctuary.com/columnists/bithead/index.asp /\
____________________________________________________________/ /
____________________________________________________________\/
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \