|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#371
|
|||
|
|||
|
#372
|
|||
|
|||
|
#373
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Gerace ) wrote:
: "Rand Simberg" wrote in message : .. . : Who's opposed to a fair justice system? Can't you stay on topic for a : single post? : Did someone say 'on topic'? Rand, doesn't know when he's off topic based upon a subject line that is on topic. Eric |
#374
|
|||
|
|||
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message ... Rand Simberg wrote: Depends on calibre and muzzle velocity. With fish like Eric, though, a shotgun is adequate, and one shot will do ya. Ahh... unless you are using a slug, the shotgun projectile will probably have more than one piece of shot in it- that's why they call it a "shotgun"- because it fires multiple shot rather than a bullet... I still think this is an odd way to fish, but using thermite to boil a pond full of ducks is a little odd also, but at least does not lack in imagination. Pat However, it is a lousy way of cooking duck. To cook American ducks correctly requires something that lets the fat leak out. (One way we've found that is very nice is to poke holes in the skin, steam it til most of the fat has rendered out, and the roast it.) Oddly enough, some European ducks are so lean that they have to be barded (wrapped in fat) to cook well. The recipie I particularily remember is Chinese Tea Duck. You take a airtight (or nearly so) container, put in about a cup of loose tea leaves and a cup of raw rice, a wire rack, and a duck. Stick it on top of the stove for about an hour and a half. If the container isn't airtight, you may have to open up all your windows and disconnect the fire alarm. (This is what happened when we tried it.) The duck is absolutely delicious. It does seem an odd way of cooking. My theory was that some guy centuries ago had a warehouse where he stored rice and tea, and kept a few ducks in the attic. One night, a drunken Toshiro Mifune crept in, looking for the hidden Samurai armor, and accidentally set fire to the place. The poor owner was distraught, but kept wondering "what is that wonderful smell"... |
#375
|
|||
|
|||
Pat Flannery ) wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote: : : You counldn't hit the broad side of a barn much less a fish in a barrel, : literally and figuratively! : : : I still like the part where he's net-nannying your replies to my posts. Yes, I think that that has gotten him a little meaner and nastier that usual. "Cover your nuts!" : Bourgeoisie? Nope, this guy wants the whole kit and kaboodle. : Think an "R" monogram would look as good as an "N" one on the back of a : throne? : I guess that would depend on if the throne were made of porcelain. ;-) And this whole ego thing. Overnurtured as a youth or simply a mama's boy? Eric : Pat |
#376
|
|||
|
|||
"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message ... "Ami Silberman" wrote: : :"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message .. . : "Ami Silberman" wrote: : : :They don't pay income taxes. They do pay social security (6.2%) and Medicare : 2.9%), and there are usually state taxes as well. : : All of which they more than recover as 'earned income credit' or some : such euphemism. : :Single with no children, income of $7,500 per year, EIC is $303. For married :and no children, it is $380. For some reason you get a lot more back if you :have kids. In fact, for a married couple with two children, they get $1000 :back with a taxable income as high as $30,700. The bonus "child refund" eaks at $2600 for one child for a single parent with income of up to :$12,500, which is about $1000 above the level at which EIC goes away for :non-parents. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p596.pdf has all the gory :details. : :In the case of single person making $7,500 per year, the "lucky ducky" gets :$303 back from the government, which is about 4% of their income, or less :than half of what they pay in social security and Medicare. You have the numbers wrong. You've incorrectly doubled the Medicare rate. Now add in everything else they get at that income level. OK, so maybe I made a mistake with the Medicare (or the source I looked up on the web did.) I will not dispute the fact that people with (very) low income receive more in monetary support from the government than they put in. I thought you were refering only to the EIC, not to the EIC and all other payments. And so what if they get back more than they put in. Should we say that a person should only get back as much, or less, from the government in goods and services than they put in? Ok, so that means that when I was a graduate student, I shouldn't have been given a tuition waver, should have been prohibited from driving on public highways, and should have had to pay much more than a middle class person for museum admission. Oh, how do we figure the indirect benefits of government (such as the promotion of stability, market regulation etc.) which disproportionately benefit the rich. One of the side effects of the modern wellfare state is that we haven't had a peasant uprising in centuries. |
#377
|
|||
|
|||
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message . .. On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 12:57:25 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Ami Silberman" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Oh, how do we figure the indirect benefits of government (such as the promotion of stability, market regulation etc.) which disproportionately benefit the rich. One of the side effects of the modern wellfare state is that we haven't had a peasant uprising in centuries. No, instead we've had taxpayer uprisings. Which usually don't result in burned manor houses, murdered nobility and clergy, and violent suppression by the government. We also, so far, haven't had democracy seriously subverted by mob rule (or mobs of disenfranchised led on by ambitious men) as in the late Roman Republic. I think of the welfare state as a price we pay for civil stability. This is not to say that there aren't flaws, or reasons to reform, but publicly supplied bread and circuses accomplishes the following: 1. The "masses" are overall more contented and less prone to rebel. 2. Since the bread and circuses are supplied by the government, as opposed to individuals, it is harder to manipulate the masses by means of the bread and circuses. It's a pretty cynical view, but I think that, overall a rational one. |
#378
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 12:39:56 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote: If you keep your powder up your ass, you can cover all bases. But then you'd have to worry about sneezing and blowing your fool head off.... ....**** ******, is that you? PLONK Not that it matters... OM -- "No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr |
#379
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982) | Stuf4 | Policy | 145 | July 28th 04 07:30 AM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | April 2nd 04 12:01 AM |
Our Moon as BattleStar | Rick Sobie | Astronomy Misc | 93 | February 8th 04 09:31 PM |
First Moonwalk? A Russian Perspective | Astronaut | Misc | 0 | January 31st 04 03:11 AM |
New Space Race? | Eugene Kent | Misc | 9 | November 13th 03 01:42 PM |