rec.crafts.metalworking - 26 new messages in 9 topics - digest

rec.crafts.metalworking
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking?hl=en

rec.crafts.metalworking@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* What is it? Set 527 - 7 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/14c3869b5a7dbe4d?hl=en
* Leftists admit: "We're stumped - can't do it." (no case forredistribution) -
10 messages, 7 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/819f57e28ba0b1c5?hl=en
* OT: Gieger Counters and such - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/a0c36296ec037eae?hl=en
* Metal 3D printed gun - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/aa8ad83e53e43114?hl=en
* Why The Wealthy Should Pay No Taxes And Poor People Like You Should Pick Up
The Slack (and More!) - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/9aa55210a9b62a7c?hl=en
* "Tea party has roots in the Dallas of 1963" - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/e78c874333d8688c?hl=en
* When Beliefs are Non-Falsifiable and Infallible - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/88419f650157a1bf?hl=en
* ___TeeNut___! R.I.P. - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/e6de4947d65e5910?hl=en
* STILL no ethical justification for redistribution of wealth - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/1d0f66fc7e82e9ef?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: What is it? Set 527
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/14c3869b5a7dbe4d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 10 2014 9:10 pm
From: "DoN. Nichols"


On 2014-01-11, Phil Kangas <pkangas@upalphacomm.net> wrote:
>
> "Bill" answered to this:
>>> I am interested in which newsgroup has the
>>> greatest number of
>>> correct identifications for each class of
>>> objects. I can't develop that

[ ... ]

>> Maybe we should have a short vote on whether we
>> think your idea is any good before you impose it
>> on us?
>> I have to side with Mike Marlow on this one.
>> Bill
>>
>
> I agree with Mike also. Why? Because not everyone
> posts to all
> three groups therefore you will have to visit each
> group
> individually to get your data. That's a waste of
> time, IMHO.

How many post only in one group, instead of doing a normal
"followup", which would go to all three newsgroups? I don't see any in
rec.crafts.metalworking -- though I must admit to not
specifically looking for that. Granted, I have to deal with my
newsreader saying "are you sure?" each time, and suggesting that I set
the "Followup-To: " to a single newsgroup -- but if I did that, a number
would not see what I post, and perhaps augment my guesses with more
knowledge. I *hope* that everybody posts to all three newsgroups.

And I certainly don't go to the other two newsgroups. I spend
enough time on the net as it is, between a few newsgroups, some mailing
lists, and private e-mail. :-)

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Remove oil spill source from e-mail
Email: <BPdnicholsBP@d-and-d.com> | (KV4PH) Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---




== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 10 2014 9:21 pm
From: Bill


DoN. Nichols wrote:
> On 2014-01-11, Bill <BILL_NOSPAM@whoknows.net> wrote:
>> DoN. Nichols wrote:
>>> On 2014-01-10, Mike Marlow <mmarlowREMOVE@windstream.net> wrote:
> [ ... ]
>
>>>> Why do you feel the need to continually post this comment? Everyone
>>>> participating in this thread is doing so in a community way. What does it
>>>> matter where you are posting from and why the emphasis on where the the
>>>> origianl poster? Geeze - just post your damned ideas.
>>> I am interested in which newsgroup has the greatest number of
>>> correct identifications for each class of objects. I can't develop that
>>> information until I know where people are posting from -- since there is
>>> no clue in the headers. I provide the information by way of example,
>>> hoping that others will do the same.
>>>
>>> I've expanded the wording because of some who post saying "from
>>> my computer" or something similarly uninformative.
>>>
>>> Enjoy,
>>> DoN.
>> Maybe we should have a short vote on whether we think your idea is any
>> good before you impose it on us?
>> I have to side with Mike Marlow on this one.
> Well ... I'm hardly *imposing* it. I am in no position to force
> anyone to comply (nor would I *want* to). How much "power" I have is
> indicated by how many others indicate which newsgroup they are posting
> from. :-)

Yes, the "P" word. Funny that you should mention it...

>
> Mostly, I expect that people in specific newsgroups would be
> more likely to get certain categories of puzzle photos properly
> identified. For example, I am not a woodworker, and don't expect to get
> many of the more esoteric woodworking tools correct. But I am a
> metalworker (hobby level), and am a retired electronics technician (but
> there is no cross-posting to the electronics newsgroups).
>
> I am particularly interested in seeing how many of those who
> find this in the puzzles newsgroup (and who do not read the other
> newsgroups) get various technical items correctly.
>
> Enjoy,
> DoN.
>





== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 11 2014 12:12 am
From: Marc Dashevsky


In article <laq5kr02moh@news1.newsguy.com>, BILL_NOSPAM@whoknows.net says...
>
> DoN. Nichols wrote:
> > On 2014-01-10, Mike Marlow <mmarlowREMOVE@windstream.net> wrote:
> >> DoN. Nichols wrote:
> >>> On 2014-01-09, Rob H <Rob_member@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >>>> I need some help with the first two items this week:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://55tools.blogspot.com/
> >>>>
> >>>> Larger images:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://imgur.com/a/2H0z3
> >>> Posting from the usenet newsgroup rec.crafts.metalworking as
> >>> always. (Which of the three cross-posted newsgroups are *you* posting
> >>> from?)
> >> Why do you feel the need to continually post this comment? Everyone
> >> participating in this thread is doing so in a community way. What does it
> >> matter where you are posting from and why the emphasis on where the the
> >> origianl poster? Geeze - just post your damned ideas.
> > I am interested in which newsgroup has the greatest number of
> > correct identifications for each class of objects. I can't develop that
> > information until I know where people are posting from -- since there is
> > no clue in the headers. I provide the information by way of example,
> > hoping that others will do the same.
> >
> > I've expanded the wording because of some who post saying "from
> > my computer" or something similarly uninformative.
> >
> > Enjoy,
> > DoN.
>
> Maybe we should have a short vote on whether we think your idea is any
> good before you impose it on us?

Impose? You must be very susceptible to suggestion.
Ignore it if you do not wish to do it.

> I have to side with Mike Marlow on this one.






== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 11 2014 12:28 am
From: Bill


Marc Dashevsky wrote:
> In article <laq5kr02moh@news1.newsguy.com>, BILL_NOSPAM@whoknows.net says...
>> DoN. Nichols wrote:
>>> On 2014-01-10, Mike Marlow <mmarlowREMOVE@windstream.net> wrote:
>>>> DoN. Nichols wrote:
>>>>> On 2014-01-09, Rob H <Rob_member@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I need some help with the first two items this week:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://55tools.blogspot.com/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Larger images:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://imgur.com/a/2H0z3
>>>>> Posting from the usenet newsgroup rec.crafts.metalworking as
>>>>> always. (Which of the three cross-posted newsgroups are *you* posting
>>>>> from?)
>>>> Why do you feel the need to continually post this comment? Everyone
>>>> participating in this thread is doing so in a community way. What does it
>>>> matter where you are posting from and why the emphasis on where the the
>>>> origianl poster? Geeze - just post your damned ideas.
>>> I am interested in which newsgroup has the greatest number of
>>> correct identifications for each class of objects. I can't develop that
>>> information until I know where people are posting from -- since there is
>>> no clue in the headers. I provide the information by way of example,
>>> hoping that others will do the same.
>>>
>>> I've expanded the wording because of some who post saying "from
>>> my computer" or something similarly uninformative.
>>>
>>> Enjoy,
>>> DoN.
>> Maybe we should have a short vote on whether we think your idea is any
>> good before you impose it on us?
> Impose? You must be very susceptible to suggestion.
> Ignore it if you do not wish to do it.


Just a coincidence, I suppose, that you and ol' DoN have the same
newsgroup provider?
Go "P" in someone else's pool.


>
>> I have to side with Mike Marlow on this one.
>





== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 11 2014 12:37 am
From: Bill


Bill wrote:
> Marc Dashevsky wrote:
>> In article <laq5kr02moh@news1.newsguy.com>, BILL_NOSPAM@whoknows.net
>> says...
>>> DoN. Nichols wrote:
>>>> On 2014-01-10, Mike Marlow <mmarlowREMOVE@windstream.net> wrote:
>>>>> DoN. Nichols wrote:
>>>>>> On 2014-01-09, Rob H <Rob_member@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> I need some help with the first two items this week:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://55tools.blogspot.com/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Larger images:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://imgur.com/a/2H0z3
>>>>>> Posting from the usenet newsgroup rec.crafts.metalworking as
>>>>>> always. (Which of the three cross-posted newsgroups are *you*
>>>>>> posting
>>>>>> from?)
>>>>> Why do you feel the need to continually post this comment? Everyone
>>>>> participating in this thread is doing so in a community way. What
>>>>> does it
>>>>> matter where you are posting from and why the emphasis on where
>>>>> the the
>>>>> origianl poster? Geeze - just post your damned ideas.
>>>> I am interested in which newsgroup has the greatest number of
>>>> correct identifications for each class of objects. I can't develop
>>>> that
>>>> information until I know where people are posting from -- since
>>>> there is
>>>> no clue in the headers. I provide the information by way of example,
>>>> hoping that others will do the same.
>>>>
>>>> I've expanded the wording because of some who post saying "from
>>>> my computer" or something similarly uninformative.
>>>>
>>>> Enjoy,
>>>> DoN.
>>> Maybe we should have a short vote on whether we think your idea is any
>>> good before you impose it on us?
>> Impose? You must be very susceptible to suggestion.
>> Ignore it if you do not wish to do it.
>
>
> Just a coincidence, I suppose, that you and ol' DoN have the same
> newsgroup provider?
>
I may be mistaken, but lets be nice (anyway).

Bill

>
>
>>
>>> I have to side with Mike Marlow on this one.
>>
>





== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 11 2014 6:42 am
From: Stormin Mormon


On 1/10/2014 4:10 PM, Rob H. wrote:
>
> No luck yet identifying the first two items, answers for the other four can be
> seen here:
>
> http://55tools.blogspot.com/2014/01/set-527.html#answers
>
>
> Rob
>

I'm sad that so many wonderful items, no one
can remember what they are, or were. It seems
such a loss.

--
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
.




== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 11 2014 6:45 am
From: Stormin Mormon


On 1/10/2014 8:55 PM, DoN. Nichols wrote:
> On 2014-01-10, Rob H <Rob_member@newsguy.com> wrote:

>> http://55tools.blogspot.com/2014/01/set-527.html#answers
>
> And for 3078 -- when you said "an outdoorsman", I was thinking
> that you were implying that it was to be *used* outdoors. I see from
> the later photo added that it was used with full brass shotshells, not
> the later paper and then plastic ones. Though I guess that it could be
> used for all.
>
> Enjoy,
> DoN.

In the post modern USA, are we still allowed
to have guns? I'm in NYS, for example. I don't
think proletariat are allowed guns, here.

--
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
.





==============================================================================
TOPIC: Leftists admit: "We're stumped - can't do it." (no case
forredistribution)
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/819f57e28ba0b1c5?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 10 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 10 2014 9:13 pm
From: prime cut


On 1/10/2014 5:31 PM, jim wrote:
> You can find the data here:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/17186-cbo-report-the-rich-pay-most-of-the-taxes-the-poor-get-checks

Jane Wells, a business news reporter for CNBC, after reviewing the
latest report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) on who pays
income taxes in America, claimed that the rich pay them all. The CBO,
wrote Wells, showed that the top 20 percent pay nearly 93 percent of all
income taxes, while the top 40 percent pay 106 percent of them.

How is that possible? The bottom fifth of wage earners get more from the
government than they pay in taxes. Hence, the anomaly of the so-called
rich paying more than 100 percent of all income taxes received by the
government.

The CBO�s math is straightforward: For the year 2010, the bottom fifth
earned �market income� � wages, business income, capital gains,
retirement income, and so on � of $8,100 per person. But they also
received �government transfers� � cash payments and in-kind benefits
such as SNAP � of $22,700, leaving them with a per-person after-tax
income of $30,800. Each person�s income tax liability in that group?
Exactly zero.

For the second lowest quintile, the numbers for 2010 were similar:
income of $30,700 per person, government transfers of $15,200 with
income taxes paid of $2,500 per person, leaving them with an after-tax
income of $43,400.

This government largess must be paid for in some way, and it�s the
remaining three-fifths of Americans who do the paying, especially the
top fifth. Says the CBO, the average wage earner in the top 20 percent
of all wage earners had an income in 2010 of $234,000, received
government benefits of $6,500 and paid taxes of $58,900, leaving each
with an after-tax income of $181,900.

Concluded Wells:

People who make more should pay more, generally speaking. In America,
they are.�

When it comes to individual income taxes, they�re also covering the
entire bill. And leaving a tip....

Fair or not, I will let you be the judge.

Josh Barro, the politics editor at Business Insider, picked a nit with
her but not about whether such taxation is �fair� but over her � and the
CBO�s � analysis and conclusion: There are many other taxes aside from
income taxes that every sentient soul in the country pays, whether they
know it or not. There are payroll taxes, state income taxes, sales
taxes, property taxes, and excise taxes. There are taxes buried in the
cost of gasoline, and in manufactured goods reflecting corporate income
taxes. There are employer-paid payroll taxes that properly should be
ascribed to the individual wage earner. And so on.

Said Barro, �The federal personal income tax only made up 28% of all
U.S. government tax collections in 2012. Federal, state and local
government collected $4 trillion in taxes last year, just $1.1 trillion
of that [coming from] federal personal income taxes.� He concluded:

Rich people do pay a lot more taxes than poor people, both in absolute
terms and as a percentage of [their] income. But the rich are not paying
all the taxes.

Barro neatly avoids any discussion, however, of just how �fair� these
taxes are, or should be.

There are many ways to argue for or against the amount people pay in
taxes. One way is to assume that government should take everything it
can get � to be put to good use by the government � as long as the taxes
by the government aren't so high that they discourage people from
earning money or paying taxes. If one were determined to extract the
maximum government revenue from an economic system, he could employ the
Laffer Curve, which shows that the maximum revenue to be extracted
approaches some 70 percent of income. If it were higher than that, the
incentive to produce more would diminish and revenues would go down. If
it were lower, the government would be leaving revenues on the table for
its original owners to spend as they wished.

Then there is the �sovereign citizen� argument that says that any
extraction above zero represents �involuntary servitude� as explained by
libertarian philosopher and economist Murray Rothbard:

In a sense, the entire system of taxation is a form of involuntary
servitude. Take, in particular, the income tax. The high levels of
income tax mean that all of us work a large part of the year � several
months � for nothing for Uncle Sam before being allowed to enjoy our
incomes on the market.

Part of the essence of slavery, after all, is forced work for someone at
little or no pay. But the income tax means that we sweat and earn
income, only to see the government extract a large chunk of it by
coercion for its own purposes. What is this but forced labor at no pay?

There is the moral argument that the income tax system violates at least
two of the 10 Commandments � thou shalt to steal and thou shall not
covet � and three of the Seven Deadly Sins � Greed, Sloth, and Envy.

There is another response to the unanswered question, however, drawn
from Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution � the enumerated
powers given to the national government. Prior to the ratification of
the 16th Amendment, the national government ran itself on tariffs and
excise taxes, at a vastly lower cost. One thing is certain, according to
Ron Paul:

The Founding Fathers never intended a nation where citizens would pay
nearly half of everything they earn to the government.

Nor did the Founders contemplate such a system of taxation. As Dr.
Adrian Rogers, pastor emeritus of Bellevue Baptist Church, wrote,

What one person receives without working for[,] another person must work
for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything
that the government does not first take from somebody else.

When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work
because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other
half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is
going to get what they work for, that, my dear friend, is the beginning
of the end of any nation.

A graduate of Cornell University and a former investment advisor, Bob is
a regular contributor to The New American magazine and blogs frequently
at www.LightFromTheRight.com, primarily on economics and politics. He
can be reached at badelmann@thenewamerican.com.






== 2 of 10 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 10 2014 9:13 pm
From: prime cut


On 1/10/2014 5:13 PM, jim wrote:
> I'll complain about their story when they start

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/17186-cbo-report-the-rich-pay-most-of-the-taxes-the-poor-get-checks

Jane Wells, a business news reporter for CNBC, after reviewing the
latest report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) on who pays
income taxes in America, claimed that the rich pay them all. The CBO,
wrote Wells, showed that the top 20 percent pay nearly 93 percent of all
income taxes, while the top 40 percent pay 106 percent of them.

How is that possible? The bottom fifth of wage earners get more from the
government than they pay in taxes. Hence, the anomaly of the so-called
rich paying more than 100 percent of all income taxes received by the
government.

The CBO�s math is straightforward: For the year 2010, the bottom fifth
earned �market income� � wages, business income, capital gains,
retirement income, and so on � of $8,100 per person. But they also
received �government transfers� � cash payments and in-kind benefits
such as SNAP � of $22,700, leaving them with a per-person after-tax
income of $30,800. Each person�s income tax liability in that group?
Exactly zero.

For the second lowest quintile, the numbers for 2010 were similar:
income of $30,700 per person, government transfers of $15,200 with
income taxes paid of $2,500 per person, leaving them with an after-tax
income of $43,400.

This government largess must be paid for in some way, and it�s the
remaining three-fifths of Americans who do the paying, especially the
top fifth. Says the CBO, the average wage earner in the top 20 percent
of all wage earners had an income in 2010 of $234,000, received
government benefits of $6,500 and paid taxes of $58,900, leaving each
with an after-tax income of $181,900.

Concluded Wells:

People who make more should pay more, generally speaking. In America,
they are.�

When it comes to individual income taxes, they�re also covering the
entire bill. And leaving a tip....

Fair or not, I will let you be the judge.

Josh Barro, the politics editor at Business Insider, picked a nit with
her but not about whether such taxation is �fair� but over her � and the
CBO�s � analysis and conclusion: There are many other taxes aside from
income taxes that every sentient soul in the country pays, whether they
know it or not. There are payroll taxes, state income taxes, sales
taxes, property taxes, and excise taxes. There are taxes buried in the
cost of gasoline, and in manufactured goods reflecting corporate income
taxes. There are employer-paid payroll taxes that properly should be
ascribed to the individual wage earner. And so on.

Said Barro, �The federal personal income tax only made up 28% of all
U.S. government tax collections in 2012. Federal, state and local
government collected $4 trillion in taxes last year, just $1.1 trillion
of that [coming from] federal personal income taxes.� He concluded:

Rich people do pay a lot more taxes than poor people, both in absolute
terms and as a percentage of [their] income. But the rich are not paying
all the taxes.

Barro neatly avoids any discussion, however, of just how �fair� these
taxes are, or should be.

There are many ways to argue for or against the amount people pay in
taxes. One way is to assume that government should take everything it
can get � to be put to good use by the government � as long as the taxes
by the government aren't so high that they discourage people from
earning money or paying taxes. If one were determined to extract the
maximum government revenue from an economic system, he could employ the
Laffer Curve, which shows that the maximum revenue to be extracted
approaches some 70 percent of income. If it were higher than that, the
incentive to produce more would diminish and revenues would go down. If
it were lower, the government would be leaving revenues on the table for
its original owners to spend as they wished.

Then there is the �sovereign citizen� argument that says that any
extraction above zero represents �involuntary servitude� as explained by
libertarian philosopher and economist Murray Rothbard:

In a sense, the entire system of taxation is a form of involuntary
servitude. Take, in particular, the income tax. The high levels of
income tax mean that all of us work a large part of the year � several
months � for nothing for Uncle Sam before being allowed to enjoy our
incomes on the market.

Part of the essence of slavery, after all, is forced work for someone at
little or no pay. But the income tax means that we sweat and earn
income, only to see the government extract a large chunk of it by
coercion for its own purposes. What is this but forced labor at no pay?

There is the moral argument that the income tax system violates at least
two of the 10 Commandments � thou shalt to steal and thou shall not
covet � and three of the Seven Deadly Sins � Greed, Sloth, and Envy.

There is another response to the unanswered question, however, drawn
from Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution � the enumerated
powers given to the national government. Prior to the ratification of
the 16th Amendment, the national government ran itself on tariffs and
excise taxes, at a vastly lower cost. One thing is certain, according to
Ron Paul:

The Founding Fathers never intended a nation where citizens would pay
nearly half of everything they earn to the government.

Nor did the Founders contemplate such a system of taxation. As Dr.
Adrian Rogers, pastor emeritus of Bellevue Baptist Church, wrote,

What one person receives without working for[,] another person must work
for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything
that the government does not first take from somebody else.

When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work
because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other
half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is
going to get what they work for, that, my dear friend, is the beginning
of the end of any nation.

A graduate of Cornell University and a former investment advisor, Bob is
a regular contributor to The New American magazine and blogs frequently
at www.LightFromTheRight.com, primarily on economics and politics. He
can be reached at badelmann@thenewamerican.com.






== 3 of 10 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 10 2014 9:14 pm
From: prime cut


On 1/10/2014 5:09 PM, jim wrote:
> I'm not bitching about people not paying their share.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/17186-cbo-report-the-rich-pay-most-of-the-taxes-the-poor-get-checks

Jane Wells, a business news reporter for CNBC, after reviewing the
latest report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) on who pays
income taxes in America, claimed that the rich pay them all. The CBO,
wrote Wells, showed that the top 20 percent pay nearly 93 percent of all
income taxes, while the top 40 percent pay 106 percent of them.

How is that possible? The bottom fifth of wage earners get more from the
government than they pay in taxes. Hence, the anomaly of the so-called
rich paying more than 100 percent of all income taxes received by the
government.

The CBO�s math is straightforward: For the year 2010, the bottom fifth
earned �market income� � wages, business income, capital gains,
retirement income, and so on � of $8,100 per person. But they also
received �government transfers� � cash payments and in-kind benefits
such as SNAP � of $22,700, leaving them with a per-person after-tax
income of $30,800. Each person�s income tax liability in that group?
Exactly zero.

For the second lowest quintile, the numbers for 2010 were similar:
income of $30,700 per person, government transfers of $15,200 with
income taxes paid of $2,500 per person, leaving them with an after-tax
income of $43,400.

This government largess must be paid for in some way, and it�s the
remaining three-fifths of Americans who do the paying, especially the
top fifth. Says the CBO, the average wage earner in the top 20 percent
of all wage earners had an income in 2010 of $234,000, received
government benefits of $6,500 and paid taxes of $58,900, leaving each
with an after-tax income of $181,900.

Concluded Wells:

People who make more should pay more, generally speaking. In America,
they are.�

When it comes to individual income taxes, they�re also covering the
entire bill. And leaving a tip....

Fair or not, I will let you be the judge.

Josh Barro, the politics editor at Business Insider, picked a nit with
her but not about whether such taxation is �fair� but over her � and the
CBO�s � analysis and conclusion: There are many other taxes aside from
income taxes that every sentient soul in the country pays, whether they
know it or not. There are payroll taxes, state income taxes, sales
taxes, property taxes, and excise taxes. There are taxes buried in the
cost of gasoline, and in manufactured goods reflecting corporate income
taxes. There are employer-paid payroll taxes that properly should be
ascribed to the individual wage earner. And so on.

Said Barro, �The federal personal income tax only made up 28% of all
U.S. government tax collections in 2012. Federal, state and local
government collected $4 trillion in taxes last year, just $1.1 trillion
of that [coming from] federal personal income taxes.� He concluded:

Rich people do pay a lot more taxes than poor people, both in absolute
terms and as a percentage of [their] income. But the rich are not paying
all the taxes.

Barro neatly avoids any discussion, however, of just how �fair� these
taxes are, or should be.

There are many ways to argue for or against the amount people pay in
taxes. One way is to assume that government should take everything it
can get � to be put to good use by the government � as long as the taxes
by the government aren't so high that they discourage people from
earning money or paying taxes. If one were determined to extract the
maximum government revenue from an economic system, he could employ the
Laffer Curve, which shows that the maximum revenue to be extracted
approaches some 70 percent of income. If it were higher than that, the
incentive to produce more would diminish and revenues would go down. If
it were lower, the government would be leaving revenues on the table for
its original owners to spend as they wished.

Then there is the �sovereign citizen� argument that says that any
extraction above zero represents �involuntary servitude� as explained by
libertarian philosopher and economist Murray Rothbard:

In a sense, the entire system of taxation is a form of involuntary
servitude. Take, in particular, the income tax. The high levels of
income tax mean that all of us work a large part of the year � several
months � for nothing for Uncle Sam before being allowed to enjoy our
incomes on the market.

Part of the essence of slavery, after all, is forced work for someone at
little or no pay. But the income tax means that we sweat and earn
income, only to see the government extract a large chunk of it by
coercion for its own purposes. What is this but forced labor at no pay?

There is the moral argument that the income tax system violates at least
two of the 10 Commandments � thou shalt to steal and thou shall not
covet � and three of the Seven Deadly Sins � Greed, Sloth, and Envy.

There is another response to the unanswered question, however, drawn
from Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution � the enumerated
powers given to the national government. Prior to the ratification of
the 16th Amendment, the national government ran itself on tariffs and
excise taxes, at a vastly lower cost. One thing is certain, according to
Ron Paul:

The Founding Fathers never intended a nation where citizens would pay
nearly half of everything they earn to the government.

Nor did the Founders contemplate such a system of taxation. As Dr.
Adrian Rogers, pastor emeritus of Bellevue Baptist Church, wrote,

What one person receives without working for[,] another person must work
for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything
that the government does not first take from somebody else.

When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work
because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other
half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is
going to get what they work for, that, my dear friend, is the beginning
of the end of any nation.

A graduate of Cornell University and a former investment advisor, Bob is
a regular contributor to The New American magazine and blogs frequently
at www.LightFromTheRight.com, primarily on economics and politics. He
can be reached at badelmann@thenewamerican.com.






== 4 of 10 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 11 2014 3:59 am
From: jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt.net>




prime cut wrote:

>
> This government largess must be paid for in some way, and it's the
> remaining three-fifths of Americans who do the paying, especially the
> top fifth.

The income taxpayers fool themselves into believing
they pay for it by telling fairy tales.

Income tax pays for less than 1/3 of federal spending.
That doesn't even cover the income taxpayers share
of the spending.

2009 federal spending was 3.52 trillion.
Individual income tax was 915 billion
26% of the spending was paid for by those taxpayers.

2010 federal spending was 3.46 trillion.
Individual income tax was 899 billion
26% of the spending was paid for by those taxpayers.

2011 federal spending was 3.6 trillion.
Individual income tax was 1.09 trillion
30% of the spending was covered by those taxpayers.

2012 federal spending was 3.54 trillion.
Individual income tax was 1.13 trillion
32% of the spending was paid for by those taxpayers.

That comes to about 29% of the federal spending
was paid for by individual income tax payers.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com





== 5 of 10 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 11 2014 5:53 am
From: "Moder@tor"


On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 17:47:02 -0500, "Scout"
<me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>
>
>"jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt.net> wrote in message
>news:sY2dnUq_E6QAiU3PnZ2dnUVZ_joAAAAA@bright.net...
>>
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>> Leftists admit they can't make an ethical case for redistribution.
>>
>> Leftist are every bit as dumb and ignorant as you are.
>>
>> In the last few years income taxpayers have been paying for
>> less than 30% of federal spending. That means individual
>> taxpayers don't even pay for their share of federal spending,
>> much less anybody else's share.
>
>And what percentage of federal spending do those who don't pay federal
>income tax cover?
>
>Yea, tell us how we should increase the rate on those who are paying federal
>income tax to "cover their share" when we've got people that pay far less
>than their share. Oh, and those people have a bigger share because they
>receive far more in benefits from the federal government.
>
Not all of them:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/06/35-000-rich-people-arent-paying-any-income-tax-how-is-that-possible/258183/




== 6 of 10 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 11 2014 6:20 am
From: Klaus Schadenfreude


On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 14:53:39 +0100, "Moder@tor" <Moder@tor.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 17:47:02 -0500, "Scout"
><me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt.net> wrote in message
>>news:sY2dnUq_E6QAiU3PnZ2dnUVZ_joAAAAA@bright.net...
>>>
>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Leftists admit they can't make an ethical case for redistribution.
>>>
>>> Leftist are every bit as dumb and ignorant as you are.
>>>
>>> In the last few years income taxpayers have been paying for
>>> less than 30% of federal spending. That means individual
>>> taxpayers don't even pay for their share of federal spending,
>>> much less anybody else's share.
>>
>>And what percentage of federal spending do those who don't pay federal
>>income tax cover?
>>
>>Yea, tell us how we should increase the rate on those who are paying federal
>>income tax to "cover their share" when we've got people that pay far less
>>than their share. Oh, and those people have a bigger share because they
>>receive far more in benefits from the federal government.
>>
>Not all of them:
>http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/06/35-000-rich-people-arent-paying-any-income-tax-how-is-that-possible/258183/


First, a big caveat. Only a very, very small percentage of top earners
have zero federal income tax liability -- 0.88 percent in 2009, to be
exact.

Of those 0.88, check the graph.




== 7 of 10 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 11 2014 7:20 am
From: dzweibach102@REMOVEyahoo.com (Denny)


"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
> "First-Post" <AIOE_posters_are_all_liars@AIOE.org> wrote in message
> news:bk31d9dgs9hikt1k8pt134vbg0htb9qpes@4ax.com...
> > On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 18:09:48 -0600, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>Scout wrote:
> >>> Then let's
> >>> see you bitch about who's not paying their fair share.
> >>>
> >>
> >>I'm not bitching about people not paying their share.
> >>I'm bitching about people fabricating false stories
> >>about paying more than their share. Nobody is paying
> >>more than their share.
> >
> > Based upon your opinion alone, which no one gives a damn about.
> >
> > What percentage of your income is consumed by taxes hypocrite?
> >
> > It has been proven that the wealthy pay in much more than they receive
> > regarding government services and entitlements.
> > You continue to claim that they do not but have never posted any proof
> > of your stupid assed statements.
>
> I challenge anyone to show us the wealthy get more from the government in
> relation to what they pay than does someone getting an earned income
> credit, welfare, housing assistance, food stamps, and all the rest.
>
> If/When someone can do that then we can talk about what is fair for
> taxation.

The poor don't get a tax deduction for their private corporate jets, or the
champagn included.




== 8 of 10 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 11 2014 7:49 am
From: BeamMeUpScotty


On 1/11/2014 10:20 AM, Denny wrote:
> "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>> "First-Post" <AIOE_posters_are_all_liars@AIOE.org> wrote in message
>> news:bk31d9dgs9hikt1k8pt134vbg0htb9qpes@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 18:09:48 -0600, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Scout wrote:
>>>>> Then let's
>>>>> see you bitch about who's not paying their fair share.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not bitching about people not paying their share.
>>>> I'm bitching about people fabricating false stories
>>>> about paying more than their share. Nobody is paying
>>>> more than their share.
>>>
>>> Based upon your opinion alone, which no one gives a damn about.
>>>
>>> What percentage of your income is consumed by taxes hypocrite?
>>>
>>> It has been proven that the wealthy pay in much more than they receive
>>> regarding government services and entitlements.
>>> You continue to claim that they do not but have never posted any proof
>>> of your stupid assed statements.
>>
>> I challenge anyone to show us the wealthy get more from the government in
>> relation to what they pay than does someone getting an earned income
>> credit, welfare, housing assistance, food stamps, and all the rest.
>>
>> If/When someone can do that then we can talk about what is fair for
>> taxation.
>
> The poor don't get a tax deduction for their private corporate jets, or the
> champagn included.
>

Sure they do, they are 100% exempted from any corporate jet tax.

That's the point of the tax code.









== 9 of 10 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 11 2014 8:22 am
From: Rudy Canoza


On 1/11/2014 5:53 AM, Immoder@te Li@r lied:

> On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 17:47:02 -0500, "Scout"
> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt.net> wrote in message
>> news:sY2dnUq_E6QAiU3PnZ2dnUVZ_joAAAAA@bright.net...
>>>
>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Leftists admit they can't make an ethical case for redistribution.
>>>
>>> Leftist are every bit as dumb and ignorant as you are.
>>>
>>> In the last few years income taxpayers have been paying for
>>> less than 30% of federal spending. That means individual
>>> taxpayers don't even pay for their share of federal spending,
>>> much less anybody else's share.
>>
>> And what percentage of federal spending do those who don't pay federal
>> income tax cover?
>>
>> Yea, tell us how we should increase the rate on those who are paying federal
>> income tax to "cover their share" when we've got people that pay far less
>> than their share. Oh, and those people have a bigger share because they
>> receive far more in benefits from the federal government.
>>
> Not all of them:
> http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/06/35-000-rich-people-arent-paying-any-income-tax-how-is-that-possible/258183/

Unrepresentative anecdote.





== 10 of 10 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 11 2014 8:24 am
From: Rudy Canoza


On 1/11/2014 7:20 AM, Denny wrote:
> "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>> "First-Post" <AIOE_posters_are_all_liars@AIOE.org> wrote in message
>> news:bk31d9dgs9hikt1k8pt134vbg0htb9qpes@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 18:09:48 -0600, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Scout wrote:
>>>>> Then let's
>>>>> see you bitch about who's not paying their fair share.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not bitching about people not paying their share.
>>>> I'm bitching about people fabricating false stories
>>>> about paying more than their share. Nobody is paying
>>>> more than their share.
>>>
>>> Based upon your opinion alone, which no one gives a damn about.
>>>
>>> What percentage of your income is consumed by taxes hypocrite?
>>>
>>> It has been proven that the wealthy pay in much more than they receive
>>> regarding government services and entitlements.
>>> You continue to claim that they do not but have never posted any proof
>>> of your stupid assed statements.
>>
>> I challenge anyone to show us the wealthy get more from the government in
>> relation to what they pay than does someone getting an earned income
>> credit, welfare, housing assistance, food stamps, and all the rest.
>>
>> If/When someone can do that then we can talk about what is fair for
>> taxation.
>
> The poor don't get a tax deduction for their private corporate jets,

The poor don't pay any tax at all. Even with deductions, the rich still
pay lots of taxes.

How many corporate jets are there? If it's legitimately used for the
business of the firm, why shouldn't it be treated as a business expense
just like the utility bills and rent on the factories and offices? It's
a legitimate expense until you prove it isn't.






==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT: Gieger Counters and such
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/a0c36296ec037eae?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 10 2014 11:12 pm
From: Larry Jaques


I'm surprised at the low price of Geiger counters lately. Pocket
models go for $200 now. http://tinyurl.com/mtr8j56
http://tinyurl.com/mw99yxb http://tinyurl.com/kbo47rn


The old '60s style CD handhelds go for about $74 delivered.
http://tinyurl.com/ljtgmmj


A handheld Jameco Electronics -kit- goes for $38 delivered.
http://tinyurl.com/mq39ldm
I guess Duke decided the cute rad hazard symbol qualified a similar
essential kit should go for $199. http://tinyurl.com/ludpdmo

Any one of these would instantly settle the fears so many people have
about the level of radioactivity in their environment lately. Well,
at least the more sensible fears. ;)

-

There are some apparently underhanded folks out there, too. This
microwave and wall wire detector (Digital LCD Electromagnetic
Radiation Detector EMF Meter Dosimeter Tester New) sells for $10.67
with free shipping on eBay. http://tinyurl.com/mamz8gk

Also on eBay is this identical item for $113.43, also with free
shipping. Same picture, same model, DT-1130.
http://tinyurl.com/mssmv3e

I have Greenlee's 50-1000V pen version in my toolbox.
They're, uh, $4.50 from China. http://tinyurl.com/k8nadgq

Here's one from the UK for only $1,662.73
http://tinyurl.com/lkoozlk Are they -proud- of that thing, or what?
<thud>

--
The more you know, the less you need.
-- Aboriginal Saying




== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 11 2014 5:52 am
From: Ignoramus13867


On 2014-01-11, Larry Jaques <ljaques@invalid.diversifycomm.com> wrote:
> I'm surprised at the low price of Geiger counters lately. Pocket
> models go for $200 now. http://tinyurl.com/mtr8j56

Looks like a crap fake meter.

> http://tinyurl.com/mw99yxb http://tinyurl.com/kbo47rn
>
>
> The old '60s style CD handhelds go for about $74 delivered.
> http://tinyurl.com/ljtgmmj

This meter is also crap. Only reads high levels of radiation that you
would be unlikely to encounter. What you need is CDV-700, a very
sensitive meter that reacts even to normal background radiation. It
also has an alpha detector IIRC. I have one and it is a very fun meter
to own.

i

>
> A handheld Jameco Electronics -kit- goes for $38 delivered.
> http://tinyurl.com/mq39ldm
> I guess Duke decided the cute rad hazard symbol qualified a similar
> essential kit should go for $199. http://tinyurl.com/ludpdmo
>
> Any one of these would instantly settle the fears so many people have
> about the level of radioactivity in their environment lately. Well,
> at least the more sensible fears. ;)
>
> -
>
> There are some apparently underhanded folks out there, too. This
> microwave and wall wire detector (Digital LCD Electromagnetic
> Radiation Detector EMF Meter Dosimeter Tester New) sells for $10.67
> with free shipping on eBay. http://tinyurl.com/mamz8gk
>
> Also on eBay is this identical item for $113.43, also with free
> shipping. Same picture, same model, DT-1130.
> http://tinyurl.com/mssmv3e
>
> I have Greenlee's 50-1000V pen version in my toolbox.
> They're, uh, $4.50 from China. http://tinyurl.com/k8nadgq
>
> Here's one from the UK for only $1,662.73
> http://tinyurl.com/lkoozlk Are they -proud- of that thing, or what?
><thud>
>





==============================================================================
TOPIC: Metal 3D printed gun
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/aa8ad83e53e43114?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 11 2014 4:02 am
From: "RogerN"



Metalworking!

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2062246/worlds-first-3d-printed-metal-gun-blows-through-50-rounds.html

RogerN






== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 11 2014 6:26 am
From: "Wild_Bill"


Same design, and a 500 round endurance test

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2L3QP5qVgo

--
WB
.........


"RogerN" <regor@midwest.net> wrote in message
news:JfOdndIdC_dMr0zPnZ2dnUVZ_rWdnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>
> Metalworking!
>
> http://www.pcworld.com/article/2062246/worlds-first-3d-printed-metal-gun-blows-through-50-rounds.html
>
> RogerN
>
>






==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why The Wealthy Should Pay No Taxes And Poor People Like You Should
Pick Up The Slack (and More!)
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/9aa55210a9b62a7c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 11 2014 4:14 am
From: "Thanks for all the free stuff -TeaBillies !"


Why do you support 1%er? You will never be invited to their party unless you clean toilets or wash floors.






==============================================================================
TOPIC: "Tea party has roots in the Dallas of 1963"
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/e78c874333d8688c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 11 2014 6:36 am
From: CC Rider


On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 21:35:49 -0700, RichTravsky wrote:







Stupidity Of The Obama Voter

In 2008, the white Moonbats would have voted for any black liberal even if
the opponent were FDR or JFK or _____ (enter the leftist politician of your
choice), simply to prove to everyone, and themselves, that they are pillars
of racial tolerance, even though Obama had no credentials whatsoever and
had in fact associated with far left radicals and terrorists.

But in 2012 after Obama had ruined the country, they voted for him again.
Keep in mind that Obama also continued his unwavering support of the racist
Eric Holder who gloated before Congress that his new hate crime bill did
not protect whites unless they were part of a "protected" demographic such
as homosexuals. This is the same Holder who frustrated his career attys.
by dropping charges against King Shamir Shabazz' New Black Panthers who
terrorized white voters in 2008. Holder's excuse was that the Panthers
actions were nowhere near as violent as what was done to blacks by whites
in the past. In other words, anything short of lynching whites was
acceptable. In subsequent race hatred cases, such as the torture/murder of
a white girl by five blacks in Lansing Mi, Holder personally intervened
ordering his attys. not to seek the death penalty. His DOJ practices an
anti-white double-standard. But none of this mattered to the white
moonbats.

As for blacks in 2012, they preached the "We got your back mantra, and
supported Obama again even though under his regime, their unemployment and
poverty levels went through the roof and the income equality gap widened.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.









> Way Back Jack wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 07 Jan 2014 20:44:37 -0700, RichTravsky wrote:
>>
>> Stupidity Of The Obama Voter
>>
>> In 2008, the white Moonbats would have voted for any black liberal even if
>> the opponent were FDR or JFK or _____ (enter the leftist politician of your
>> choice), simply to prove to everyone, and themselves, that they are pillars
>> of racial tolerance, even though Obama had no credentials whatsoever and
>> had in fact associated with far left radicals and terrorists.
>>
>> But in 2012 after Obama had ruined the country, they voted for him again.
>> Keep in mind that Obama also continued his unwavering support of the racist
>> Eric Holder who gloated before Congress that his new hate crime bill did
>> not protect whites unless they were part of a "protected" demographic such
>> as homosexuals. This is the same Holder who frustrated his career attys.
>> by dropping charges against King Shamir Shabazz' New Black Panthers who
>> terrorized white voters in 2008. Holder's excuse was that the Panthers
>> actions were nowhere near as violent as what was done to blacks by whites
>> in the past. In other words, anything short of lynching whites was
>> acceptable. In subsequent race hatred cases, such as the torture/murder of
>> a white girl by five blacks in Lansing Mi, Holder personally intervened
>> ordering his attys. not to seek the death penalty. His DOJ practices an
>> anti-white double-standard. But none of this mattered to the white
>> moonbats.
>>
>> As for blacks in 2012, they preached the "We got your back mantra, and
>> supported Obama again even though under his regime, their unemployment and
>> poverty levels went through the roof and the income equality gap widened.
>>
>> Stupid, stupid, stupid.
>
> Hi CC.
>
>>> CC Rider wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 21:03:44 -0700, RichTravsky wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> http://edition.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president
>>
>> .

.





==============================================================================
TOPIC: When Beliefs are Non-Falsifiable and Infallible
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/88419f650157a1bf?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 11 2014 7:55 am
From: "Ray Keller"



When Beliefs are Non-Falsifiable and Infallible
Stately McDaniel Manor | 1-5-2014 | Mike McDaniel


credit: calguns.net

Dealing as I do in the fetid fever swamp of politics, I often confront
ideologues, people who are absolutely convinced of the supremacy and
rightness of their position, no matter what. My favorite Bookworm recently
wrote an informative article on this very subject, via the gun control
debate. If you've not read her work, it's surely worth your time,
particularly so because while she still lives in California-Marin
particularly-she is a recovering Progressive (she's recovering nicely, thank
you).

My former Confederate Yankee co-blogger, Bob Owens, incorporated this
observation into the CY masthead:

Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state.

I'm sure Bob had fun with that aphorism, which was at least partially
tongue-in-cheek, and the occasional heated comment from those in persistent
vegetative states proved the point.

Bookworm's article chronicles her conversation with a Progressive who
believes government should have the constitutional power to determine who
shall be allowed to possess arms. She, on the other hand, cited
fact-including a study he raised-to prove his position untenable. Bookworm's
closing is along the lines of the CY aphorism:

And that's why you can't argue with an ideologue. Data is irrelevant.
Blind faith is everything.

Bookworm has hit on one of the primary truths of progressive belief and
politics: progressive orthodoxy requires no proof, for like religious dogma,
it is rooted in faith. One either believes or not; proof is not necessary
and opposing proof may therefore be disregarded. Such beliefs are, in the
language of science, non-falsifiable.

One of the questions-and one related question-I always ask my students gets
to the heart of this:

If you find irrefutable evidence that contradicts a cherished belief,
something you've always held to be true, are you bound to change your belief?
If you do not, what are the consequences?

For the responsible adult, the consequences are obvious. Holding and acting
upon false beliefs is damaging for the individual and society. It can lead
to financial ruin, physical harm, damaged or destroyed relationships and much
more. For the ideologue, the slightest doubt, rather than real world
consequences, is destructive.

Non-falsifiable policies are also infallible. They cannot possibly be wrong,
and when a progressive policy inevitably appears to be wrong, even
destructive-Obamacare being an excellent contemporary example-progressives
will first argue that they are not wrong: the "who you gonna believe, me or
your own lyin' eyes (and the facts)? argument. When the policy is so
obviously a failure that it can no longer be denied, the true believer falls
back on blaming Republicans for sabotaging it, or merely for existing, as
they have with Obamacare despite the fact that Republicans had nothing to do
with writing or implementing the law and not a single Congressional
Republican voted for it. They claim that the policy is being sabotaged
because insufficient money has been spent: "well sure, we've only spent 2
trillion, but we have to spend 8 trillion, then it will really be great!"
They often claim that the policy hasn't had a chance to work its magic: "the
assault weapon ban was only in effect for ten years! No wonder it didn't
reduce crime!" Or they claim that the policy was implemented with
insufficient fervor: "if the NRA would only let us ban all of the guns we
want to ban gun control would work!"

I'm sure that you, gentle readers, have had this experience: you engage a
progressive in what you believe to be reasoned debate. You present rational
arguments, arguments well supported by fact and research. You point out
where their arguments are not factual and supportable. As you do, the
temperature in the room rises. They become angry, and resort to
name-calling, even yelling absurdities. You're accused of hating this or
that, or wanting to harm this or that. Perhaps your conversation ended like
Bookworm's conversation:

His bottom line had the virtue of being honest. 'I don't really care about
the study. Guns are bad and should be done away with.

Progressives often accuse conservatives of being anti-science. Considering
their faith-based belief system, this is richly ironic. Science works only
if a given theory is falsifiable. No matter how well accepted a given theory
is in the scientific world, others, using competent, repeatable methods, must
be able to confirm it or to prove it wrong.

Take global warming as an example. The belief that global warming is taking
place, and that mankind is responsible for it, is non-falsifiable. For the
true believer, there is no condition of climate or weather that does not
prove global warming, even the fact that there has been none for at least 17
years. The fact that the global climate has been much warmer than the
current climate, centuries before man contributed any more carbon dioxide to
the atmosphere than that produced by breathing, is to them confirmation of
global warming. Unseasonable cold? Global warming. Hurricanes? Global
Warming. No hurricanes? Global warming. Receding sea levels? Global
warming. Rising sea levels? Global warming. Beached whales? Global
Warming. No beached whales? Global warming.

A recent case in point is the expedition mounted to the Antarctic intending
to document the melting polar ice cap, which would, in turn, seem to support
the global warming hypothesis. Warmist climate models predicted that the ice
caps are melting, raising sea levels, all due to global warming, of course,
so the expedition had only to jaunt down to the South Pole during its
summer-when better to find melted ice to support one's computer
models?-document all of the melted ice, and rack up hard science in support
of global warming.

As I documented, however (take the link), the Russian ship hired for the
cruise became stuck fast in an incredible amount of ice that the computer
models claim does not exit. A Chinese icebreaker came to the rescue and
managed to helicopter the expedition to an Australian icebreaker, but the
Chinese ship also became stuck in the ice, and the Russians, Chinese and
Australians ended up having to call America for help.

One might think the scientists that mounted the expedition might consider
reevaluating their thinking. One would think wrong. Not only were their
computer models wrong-100% wrong-but the lack of evidence of global warming
endangered their lives and made them an international laughingstock. All of
that ice will be swept under the global warming carpet as an anomaly. It
does not in any way falsify global warming, for global warming is a matter of
faith.

The same is true for gun control. It does not matter that every gun control
measure that has been tried has spectacularly failed. Magazine capacity
limits, "assault weapon" bans, and other favorites of the Left had ten years
to work, and accomplished nothing for public safety. The most competent
studies ever done have proved that more guns in the hands of the law-abiding
do indeed equal less crime, and that states with more concealed handguns have
less violent crime.

Gun free zones have likewise been bloody failures. With perhaps a single
exception, every mass attack in recent history occurred in a gun-free zone
where the innocent were disarmed. There can be no doubt that the only thing
capable of stopping an armed madman before he kills is a honest citizen with
a gun, yet all of this and more is ignored by those whose fear of firearms,
and their hatred of those who own them, borders on the pathological.

Truth doesn't matter. Facts don't matter. Science doesn't matter, because
their beliefs are non-falsifiable and infallible; nothing can prove them
wrong, nothing.

This is different than religious faith, however. As Thomas Jefferson said:

It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no god.
It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

In the American Republic, with its tolerance of all faiths, this is true.
There is, on Earth, no direct consequence of holding a given religious faith.
But where politics are involved, holding non-falsifiable beliefs, believing
them to be infallible, and forcing them on others, can indeed pick our
pockets, break our legs or cost our lives.

Progressivism is all about forcing others to live as a self-imagined elite
believe to be right.

For that reason, it is always worthwhile to engage in gentle, well-reasoned,
and sincere debate and persuasion. Some progressives, mugged by reality, are
capable of changing their views to at least some degree. Each changed mind
helps to reduce the number of those that would force non-falsifiable
orthodoxy on us all.

Just remember, gentle readers, what you're up against and don't be surprised
when an ideologue insists on holding onto a non-falsifiable, infallible
belief.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I'd call what we face today part of the 'Social Democratic' movement. It's
more of a cult, evolved out of the slime of Marxism, keeping key tenets but
refining others.


Reality is not welcome among the global warming government supremacists.












==============================================================================
TOPIC: ___TeeNut___! R.I.P.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/e6de4947d65e5910?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 11 2014 7:56 am
From: Bob Gentry


The subject line says it all ! Robert, you are missed.
rgentryatozdotnet





==============================================================================
TOPIC: STILL no ethical justification for redistribution of wealth
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/1d0f66fc7e82e9ef?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 11 2014 8:12 am
From: Rudy Canoza


On 1/10/2014 10:31 PM, Paul wrote:
> Rudy Canoza has brought this to us :
>> On 1/10/2014 9:48 PM, "billy", impotent squat-to-piss no-fight
>> *shitbag* bitch, lied:
>>
>>> In article <3660d$52d07a84$414e828e$27140@EVERESTKC.NET>,
>>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLaLaLaLa@phingersinhisears.con> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The left keep admitting, time and again, that they don't have one.
>>>> Actually, they don't believe they need one - might makes right to
>>>> leftists.
>>>
>>> "The subjects of
>>
>> Not a refutation, "billy" bitch, you impotent squat-to-piss homo.
>
> As you say when anyone attacks Ayn Rand.

No.





==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.crafts.metalworking"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.crafts.metalworking+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en