Religions > Atheism > 'Keats claimed physics destroyed beauty. Keats was being a prat'
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
21 Nov 2005 11:53:28 PM |
| Object: |
'Keats claimed physics destroyed beauty. Keats was being a prat' |
'Keats claimed physics destroyed beauty. Keats was being a prat'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1647777,00.html
Britain produced some of the world's great physicists but few
schoolchildren want to study the subject now. Simon Singh explains why
we should worry
Tuesday November 22, 2005
The Guardian
We are nearing the end of the "World Year of Physics", otherwise known
as Einstein Year, as it is the centenary of his annus mirabilis in
which he made three incredible breakthroughs, including special
relativity. In fact, it was 100 years ago yesterday that he published
the most famous equation in the history of physics: E=mc2.
But instead of celebrating, physicists are in mourning after a report
showed a dramatic decline in the number of pupils studying physics at
school. The number taking A-level physics has dropped by 38% over the
past 15 years, a catastrophic meltdown that is set to continue over the
next few years. The report warns that a shortage of physics teachers
and a lack of interest from pupils could mean the end of physics in
state schools. Thereafter, physics would be restricted to only those
students who could afford to go to posh schools.
Simon Singh
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/30a31bf34e188462
Physics
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/569e4ef279eca7c9
.
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: 'Keats claimed physics destroyed beauty. Keats was being a prat' |
27 Nov 2005 06:43:02 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 12:44:09 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
<nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
Kate wrote:
You benefit from it too. Who wants to support you?
I have sufficient savings to support myself, thank you. I neither need
nor want your help.
Bob Kolker
Yeah you do. You want to free load off the rest of us. You just
whined about wanting just that.
uh uh. no way.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Keats claimed physics destroyed beauty. Keats was being a prat' |
27 Nov 2005 07:01:52 PM |
|
|
Kate wrote:
Yeah you do. You want to free load off the rest of us. You just
whined about wanting just that.
How? I pay for what I get. And I hope to get what I pay for.
My retirement and medical insurance is paid for out of my pocket. No
medicare for me. I made a point to be financially independent. That way
I can rag on freeloaders.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: 'Keats claimed physics destroyed beauty. Keats was being a prat' |
28 Nov 2005 11:59:01 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 20:01:52 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
<nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
Kate wrote:
Yeah you do. You want to free load off the rest of us. You just
whined about wanting just that.
How? I pay for what I get. And I hope to get what I pay for.
My retirement and medical insurance is paid for out of my pocket. No
medicare for me. I made a point to be financially independent. That way
I can rag on freeloaders.
Bob Kolker
So if the company that's paying for that retirement declares
bankruptcy and you have to stop paying for your medical insurance -
are you planning to give up and die when the first medical problem
hits?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Keats claimed physics destroyed beauty. Keats was being a prat' |
29 Nov 2005 04:03:48 AM |
|
|
Kate wrote:
So if the company that's paying for that retirement declares
bankruptcy and you have to stop paying for your medical insurance -
are you planning to give up and die when the first medical problem
hits?
I am retired. It is all in the bank.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Keats claimed physics destroyed beauty. Keats was being a prat' |
29 Nov 2005 09:00:33 AM |
|
|
"Robert J. Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:3v2nd0F14621pU2@individual.net...
Kate wrote:
So if the company that's paying for that retirement declares
bankruptcy and you have to stop paying for your medical insurance -
are you planning to give up and die when the first medical problem
hits?
I am retired. It is all in the bank.
And if that bank(s) go under? As an individual, unsecured creditor, Im sure
youll get your money.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Keats claimed physics destroyed beauty. Keats was being a prat' |
29 Nov 2005 05:07:23 PM |
|
|
Dave wrote:
And if that bank(s) go under? As an individual, unsecured creditor, Im sure
youll get your money.
And maybe I won't. Part of my cache is in gold.
No doubt if an asteroid hits the earth or western civilzation collapses
while I am still alive, I will be hard put. One can not guard against
every contingency. But I tried coverying the likely contingencies. I
would rather be independent than dependent. I don't want to be a pap
eating, pinko stinko commie liberal whiner.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Keats claimed physics destroyed beauty. Keats was being a prat' |
30 Nov 2005 07:48:53 AM |
|
|
"Robert J. Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:3v45a6F1461l2U2@individual.net...
Dave wrote:
And if that bank(s) go under? As an individual, unsecured creditor, Im
sure
youll get your money.
And maybe I won't. Part of my cache is in gold.
No doubt if an asteroid hits the earth or western civilzation collapses
while I am still alive, I will be hard put. One can not guard against
every contingency. But I tried coverying the likely contingencies. I
would rather be independent than dependent.
A wise policy and one I wouldnt disagree with. The point of my comment was
to higlight parts of the "Nanny State" that you benefit from, perhaps
without even noticing. A large part of the reason that you consider losing
your money due to bank failure on par with an asteroid hit or the collapse
of western civilization is as a result of such pinko commie new deal nanny
activities as the FDIC, SEC and the Federal Reserve's "Too Big to Fail"
doctrine. BTW, do you have actual gold bullion under your mattress, or when
you say you own gold are you speaking of futures, exchange traded funds, or
bullion in foreign banks? If any of the latter, all you have is a bank
account valued at gold prices, subject to the same credit-risk factors as
any other financial account.
I don't want to be a pap eating, pinko stinko commie liberal whiner.
As the great Chris Knight said, "Who talks like that anymore?"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Keats claimed physics destroyed beauty. Keats was being a prat' |
29 Nov 2005 10:53:17 PM |
|
|
"Robert J. Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:3v45a6F1461l2U2@individual.net...
Dave wrote:
And if that bank(s) go under? As an individual, unsecured creditor, Im
sure
youll get your money.
And maybe I won't. Part of my cache is in gold.
No doubt if an asteroid hits the earth or western civilzation collapses
while I am still alive, I will be hard put. One can not guard against
every contingency. But I tried coverying the likely contingencies. I
would rather be independent than dependent. I don't want to be a pap
eating, pinko stinko commie liberal whiner.
Bob Kolker
You won't have to be, if the asteroid is aimed properly.
Then, you'd just be pap.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Earle Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Keats claimed physics destroyed beauty. Keats was being a prat' |
01 Dec 2005 12:18:34 PM |
|
|
In article <PPadnf6IIJ6mrRDeRVn-gQ@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
"Robert J. Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:3v45a6F1461l2U2@individual.net...
Dave wrote:
And if that bank(s) go under? As an individual, unsecured creditor, Im
sure
youll get your money.
And maybe I won't. Part of my cache is in gold...
*
Now why does that not surprise me?
earle
*
BTW, gold just hit $500/ounce today.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Keats claimed physics destroyed beauty. Keats was being a prat' |
01 Dec 2005 12:26:23 PM |
|
|
Earle Jones wrote:
*
Now why does that not surprise me?
It shouldn't. I am prudent and cautious by my nature. The eleventh
commandment: cover your *****.
BTW, gold just hit $500/ounce today.
Yes indeed. I am all smiles.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "CreateThis" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Keats claimed physics destroyed beauty. Keats was being a prat' |
27 Nov 2005 02:06:48 PM |
|
|
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
I have sufficient savings to support myself, thank you. I neither need
nor want your help.
Let's rewind and let you refuse everybod's help when you were amassing
your savings.
CT
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Keats claimed physics destroyed beauty. Keats was being a prat' |
22 Nov 2005 11:44:48 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 12:38:14 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
<nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
unrestrained_hand@hotmail.com wrote:
Purely for selfish reasons, I'd prefer educating other people's kids. I
do not want to grow old in a land of barefoot, resentful savages.
Then by all means do it by voluntary means. Do not compell the unwilling
to contribute to YOUR favorite charity at gunpoint. There is now law or
force that prevents you from helping the lamed, the maimed and the
stupid. We still have a semi-free country.
Public education isn't charity. It even benefits you because those are
the kids who will pay for your retirement.
Just as public healthcare treats everybody and prevents diseases
spreading from those who can't afford to be cured.
As for the plight of the poor, to quote Rhett Butler, frankly I don't
give a damn. Why should I be compelled to give a damn and a buck at
gunpoint?
We now you don't. And that ultimately you'll lose out because of it.
Who is making you do it at gunpoint?
By your logic, why should I pay for interstate highways 3000 miles
away? Or even Bush's illegal war?
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Keats claimed physics destroyed beauty. Keats was being a prat' |
22 Nov 2005 12:29:54 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
We now you don't. And that ultimately you'll lose out because of it.
Who is making you do it at gunpoint?
Tax laws are enforced. If I refuse to pay, husky young men will evict me
from my house and padlock the place. If I resist they will club me or
shoot me. Got it. Law enFORCEment.
By your logic, why should I pay for interstate highways 3000 miles
away? Or even Bush's illegal war?
You shouldn't. The highways should be private like the railroads used to
be. As to war, write your congress critter and insist on delclarations.
As long as the congresscritters fund wars, there will be wars.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: 'Keats claimed physics destroyed beauty. Keats was being a prat' |
27 Nov 2005 11:35:03 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 13:29:54 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
<nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
We now you don't. And that ultimately you'll lose out because of it.
Who is making you do it at gunpoint?
Tax laws are enforced. If I refuse to pay, husky young men will evict me
from my house and padlock the place. If I resist they will club me or
shoot me. Got it. Law enFORCEment.
If you made the contract (by living in this country and using it's
services) you have to pay.
All you have to do is sell your house and move out of the country.
Got it? Nobody's forcing you to live in this rich well appointed
country and pay the country club dues.
By your logic, why should I pay for interstate highways 3000 miles
away? Or even Bush's illegal war?
You shouldn't. The highways should be private like the railroads used to
be. As to war, write your congress critter and insist on delclarations.
As long as the congresscritters fund wars, there will be wars.
I bet you voted for Bush.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Keats claimed physics destroyed beauty. Keats was being a prat' |
27 Nov 2005 11:43:09 AM |
|
|
Kate wrote:
If you made the contract (by living in this country and using it's
services) you have to pay.
I live here by RIGHT. I made no such contract. But I am forced anyway.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: 'Keats claimed physics destroyed beauty. Keats was being a prat' |
27 Nov 2005 06:42:02 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 12:43:09 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
<nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
Kate wrote:
If you made the contract (by living in this country and using it's
services) you have to pay.
I live here by RIGHT. I made no such contract. But I am forced anyway.
There's a membership fee to this country. The only right you have is
a membership. You don't get to freeload on the rest of us.
And you can leave any time. Don't let the screen door hit you in the
***** on the way out.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Keats claimed physics destroyed beauty. Keats was being a prat' |
27 Nov 2005 06:58:53 PM |
|
|
Kate wrote:
There's a membership fee to this country. The only right you have is
a membership. You don't get to freeload on the rest of us.
No there isn't. There are taxes which are enforced by law. If you don't
pay armed men will seize your assets, padlock your house and throw your
sorry ***** in jail. Naturally, I pay since I am outgunned. But it is
theft and force not my consent.
Talk about freeloading, toots, the welfare system, especially corporate
welfare taxes the honest and puts the money in the hands of the
dishonest. And you have the gall to talk about freeloading.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "CreateThis" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Keats claimed physics destroyed beauty. Keats was being a prat' |
27 Nov 2005 02:05:23 PM |
|
|
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
I live here by RIGHT. I made no such contract. But I am forced anyway.
So what RIGHT do you have again?
CT
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "magilla" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Keats claimed physics destroyed beauty. Keats was being a prat' |
22 Nov 2005 01:15:36 PM |
|
|
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
We now you don't. And that ultimately you'll lose out because of it.
Who is making you do it at gunpoint?
Tax laws are enforced. If I refuse to pay, husky young men will evict me
from my house and padlock the place. If I resist they will club me or
shoot me. Got it. Law enFORCEment.
By your logic, why should I pay for interstate highways 3000 miles
away? Or even Bush's illegal war?
You shouldn't. The highways should be private like the railroads used to
be. As to war, write your congress critter and insist on delclarations.
As long as the congresscritters fund wars, there will be wars.
Bob Kolker
The railroads were never private. They were always heavily subsidized
and the land on which they were built was taken by force through
eminent domain.
Even your own examples belie your point of view.
Chris
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Keats claimed physics destroyed beauty. Keats was being a prat' |
22 Nov 2005 04:02:20 PM |
|
|
magilla wrote:
The railroads were never private. They were always heavily subsidized
and the land on which they were built was taken by force through
eminent domain.
The Union Pacific was subsidized. The Northern Pacific was not.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robin Levett" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Keats claimed physics destroyed beauty. Keats was being a prat' |
04 Dec 2005 06:42:01 AM |
|
|
RL-delayed
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
magilla wrote:
The railroads were never private. They were always heavily subsidized
and the land on which they were built was taken by force through
eminent domain.
The Union Pacific was subsidized. The Northern Pacific was not.
Of course it was - it just didn't show up on the books as subsidy. It got
twice the land grant that the Union Pacific got - and how much of its land
grant in North Dakota got used for the railway?
How much did it spend on protecting its survey teams while it broke Indian
treaties?
--
Robin Levett
rlevett@rlevett.ibmuklunix.net (unmunge by removing big blue - don't yahoo)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Aaker" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Keats claimed physics destroyed beauty. Keats was being a prat' |
04 Dec 2005 01:35:37 PM |
|
|
RL-delayed
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
magilla wrote:
The railroads were never private. They were always heavily subsidized
and the land on which they were built was taken by force through
eminent domain.
The Union Pacific was subsidized. The Northern Pacific was not.
Of course it was - it just didn't show up on the books as subsidy. It got
twice the land grant that the Union Pacific got - and how much of its land
grant in North Dakota got used for the railway?
The railroad land grants in North Dakota IIRC were for every other square mile
on both sides of the rail line. That may have been just for the mainlines, but
I believe it was for all lines. So, the grant for just the single main line
through the state would have been for at least 300 square miles of land.
Which, of course, immediately became more valuable because it had access to
the rail line.
Apropos to one of the participants in this thread, I really like these quotes
from Kim Stanley Robinson's "Green Mars".
"The minimum that most minimalists want leaves in place just the institutions who protect their
interests. That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves."
"You can't get any movement larger than five people without including at least one fucking idiot."
o Coyote in Green Mars (1992)
How much did it spend on protecting its survey teams while it broke Indian
treaties?
--
Ken Aaker
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Keats claimed physics destroyed beauty. Keats was being a prat' |
04 Dec 2005 07:44:15 AM |
|
|
Robin Levett wrote:
How much did it spend on protecting its survey teams while it broke Indian
treaties?
Lots. Treaties are like pie crusts. They are made to broken. Especially
treaties between unequals. The stronger usually manange to screw over
the weaker.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robin Levett" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Keats claimed physics destroyed beauty. Keats was being a prat' |
04 Dec 2005 04:55:58 PM |
|
|
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
Robin Levett wrote:
What happened tot he rest of my post? Here - I'll put it back so you can
answer the main point:-
<reinstated text>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
magilla wrote:
The railroads were never private. They were always heavily subsidized
and the land on which they were built was taken by force through
eminent domain.
The Union Pacific was subsidized. The Northern Pacific was not.
Of course it was - it just didn't show up on the books as subsidy. It got
twice the land grant that the Union Pacific got - and how much of its land
grant in North Dakota got used for the railway?
<the space below is for your answer>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
</reinstated text>
How much did it spend on protecting its survey teams while it broke
Indian treaties?
Lots.
Nice try, but wrong. The Government spent tax dollars on the Seventh
Cavalry protecting the Northern Pacific railroad's survey teams, while they
merrily broke the law of the land.
Treaties are like pie crusts. They are made to broken.
Not in the States; you have a constitution that says that treaties are
incorporated into domestic law.
Especially
treaties between unequals. The stronger usually manange to screw over
the weaker.
--
Robin Levett
rlevett@rlevett.ibmuklunix.net (unmunge by removing big blue - don't yahoo)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Keats claimed physics destroyed beauty. Keats was being a prat' |
22 Nov 2005 11:45:23 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 12:38:14 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
<nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
unrestrained_hand@hotmail.com wrote:
Purely for selfish reasons, I'd prefer educating other people's kids. I
do not want to grow old in a land of barefoot, resentful savages.
Then by all means do it by voluntary means. Do not compell the unwilling
to contribute to YOUR favorite charity at gunpoint. There is now law or
force that prevents you from helping the lamed, the maimed and the
stupid. We still have a semi-free country.
What charity, moron?
What gunpoint, moron?
As for the plight of the poor, to quote Rhett Butler, frankly I don't
give a damn. Why should I be compelled to give a damn and a buck at
gunpoint?
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Keats claimed physics destroyed beauty. Keats was being a prat' |
22 Nov 2005 12:31:12 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
What charity, moron?
What gunpoint, moron?
You are aware that refusal to pay taxes can lead to the loss of one's
home and the seizure of his assets. Resistance can be met with deadly
force. You do know that, don't you? Laws are enFORCEd. Get it?
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Morgan" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Keats claimed physics destroyed beauty. Keats was being a prat' |
28 Nov 2005 09:44:45 PM |
|
|
In article <3uh6g6F10vko3U2@individual.net>,
Robert J. Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
What charity, moron?
What gunpoint, moron?
You are aware that refusal to pay taxes can lead to the loss of one's
home and the seizure of his assets. Resistance can be met with deadly
force. You do know that, don't you? Laws are enFORCEd. Get it?
Yeah, well, that's life. If you don't like the laws then you can lobby
to get them changed, move to a country where you do like the laws, or
form your own country somewhere (on land that isn't claimed by someone
else already. Lotsa luck). It may well be the case that no country is
'selling' a legal system that you want to 'buy'. Alas, that's the way
it is with capitalism. Just because there is a demand for something
doesn't mean that there must be a supply of it.
Alan
--
Defendit numerus
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Keats claimed physics destroyed beauty. Keats was being a prat' |
22 Nov 2005 01:39:15 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 13:31:12 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
<nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
What charity, moron?
What gunpoint, moron?
You are aware that refusal to pay taxes can lead to the loss of one's
home and the seizure of his assets. Resistance can be met with deadly
force. You do know that, don't you? Laws are enFORCEd. Get it?
What charity are you forced to contribute to at gunpoint,moron?
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Victor Eijkhout" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Keats claimed physics destroyed beauty. Keats was being a prat' |
22 Nov 2005 12:32:09 PM |
|
|
Robert J. Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
As for the plight of the poor, to quote Rhett Butler, frankly I don't
give a damn.
I see that this post is cross-posted to alt.atheism. Damn. You guys have
an easy life, where you can just ignore everone and everything around
you.
Why should I be compelled to give a damn and a buck at
gunpoint?
Because that's the law of the country where you live. If you don't like
it you can leave. I hear there are some very nice dictatorships in
Africa where you can enrich yourself all you want while people around
you are dieing.
Victor.
--
Victor Eijkhout -- eijkhout at tacc utexas edu
ph: 512 471 5809
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Keats claimed physics destroyed beauty. Keats was being a prat' |
28 Nov 2005 09:32:17 PM |
|
|
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
unrestrained_hand@hotmail.com wrote:
Purely for selfish reasons, I'd prefer educating other people's kids. I
do not want to grow old in a land of barefoot, resentful savages.
Then by all means do it by voluntary means. Do not compell the unwilling
to contribute to YOUR favorite charity at gunpoint. There is now law or
force that prevents you from helping the lamed, the maimed and the
stupid. We still have a semi-free country.
As for the plight of the poor, to quote Rhett Butler, frankly I don't
give a damn. Why should I be compelled to give a damn and a buck at
gunpoint?
Bob Kolker
Are you sure you can shoot better than I? My dad was all-Army US
champion for years when I was a kid.
The only thing that prevents a post-apocolyptic scenario like those
atrocious movies of the 1980s is society. The only reason your money
means anything, or your computer works, or you were able to amass your
retirement, is because we collectively got together - over many
generations - and decided what we, collectively, were going to do.
If you think that anything interesting could be accomplished by purely
private means, you are hopelessly naive. I'm willing to argue about any
particular policy or law, and have a good time doing it, but it's a
starry-eyed vision of frontier independence that never was, nor ever
could be, that fuels your fantasies. Bob, I think you just don't like
people all that much. Hell, I don't either, not in the quantities that
most folks do, but you can't base a viable social science or political
philosphy on it.
If the next generation were all ignorant, hungry, and resentful, your
retirement would not be pleasant, I guarantee it. And no amount of
mutaul funds on paper would change that. Your retirement requires this
soeciety, or a minor variation of it.
But an aside to the other folks: Bob is absolutely correct that he's
being taxed at gunpoint. Laws are always backed up by weaponry in the
end. A civilized society may not see it often, but the threat must
always be there.
Kermit
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
