Soback

Woot woot.

These are from a book called Disorder in the Courts of America, and are things people actually said in court, word for word, taken down and now published by court reporters who had the torment of staying calm while these exchanges were actually taking place. ATTORNEY: Are you sexually active? WITNESS: No, I just lie there. ______________________________ ATTORNEY: What is your date of birth? WITNESS: July 18th. ATTORNEY: What year? WITNESS: Every year. _____________________________________ ATTORNEY: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact? WITNESS: Gucci sweats and Reeboks. ______________________________________ ATTORNEY: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all? WITNESS: Yes. ATTORNEY: And in what ways does it affect your memory? WITNESS: I forget. ATTORNEY: You forget? Can you give us an example of something you forgot? _____________________________________ ATTORNEY: How old is your son, the one living with you? WITNESS: Thirty-eight or thirty-five, I can't remember which. ATTORNEY: How long has he lived with you? WITNESS: Forty-five years. _____________________________________ ATTORNEY: What was the first thing your husband said to you that morning? WITNESS: He said, "Where am I, Cathy?" ATTORNEY: And why did that upset you? WITNESS: My name is Susan. ______________________________________ ATTORNEY: Do you know if your daughter has ever been involved in voodoo? WITNESS: We both do. ATTORNEY: Voodoo? WITNESS: We do. ATTORNEY: You do? WITNESS: Yes, voodoo. ______________________________________ ATTORNEY: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn't know about it until the next morning? WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam? ___________________________________ ATTORNEY: The youngest son, the twenty-year-old, how old is he? WITNESS: Uh, he's twenty-one.. ________________________________________ ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was taken? WITNESS: Would you repeat the question? ______________________________________ ATTORNEY: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th? WITNESS: Yes. ATTORNEY: And what were you doing at that time? WITNESS: Uh.... ______________________________________ ATTORNEY: She had three children, right? WITNESS: Yes. ATTORNEY: How many were boys? WITNESS: None. ATTORNEY: Were there any girls? ______________________________________ ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated? WITNESS: By death. ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated? ______________________________________ ATTORNEY: Can you describe the individual? WITNESS: He was about medium height and had a beard. ATTORNEY: Was this a male or a female? ______________________________________ ATTORNEY: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney? WITNESS: No, this is how I dress when I go to work. ______________________________________ ATTORNEY: Doctor, how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people? WITNESS: All my autopsies are performed on dead people. ______________________________________ ATTORNEY: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK? What school did you go to? WITNESS: Oral. ______________________________________ ATTORNEY: Do you recall the time that you examined the body? WITNESS: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m. ATTORNEY: And Mr. Denton was dead at the time? WITNESS: No, he was sitting on the table wondering why I was doing an autopsy on him! ______________________________________ ATTORNEY: Are you qualified to give a urine sample? WITNESS: Huh? ______________________________________ ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse? WITNESS: No. ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure? WITNESS: No. ATTORNEY Did you check for breathing? WITNESS: No. ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy? WITNESS: No. ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor? WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar. ATTORNEY: But could t he patient have still been alive, nevertheless? WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law.

quote:Originally posted by Matchoo: He actually did help, even though he wasn't the one that rescued them in the end. If someone is lost in the mountains and I go up with 200 other people to search for them, if they are found by someone else I still did help, even though it wasn't me who found them. I agree, though, that the article was biased and gave Kennedy far more credit than he deserved. Read the defenition of help again. It's in my post above. If you go up into the mountains with a search group, you are assisting, and therefore helping. If you go up into the mountains with a search group, then realize it's too rough and your group turns back, and then another party goes up and finds the lost people. You didn't help. You ATTEMPTED (defined above too) to help. In which case, your name shouldn't even be in the article, let alone in the headline saying you helped, and describing how you failed at it. I guess saying "Heroic firefighters rescue trapped men" and then describing the rescue instead of Kennedys failed attempt will provoke an alergic reaction to truth in that reporter. [ 10-19-2005, 07:09 PM: Message edited by: Soback ]

Wolfheart, helped and tried to help is a BIG difference. The firefighters deserve recognition for ACTUALLY RESCUING those men, NOT Kennedy, yet the whole article is about how he TRIED and failed, and the firefighters getting a one liner. The only reason the article says Kennedy HELPED, is because he is a big shot. Would it have been anyone else, they wouldn't even get a line in that article for their attempt, let a lone a headline that is a blatant lie. You have to earn recognition and respect based on your actions, not your last name or what you have failed at. So, like I said, that reporter might as well have been saying that some guy from China who was heading out this way helped rescue those men, he just failed to get there in time.

Lets try it again Nomad. And since you are so fond of defining things Defenition for Help "To give assistance to; aid" ---Did he assist? No. Did he aid? No. "To contribute to the furtherance of; promote. " ---Did he contribute to the rescue? No. Did his presence in the boat away from where the men were further the rescue efforts? No. "To give relief to" ---Did he relief the men that were trapped, did he bring them supplies, or food, or water? No "To change for the better; improve" ---Did he change their situation for the better, did he improve it? No So Nomad. HOW did he help in your opinion? The only thing I will give the guy, is actually ATEMPTING to help. NOT helping. See the difference? Defenition of attempt "To make an attempt to do or make" ---Did he make an ATTEMPT at help? Yes. Did he succeed, No. "A trying to do or make something" --- Did he TRY to resque the men? Yes. Did he succeed, No. The headline, is the typical of todays "journalism". It's a blatant, in your face, lie. They however, hope that all that sticks in your head when you are done, is the headline, without the content, or to influence the people even before they start reading, to think that he actually helped. So, anyhow. Lets try it again, Nomad. HOW did he help in your opinion? And since you TRIED to make a crack at value. What value to the trapped men was his failed attempt at help, if any?

So, the title of an article IS: "Sen. Edward Kennedy Helps Rescue Fishermen" content of an article is THIS: "Kennedy and a friend tried to rescue the men using a 13-foot boat but rough waters forced them back. " He helped, huh. Yeah

Yeah, and I wonder who that applies to. When I pointed out Judges odacity by saying "If you insist on doing math your way, how about we combine US, every other nation against Europe." You missed the moon, and all you saw was my finger. Attacking it, trying to flip the argument with donations per person rather then dontaion per country. And when that didn't work. When I pointed a second and a third. Then, finally your head turned, saw my points, saw Judges remark -"The US doesnt pay a dime compared to other members of the international community."- And now, all of a sudden, trying to backtrack with your own -"All this has nothing to do with which nation gives the most or not."- LOL

Really, NOW, after I have said all this, NOW it doesn't matter who donates and how much. ROFL, NOW you say "All this has nothing to do with which nation gives the most or not. " Why don't you say it to Judge instead of me. If you have read the thread, you should know that he was the one who opened his mouth and blabed that "Compared to international community, US doesn't donate a dime". Or is Netherlands too close to Spain, and contributes a little too much to the recreation and self hemp medication to tell him that and risk offending gengle sensitivities of a fellow member. While a post ago you were saying "why don't you divide the national figures by the number of citizens per country ? Then you will see were people care about international children help." And NOW you try to smuther the whole argument by telling me "Soback, you are a lost case who congenitally don't get it." You should have held your tongue in the first place Nomad. And said the same to Judge. It's a little too late to change your stance after I have brought up all the other points about China, Europes views, dontations per country vs. donations per person, and US other involvments in the world. Here's a word of wisdom from EU's favored Chinese "In the closed mouth no fly can fly into". [ 10-16-2005, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: Soback ]

Oh, I am sorry. I did find Spain. $27,226. ROFL

How about France. $1.0 per person Or Congo. CONGO has donated almost as much as France. $1.0 per person. THAT'S CONGO China, $.04. Yeah, that's right. China, which Europeans favor more than US, which was shown by the latest polls, in the post YOU have posted not so long ago. Has donated $0.04 Do I hear you say anything about that? And then there's Afghanistan. Wikipedia has this to say about it "With a population of 29 million people, it is among the poorest countries in the world." Here , Has donated $.94 So, considering how US not only donates MORE than other COUNTRIES (maybe now you want to go back to per country rather than per person). It also: Provides military protection to EU. Has operations in the middle east. Has liberated Afghanistan, the same country, that is among the poorest in the world, that donated as much as France did. Has liberated Iraq, and is in progress of establishing their government. At the same time, finds time and more money to donate to humanitarian causes. What does EU do? Donates, and breeds people who have the odasity to say US doesn't donate a dime? Or US is stingy? Or US is worse than China? Or US is the greatest threat to the world? And if you still want to stick to your per person calculations. Well, THEN read BELOW. Oh. And by the way. Unless I missed it. I don't see Spain as donating on that list. Yes, SPAIN = ZERO. Here, take a look for yourself. [ 10-16-2005, 11:24 AM: Message edited by: Soback ]

Really. You want to do divide per person instead of per country. How about you divide Chinas donations then. See how much your beloved neighbors care. Oh, I forgot, they are your socialist friends and therefore off the bashing market.

quote:Originally posted by JUDGExKTF: quote:Originally posted by LostInSpace: Of course, they aren't airing this over here in the U.S., who is the biggest contributor to this organization You guys are always shouting: "We are the biggest contributer etc. etc". Take a look at this: http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/U...ort2004_eng.pdf In thousands of US dollars. 1 United States 262,782 2 United Kingdom 187,957 3 Japan 155,605 4 Norway 135,130 5 Netherlands 113,405 To sumurize it: US: 262 Europe: 761 Also the Netherlands are placed fifth, with only 16 million inhabitants. The US doesnt pay a dime compared to other members of the international community. Which is fine by me, just stop yelling: "We pay everything, we pay everything". [/QB] Ummm. MAJOR NEWS BREAK. US = 1 country Erope = DOZEN+ If you insist on doing math your way, how about we combine US, every other nation against Europe. US doesn't pay a dime? You ungratefull....I wish we didn't so that you would see the results. Have you taken math in school? If Netherlands placed 5th and US placed 1st. How do you figure we don't pay a dime? How about Netherlands doesn't pay a dime compared to the rest of the world. Would that be a fair assesment under your mathematical logic? PS. Oh, and by the way. I didn't see any European helicopters, ships, or relief workers after Katrina. So, why don't you sit back, and enjoy this. [ 10-16-2005, 09:43 AM: Message edited by: Soback ]

quote:Originally posted by Grizzle: Soback, it's called a progressive tax system and no it's not the most fair, but it's the way it is. Would a flat tax be more fair? I don't think so because then it would place a greater burden on those that earn less. 20% flat tax on someone earning 16,000 hurts a hell of a lot more than 20% on someone earning 160,000. There isn't another tax scheme that would result in complete equality across the board, so we are left with the progressive tax which places the burden on those that can afford it. Besides, even if the rich have a higher tax burden they also have more means at their disposal to place their earnings in tax shelters offsetting the amount they actually pay out regardless of their tax bracket. Don't you recall the tax statistics released about John and Teresa Kerry only paying 14% on their multi-million dollar income? I don't envy the rich, and I certainly don't pity them either. Prez, if your point is that the terminology is used by the dems/liberals to enrage then I would tend to agree, but it's not without basis in actual data. How much more harmful is it then the "Terror Alert" or "Bird flu" tactics used by the current administration to keep people in a perpetual state of fear? Our strings can only be pulled if we allow them to be. Meh. I really don't care to engage in a pissing match either. I think I've been pretty clear in the past that I inherently distrust politicians in toto. As far as taxes go, I happen to be in the highest percentage bracket but earn much less than the richest who pay the same rate and I'm not complaining one bit. I do however take some issue with how it is spent as I think we all do. Aaaaahh. Progressive. I see. So me working twice as much, and instead of taking in twice as much, end up taking in only 3/4 of the normal is called progressive. So if you are making 170 thousand, and another guy making 80 thousand, and you tax the guy that makes 170 to bring in his home take just slightly above the 80 thousand guy is called progressive. Hmmmm... Interesting. In THAT case. I don't EVER want to hear from the liberals how it's unfair that the rich get a higher tax brake. IT'S CALLED PROGRESSIVE TAXES, and THEREFORE PROGRESSIVE TAX BREAKS. Since their taxes 60%, and the poorest is 20%, since they get taxed 3 TIMES more, then they should ALSO get 3 TIMES the break. PROGRESSIVE Grizzle, see. You can't have a progressive tax, but then a reversed progressive or a flat tax break. I know that that's the way liberals want, that's the reason for their slogan, "the tax breaks for the rich". ROFL, always, all they want to do is throw a party with the hobos, the looters and the leaches at someone elses expense.

Federal Tax brackets: http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm So if you make 170,000 a year, you are taxed at 35% federally, PLUS 15% (max state tax CA), PLUS social security, PLUS CA disability, PLUS medicare. That's OVER 50%, it will come out to about 59% So if you make $170,000 you come home with $70,000 YEAH, THATS ONLY SEVENTY THOUSAND. Wake up Grizzle. If you make $91,000, you bring home around $55,000 do your math. 28% federal, 8% CA, social, disability, medicare = 43% So how does it figure that a guy that makes TWICE as much, brings home only 28% more than a guy who makes half what he does. You call that fair? That's just about as fair as me working 12 hours and instead of bringing in 150% +overtime of what the guy working 8 hours makes, instead I end up bringing in 130% and that's INCLUDING overtime because of higher tax rate on overtime. Yeah Grizzle, ITS NOT TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH. It's called bringing down the taxes after the liberals have raised them on the rich to such levels that's it's almost unbearable. But, even that's besides the point. Because like I was saying. YOU, The guy making 70 grand a year, is who ends up paying the increased taxes on the rich, for every dollar more they are taxed, you end up paying almost 3 in increased prices of goods and services. How many different ways can I say that. It's simple math. THINK.

Let me explain to you the FIGURE. Government jobs can't create other jobs. Their jobs don't create profits, therefore their jobs can only suck up wealth and resources like a vacuum. Bussines jobs create WEALTH, which allows for creation of other jobs when the company grows. Which allows creation of other jobs when investors get a return from the company and either re-invest that return or spend it (that re-investment or spending is what creates more jobs, be it at the same company or any other place the investor spends it). Going back to government. When it taxes bussinesses to "create a job". Lets say it takes 100,000,000 in taxes, minus the beurocratic fees, minus the pork barreling, minus the leeching off, it will create jobs totalling maybe 30% of that million (300,000). Let the company keep that million. A company will end up EXPANDING and hiring people that will PRODUCE further profits (unlike the government that would just pay out 300,000 and that's it, no further profits) which would allow FURTHER hiring and MORE jobs. Let a "rich" individual keep that million, and he will invest it, or spend it, both of those outcomes will provide jobs, be it on the investing side (production, bussiness, services), or spending side (services, items, ect...) You catching on where that figure comes from? Have a finite budget of 1 million that gets truncated to 300,000 because of waste, and only provide enough jobs till those 300,000 run out. Or have a finite budget of 1 million, that gets invested and GROWS, producing jobs that keep on producing. Who then will create more jobs with that same ammount. Government or bussiness? That's why I said bussiness will outdo by at least 5. How old are you by the way? I am just curious, so that I know if you are in high school and are taking math and economics, in which case I am happy that you can actually learn something outside of school, or have you graduated already, in which case I am still happy, because maybe this will show you something that high school indoctrination (not education, but that's a whole other subject) didn't teach you.

Aperson. First: The way taxes inherently are, has ZERO meaning. The way taxes ARE RIGHT NOW, is everything. I don't care how you are supposed to be taxed. I care how I AM TAXED right now. And like I said, working 12 hours instead of 8, you are supposed to be taking 8 hours pay plus overtime, meaning at least 150% MORE than just 8 hours of work would make you. The way it is set up now, you take LESS than that, because the overtime incurs a higher rate. Why should I work TIMES AND A HALF more than someone else, yet take home LESS than times and half? Not penalizing? I don't think so. I am not even starting on how much you get taxed on your other incomes, investments, and if you make over 100,000. Second: Whats wrong with a person getting a head start? Like I said, if he is rich, he SPENDS his money, or owns bussinesses, invests, ect... THAT CREATES WEALTH, IN RETURN CREATING JOBS. Which leads me to a third point. Third: The "jobs" that government creates, waste wealth. Those "jobs" CAN NOT sustain themselfs, and rely on influx of our taxes to support them. Government DOES NOT create wealth, it squanders it. Therefore, it DOES NOT create sustainable jobs. Bussinesses DO. They operate for profit. Hire people, that EARN their paychecks, and in return the company expands, grows and hires more people. Do you understand the difference? A perfect example is a communist Russia. Their bussinesses, production, inventions, all went down hill when all became nationalized, and people LOST their jobs, became poorer, and living conditions WORSENED. That's the kind of "jobs" the government creates. So you taxing the bussinesses and claiming that money will go towards job creation is a ludicrous concept. Give that money back to bussinesses and they will create 5 times the ammount of jobs the government would.

quote:Originally posted by Wolfheart: quote:Penalizing someone who is doing better than you. Taxes arent some kind of penalty.Its the price of living in a stable(content) society.It may have(lots of) problems in its execution but I think the concept itself is acceptable. That being said,I agree that just taxing rich people and giving money to the poor isnt an answer to the problems.Those people should be tought to catch fish(those money should be used to create more jobs and provide better education). And the "value" of rich people is just BS.Just because an athlete won the race that he has started a mile ahead of other competitors doesnt mean he has any more "value" than others. I think its not too far in history when the frenchmen showed what would happen when the unhappiness of the society got ignored. FIRST: Taxes ARE a penalty, when someone has to pay more just because he makes more. I personaly know people who work for 9 or 10 months and then STOP working, because if they continue, then their taxes will sky rocket, and they would end up paying so much more and bring home less than if they would have just worked for 9 month and took 3 months off. Another thing, overtime, it gets taxed MORE than regular pay. WHY? Why should I pay a HIGHER RATE if I work 12 hours a day as opposed to 8? You telling me that it's not penalizing to be working more, applying yourself, producing, and then be punished with a higher tax rate for it and bring home just barely more than a guy who worked 8 hours? Second: Don't know what you mean by that athlete starting a mile ahead. BUT, If I have some skill, knowledge or something to offer, then I have value. If I collect wellfare, medicare, food stamps, and depend on others to support my life, I DO NOT have value. Those people are a strain on the society, they are leeches, and looters. They will only vote for the guy who promisses them more looted $, not the guy who will make it easier to establish bussinesses creating jobs. Also, the VALUE of the rich people, is that they SPEND their money, and when that happens, they don't spend a couple of hundred, they spend dozens of thousands, providing jobs for the rest of us. The value of the rich people, is that they OWN bussinesses that provide jobs for the rest of us. A bum on the corner, has ZERO value. Third: you posted "Those people should be tought to catch fish(those money should be used to create more jobs and provide better education)." Who creates jobs? Government or private enterprise? Who makes the economy run? Government or private enterprise? Who pays taxes? Government or private enterprise? Let me tell you. Government only WASTES money not saves and invests it, government only collects taxes and spends taxes, not pays them. Government is a disorganized, wastefull, pathetic, overblown, incompetent organization, that is bad at EVERYTHING, starting at DMV and social services, and ending with military and politicians. Bussinesses create jobs, create new products, do research, invent new things, save and invest, and pay taxes, NOT government. When you artificially impose road blocks on enterpenuers, then there's less progress, less bussinesses opening up, less jobs being created. The rich are the ones who invest money, spend it, and open huge bussinesses that hire thousands of workers. Enterpenuers are the ones who invest their millions in a guy coming to them with nothing but 30 pages of a report and his idea, asking to be invested in. And when a regular guy opens up his own bussiness, he automatically is labeled rich by the socialists and penalized from the start for getting ahead, hampering him, and hurting the economy, jobs and progress at the same time. So what have we learned? Taxes don't create new jobs. They are squandered by the government. And wasted even more by a social government.

Like it was said in Atlas Shrugged. "From each according to their ability, to each according to his need" The liberal socialists. You know who usually supports such ideas? Those who have no ability or anything of value to offer in return. All they can hope for, is a way to take something of value from those who have it, and not be called vermin, robbers, or looters. Those who have some ability or something of value to offer, whould never support an idea that would force them to give up what they have. Higher taxes on the rich, just because they are rich = legalized looting. It's supported by someone who knows he is not good enough to ever equal a guy who has 10 million in the bank, so instead of striving to become better than that guy and make 12 million himself, he seeks to bring that guy down to his level instead. To loot that guys wealth, to benefit for free from the profits, value of the rich. [ 10-12-2005, 02:19 AM: Message edited by: Soback ]

Penalizing someone who is doing better than you. That's by that very same notion that they were supporting imposing gas tax on those who drive SUV's, trucks and bigger cars. Should I even go into how the rich are the ones who own the bussinesses. Those bussinesses that provide jobs for the middle class and the poor. Those same jobs that provide those middle class and the poor with paychecks. Those same paychecks that put food on the table, and pay for those wellfare checks. Should I even go into how those rich are the ones who put up millions of their dollars to open up a new bussiness, and either be it a success and they make more money, or have it fail and lose their millions. Those same bussinesses that again, provide jobs for the rest of you. Should I even go into how those same rich have donated to Katrina aid. And not your $100 donation, but $100,000. Should I even go into how those rich interpenuers put up their millions when a guy comes to them with nothing more than an idea, and asks for investment money. And when they invest in that guy, they either make money on him and his idea, or lose their own millions. Where would you be without those rich? Living in caves, and picking berries. That's where you'd be. Take a look at how China was before they allowed private bussinesses. Take a look at how Russia was when they got rid of the Czar, nationalized everything, got rid of the rich, and redistributed the wealth. They literally ROTTED away without the rich. ROFL, tax cut for the rich. Have you missed your math and economics classes in high school. Don't you know that for every $1 increase in tax on bussinesses you the consumer end up paying $2+ NOT the bussiness. Therefore for the increase in tax on the rich, YOU pay, not the rich. Therefore when those same taxes decrease for the rich, it benefits you by TRICKLING DOWN. Trust me, they will not hand over 90% of their money and go live in an appartment. They will just raise prices of their products, and services, or cut their workers wages, or lay some of them off. ROFL. Tax cuts for the rich. You gotta be kidding me. It really does show how one can think for himself. Analyze things, and see the cause and effect. And how one can just hear something said. Go all emotional, and take someone on their word without thinking and understanding the causes and effects. Kinda like when Kerry was saying he will raise taxes, but only for the rich. And every moron was yelling horay, without understanding that they those taxes will get passed down to them at the rate of 1 to 3. Meaning for every dollar more the rich pay, the regular joe will end up shelling out 3. It would just be spread out over millions of people, and all you will see is a slight rise in costs of good and services, the rich however, will still keep their money. It's just YOU who will pick up that tab, at the INFLATED rate of 3. ROFL. That's why the poor will always stay poor. Because they don't understand the very basics of the economy, how things work, and wonder why every time the government gives them a hand out, or promisses lower taxes, things still don't go their way, even though it seems like it should. ROFL

Mmmmm. Yes. The posibility of another lawsuit, and multi million dollar loss if this occurs again.

The information is starting to trickle down, her history: 1. She is for international criminal court. 2. Higher taxes. 3. Gay addoption. 4. Donated to Al Gore.

"Other states have deeper reservations about the project's tax collection method. One sticking point has been the group's decision to tax online sales at a destination -- that is, the locality where the customer is -- instead of at the purchase point (as done in brick-and-mortar stores). Some local governments with distribution warehouses are worried that they will lose millions in sales taxes because the tax money would go to another jurisdiction." ---That's EXACTLY why US retailers, SHOULD NOT, be collecting taxes for EU. It's EU's responsibility, not US retailers, or any other retailers. If I go to another state, and buy there, I pay their taxes, NOT the taxes of where I live. LIS, if you would physically go to that reservation and buy cigarettes, would you have to pay taxes? If not, then I think you would be a prime candidate for: read the next paragraph. Maybe we can either find a group to join, or create a group and file a class action suit against the government and this ludicrous taxation scheme.

quote:Originally posted by Grizzle: You have so much energy and enthusiasm that you would probably be better served by focusing on the injustices occuring within our own borders. If only Europeans, (ahem, Nomad) followed the same advice. But in either case. Just like Nomad screams that what US does affects the rest of the world. By the same token. What EU does, especially with something as global as internet (by Nomads defenition, it's a global resource), it affects me too. So, I don't turn a blind eye to something, just because it's outside of US borders. ESPECIALLY, when the ripple effect will hit US too. I know how those europeans like to bash US all the time. While turning a blind eye on China, and especially on what's happening within their own borders. Well, now it's time to discuss Europe for a change, especially, like they themselfs like to point out, when it affects the rest of the world too.

quote:Originally posted by nomad: Jaguar: If changing position on a given subject is lying, then I think both the EU and the US are fairly balanced in that field. US to EU: Are you going to charge taxes if we let you in? EU: No, we will not be charging taxes. People: Are you going to regulate and polute internet with your beurocracy? EU: NO, we will not. We want LESS regulation, and have the internet flourish. People: Are you going to tax us if we let you have a decission in the internet regulation process? EU: We already said that we will not, we want the internet to grow, be easier to use, less beurocracy, less regulation, you know, we want it to flourish. US: Well, alright. We will include you in our decission making process. 2 years later..... EU: Alright suckers. Here's a VAT tax. Now, we want our own servers, and control over the traffic flow, domain assignments, ect...Oh, and by the way, NO worries, we also promise less regulation, less beurocracy, better internet, and no taxes. What happened before is completly irrelevant. We NEVER lied, we just changed our position. ROFL