SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Hal Rubel who wrote (40199)3/30/2000 1:00:00 PM
From: Jim McMannis  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 74651
 
Hal,
Speaking of spreading it around. Clinton has taken 47 trips abroad since he's been in office. The infamous Africa trip topped out at costing the taxpayers $43 million.
I'd say it's definitely getting "spread around".
Estimates suggest Clint could top out at 61 trips...
er Junkets...
Did I mention the Hillary Junkets?

Jim



To: Hal Rubel who wrote (40199)3/30/2000 1:14:00 PM
From: Gerald Walls  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 74651
 
Well, I have heard of courts daring to include "restitution" as part of a ruling. What planet are you from?

No need to be rude and condescending, but I recognize that it's your way. Nearly every reply of yours contains some snide, wise-ass remark.

On my planet, Earth, and specifically in my country, the United States of America, restitution is something ordered by a court in an attempt to make an injured party whole. On your planet restitution must include higher tax on "the rich" in order to redistribute that money to "the poor" (since you brought restitution up as a supporting argument for redistribution). You must equate these two so it follows that you believe that "the rich" must injure "the poor", and we're right back to my beginning assertion that the liberals believe that "the rich" get that way by taking advantage of the poor and must therefore be punished.

We've argued the full circle now. Why continue it?