Some Car Dealers Will Never Change
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: Bruce Richmond on 14 Mar 2010 23:11 On Mar 14, 8:45 pm, Outback Jon <team...(a)ver.no.sp.am.izon.net> wrote: > Bruce Richmond wrote: > > Did I mention our > > state moto is "Live free or die"? > > I've been there. In the winter. > > I think it's supposed to be "Live, Freeze, and Die." Could be.... http://i436.photobucket.com/albums/qq86/bruce8897/ride1.jpg http://i436.photobucket.com/albums/qq86/bruce8897/HPIM0644.jpg http://i436.photobucket.com/albums/qq86/bruce8897/snowkawi.jpg
From: Bruce Richmond on 14 Mar 2010 23:17 On Mar 14, 9:32 pm, Bob Mann <bobm...(a)mts.net> wrote: > On Mar 14, 6:27 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > We have no sales or income tax in New Hampshire. Adults are not > > required to wear seat belts or motorcycle helmets. Did I mention our > > state moto is "Live free or die"? > > There is no free. > > I would assume, ie - could be wrong, that you have relatively high > proprty taxes and other taxes. > Government services have to be paid for somehow. > If not through taxes, then through high user fees. High property taxes yes, others not so much. A big part of the "Free" is telling the nannies to mind their own f--king business. Like I said, no helmet law, no seat belt law, etc. I wear both, but it is nice to know I do't have to. > That being said, I would like to see us back up along that road a > spell. > > Bob
From: Bob Mann on 15 Mar 2010 02:36 On Mar 14, 10:17 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > High property taxes yes, others not so much. A big part of the "Free" > is telling the nannies to mind their own f--king business. Like I > said, no helmet law, no seat belt law, etc. I wear both, but it is > nice to know I do't have to. > I could go along with that.
From: The Older Gentleman on 15 Mar 2010 03:15 Bob Mann <bobmann(a)mts.net> wrote: > I would assume, ie - could be wrong, that you have relatively high > proprty taxes and other taxes. > Government services have to be paid for somehow. > If not through taxes, then through high user fees. This is exactly right. Some people still think the Revenue Fairy showers the gold out of the sky, though. -- BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple Suzuki TS250ER GN250 Damn, back to six bikes! Try Googling before asking a damn silly question. chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
From: Bruce Richmond on 15 Mar 2010 17:46
On Mar 15, 3:15 am, totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older Gentleman) wrote: > Bob Mann <bobm...(a)mts.net> wrote: > > I would assume, ie - could be wrong, that you have relatively high > > proprty taxes and other taxes. > > Government services have to be paid for somehow. > > If not through taxes, then through high user fees. > > This is exactly right. Some people still think the Revenue Fairy showers > the gold out of the sky, though. A lot depends on what you are lumping into "Government services". There is no reason why my state taxes should be used to build subsidised mass transit in the more densly populated area of the state, a hundred mile from where I have no use for it. They will never build such a system in my rural part of the state. There is no reason why my tax dollars should go to pay for someone else to install solar hot water or buy an electric car. If it will save them money in the long run then they should invest their own, leaving me mine to invest as I see fit. I would object loud and long about any CO2 tax, even if it was somehow used to reduce CO2. My tax dollars should not be used to provide better housing for welfare cases than I provide for myself. I could go on but you get the idea. |