There are certainly enough reasons for Al Gore to be considered a 'nut case'
although perhaps you are correct that is not the best choice of terms.


"XS11E" <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97D84C2B3481Dxs11eyahoocom@70.169.32.36...
> Jeff DeWitt <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in
> news:d3Cgg.37621$Lg.25287@tornado.southeast.rr.com :
>
>> I'm sorry, but I'm not going to be bothered by someone being a bit
>> unfair to a nut case like Al Gore.
>
> When you add things someone didn't do or say with things they did, you
> weaken your case and give their supporters a reason to disregard your
> entire argument.
>
>
>

 

The 1983 admendments, which also made benefits subject to income tax,
created a surplus that was invested in US Govt bonds held by the Social
Security Trust Fund, which aren't backed by cash.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_..._Act#Expansion

"billy ray" <billy_ray@SPAMfuse.net> wrote in message
news:8819e$44825af6$48311525$13940@FUSE.NET...
> It used to be a separate fund until ...... wait.... if I give the date the
> Jeepers here who actually attended classes when in school would know who
> the President was and what he used the money for.......
>
> Good try Bill........
>
>
> "L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> news:448253B1.C162B2FC@***.net...
>> Hi Bill,
>> I thought the leftover moneys were always used up by our Government
>> without any plan for the principal to be invested to make interest,
>> typically doubling every seven years.
>> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
>> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>>
>> billy ray wrote:
>>>
>>> Social Security wasn't always a Ponzi scheme. A president from what
>>> party
>>> was responsible?
>>>
>>> Bonus points for why he spent the cash..
>
>

 

The 1983 admendments, which also made benefits subject to income tax,
created a surplus that was invested in US Govt bonds held by the Social
Security Trust Fund, which aren't backed by cash.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_..._Act#Expansion

"billy ray" <billy_ray@SPAMfuse.net> wrote in message
news:8819e$44825af6$48311525$13940@FUSE.NET...
> It used to be a separate fund until ...... wait.... if I give the date the
> Jeepers here who actually attended classes when in school would know who
> the President was and what he used the money for.......
>
> Good try Bill........
>
>
> "L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> news:448253B1.C162B2FC@***.net...
>> Hi Bill,
>> I thought the leftover moneys were always used up by our Government
>> without any plan for the principal to be invested to make interest,
>> typically doubling every seven years.
>> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
>> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>>
>> billy ray wrote:
>>>
>>> Social Security wasn't always a Ponzi scheme. A president from what
>>> party
>>> was responsible?
>>>
>>> Bonus points for why he spent the cash..
>
>

 

The 1983 admendments, which also made benefits subject to income tax,
created a surplus that was invested in US Govt bonds held by the Social
Security Trust Fund, which aren't backed by cash.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_..._Act#Expansion

"billy ray" <billy_ray@SPAMfuse.net> wrote in message
news:8819e$44825af6$48311525$13940@FUSE.NET...
> It used to be a separate fund until ...... wait.... if I give the date the
> Jeepers here who actually attended classes when in school would know who
> the President was and what he used the money for.......
>
> Good try Bill........
>
>
> "L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> news:448253B1.C162B2FC@***.net...
>> Hi Bill,
>> I thought the leftover moneys were always used up by our Government
>> without any plan for the principal to be invested to make interest,
>> typically doubling every seven years.
>> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
>> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>>
>> billy ray wrote:
>>>
>>> Social Security wasn't always a Ponzi scheme. A president from what
>>> party
>>> was responsible?
>>>
>>> Bonus points for why he spent the cash..
>
>

 

Matt, Part of the answer is buried there.


"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:dsGdnWW5ftGfaR_ZnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> The 1983 admendments, which also made benefits subject to income tax,
> created a surplus that was invested in US Govt bonds held by the Social
> Security Trust Fund, which aren't backed by cash.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_..._Act#Expansion
>
> "billy ray" <billy_ray@SPAMfuse.net> wrote in message
> news:8819e$44825af6$48311525$13940@FUSE.NET...
>> It used to be a separate fund until ...... wait.... if I give the date
>> the Jeepers here who actually attended classes when in school would know
>> who the President was and what he used the money for.......
>>
>> Good try Bill........
>>
>>
>> "L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
>> news:448253B1.C162B2FC@***.net...
>>> Hi Bill,
>>> I thought the leftover moneys were always used up by our Government
>>> without any plan for the principal to be invested to make interest,
>>> typically doubling every seven years.
>>> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
>>> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>>>
>>> billy ray wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Social Security wasn't always a Ponzi scheme. A president from what
>>>> party
>>>> was responsible?
>>>>
>>>> Bonus points for why he spent the cash..
>>
>>
>
>

 

Matt, Part of the answer is buried there.


"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:dsGdnWW5ftGfaR_ZnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> The 1983 admendments, which also made benefits subject to income tax,
> created a surplus that was invested in US Govt bonds held by the Social
> Security Trust Fund, which aren't backed by cash.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_..._Act#Expansion
>
> "billy ray" <billy_ray@SPAMfuse.net> wrote in message
> news:8819e$44825af6$48311525$13940@FUSE.NET...
>> It used to be a separate fund until ...... wait.... if I give the date
>> the Jeepers here who actually attended classes when in school would know
>> who the President was and what he used the money for.......
>>
>> Good try Bill........
>>
>>
>> "L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
>> news:448253B1.C162B2FC@***.net...
>>> Hi Bill,
>>> I thought the leftover moneys were always used up by our Government
>>> without any plan for the principal to be invested to make interest,
>>> typically doubling every seven years.
>>> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
>>> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>>>
>>> billy ray wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Social Security wasn't always a Ponzi scheme. A president from what
>>>> party
>>>> was responsible?
>>>>
>>>> Bonus points for why he spent the cash..
>>
>>
>
>

 

Matt, Part of the answer is buried there.


"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:dsGdnWW5ftGfaR_ZnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> The 1983 admendments, which also made benefits subject to income tax,
> created a surplus that was invested in US Govt bonds held by the Social
> Security Trust Fund, which aren't backed by cash.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_..._Act#Expansion
>
> "billy ray" <billy_ray@SPAMfuse.net> wrote in message
> news:8819e$44825af6$48311525$13940@FUSE.NET...
>> It used to be a separate fund until ...... wait.... if I give the date
>> the Jeepers here who actually attended classes when in school would know
>> who the President was and what he used the money for.......
>>
>> Good try Bill........
>>
>>
>> "L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
>> news:448253B1.C162B2FC@***.net...
>>> Hi Bill,
>>> I thought the leftover moneys were always used up by our Government
>>> without any plan for the principal to be invested to make interest,
>>> typically doubling every seven years.
>>> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
>>> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>>>
>>> billy ray wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Social Security wasn't always a Ponzi scheme. A president from what
>>>> party
>>>> was responsible?
>>>>
>>>> Bonus points for why he spent the cash..
>>
>>
>
>

 

Earle Horton proclaimed:


>
> There is no agricultural zoned land in San Juan County, CO. That could be
> the place you are thinking about. We have a private landowner, who objects
> to skiers from an adjacent ski area, leased from the BLM, skiing across his
> land. I just heard, that the county commissioners are initiating
> condemnation proceedings against him. Recall the recent Supreme Court
> decision, that made it legal, for local governments to step in, where
> private landowners "interfere" with economic development. This isn't quite
> the same as what Mr. White is complaining about, but it does reflect the
> same appalling lack of respect for the private property owner.


Eminent domain has been around a long time. What waxes and wanes
periodically is the willingness to use it or extend the privilege to
areas that arguably were not in the original intent.

As for needing to be zoned agricultural, that appears a bit quaint since
I've had a neighbor get assistance for someone simply wandering thru
private property in a rather large city and destroying plants.


>
> Civil or criminal? Depends on the jurisdiction.

Ayup.

> I would be consulting a
> local lawyer, to see if there is any way to impound one of those vehicles
> legally. Act quickly, have the truck in a tow service yard with pit bulls
> sleeping in it, with a huge bill for towing and damages to the field too,
> and you might scare off some of these "geniuses".

I believe you may have misspelled 'sociopathic delinquents" the
existence of one or two apparently enough to engender the rabid postings
of the original poster on this thread. I can just picture him, looking
much like the Denver Broncos coach, foaming at the mouth at the mere
sight of a vehicle able to make it over the speed bumps in a shopping
mall.

 

Earle Horton proclaimed:


>
> There is no agricultural zoned land in San Juan County, CO. That could be
> the place you are thinking about. We have a private landowner, who objects
> to skiers from an adjacent ski area, leased from the BLM, skiing across his
> land. I just heard, that the county commissioners are initiating
> condemnation proceedings against him. Recall the recent Supreme Court
> decision, that made it legal, for local governments to step in, where
> private landowners "interfere" with economic development. This isn't quite
> the same as what Mr. White is complaining about, but it does reflect the
> same appalling lack of respect for the private property owner.


Eminent domain has been around a long time. What waxes and wanes
periodically is the willingness to use it or extend the privilege to
areas that arguably were not in the original intent.

As for needing to be zoned agricultural, that appears a bit quaint since
I've had a neighbor get assistance for someone simply wandering thru
private property in a rather large city and destroying plants.


>
> Civil or criminal? Depends on the jurisdiction.

Ayup.

> I would be consulting a
> local lawyer, to see if there is any way to impound one of those vehicles
> legally. Act quickly, have the truck in a tow service yard with pit bulls
> sleeping in it, with a huge bill for towing and damages to the field too,
> and you might scare off some of these "geniuses".

I believe you may have misspelled 'sociopathic delinquents" the
existence of one or two apparently enough to engender the rabid postings
of the original poster on this thread. I can just picture him, looking
much like the Denver Broncos coach, foaming at the mouth at the mere
sight of a vehicle able to make it over the speed bumps in a shopping
mall.

 

Earle Horton proclaimed:


>
> There is no agricultural zoned land in San Juan County, CO. That could be
> the place you are thinking about. We have a private landowner, who objects
> to skiers from an adjacent ski area, leased from the BLM, skiing across his
> land. I just heard, that the county commissioners are initiating
> condemnation proceedings against him. Recall the recent Supreme Court
> decision, that made it legal, for local governments to step in, where
> private landowners "interfere" with economic development. This isn't quite
> the same as what Mr. White is complaining about, but it does reflect the
> same appalling lack of respect for the private property owner.


Eminent domain has been around a long time. What waxes and wanes
periodically is the willingness to use it or extend the privilege to
areas that arguably were not in the original intent.

As for needing to be zoned agricultural, that appears a bit quaint since
I've had a neighbor get assistance for someone simply wandering thru
private property in a rather large city and destroying plants.


>
> Civil or criminal? Depends on the jurisdiction.

Ayup.

> I would be consulting a
> local lawyer, to see if there is any way to impound one of those vehicles
> legally. Act quickly, have the truck in a tow service yard with pit bulls
> sleeping in it, with a huge bill for towing and damages to the field too,
> and you might scare off some of these "geniuses".

I believe you may have misspelled 'sociopathic delinquents" the
existence of one or two apparently enough to engender the rabid postings
of the original poster on this thread. I can just picture him, looking
much like the Denver Broncos coach, foaming at the mouth at the mere
sight of a vehicle able to make it over the speed bumps in a shopping
mall.