Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#3501
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Your post is interesting -
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message news:
> Fascism and Socialism have one thing in common... they view government as
> able to give and take away rights according to their respective value
> systems.
OK, but would you then agree that a government that tries to take away
women's right to choose is being fascist? After all, it does take away
a right according to its value system. Please let us not start a
discussion here about such a emotionally charged question as abortion;
I am only trying to point out that in the real world governments do
try and do succeed in imposing laws according to the prevalent value
system and not only according to the welfare of the people, as they
probably should.
> Democrats are in a constant dance on the edge of socialism. Their values
> include rejecting the unfairness of their being a large disparity between
> rich and poor, which isn't a bad value....
I agree. Income disparity is one of the worse signs about the health
of a society. A perfectly fair society is an utopia, but the current
situation is clearly unfair and getting worse. Over the last decades
the real income of the poorest Americans has gotten worse, middle
class is stuck (actually it is earning a little less - in 1973,
private-sector workers in the US were paid on average $9.08 an hour,
today, in real terms, they are paid $8.33). The rich are only slightly
better off, and only the very rich are doing significantly better.
Inequality in America is mind-boggling. It is fair to say that 95% of
the American public is not getting a fair deal; after all the richest
1% owns more than the poorest 95%! The top 400 families made in 2002
on average 174 million each, way up from "only" 47 million each in
1992 - even so their tax burden has gone down from 26.4% to 22.3%, and
this before Bush's huge tax cuts skewed towards the very rich; if Bush
tax cut were in effect their tax burden in 2002 would be only 17.5%.
(See: http://www.xent.com/pipermail/fork/2...ne/022679.html)
> but their answer is to use government to compel "charity" or the "transfer of wealth" through taxes.
You may be right, but then again what would you suggest government
should do in order to "reject the unfairness of there being a large
disparity between rich and poor"? What would you do if you were
President?
> The effort includes finding "rights" to justify this, like rights to
> employment,
I think this is a very good right: we all lose if people just sit
around doing nothing. After all unproductive people will not really
wither away, they will turn to crime or will survive by consuming
social services your tax dollar will pay. A good government should
make it possible for almost everybody to be employed. Surely this is a
no-brainer.
> rights to minimum wages
I do think it is right that people should get a fair minimum wage for
their honest day's work. Surely you wouldn't like employers to be able
to exploit desperate people by paying them, say, 50 cents an hour. So
the only question is how high the minimum wage should be. If too high,
then it would end up hurting the very people it meant to help.
> rights of healthcare,
Health is the single greatest good. People in almost all civilized
countries, including Canada, Europe, Australia, etc., enjoy universal
health care. Sure Americans living in the richest country of all can
afford it too.
> rights to shelter,
Well, I too get mad sometimes when people who are not really trying
get subsidized housing. On the other hand I would not like to be in a
country with poor people living in the streets. So here too, the
question is how to strike the right balance. Maybe the weakest members
of society, the ones who really cannot look after themselves, should
get shelter for free.
right to education,
Here I disagree completely. There is nothing as important for the
future of society as a good education. Everybody wins when people are
better educated. Even candidate Bush proclaimed he was going to be the
"Education President".
> ad infinitum, which rights have to be "found" in the constitution via "activist", "progressive" judges.
In a way I do agree with your sentiment. I hate it when people just
exclaim "this is my right". People should earn whatever they get -
unless they suffer of some infirmity. But in order to earn it they do
require education and employment and health, they require a fair
chance. Unfortunately the current administration prefers to blow
hundreds of billions of tax dollars on Iraq, and also to make sure
that the super-rich pay hundreds of billions less taxes in the future.
I don't see how these policies help the average American.
BTW the mega-billions spent on Iraq do not really go to Iraq or to the
American soldiers who risk their lives there, but mostly go to the
military industrial complex. Let us not forget that before 9/11 what
Rumsfield was trying to do was to spend mega-billions on the "missile
shield" in order to counter that other supposedly major security risk
to America. I can't help but think that what the current
administration is about is to shift more wealth to the already
wealthiest Americans using bogus threats to deceive the population at
large. This may sound simplistic, it may sound extremist, President
Bush might honestly be unaware of it, still I think this is basically
what is happening: a huge social engineering in inverse distribution
of wealth.
One last point - and I promise I am about to finish this post.
Precisely because I believe that "people should earn whatever they
get" I am in favor of estate taxes (what conservatives rather stupidly
have recently called "death taxes": it is not the dead who pay these
taxes but rather their offspring who get the dough). Why should the
ones who were born with a silver spoon in their mouth, who grew up in
comfort, got the best possible education and the best connections, why
should they not have to pay taxes for daddy's (or mommy's) fortune
they are about to get? Small estates have always been tax free, but,
as far as I am concerned rich offspring should pay 80% on estates
larger than 10 million dollars and 90% on estates larger than 50
million; this would still give them several million dollars of
unearned money. Also nobody should get more than 10 million dollars
out of the fruits of his or her parents work - even Bill Gates claims
he will give his children no more than that.
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message news:
> Fascism and Socialism have one thing in common... they view government as
> able to give and take away rights according to their respective value
> systems.
OK, but would you then agree that a government that tries to take away
women's right to choose is being fascist? After all, it does take away
a right according to its value system. Please let us not start a
discussion here about such a emotionally charged question as abortion;
I am only trying to point out that in the real world governments do
try and do succeed in imposing laws according to the prevalent value
system and not only according to the welfare of the people, as they
probably should.
> Democrats are in a constant dance on the edge of socialism. Their values
> include rejecting the unfairness of their being a large disparity between
> rich and poor, which isn't a bad value....
I agree. Income disparity is one of the worse signs about the health
of a society. A perfectly fair society is an utopia, but the current
situation is clearly unfair and getting worse. Over the last decades
the real income of the poorest Americans has gotten worse, middle
class is stuck (actually it is earning a little less - in 1973,
private-sector workers in the US were paid on average $9.08 an hour,
today, in real terms, they are paid $8.33). The rich are only slightly
better off, and only the very rich are doing significantly better.
Inequality in America is mind-boggling. It is fair to say that 95% of
the American public is not getting a fair deal; after all the richest
1% owns more than the poorest 95%! The top 400 families made in 2002
on average 174 million each, way up from "only" 47 million each in
1992 - even so their tax burden has gone down from 26.4% to 22.3%, and
this before Bush's huge tax cuts skewed towards the very rich; if Bush
tax cut were in effect their tax burden in 2002 would be only 17.5%.
(See: http://www.xent.com/pipermail/fork/2...ne/022679.html)
> but their answer is to use government to compel "charity" or the "transfer of wealth" through taxes.
You may be right, but then again what would you suggest government
should do in order to "reject the unfairness of there being a large
disparity between rich and poor"? What would you do if you were
President?
> The effort includes finding "rights" to justify this, like rights to
> employment,
I think this is a very good right: we all lose if people just sit
around doing nothing. After all unproductive people will not really
wither away, they will turn to crime or will survive by consuming
social services your tax dollar will pay. A good government should
make it possible for almost everybody to be employed. Surely this is a
no-brainer.
> rights to minimum wages
I do think it is right that people should get a fair minimum wage for
their honest day's work. Surely you wouldn't like employers to be able
to exploit desperate people by paying them, say, 50 cents an hour. So
the only question is how high the minimum wage should be. If too high,
then it would end up hurting the very people it meant to help.
> rights of healthcare,
Health is the single greatest good. People in almost all civilized
countries, including Canada, Europe, Australia, etc., enjoy universal
health care. Sure Americans living in the richest country of all can
afford it too.
> rights to shelter,
Well, I too get mad sometimes when people who are not really trying
get subsidized housing. On the other hand I would not like to be in a
country with poor people living in the streets. So here too, the
question is how to strike the right balance. Maybe the weakest members
of society, the ones who really cannot look after themselves, should
get shelter for free.
right to education,
Here I disagree completely. There is nothing as important for the
future of society as a good education. Everybody wins when people are
better educated. Even candidate Bush proclaimed he was going to be the
"Education President".
> ad infinitum, which rights have to be "found" in the constitution via "activist", "progressive" judges.
In a way I do agree with your sentiment. I hate it when people just
exclaim "this is my right". People should earn whatever they get -
unless they suffer of some infirmity. But in order to earn it they do
require education and employment and health, they require a fair
chance. Unfortunately the current administration prefers to blow
hundreds of billions of tax dollars on Iraq, and also to make sure
that the super-rich pay hundreds of billions less taxes in the future.
I don't see how these policies help the average American.
BTW the mega-billions spent on Iraq do not really go to Iraq or to the
American soldiers who risk their lives there, but mostly go to the
military industrial complex. Let us not forget that before 9/11 what
Rumsfield was trying to do was to spend mega-billions on the "missile
shield" in order to counter that other supposedly major security risk
to America. I can't help but think that what the current
administration is about is to shift more wealth to the already
wealthiest Americans using bogus threats to deceive the population at
large. This may sound simplistic, it may sound extremist, President
Bush might honestly be unaware of it, still I think this is basically
what is happening: a huge social engineering in inverse distribution
of wealth.
One last point - and I promise I am about to finish this post.
Precisely because I believe that "people should earn whatever they
get" I am in favor of estate taxes (what conservatives rather stupidly
have recently called "death taxes": it is not the dead who pay these
taxes but rather their offspring who get the dough). Why should the
ones who were born with a silver spoon in their mouth, who grew up in
comfort, got the best possible education and the best connections, why
should they not have to pay taxes for daddy's (or mommy's) fortune
they are about to get? Small estates have always been tax free, but,
as far as I am concerned rich offspring should pay 80% on estates
larger than 10 million dollars and 90% on estates larger than 50
million; this would still give them several million dollars of
unearned money. Also nobody should get more than 10 million dollars
out of the fruits of his or her parents work - even Bill Gates claims
he will give his children no more than that.
#3502
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Your post is interesting -
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message news:
> Fascism and Socialism have one thing in common... they view government as
> able to give and take away rights according to their respective value
> systems.
OK, but would you then agree that a government that tries to take away
women's right to choose is being fascist? After all, it does take away
a right according to its value system. Please let us not start a
discussion here about such a emotionally charged question as abortion;
I am only trying to point out that in the real world governments do
try and do succeed in imposing laws according to the prevalent value
system and not only according to the welfare of the people, as they
probably should.
> Democrats are in a constant dance on the edge of socialism. Their values
> include rejecting the unfairness of their being a large disparity between
> rich and poor, which isn't a bad value....
I agree. Income disparity is one of the worse signs about the health
of a society. A perfectly fair society is an utopia, but the current
situation is clearly unfair and getting worse. Over the last decades
the real income of the poorest Americans has gotten worse, middle
class is stuck (actually it is earning a little less - in 1973,
private-sector workers in the US were paid on average $9.08 an hour,
today, in real terms, they are paid $8.33). The rich are only slightly
better off, and only the very rich are doing significantly better.
Inequality in America is mind-boggling. It is fair to say that 95% of
the American public is not getting a fair deal; after all the richest
1% owns more than the poorest 95%! The top 400 families made in 2002
on average 174 million each, way up from "only" 47 million each in
1992 - even so their tax burden has gone down from 26.4% to 22.3%, and
this before Bush's huge tax cuts skewed towards the very rich; if Bush
tax cut were in effect their tax burden in 2002 would be only 17.5%.
(See: http://www.xent.com/pipermail/fork/2...ne/022679.html)
> but their answer is to use government to compel "charity" or the "transfer of wealth" through taxes.
You may be right, but then again what would you suggest government
should do in order to "reject the unfairness of there being a large
disparity between rich and poor"? What would you do if you were
President?
> The effort includes finding "rights" to justify this, like rights to
> employment,
I think this is a very good right: we all lose if people just sit
around doing nothing. After all unproductive people will not really
wither away, they will turn to crime or will survive by consuming
social services your tax dollar will pay. A good government should
make it possible for almost everybody to be employed. Surely this is a
no-brainer.
> rights to minimum wages
I do think it is right that people should get a fair minimum wage for
their honest day's work. Surely you wouldn't like employers to be able
to exploit desperate people by paying them, say, 50 cents an hour. So
the only question is how high the minimum wage should be. If too high,
then it would end up hurting the very people it meant to help.
> rights of healthcare,
Health is the single greatest good. People in almost all civilized
countries, including Canada, Europe, Australia, etc., enjoy universal
health care. Sure Americans living in the richest country of all can
afford it too.
> rights to shelter,
Well, I too get mad sometimes when people who are not really trying
get subsidized housing. On the other hand I would not like to be in a
country with poor people living in the streets. So here too, the
question is how to strike the right balance. Maybe the weakest members
of society, the ones who really cannot look after themselves, should
get shelter for free.
right to education,
Here I disagree completely. There is nothing as important for the
future of society as a good education. Everybody wins when people are
better educated. Even candidate Bush proclaimed he was going to be the
"Education President".
> ad infinitum, which rights have to be "found" in the constitution via "activist", "progressive" judges.
In a way I do agree with your sentiment. I hate it when people just
exclaim "this is my right". People should earn whatever they get -
unless they suffer of some infirmity. But in order to earn it they do
require education and employment and health, they require a fair
chance. Unfortunately the current administration prefers to blow
hundreds of billions of tax dollars on Iraq, and also to make sure
that the super-rich pay hundreds of billions less taxes in the future.
I don't see how these policies help the average American.
BTW the mega-billions spent on Iraq do not really go to Iraq or to the
American soldiers who risk their lives there, but mostly go to the
military industrial complex. Let us not forget that before 9/11 what
Rumsfield was trying to do was to spend mega-billions on the "missile
shield" in order to counter that other supposedly major security risk
to America. I can't help but think that what the current
administration is about is to shift more wealth to the already
wealthiest Americans using bogus threats to deceive the population at
large. This may sound simplistic, it may sound extremist, President
Bush might honestly be unaware of it, still I think this is basically
what is happening: a huge social engineering in inverse distribution
of wealth.
One last point - and I promise I am about to finish this post.
Precisely because I believe that "people should earn whatever they
get" I am in favor of estate taxes (what conservatives rather stupidly
have recently called "death taxes": it is not the dead who pay these
taxes but rather their offspring who get the dough). Why should the
ones who were born with a silver spoon in their mouth, who grew up in
comfort, got the best possible education and the best connections, why
should they not have to pay taxes for daddy's (or mommy's) fortune
they are about to get? Small estates have always been tax free, but,
as far as I am concerned rich offspring should pay 80% on estates
larger than 10 million dollars and 90% on estates larger than 50
million; this would still give them several million dollars of
unearned money. Also nobody should get more than 10 million dollars
out of the fruits of his or her parents work - even Bill Gates claims
he will give his children no more than that.
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message news:
> Fascism and Socialism have one thing in common... they view government as
> able to give and take away rights according to their respective value
> systems.
OK, but would you then agree that a government that tries to take away
women's right to choose is being fascist? After all, it does take away
a right according to its value system. Please let us not start a
discussion here about such a emotionally charged question as abortion;
I am only trying to point out that in the real world governments do
try and do succeed in imposing laws according to the prevalent value
system and not only according to the welfare of the people, as they
probably should.
> Democrats are in a constant dance on the edge of socialism. Their values
> include rejecting the unfairness of their being a large disparity between
> rich and poor, which isn't a bad value....
I agree. Income disparity is one of the worse signs about the health
of a society. A perfectly fair society is an utopia, but the current
situation is clearly unfair and getting worse. Over the last decades
the real income of the poorest Americans has gotten worse, middle
class is stuck (actually it is earning a little less - in 1973,
private-sector workers in the US were paid on average $9.08 an hour,
today, in real terms, they are paid $8.33). The rich are only slightly
better off, and only the very rich are doing significantly better.
Inequality in America is mind-boggling. It is fair to say that 95% of
the American public is not getting a fair deal; after all the richest
1% owns more than the poorest 95%! The top 400 families made in 2002
on average 174 million each, way up from "only" 47 million each in
1992 - even so their tax burden has gone down from 26.4% to 22.3%, and
this before Bush's huge tax cuts skewed towards the very rich; if Bush
tax cut were in effect their tax burden in 2002 would be only 17.5%.
(See: http://www.xent.com/pipermail/fork/2...ne/022679.html)
> but their answer is to use government to compel "charity" or the "transfer of wealth" through taxes.
You may be right, but then again what would you suggest government
should do in order to "reject the unfairness of there being a large
disparity between rich and poor"? What would you do if you were
President?
> The effort includes finding "rights" to justify this, like rights to
> employment,
I think this is a very good right: we all lose if people just sit
around doing nothing. After all unproductive people will not really
wither away, they will turn to crime or will survive by consuming
social services your tax dollar will pay. A good government should
make it possible for almost everybody to be employed. Surely this is a
no-brainer.
> rights to minimum wages
I do think it is right that people should get a fair minimum wage for
their honest day's work. Surely you wouldn't like employers to be able
to exploit desperate people by paying them, say, 50 cents an hour. So
the only question is how high the minimum wage should be. If too high,
then it would end up hurting the very people it meant to help.
> rights of healthcare,
Health is the single greatest good. People in almost all civilized
countries, including Canada, Europe, Australia, etc., enjoy universal
health care. Sure Americans living in the richest country of all can
afford it too.
> rights to shelter,
Well, I too get mad sometimes when people who are not really trying
get subsidized housing. On the other hand I would not like to be in a
country with poor people living in the streets. So here too, the
question is how to strike the right balance. Maybe the weakest members
of society, the ones who really cannot look after themselves, should
get shelter for free.
right to education,
Here I disagree completely. There is nothing as important for the
future of society as a good education. Everybody wins when people are
better educated. Even candidate Bush proclaimed he was going to be the
"Education President".
> ad infinitum, which rights have to be "found" in the constitution via "activist", "progressive" judges.
In a way I do agree with your sentiment. I hate it when people just
exclaim "this is my right". People should earn whatever they get -
unless they suffer of some infirmity. But in order to earn it they do
require education and employment and health, they require a fair
chance. Unfortunately the current administration prefers to blow
hundreds of billions of tax dollars on Iraq, and also to make sure
that the super-rich pay hundreds of billions less taxes in the future.
I don't see how these policies help the average American.
BTW the mega-billions spent on Iraq do not really go to Iraq or to the
American soldiers who risk their lives there, but mostly go to the
military industrial complex. Let us not forget that before 9/11 what
Rumsfield was trying to do was to spend mega-billions on the "missile
shield" in order to counter that other supposedly major security risk
to America. I can't help but think that what the current
administration is about is to shift more wealth to the already
wealthiest Americans using bogus threats to deceive the population at
large. This may sound simplistic, it may sound extremist, President
Bush might honestly be unaware of it, still I think this is basically
what is happening: a huge social engineering in inverse distribution
of wealth.
One last point - and I promise I am about to finish this post.
Precisely because I believe that "people should earn whatever they
get" I am in favor of estate taxes (what conservatives rather stupidly
have recently called "death taxes": it is not the dead who pay these
taxes but rather their offspring who get the dough). Why should the
ones who were born with a silver spoon in their mouth, who grew up in
comfort, got the best possible education and the best connections, why
should they not have to pay taxes for daddy's (or mommy's) fortune
they are about to get? Small estates have always been tax free, but,
as far as I am concerned rich offspring should pay 80% on estates
larger than 10 million dollars and 90% on estates larger than 50
million; this would still give them several million dollars of
unearned money. Also nobody should get more than 10 million dollars
out of the fruits of his or her parents work - even Bill Gates claims
he will give his children no more than that.
#3503
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
This was a great response. One I have believed in for years. One
that will never satisfy those that have an agenda that the "global
warming" myth supports. Too bad too.
Matt
99 V-10 Super Duty, Super Cab 4x4
On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:12:51 -0500, "C. E. White"
<cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>You'll have to explain what you mean by "balance." The concentration of CO2 has
>never been static. In fact, the long term trend was a reduction in the
>concentration until about 10,000 years ago. CO2 is constantly being more or less
>permanently removed from the atmosphere and tied up in corral reefs, limestone,
>coal, oil, peat, etc., etc., etc. Recently mankind has released some of the
>stored CO2. Maybe we are actually helping to restore the balance. At any rate the
>era of fossil fuel will sooner or later come to an end. It may take another 200
>years or 1000 years, but it will end. On the geologic time scale it will just be
>a blip.
>
>I don't doubt that an increase in the concentration of CO2 might cause a change
>in the climate. However, climate change will occur whether there is or is not a
>change in the CO2 concentration. The component of climate change attributable to
>human activity may actually be beneficial. It might counter some "natural change"
>(whatever that means) or reinforce the "natural change" or it may be trivial
>compared to the "natural change." The manmade component might be a good thing, a
>bad thing, or an insignificant thing. I object to what I perceive to be a
>hijacking of the issue of global warming by groups who are trying to use it as an
>excuse for promoting their other unrelated goals. I think the potential for harm
>is deliberately overstated. I think the science supporting global warming is not
>subject to the sort of scrutiny that it should be because it is a "popular
>theory" with liberals. I think the new medias trumpets global warming because it
>generates a lot interest. I think a lot of scientist promote global warming
>because they can get money to study it.
>
>If I am wrong and the worst case scenario happens, the sea level will rise 10
>feet and millions of people will have to move. Fortunately, it won't rise over
>night, so they can move. If you believe in global warming, I suggest you buy land
>in Kansas now. If the global warming people are wrong and nothing dramatic
>happens, millions of people will be spared the pain of having their lives
>rearranged for no reason. If the global warming people are right, rearranging the
>lives of millions of Americans to meet the terms of the Kyoto treaty won't have
>any affect on the end results. We will just continue to move most of our CO2
>generating industries to third world countries, and in the end, NYC will still be
>underwater, and no one will care because everyone will be out of work anyhow.
>
>To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is worse than
>the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the case is being
>dramatically overstated.
>
>Ed
that will never satisfy those that have an agenda that the "global
warming" myth supports. Too bad too.
Matt
99 V-10 Super Duty, Super Cab 4x4
On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:12:51 -0500, "C. E. White"
<cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>You'll have to explain what you mean by "balance." The concentration of CO2 has
>never been static. In fact, the long term trend was a reduction in the
>concentration until about 10,000 years ago. CO2 is constantly being more or less
>permanently removed from the atmosphere and tied up in corral reefs, limestone,
>coal, oil, peat, etc., etc., etc. Recently mankind has released some of the
>stored CO2. Maybe we are actually helping to restore the balance. At any rate the
>era of fossil fuel will sooner or later come to an end. It may take another 200
>years or 1000 years, but it will end. On the geologic time scale it will just be
>a blip.
>
>I don't doubt that an increase in the concentration of CO2 might cause a change
>in the climate. However, climate change will occur whether there is or is not a
>change in the CO2 concentration. The component of climate change attributable to
>human activity may actually be beneficial. It might counter some "natural change"
>(whatever that means) or reinforce the "natural change" or it may be trivial
>compared to the "natural change." The manmade component might be a good thing, a
>bad thing, or an insignificant thing. I object to what I perceive to be a
>hijacking of the issue of global warming by groups who are trying to use it as an
>excuse for promoting their other unrelated goals. I think the potential for harm
>is deliberately overstated. I think the science supporting global warming is not
>subject to the sort of scrutiny that it should be because it is a "popular
>theory" with liberals. I think the new medias trumpets global warming because it
>generates a lot interest. I think a lot of scientist promote global warming
>because they can get money to study it.
>
>If I am wrong and the worst case scenario happens, the sea level will rise 10
>feet and millions of people will have to move. Fortunately, it won't rise over
>night, so they can move. If you believe in global warming, I suggest you buy land
>in Kansas now. If the global warming people are wrong and nothing dramatic
>happens, millions of people will be spared the pain of having their lives
>rearranged for no reason. If the global warming people are right, rearranging the
>lives of millions of Americans to meet the terms of the Kyoto treaty won't have
>any affect on the end results. We will just continue to move most of our CO2
>generating industries to third world countries, and in the end, NYC will still be
>underwater, and no one will care because everyone will be out of work anyhow.
>
>To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is worse than
>the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the case is being
>dramatically overstated.
>
>Ed
#3504
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
This was a great response. One I have believed in for years. One
that will never satisfy those that have an agenda that the "global
warming" myth supports. Too bad too.
Matt
99 V-10 Super Duty, Super Cab 4x4
On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:12:51 -0500, "C. E. White"
<cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>You'll have to explain what you mean by "balance." The concentration of CO2 has
>never been static. In fact, the long term trend was a reduction in the
>concentration until about 10,000 years ago. CO2 is constantly being more or less
>permanently removed from the atmosphere and tied up in corral reefs, limestone,
>coal, oil, peat, etc., etc., etc. Recently mankind has released some of the
>stored CO2. Maybe we are actually helping to restore the balance. At any rate the
>era of fossil fuel will sooner or later come to an end. It may take another 200
>years or 1000 years, but it will end. On the geologic time scale it will just be
>a blip.
>
>I don't doubt that an increase in the concentration of CO2 might cause a change
>in the climate. However, climate change will occur whether there is or is not a
>change in the CO2 concentration. The component of climate change attributable to
>human activity may actually be beneficial. It might counter some "natural change"
>(whatever that means) or reinforce the "natural change" or it may be trivial
>compared to the "natural change." The manmade component might be a good thing, a
>bad thing, or an insignificant thing. I object to what I perceive to be a
>hijacking of the issue of global warming by groups who are trying to use it as an
>excuse for promoting their other unrelated goals. I think the potential for harm
>is deliberately overstated. I think the science supporting global warming is not
>subject to the sort of scrutiny that it should be because it is a "popular
>theory" with liberals. I think the new medias trumpets global warming because it
>generates a lot interest. I think a lot of scientist promote global warming
>because they can get money to study it.
>
>If I am wrong and the worst case scenario happens, the sea level will rise 10
>feet and millions of people will have to move. Fortunately, it won't rise over
>night, so they can move. If you believe in global warming, I suggest you buy land
>in Kansas now. If the global warming people are wrong and nothing dramatic
>happens, millions of people will be spared the pain of having their lives
>rearranged for no reason. If the global warming people are right, rearranging the
>lives of millions of Americans to meet the terms of the Kyoto treaty won't have
>any affect on the end results. We will just continue to move most of our CO2
>generating industries to third world countries, and in the end, NYC will still be
>underwater, and no one will care because everyone will be out of work anyhow.
>
>To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is worse than
>the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the case is being
>dramatically overstated.
>
>Ed
that will never satisfy those that have an agenda that the "global
warming" myth supports. Too bad too.
Matt
99 V-10 Super Duty, Super Cab 4x4
On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:12:51 -0500, "C. E. White"
<cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>You'll have to explain what you mean by "balance." The concentration of CO2 has
>never been static. In fact, the long term trend was a reduction in the
>concentration until about 10,000 years ago. CO2 is constantly being more or less
>permanently removed from the atmosphere and tied up in corral reefs, limestone,
>coal, oil, peat, etc., etc., etc. Recently mankind has released some of the
>stored CO2. Maybe we are actually helping to restore the balance. At any rate the
>era of fossil fuel will sooner or later come to an end. It may take another 200
>years or 1000 years, but it will end. On the geologic time scale it will just be
>a blip.
>
>I don't doubt that an increase in the concentration of CO2 might cause a change
>in the climate. However, climate change will occur whether there is or is not a
>change in the CO2 concentration. The component of climate change attributable to
>human activity may actually be beneficial. It might counter some "natural change"
>(whatever that means) or reinforce the "natural change" or it may be trivial
>compared to the "natural change." The manmade component might be a good thing, a
>bad thing, or an insignificant thing. I object to what I perceive to be a
>hijacking of the issue of global warming by groups who are trying to use it as an
>excuse for promoting their other unrelated goals. I think the potential for harm
>is deliberately overstated. I think the science supporting global warming is not
>subject to the sort of scrutiny that it should be because it is a "popular
>theory" with liberals. I think the new medias trumpets global warming because it
>generates a lot interest. I think a lot of scientist promote global warming
>because they can get money to study it.
>
>If I am wrong and the worst case scenario happens, the sea level will rise 10
>feet and millions of people will have to move. Fortunately, it won't rise over
>night, so they can move. If you believe in global warming, I suggest you buy land
>in Kansas now. If the global warming people are wrong and nothing dramatic
>happens, millions of people will be spared the pain of having their lives
>rearranged for no reason. If the global warming people are right, rearranging the
>lives of millions of Americans to meet the terms of the Kyoto treaty won't have
>any affect on the end results. We will just continue to move most of our CO2
>generating industries to third world countries, and in the end, NYC will still be
>underwater, and no one will care because everyone will be out of work anyhow.
>
>To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is worse than
>the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the case is being
>dramatically overstated.
>
>Ed
#3505
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
This was a great response. One I have believed in for years. One
that will never satisfy those that have an agenda that the "global
warming" myth supports. Too bad too.
Matt
99 V-10 Super Duty, Super Cab 4x4
On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:12:51 -0500, "C. E. White"
<cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>You'll have to explain what you mean by "balance." The concentration of CO2 has
>never been static. In fact, the long term trend was a reduction in the
>concentration until about 10,000 years ago. CO2 is constantly being more or less
>permanently removed from the atmosphere and tied up in corral reefs, limestone,
>coal, oil, peat, etc., etc., etc. Recently mankind has released some of the
>stored CO2. Maybe we are actually helping to restore the balance. At any rate the
>era of fossil fuel will sooner or later come to an end. It may take another 200
>years or 1000 years, but it will end. On the geologic time scale it will just be
>a blip.
>
>I don't doubt that an increase in the concentration of CO2 might cause a change
>in the climate. However, climate change will occur whether there is or is not a
>change in the CO2 concentration. The component of climate change attributable to
>human activity may actually be beneficial. It might counter some "natural change"
>(whatever that means) or reinforce the "natural change" or it may be trivial
>compared to the "natural change." The manmade component might be a good thing, a
>bad thing, or an insignificant thing. I object to what I perceive to be a
>hijacking of the issue of global warming by groups who are trying to use it as an
>excuse for promoting their other unrelated goals. I think the potential for harm
>is deliberately overstated. I think the science supporting global warming is not
>subject to the sort of scrutiny that it should be because it is a "popular
>theory" with liberals. I think the new medias trumpets global warming because it
>generates a lot interest. I think a lot of scientist promote global warming
>because they can get money to study it.
>
>If I am wrong and the worst case scenario happens, the sea level will rise 10
>feet and millions of people will have to move. Fortunately, it won't rise over
>night, so they can move. If you believe in global warming, I suggest you buy land
>in Kansas now. If the global warming people are wrong and nothing dramatic
>happens, millions of people will be spared the pain of having their lives
>rearranged for no reason. If the global warming people are right, rearranging the
>lives of millions of Americans to meet the terms of the Kyoto treaty won't have
>any affect on the end results. We will just continue to move most of our CO2
>generating industries to third world countries, and in the end, NYC will still be
>underwater, and no one will care because everyone will be out of work anyhow.
>
>To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is worse than
>the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the case is being
>dramatically overstated.
>
>Ed
that will never satisfy those that have an agenda that the "global
warming" myth supports. Too bad too.
Matt
99 V-10 Super Duty, Super Cab 4x4
On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:12:51 -0500, "C. E. White"
<cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>You'll have to explain what you mean by "balance." The concentration of CO2 has
>never been static. In fact, the long term trend was a reduction in the
>concentration until about 10,000 years ago. CO2 is constantly being more or less
>permanently removed from the atmosphere and tied up in corral reefs, limestone,
>coal, oil, peat, etc., etc., etc. Recently mankind has released some of the
>stored CO2. Maybe we are actually helping to restore the balance. At any rate the
>era of fossil fuel will sooner or later come to an end. It may take another 200
>years or 1000 years, but it will end. On the geologic time scale it will just be
>a blip.
>
>I don't doubt that an increase in the concentration of CO2 might cause a change
>in the climate. However, climate change will occur whether there is or is not a
>change in the CO2 concentration. The component of climate change attributable to
>human activity may actually be beneficial. It might counter some "natural change"
>(whatever that means) or reinforce the "natural change" or it may be trivial
>compared to the "natural change." The manmade component might be a good thing, a
>bad thing, or an insignificant thing. I object to what I perceive to be a
>hijacking of the issue of global warming by groups who are trying to use it as an
>excuse for promoting their other unrelated goals. I think the potential for harm
>is deliberately overstated. I think the science supporting global warming is not
>subject to the sort of scrutiny that it should be because it is a "popular
>theory" with liberals. I think the new medias trumpets global warming because it
>generates a lot interest. I think a lot of scientist promote global warming
>because they can get money to study it.
>
>If I am wrong and the worst case scenario happens, the sea level will rise 10
>feet and millions of people will have to move. Fortunately, it won't rise over
>night, so they can move. If you believe in global warming, I suggest you buy land
>in Kansas now. If the global warming people are wrong and nothing dramatic
>happens, millions of people will be spared the pain of having their lives
>rearranged for no reason. If the global warming people are right, rearranging the
>lives of millions of Americans to meet the terms of the Kyoto treaty won't have
>any affect on the end results. We will just continue to move most of our CO2
>generating industries to third world countries, and in the end, NYC will still be
>underwater, and no one will care because everyone will be out of work anyhow.
>
>To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is worse than
>the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the case is being
>dramatically overstated.
>
>Ed
#3506
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On 6 Nov 2003, Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03@san.rr.com> wrote
> > Fascism and Socialism have one thing in common... they view government as
> > able to give and take away rights according to their respective value
> > systems.
> OK, but would you then agree that a government that tries to take away
> women's right to choose is being fascist?
Let's hold off on the spin and call a carrot a carrot, OK? Regardless of
where you stand on the issue, the issue is *abortion*, not
"awomansrighttochoose".
> I am only trying to point out that in the real world governments do try
> and do succeed in imposing laws according to the prevalent value system
> and not only according to the welfare of the people, as they probably
> should.
That's because too many people childishly refuse to accept that absolutist
or extreme positions on any side of any issue are seldom workable. In
other words, there are too many people who aren't content to live as they
choose, and wish to impose their wishes on others. With such a mindset,
compromise becomes impossible and society lurches from one extreme to the
other and back again.
> Income disparity is one of the worse signs about the health
> of a society.
"worse"??
> Health is the single greatest good. People in almost all civilized
> countries, including Canada, Europe, Australia, etc., enjoy universal
> health care. Sure Americans living in the richest country of all can
> afford it too.
We can scarcely afford the crapmess we've got now. Study after study after
study finds that Americans pay more for health care and get less for their
dollar than citizens of virtually every other first-world country.
> In a way I do agree with your sentiment. I hate it when people just
> exclaim "this is my right". People should earn whatever they get -
Suppose a particular group of people -- people over 6-foot-2 tall, for
instance -- are systematically and pervasively discriminated against. They
get fired for no reason other than being over 6-foot-2, they get rejected
when applying to buy or rent housing because they're over 6-foot-2, they
are blamed for crime and violence, they are the frequent target of street
violence.
How would you propose people over 6-foot-2 "earn" the right to be free of
these sorts of tyrranies?
> taxes but rather their offspring who get the dough). Why should
> they not have to pay taxes for daddy's (or mommy's) fortune
> they are about to get?
Because the money's already been taxed, often several times. Estate taxes
constitute double-dipping.
DS
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03@san.rr.com> wrote
> > Fascism and Socialism have one thing in common... they view government as
> > able to give and take away rights according to their respective value
> > systems.
> OK, but would you then agree that a government that tries to take away
> women's right to choose is being fascist?
Let's hold off on the spin and call a carrot a carrot, OK? Regardless of
where you stand on the issue, the issue is *abortion*, not
"awomansrighttochoose".
> I am only trying to point out that in the real world governments do try
> and do succeed in imposing laws according to the prevalent value system
> and not only according to the welfare of the people, as they probably
> should.
That's because too many people childishly refuse to accept that absolutist
or extreme positions on any side of any issue are seldom workable. In
other words, there are too many people who aren't content to live as they
choose, and wish to impose their wishes on others. With such a mindset,
compromise becomes impossible and society lurches from one extreme to the
other and back again.
> Income disparity is one of the worse signs about the health
> of a society.
"worse"??
> Health is the single greatest good. People in almost all civilized
> countries, including Canada, Europe, Australia, etc., enjoy universal
> health care. Sure Americans living in the richest country of all can
> afford it too.
We can scarcely afford the crapmess we've got now. Study after study after
study finds that Americans pay more for health care and get less for their
dollar than citizens of virtually every other first-world country.
> In a way I do agree with your sentiment. I hate it when people just
> exclaim "this is my right". People should earn whatever they get -
Suppose a particular group of people -- people over 6-foot-2 tall, for
instance -- are systematically and pervasively discriminated against. They
get fired for no reason other than being over 6-foot-2, they get rejected
when applying to buy or rent housing because they're over 6-foot-2, they
are blamed for crime and violence, they are the frequent target of street
violence.
How would you propose people over 6-foot-2 "earn" the right to be free of
these sorts of tyrranies?
> taxes but rather their offspring who get the dough). Why should
> they not have to pay taxes for daddy's (or mommy's) fortune
> they are about to get?
Because the money's already been taxed, often several times. Estate taxes
constitute double-dipping.
DS
#3507
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On 6 Nov 2003, Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03@san.rr.com> wrote
> > Fascism and Socialism have one thing in common... they view government as
> > able to give and take away rights according to their respective value
> > systems.
> OK, but would you then agree that a government that tries to take away
> women's right to choose is being fascist?
Let's hold off on the spin and call a carrot a carrot, OK? Regardless of
where you stand on the issue, the issue is *abortion*, not
"awomansrighttochoose".
> I am only trying to point out that in the real world governments do try
> and do succeed in imposing laws according to the prevalent value system
> and not only according to the welfare of the people, as they probably
> should.
That's because too many people childishly refuse to accept that absolutist
or extreme positions on any side of any issue are seldom workable. In
other words, there are too many people who aren't content to live as they
choose, and wish to impose their wishes on others. With such a mindset,
compromise becomes impossible and society lurches from one extreme to the
other and back again.
> Income disparity is one of the worse signs about the health
> of a society.
"worse"??
> Health is the single greatest good. People in almost all civilized
> countries, including Canada, Europe, Australia, etc., enjoy universal
> health care. Sure Americans living in the richest country of all can
> afford it too.
We can scarcely afford the crapmess we've got now. Study after study after
study finds that Americans pay more for health care and get less for their
dollar than citizens of virtually every other first-world country.
> In a way I do agree with your sentiment. I hate it when people just
> exclaim "this is my right". People should earn whatever they get -
Suppose a particular group of people -- people over 6-foot-2 tall, for
instance -- are systematically and pervasively discriminated against. They
get fired for no reason other than being over 6-foot-2, they get rejected
when applying to buy or rent housing because they're over 6-foot-2, they
are blamed for crime and violence, they are the frequent target of street
violence.
How would you propose people over 6-foot-2 "earn" the right to be free of
these sorts of tyrranies?
> taxes but rather their offspring who get the dough). Why should
> they not have to pay taxes for daddy's (or mommy's) fortune
> they are about to get?
Because the money's already been taxed, often several times. Estate taxes
constitute double-dipping.
DS
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03@san.rr.com> wrote
> > Fascism and Socialism have one thing in common... they view government as
> > able to give and take away rights according to their respective value
> > systems.
> OK, but would you then agree that a government that tries to take away
> women's right to choose is being fascist?
Let's hold off on the spin and call a carrot a carrot, OK? Regardless of
where you stand on the issue, the issue is *abortion*, not
"awomansrighttochoose".
> I am only trying to point out that in the real world governments do try
> and do succeed in imposing laws according to the prevalent value system
> and not only according to the welfare of the people, as they probably
> should.
That's because too many people childishly refuse to accept that absolutist
or extreme positions on any side of any issue are seldom workable. In
other words, there are too many people who aren't content to live as they
choose, and wish to impose their wishes on others. With such a mindset,
compromise becomes impossible and society lurches from one extreme to the
other and back again.
> Income disparity is one of the worse signs about the health
> of a society.
"worse"??
> Health is the single greatest good. People in almost all civilized
> countries, including Canada, Europe, Australia, etc., enjoy universal
> health care. Sure Americans living in the richest country of all can
> afford it too.
We can scarcely afford the crapmess we've got now. Study after study after
study finds that Americans pay more for health care and get less for their
dollar than citizens of virtually every other first-world country.
> In a way I do agree with your sentiment. I hate it when people just
> exclaim "this is my right". People should earn whatever they get -
Suppose a particular group of people -- people over 6-foot-2 tall, for
instance -- are systematically and pervasively discriminated against. They
get fired for no reason other than being over 6-foot-2, they get rejected
when applying to buy or rent housing because they're over 6-foot-2, they
are blamed for crime and violence, they are the frequent target of street
violence.
How would you propose people over 6-foot-2 "earn" the right to be free of
these sorts of tyrranies?
> taxes but rather their offspring who get the dough). Why should
> they not have to pay taxes for daddy's (or mommy's) fortune
> they are about to get?
Because the money's already been taxed, often several times. Estate taxes
constitute double-dipping.
DS
#3508
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On 6 Nov 2003, Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03@san.rr.com> wrote
> > Fascism and Socialism have one thing in common... they view government as
> > able to give and take away rights according to their respective value
> > systems.
> OK, but would you then agree that a government that tries to take away
> women's right to choose is being fascist?
Let's hold off on the spin and call a carrot a carrot, OK? Regardless of
where you stand on the issue, the issue is *abortion*, not
"awomansrighttochoose".
> I am only trying to point out that in the real world governments do try
> and do succeed in imposing laws according to the prevalent value system
> and not only according to the welfare of the people, as they probably
> should.
That's because too many people childishly refuse to accept that absolutist
or extreme positions on any side of any issue are seldom workable. In
other words, there are too many people who aren't content to live as they
choose, and wish to impose their wishes on others. With such a mindset,
compromise becomes impossible and society lurches from one extreme to the
other and back again.
> Income disparity is one of the worse signs about the health
> of a society.
"worse"??
> Health is the single greatest good. People in almost all civilized
> countries, including Canada, Europe, Australia, etc., enjoy universal
> health care. Sure Americans living in the richest country of all can
> afford it too.
We can scarcely afford the crapmess we've got now. Study after study after
study finds that Americans pay more for health care and get less for their
dollar than citizens of virtually every other first-world country.
> In a way I do agree with your sentiment. I hate it when people just
> exclaim "this is my right". People should earn whatever they get -
Suppose a particular group of people -- people over 6-foot-2 tall, for
instance -- are systematically and pervasively discriminated against. They
get fired for no reason other than being over 6-foot-2, they get rejected
when applying to buy or rent housing because they're over 6-foot-2, they
are blamed for crime and violence, they are the frequent target of street
violence.
How would you propose people over 6-foot-2 "earn" the right to be free of
these sorts of tyrranies?
> taxes but rather their offspring who get the dough). Why should
> they not have to pay taxes for daddy's (or mommy's) fortune
> they are about to get?
Because the money's already been taxed, often several times. Estate taxes
constitute double-dipping.
DS
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03@san.rr.com> wrote
> > Fascism and Socialism have one thing in common... they view government as
> > able to give and take away rights according to their respective value
> > systems.
> OK, but would you then agree that a government that tries to take away
> women's right to choose is being fascist?
Let's hold off on the spin and call a carrot a carrot, OK? Regardless of
where you stand on the issue, the issue is *abortion*, not
"awomansrighttochoose".
> I am only trying to point out that in the real world governments do try
> and do succeed in imposing laws according to the prevalent value system
> and not only according to the welfare of the people, as they probably
> should.
That's because too many people childishly refuse to accept that absolutist
or extreme positions on any side of any issue are seldom workable. In
other words, there are too many people who aren't content to live as they
choose, and wish to impose their wishes on others. With such a mindset,
compromise becomes impossible and society lurches from one extreme to the
other and back again.
> Income disparity is one of the worse signs about the health
> of a society.
"worse"??
> Health is the single greatest good. People in almost all civilized
> countries, including Canada, Europe, Australia, etc., enjoy universal
> health care. Sure Americans living in the richest country of all can
> afford it too.
We can scarcely afford the crapmess we've got now. Study after study after
study finds that Americans pay more for health care and get less for their
dollar than citizens of virtually every other first-world country.
> In a way I do agree with your sentiment. I hate it when people just
> exclaim "this is my right". People should earn whatever they get -
Suppose a particular group of people -- people over 6-foot-2 tall, for
instance -- are systematically and pervasively discriminated against. They
get fired for no reason other than being over 6-foot-2, they get rejected
when applying to buy or rent housing because they're over 6-foot-2, they
are blamed for crime and violence, they are the frequent target of street
violence.
How would you propose people over 6-foot-2 "earn" the right to be free of
these sorts of tyrranies?
> taxes but rather their offspring who get the dough). Why should
> they not have to pay taxes for daddy's (or mommy's) fortune
> they are about to get?
Because the money's already been taxed, often several times. Estate taxes
constitute double-dipping.
DS
#3509
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:boe545$i0q$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <FV9qb.54150$Ub4.32412@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> I doubt many agree with you and your fascist buddies either.
> >> >
> >> >Do you even know what a fascist is Lloyd?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Yes, but you right-wingers obviously do not know what a socialist is.
> >
> >Fascism and Socialism have one thing in common... they view government as
> >able to give and take away rights according to their respective value
> >systems. That puts both of them on the opposite side of conservatism
>
> Cute, but zealots have claimed to be on the side of God throughout
history.
> The fact is, the political spectrum runs from communism and socialism on
the
> left, to fascism and Nazism on the right.
>
Yeah, I've heard that over and over again. But I believe that anarchy is
what resides on the very extreme right... the lack of any government at all.
What is it about Fascism and Nazism that makes them right of center? To me
it's where power resides: in government or with people. It's about who owns
or controls the means of production. To the exteme left, government owns or
controls the means of producton and to the right, private enterprise owns or
controls the means of production. Communism, Fascism, Nazism and to a
lesser degree Socialism all have one thing in common: Government control of
the means of production and power to control the distribution of wealth
where it sees fit.
This is in conflict with the distinctly American value of limited government
and free enterprise.
>
> >where
> >government is limited precisely because of it's belief in God given,
> >individual, indivisible, inalienable rights that government as no
> >jurisdiction over. Fascism and Socialism both reject that notion as
> >government is the vehicle to compel their values on people.
> >
> >Democrats are in a constant dance on the edge of socialism. Their values
> >include rejecting the unfairness of their being a large disparity between
> >rich and poor, which isn't a bad value.... but their answer is to use
> >government to compel "charity" or the "transfer of wealth" through taxes.
> >The effort includes finding "rights" to justify this, like rights to
> >employment, rights to minimum wages, rights of healthcare, rights to
> >shelter, right to education, ad infinitum, which rights have to be
"found"
> >in the constitution via "activist", "progressive" judges.
> >
> >
> And Republicans wanting to force Christian prayer in schools, displays of
the
> 10 Commandments in public buildings, telling a woman what to do with her
body,
> telling people which kind of --- to have -- none of these are trying to
compel
> people to act a certain way?
I can play this game. How's this: Democrats believe in outlawing religion,
the murder of innocent life and removing prohibitions of incest, child ---,
prostitution, polygamy, etc. How's that?
Conservatives are for none of the things you list... certainly not the way
you list them. But I am happy that you seem to agree with what I said
above, given you started your paragrapth with the word "And". That's a good
sign Lloyd! You're coming along!
#3510
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:boe545$i0q$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <FV9qb.54150$Ub4.32412@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> I doubt many agree with you and your fascist buddies either.
> >> >
> >> >Do you even know what a fascist is Lloyd?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Yes, but you right-wingers obviously do not know what a socialist is.
> >
> >Fascism and Socialism have one thing in common... they view government as
> >able to give and take away rights according to their respective value
> >systems. That puts both of them on the opposite side of conservatism
>
> Cute, but zealots have claimed to be on the side of God throughout
history.
> The fact is, the political spectrum runs from communism and socialism on
the
> left, to fascism and Nazism on the right.
>
Yeah, I've heard that over and over again. But I believe that anarchy is
what resides on the very extreme right... the lack of any government at all.
What is it about Fascism and Nazism that makes them right of center? To me
it's where power resides: in government or with people. It's about who owns
or controls the means of production. To the exteme left, government owns or
controls the means of producton and to the right, private enterprise owns or
controls the means of production. Communism, Fascism, Nazism and to a
lesser degree Socialism all have one thing in common: Government control of
the means of production and power to control the distribution of wealth
where it sees fit.
This is in conflict with the distinctly American value of limited government
and free enterprise.
>
> >where
> >government is limited precisely because of it's belief in God given,
> >individual, indivisible, inalienable rights that government as no
> >jurisdiction over. Fascism and Socialism both reject that notion as
> >government is the vehicle to compel their values on people.
> >
> >Democrats are in a constant dance on the edge of socialism. Their values
> >include rejecting the unfairness of their being a large disparity between
> >rich and poor, which isn't a bad value.... but their answer is to use
> >government to compel "charity" or the "transfer of wealth" through taxes.
> >The effort includes finding "rights" to justify this, like rights to
> >employment, rights to minimum wages, rights of healthcare, rights to
> >shelter, right to education, ad infinitum, which rights have to be
"found"
> >in the constitution via "activist", "progressive" judges.
> >
> >
> And Republicans wanting to force Christian prayer in schools, displays of
the
> 10 Commandments in public buildings, telling a woman what to do with her
body,
> telling people which kind of --- to have -- none of these are trying to
compel
> people to act a certain way?
I can play this game. How's this: Democrats believe in outlawing religion,
the murder of innocent life and removing prohibitions of incest, child ---,
prostitution, polygamy, etc. How's that?
Conservatives are for none of the things you list... certainly not the way
you list them. But I am happy that you seem to agree with what I said
above, given you started your paragrapth with the word "And". That's a good
sign Lloyd! You're coming along!