Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#3721
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <LYudnZB0QpIGPzeiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>
>More like a circle. Imagine a clock face- at noon you have communism.
>Moving clockwise you have liberalism, down around 6:00 you have
>conservatism. Moving toward 9 and then back to 12 you have increasing
>levels of the police state until you finally get to fascism, which in
>terms of the rights of the individual is no different than communism and
>is right back there at 11:59 on the clock dial. One side of the circle
>values the indiviual, the other empowers the goverment albeit in
>different ways.
That's one model. A better model is a single-nap cone, with the apex
at the bottom. Towards the wide end of the cone, individual rights.
Towards the narrow, less. The usual spectrum is a closed curve drawn
on the surface of this cone; your circle is a projection of it.
The curve is dropping quickly towards the apex.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
>
>More like a circle. Imagine a clock face- at noon you have communism.
>Moving clockwise you have liberalism, down around 6:00 you have
>conservatism. Moving toward 9 and then back to 12 you have increasing
>levels of the police state until you finally get to fascism, which in
>terms of the rights of the individual is no different than communism and
>is right back there at 11:59 on the clock dial. One side of the circle
>values the indiviual, the other empowers the goverment albeit in
>different ways.
That's one model. A better model is a single-nap cone, with the apex
at the bottom. Towards the wide end of the cone, individual rights.
Towards the narrow, less. The usual spectrum is a closed curve drawn
on the surface of this cone; your circle is a projection of it.
The curve is dropping quickly towards the apex.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
#3722
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
C. E. White wrote:
> 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
>
If the ecosystem were as unstable as the global warmers implied, one of
the countless cataclysmic events of the past would have tipped the
balance millenia ago and run the environment off to either hellish heat
or a frozen wasteland.
Atmospheric CO2 is no doubt higher now than at the dawn of the
industrial age, but the earth has *huge* buffering mechanisms that can
kick in to stabilize temperatures. Far more than the "ban all cars"
crowd gives it credit for.
> 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
>
If the ecosystem were as unstable as the global warmers implied, one of
the countless cataclysmic events of the past would have tipped the
balance millenia ago and run the environment off to either hellish heat
or a frozen wasteland.
Atmospheric CO2 is no doubt higher now than at the dawn of the
industrial age, but the earth has *huge* buffering mechanisms that can
kick in to stabilize temperatures. Far more than the "ban all cars"
crowd gives it credit for.
#3723
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
C. E. White wrote:
> 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
>
If the ecosystem were as unstable as the global warmers implied, one of
the countless cataclysmic events of the past would have tipped the
balance millenia ago and run the environment off to either hellish heat
or a frozen wasteland.
Atmospheric CO2 is no doubt higher now than at the dawn of the
industrial age, but the earth has *huge* buffering mechanisms that can
kick in to stabilize temperatures. Far more than the "ban all cars"
crowd gives it credit for.
> 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
>
If the ecosystem were as unstable as the global warmers implied, one of
the countless cataclysmic events of the past would have tipped the
balance millenia ago and run the environment off to either hellish heat
or a frozen wasteland.
Atmospheric CO2 is no doubt higher now than at the dawn of the
industrial age, but the earth has *huge* buffering mechanisms that can
kick in to stabilize temperatures. Far more than the "ban all cars"
crowd gives it credit for.
#3724
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
C. E. White wrote:
> 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
>
If the ecosystem were as unstable as the global warmers implied, one of
the countless cataclysmic events of the past would have tipped the
balance millenia ago and run the environment off to either hellish heat
or a frozen wasteland.
Atmospheric CO2 is no doubt higher now than at the dawn of the
industrial age, but the earth has *huge* buffering mechanisms that can
kick in to stabilize temperatures. Far more than the "ban all cars"
crowd gives it credit for.
> 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
>
If the ecosystem were as unstable as the global warmers implied, one of
the countless cataclysmic events of the past would have tipped the
balance millenia ago and run the environment off to either hellish heat
or a frozen wasteland.
Atmospheric CO2 is no doubt higher now than at the dawn of the
industrial age, but the earth has *huge* buffering mechanisms that can
kick in to stabilize temperatures. Far more than the "ban all cars"
crowd gives it credit for.
#3725
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> America will heal itself. We're just letting Dean along for the ride
because we think he's going to listen to the average guy... instead of the
wealthy few. <
The "wealthy few" amount to millions of people whom Howard Dean will court
favor with, as does any politician. The last time the poor tried running
countries Mao and Joseph Stalin became their leaders.
because we think he's going to listen to the average guy... instead of the
wealthy few. <
The "wealthy few" amount to millions of people whom Howard Dean will court
favor with, as does any politician. The last time the poor tried running
countries Mao and Joseph Stalin became their leaders.
#3726
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> America will heal itself. We're just letting Dean along for the ride
because we think he's going to listen to the average guy... instead of the
wealthy few. <
The "wealthy few" amount to millions of people whom Howard Dean will court
favor with, as does any politician. The last time the poor tried running
countries Mao and Joseph Stalin became their leaders.
because we think he's going to listen to the average guy... instead of the
wealthy few. <
The "wealthy few" amount to millions of people whom Howard Dean will court
favor with, as does any politician. The last time the poor tried running
countries Mao and Joseph Stalin became their leaders.
#3727
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> America will heal itself. We're just letting Dean along for the ride
because we think he's going to listen to the average guy... instead of the
wealthy few. <
The "wealthy few" amount to millions of people whom Howard Dean will court
favor with, as does any politician. The last time the poor tried running
countries Mao and Joseph Stalin became their leaders.
because we think he's going to listen to the average guy... instead of the
wealthy few. <
The "wealthy few" amount to millions of people whom Howard Dean will court
favor with, as does any politician. The last time the poor tried running
countries Mao and Joseph Stalin became their leaders.
#3728
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> It is not money that is being taxed, it is people. After all it is
people who pay taxes, and rich offspring have never paid any taxes on their
parents estate. Even so, Democrats proposed to abolish the tax for estates
of up to 2 million dollars (later 5, 10 or even 100 million), but this was
not good enough for the Bush administration, they had to abolish a tax that
mainly affected the already super-rich.<
Are you nuts? The threshod for ther Estate Tax is $650k, that's hardly
"super rich". My sister's husband has an aunt whose nearly two hundred year
old Indiana farm appreciated to nearly $700k. The estate taxes were such
that it's had to be sold and most of the proceeds broken up into "gifts" to
keep the government from confiscating roughly 60% of its value in taxes. She
never made more than $30k a year.
> BTW there is no free meal. When you abolish a tax to the super-rich
> then the burden is increased for everybody else. After all the total
> cost of government has not come down under Bush, on the contrary in
> has gone up - so the money must come in, one way or the other.
>
> If we were to insist on the view that money is being taxed, then it
> seems to me that money is always taxed several times. When you buy
> something with your already taxed income you pay sales tax - again -
> and I don't see any conservatives proposing the abolition of the sales
> tax (why is that?). When you pay rent, your landlord has to pay taxes
> even though the money you give him was already taxed. When you win the
> lottery or when you get a gift you have to pay taxes. Oh, you say once
> money changes hands it can be taxed again? If so, why not tax
> inheritance moneys?
>
> In fact there is no such moral principle as "money should not be taxed
> twice". This is only a catchy phrase used to justify tax cuts skewed
> to the very rich.
people who pay taxes, and rich offspring have never paid any taxes on their
parents estate. Even so, Democrats proposed to abolish the tax for estates
of up to 2 million dollars (later 5, 10 or even 100 million), but this was
not good enough for the Bush administration, they had to abolish a tax that
mainly affected the already super-rich.<
Are you nuts? The threshod for ther Estate Tax is $650k, that's hardly
"super rich". My sister's husband has an aunt whose nearly two hundred year
old Indiana farm appreciated to nearly $700k. The estate taxes were such
that it's had to be sold and most of the proceeds broken up into "gifts" to
keep the government from confiscating roughly 60% of its value in taxes. She
never made more than $30k a year.
> BTW there is no free meal. When you abolish a tax to the super-rich
> then the burden is increased for everybody else. After all the total
> cost of government has not come down under Bush, on the contrary in
> has gone up - so the money must come in, one way or the other.
>
> If we were to insist on the view that money is being taxed, then it
> seems to me that money is always taxed several times. When you buy
> something with your already taxed income you pay sales tax - again -
> and I don't see any conservatives proposing the abolition of the sales
> tax (why is that?). When you pay rent, your landlord has to pay taxes
> even though the money you give him was already taxed. When you win the
> lottery or when you get a gift you have to pay taxes. Oh, you say once
> money changes hands it can be taxed again? If so, why not tax
> inheritance moneys?
>
> In fact there is no such moral principle as "money should not be taxed
> twice". This is only a catchy phrase used to justify tax cuts skewed
> to the very rich.
#3729
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> It is not money that is being taxed, it is people. After all it is
people who pay taxes, and rich offspring have never paid any taxes on their
parents estate. Even so, Democrats proposed to abolish the tax for estates
of up to 2 million dollars (later 5, 10 or even 100 million), but this was
not good enough for the Bush administration, they had to abolish a tax that
mainly affected the already super-rich.<
Are you nuts? The threshod for ther Estate Tax is $650k, that's hardly
"super rich". My sister's husband has an aunt whose nearly two hundred year
old Indiana farm appreciated to nearly $700k. The estate taxes were such
that it's had to be sold and most of the proceeds broken up into "gifts" to
keep the government from confiscating roughly 60% of its value in taxes. She
never made more than $30k a year.
> BTW there is no free meal. When you abolish a tax to the super-rich
> then the burden is increased for everybody else. After all the total
> cost of government has not come down under Bush, on the contrary in
> has gone up - so the money must come in, one way or the other.
>
> If we were to insist on the view that money is being taxed, then it
> seems to me that money is always taxed several times. When you buy
> something with your already taxed income you pay sales tax - again -
> and I don't see any conservatives proposing the abolition of the sales
> tax (why is that?). When you pay rent, your landlord has to pay taxes
> even though the money you give him was already taxed. When you win the
> lottery or when you get a gift you have to pay taxes. Oh, you say once
> money changes hands it can be taxed again? If so, why not tax
> inheritance moneys?
>
> In fact there is no such moral principle as "money should not be taxed
> twice". This is only a catchy phrase used to justify tax cuts skewed
> to the very rich.
people who pay taxes, and rich offspring have never paid any taxes on their
parents estate. Even so, Democrats proposed to abolish the tax for estates
of up to 2 million dollars (later 5, 10 or even 100 million), but this was
not good enough for the Bush administration, they had to abolish a tax that
mainly affected the already super-rich.<
Are you nuts? The threshod for ther Estate Tax is $650k, that's hardly
"super rich". My sister's husband has an aunt whose nearly two hundred year
old Indiana farm appreciated to nearly $700k. The estate taxes were such
that it's had to be sold and most of the proceeds broken up into "gifts" to
keep the government from confiscating roughly 60% of its value in taxes. She
never made more than $30k a year.
> BTW there is no free meal. When you abolish a tax to the super-rich
> then the burden is increased for everybody else. After all the total
> cost of government has not come down under Bush, on the contrary in
> has gone up - so the money must come in, one way or the other.
>
> If we were to insist on the view that money is being taxed, then it
> seems to me that money is always taxed several times. When you buy
> something with your already taxed income you pay sales tax - again -
> and I don't see any conservatives proposing the abolition of the sales
> tax (why is that?). When you pay rent, your landlord has to pay taxes
> even though the money you give him was already taxed. When you win the
> lottery or when you get a gift you have to pay taxes. Oh, you say once
> money changes hands it can be taxed again? If so, why not tax
> inheritance moneys?
>
> In fact there is no such moral principle as "money should not be taxed
> twice". This is only a catchy phrase used to justify tax cuts skewed
> to the very rich.
#3730
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> It is not money that is being taxed, it is people. After all it is
people who pay taxes, and rich offspring have never paid any taxes on their
parents estate. Even so, Democrats proposed to abolish the tax for estates
of up to 2 million dollars (later 5, 10 or even 100 million), but this was
not good enough for the Bush administration, they had to abolish a tax that
mainly affected the already super-rich.<
Are you nuts? The threshod for ther Estate Tax is $650k, that's hardly
"super rich". My sister's husband has an aunt whose nearly two hundred year
old Indiana farm appreciated to nearly $700k. The estate taxes were such
that it's had to be sold and most of the proceeds broken up into "gifts" to
keep the government from confiscating roughly 60% of its value in taxes. She
never made more than $30k a year.
> BTW there is no free meal. When you abolish a tax to the super-rich
> then the burden is increased for everybody else. After all the total
> cost of government has not come down under Bush, on the contrary in
> has gone up - so the money must come in, one way or the other.
>
> If we were to insist on the view that money is being taxed, then it
> seems to me that money is always taxed several times. When you buy
> something with your already taxed income you pay sales tax - again -
> and I don't see any conservatives proposing the abolition of the sales
> tax (why is that?). When you pay rent, your landlord has to pay taxes
> even though the money you give him was already taxed. When you win the
> lottery or when you get a gift you have to pay taxes. Oh, you say once
> money changes hands it can be taxed again? If so, why not tax
> inheritance moneys?
>
> In fact there is no such moral principle as "money should not be taxed
> twice". This is only a catchy phrase used to justify tax cuts skewed
> to the very rich.
people who pay taxes, and rich offspring have never paid any taxes on their
parents estate. Even so, Democrats proposed to abolish the tax for estates
of up to 2 million dollars (later 5, 10 or even 100 million), but this was
not good enough for the Bush administration, they had to abolish a tax that
mainly affected the already super-rich.<
Are you nuts? The threshod for ther Estate Tax is $650k, that's hardly
"super rich". My sister's husband has an aunt whose nearly two hundred year
old Indiana farm appreciated to nearly $700k. The estate taxes were such
that it's had to be sold and most of the proceeds broken up into "gifts" to
keep the government from confiscating roughly 60% of its value in taxes. She
never made more than $30k a year.
> BTW there is no free meal. When you abolish a tax to the super-rich
> then the burden is increased for everybody else. After all the total
> cost of government has not come down under Bush, on the contrary in
> has gone up - so the money must come in, one way or the other.
>
> If we were to insist on the view that money is being taxed, then it
> seems to me that money is always taxed several times. When you buy
> something with your already taxed income you pay sales tax - again -
> and I don't see any conservatives proposing the abolition of the sales
> tax (why is that?). When you pay rent, your landlord has to pay taxes
> even though the money you give him was already taxed. When you win the
> lottery or when you get a gift you have to pay taxes. Oh, you say once
> money changes hands it can be taxed again? If so, why not tax
> inheritance moneys?
>
> In fact there is no such moral principle as "money should not be taxed
> twice". This is only a catchy phrase used to justify tax cuts skewed
> to the very rich.