 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: this'll probably burst your bubble posted by Mart on April 27, 2000 at 16:41:27:
1) the question related to the right, and not the deed; ie, you dodged
the question.
2) the Parental issue: govt involvement in parent's conduct vis a vis the care of children has been another disaster. We can agree there. But it another dodge. If your rights have limits, then some accomadation must be reached. Perhaps pregnant women should wait in the snow?
3)Snack Tax was passed by a REPUBLICAN
4)You use statistics to get correlations, not proof. You can prove precisely squat with statistics
5)Global Warming- scientists (that is guys in their area of expertise)
determine what their discipline will consider. Global Warming has been gaining ground for decades. Try reading Sci. Am. once in a while.
6) If you make allowance for the natural exaggeration of your discourse, i am one of those people. Criminalisation of drug use is
the root cause of the diaster. We lack the common sense of Americans during Prohibition. They saw crooks, booze, and machine guns and came up with a sensible response to the situation. They were soooo radical.
Tobacco has already been covered. There was a particularly good
English study published last year on effects of 2nd hand smoke on fetal dev. (Sci AM)
7) Mart, it is kinda obvious the history, and implications, of the whole aids thing was something you missed. He got an effective policy out of drooling idiots. Had he not done so, well, take a look at the progress of the disease in Africa. Without an effective response, the suffering, and death, is in the millions. Millions.
8)Conservatism, meaning to conserve. Roman law is often described as
having been intended to conserve property. Which leaves a simple questions unasked: whose? The Treaty of Agincourt, which expanded
on the idea of a freedom from govt action without just cause, is the same. The answer, of course, is dear old Dad. This idea is the historical root of conservatism. Without that protection, no other
right or freedom can exist; you always exist at the whim of the govt.
Any abridgement, prior to the establishment of just cause, represents
a violation. The goal of giving Elian a better life is laudable.
But the cost is too high. And that is before you add the emotional cost of denying the child the remaining shreds of his family.
1) Do I have the right to inflicit anyone? NO! Do they? NO! Will they accomodate smokers? Only by placing them in front of a firing squad for that IS the general concensus of the non-smoking populus. Don't forget that they're the only ones with rights here. If you don't believe me, talk to some. We used to have a designated area inside but that was revoked. It is now in the middle of a parking lot 2 lots away as dictated by the Feds. They make survivalists sound rational. What's worse is the main agitant at the job chose to work at an old leaky X-ray diffraction machine. And, she does prefer the pregnant smokers in the snow, but then she's from mainland China who believes China freed Tibetans by siezing their self determination.2) 'Twas not I who dodged. That was precisely the point I initiated. I just chose to redirect you back to the question you dodged for that WILL be the question.
3) Don't tell me Vermont style conservatism infected the whole New England. What's New Hampshire's motto now? Live enslaved or die?
4) Good thing we don't use that theory with our equipment at work, we wouldn't be able to predict any laws.
5) I tried reading Sci.Am. but it was too funny to read in a single sitting. My eyes kept watering which prevented further reading. The flagrant use of circular logic was hysterical. I prefer IEEE & ASME, for serious thought provoking articles. Can you recommend a serious unbiased magazine for the natural sciences? Thanks!
6) The problem with prohibition wasn't the law, nor the way they went about it. It was the indecisive implementation. It's like changing your children's bedtime every night. Would they take you seriously even if you occassionally enforced it? That's precisely the disaster we see today. When enforced constantly & consistantly it works wonders. Then, there's today.
7) I know about the AIDS/GRID situation. But, that's yet another dodge.
8) Let us not forget liberal used to mean to free. Now it means to enslave. "The power to tax, is the power to destroy" This I'm sure with which you'd agree. Now, that we suffered all the slings & arrows to create a felxible budget, the liberals want to raise taxes for even more spending despite the contrary advice of Alan Greenspan. Whereas the GOP took full note of his advice & chose to pay down the debt as much as the DNC would allow & send the rest back to re-empower the public with their own money before either side decided to bribe us with our own money. As one who only sees 55% of my $60K gross, I'd appreciate even a couple more percentage points.
just my 2¢
» Mart £ «
1) I tried to parse that, and make a response. What is it, as policy, that you would do differently?
4) Statistics is not logic
5a) My experience has been that when you research a field with a political purpose; you come away unsatisfied. In the case of global warming, the theory has stood up to a relentless attack. The question
at this point is as much political as scientific. At what point do you say the body of work is persuasive; and that we need to respond. I do not have the expertise to answer that. Having said that, i can suggest
a threshold. When the midwest turns from farmland to desert, you can safely say the shit has hit the fan.
6) I am sorry that their level of enforcement did not meet your standards. We have placed a few million people in jail, and it simply has not worked. Low levels, high levels, as i said in an earlier post to you there is only one effective strategy. The Chinese shot drug users, and dealers, on sight. That worked.
All i am i interested in is what works. Creating a more effective approach requires a significant change. So, what would you do differently?
7) Dodge? You insulted the Doctor, i defended. I went out of my way
to do so. In my book a man that can save thousands is a hero.
8) In my lifetime, 3 presidents have cut the budget more than a token amount. Ike, Carter, and Clinton. After the 80's, the idea that Republicans are fiscally prudent is ahistorical in the extreme.
***As one who only sees 55% of my $60K gross, I'd appreciate even a couple more percentage points.I presume you are refering to the withholding tax. That, however, is not the end of your tax story. You and I pay much higher percentage of our income as tax (some say close to 80% or so). You keep paying tax upon tax for every product, every service that you buy. In some products the proportion of tax in the price is astronomical - I believe a gas station gets only few cents for every gallon of gas, a cigarette company only gets about 26 cents per pack. Who gets the rest of that $3 price tag? Yep, it is those who are trying to kill that industry. Actually, they are not doing this, they want it to keep going, so it would keep poroducing huge amounts of money for their benefit.
Funny thing, economics...
***The goal of giving Elian a better life is laudable.
But the cost is too high.What exactly IS that cost? Besides getting our newly found friend Fidel upset?
hi Victor,
you read the posts, Pete made the case quite well.
I can understand your sentiment, but most of the country is glad
the kid is back with the dad. Where he belongs.
I have not posted on this today for a simple reason; i have nothing to say. Still looking for a good analysis. Another reason is the very real possibility that this will go to the Supreme Court.
This looks like it just might be an interesting scrap
between the Executive, and Judicial branch. There has always been a certain fuzziness about who gets what between the two.
... that is moot point at best, albeit mindlessly populistic & completely irrelevant in a Republic, lest we succumb to the Democratic tyranny of mob rule.You're better than that. I was looking for an honest rebuttal, not spin.
just my 2¢
» Mart £ «
***hi Victor,
you read the posts, Pete made the case quite well.Sorry, can't agree with you. I thought it was intellectually offensive. I didn't read most of it.
***I can understand your sentiment, but most of the country is glad
the kid is back with the dad.I have been in minority before and that doesn't concern me. I know that most people want this. I am sorry polls play that important role nowdays. We were NOT supposed to have a democracy, but it is moving in that direction.
***Where he belongs.
I have not posted on this today for a simple reason; i have nothing to say. Still looking for a good analysis. Another reason is the very real possibility that this will go to the Supreme Court.No, I doubt it. I think it is over and done with. They effectively blocked any chance of justice in this case.
***This looks like it just might be an interesting scrap
between the Executive, and Judicial branch. There has always been a certain fuzziness about who gets what between the two.Perhaps, but not in this case any longer.
Maybe when Clinton gets his days in court after leaving office... I doubt that too. Too slick.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
