"Don" wrote in message
...
"paghat" wrote
"Don" wrote:
Unfortunately the Libertarian form of conservatism you seem to be
advocating is vastly too utopian & idealistic,

I have advocated nothing of the such and you might consider being less
presumptuous.
And you still haven't answered the question of, *Why should you pay for my
childrens education?*


Or your health care?

Or pay someone not to work?

etc.

Its very difficult to make a rational argument for a lot of things our
various layers of government do.

Jonathan Ball wrote:

Look: less is more.

Right is Wrong.
War is Peace.

And slavery is freedom...

It figures, in your pig-headedness and stupidity, that

How observant of you to mention Pigs... Yes, all Pigs are created
equal, but some Pigs are more equal than others...

Pity you've never heard of Pascal or Montaigne.

It's a pity that you didn't recognize the quotes above...

But you said it yourself:

You really are a stupid ****.

Chuckle...

--
Charles Scripter * Use this address to reply: cescript at progworks dot net
When encryption is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir rapelcgvba.
Note: my responses may be slow due to ISP/newsgroup issues

Charles Scripter wrote:

Jonathan Ball wrote:


Look: less is more.

Right is Wrong.
War is Peace.


And slavery is freedom...

You still don't get it. I am not offering anything
that is remotely comparable to the examples of turning
truth on its head in '1984'.

I could explain the difference to you, but because you
are a pig-headed fool, you still wouldn't get it.



It figures, in your pig-headedness and stupidity, that


How observant of you to mention Pigs... Yes, all Pigs are created
equal, but some Pigs are more equal than others...


Pity you've never heard of Pascal or Montaigne.


It's a pity that you didn't recognize the quotes above...

I did recognize them, you stupid ****. They are not
applicable to what I said. "Less is more" is not the
same thing, not the same thing at all, as the quotes
from '1984'. You are a fool.

Mike Warren wrote:

"Volker Hetzer" writes:

(Before you start to argue: I happily eat meat but I'm willing to
reduce that if someone convince me that it really helps. Right now
it just means that the meat price goes down and someone else in my
city eats more meat.)

From a carbon-emission standpoint, eating less meat is good. For
example, the Canadian government claims not eating meat every other
day saves around a quarter ton of carbon-emissions annually; not sure
if that counts methane with its carbon-equivalence or not...

But, since the United States is a net Carbon SINK of US CO2 emissions,
it just doesn't matter to us Yanks (i.e. our forests eat more CO2 than
our production creates).

This all assumes that global warming is indeed _caused_ by CO2, and
not the other way around. Correlation does not imply causation -- wet
pavement does not cause rain.

It also assumes that the sources of CO2 are primarily due to man (as
opposed to natural source, such as the exposure of carbonate rocks,
sea bottom, to the atmosphere).

And then there's the whole issue of how these "temperature measurents"
are being made... (Yes, I have some familiarity with the contents of
the NOAA/NCDC databases, and the problems with trying to extrapolate
meaningful conclusions from the data contained within).

Unfortuantely, I've momentarily mislaid one of my favorite NCDC
documents, describing a large number of items that result in "local
temperature increases" (i.e. "global warming"), these include changes
in instrumentation, changes in personnel, changes in time of day for
measurement, and heat island effects. By and large, these have not
been corrected nor controlled for...

And then there are the issues of solar output (which most certainly
changes), adapative aperature hypotheses, and others -- which are
never addressed by the alarmists.

But my favorite issue has to be that the global warming alarmists
always compare temperatures to 1850, the END the "Little Ice Age".

That behavior is much like looking at a thermometer in June, and then
comparing it to January, and claiming "Look! Global Warming!".

And then the real bottom line is: even IF (anomalous) global warming
is really occurring, and even IF it is man made, and it is
preventable, if it is does not result in deleterious effects, it still
doesn't matter.

Now don't go cite all the problems that the newspapers claim "global
warming" will cause, as it's the exact same list that they predicted
back in the 1970s, when they claimed it was "global cooling".

--
Charles Scripter * Use this address to reply: cescript at progworks dot net
When encryption is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir rapelcgvba.
Note: my responses may be slow due to ISP/newsgroup issues

Charles Scripter wrote:

Jonathan Ball wrote:


Look: less is more.

Right is Wrong.
War is Peace.


And slavery is freedom...

You still don't get it. I am not offering anything
that is remotely comparable to the examples of turning
truth on its head in '1984'.

I could explain the difference to you, but because you
are a pig-headed fool, you still wouldn't get it.



It figures, in your pig-headedness and stupidity, that


How observant of you to mention Pigs... Yes, all Pigs are created
equal, but some Pigs are more equal than others...


Pity you've never heard of Pascal or Montaigne.


It's a pity that you didn't recognize the quotes above...

I did recognize them, you stupid ****. They are not
applicable to what I said. "Less is more" is not the
same thing, not the same thing at all, as the quotes
from '1984'. You are a fool.

Charles Scripter wrote:

Jonathan Ball wrote:


Look: less is more.

Right is Wrong.
War is Peace.


And slavery is freedom...

You still don't get it. I am not offering anything
that is remotely comparable to the examples of turning
truth on its head in '1984'.

I could explain the difference to you, but because you
are a pig-headed fool, you still wouldn't get it.



It figures, in your pig-headedness and stupidity, that


How observant of you to mention Pigs... Yes, all Pigs are created
equal, but some Pigs are more equal than others...


Pity you've never heard of Pascal or Montaigne.


It's a pity that you didn't recognize the quotes above...

I did recognize them, you stupid ****. They are not
applicable to what I said. "Less is more" is not the
same thing, not the same thing at all, as the quotes
from '1984'. You are a fool.

Mike Warren wrote:

"Volker Hetzer" writes:

(Before you start to argue: I happily eat meat but I'm willing to
reduce that if someone convince me that it really helps. Right now
it just means that the meat price goes down and someone else in my
city eats more meat.)

From a carbon-emission standpoint, eating less meat is good. For
example, the Canadian government claims not eating meat every other
day saves around a quarter ton of carbon-emissions annually; not sure
if that counts methane with its carbon-equivalence or not...

But, since the United States is a net Carbon SINK of US CO2 emissions,
it just doesn't matter to us Yanks (i.e. our forests eat more CO2 than
our production creates).

This all assumes that global warming is indeed _caused_ by CO2, and
not the other way around. Correlation does not imply causation -- wet
pavement does not cause rain.

It also assumes that the sources of CO2 are primarily due to man (as
opposed to natural source, such as the exposure of carbonate rocks,
sea bottom, to the atmosphere).

And then there's the whole issue of how these "temperature measurents"
are being made... (Yes, I have some familiarity with the contents of
the NOAA/NCDC databases, and the problems with trying to extrapolate
meaningful conclusions from the data contained within).

Unfortuantely, I've momentarily mislaid one of my favorite NCDC
documents, describing a large number of items that result in "local
temperature increases" (i.e. "global warming"), these include changes
in instrumentation, changes in personnel, changes in time of day for
measurement, and heat island effects. By and large, these have not
been corrected nor controlled for...

And then there are the issues of solar output (which most certainly
changes), adapative aperature hypotheses, and others -- which are
never addressed by the alarmists.

But my favorite issue has to be that the global warming alarmists
always compare temperatures to 1850, the END the "Little Ice Age".

That behavior is much like looking at a thermometer in June, and then
comparing it to January, and claiming "Look! Global Warming!".

And then the real bottom line is: even IF (anomalous) global warming
is really occurring, and even IF it is man made, and it is
preventable, if it is does not result in deleterious effects, it still
doesn't matter.

Now don't go cite all the problems that the newspapers claim "global
warming" will cause, as it's the exact same list that they predicted
back in the 1970s, when they claimed it was "global cooling".

--
Charles Scripter * Use this address to reply: cescript at progworks dot net
When encryption is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir rapelcgvba.
Note: my responses may be slow due to ISP/newsgroup issues

Mike Warren wrote:

"Volker Hetzer" writes:

(Before you start to argue: I happily eat meat but I'm willing to
reduce that if someone convince me that it really helps. Right now
it just means that the meat price goes down and someone else in my
city eats more meat.)

From a carbon-emission standpoint, eating less meat is good. For
example, the Canadian government claims not eating meat every other
day saves around a quarter ton of carbon-emissions annually; not sure
if that counts methane with its carbon-equivalence or not...

But, since the United States is a net Carbon SINK of US CO2 emissions,
it just doesn't matter to us Yanks (i.e. our forests eat more CO2 than
our production creates).

This all assumes that global warming is indeed _caused_ by CO2, and
not the other way around. Correlation does not imply causation -- wet
pavement does not cause rain.

It also assumes that the sources of CO2 are primarily due to man (as
opposed to natural source, such as the exposure of carbonate rocks,
sea bottom, to the atmosphere).

And then there's the whole issue of how these "temperature measurents"
are being made... (Yes, I have some familiarity with the contents of
the NOAA/NCDC databases, and the problems with trying to extrapolate
meaningful conclusions from the data contained within).

Unfortuantely, I've momentarily mislaid one of my favorite NCDC
documents, describing a large number of items that result in "local
temperature increases" (i.e. "global warming"), these include changes
in instrumentation, changes in personnel, changes in time of day for
measurement, and heat island effects. By and large, these have not
been corrected nor controlled for...

And then there are the issues of solar output (which most certainly
changes), adapative aperature hypotheses, and others -- which are
never addressed by the alarmists.

But my favorite issue has to be that the global warming alarmists
always compare temperatures to 1850, the END the "Little Ice Age".

That behavior is much like looking at a thermometer in June, and then
comparing it to January, and claiming "Look! Global Warming!".

And then the real bottom line is: even IF (anomalous) global warming
is really occurring, and even IF it is man made, and it is
preventable, if it is does not result in deleterious effects, it still
doesn't matter.

Now don't go cite all the problems that the newspapers claim "global
warming" will cause, as it's the exact same list that they predicted
back in the 1970s, when they claimed it was "global cooling".

--
Charles Scripter * Use this address to reply: cescript at progworks dot net
When encryption is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir rapelcgvba.
Note: my responses may be slow due to ISP/newsgroup issues

Economics is a subset of psychology - psychology applied to
matters of money, assets, liabilities, production, buying
and selling, that sort of thing.

That's not even in the ball park! Have you ever read an economics
text?

The closest economics comes to being "psychological" (and it's about
as "close " as the North Pole is to the South Pole) is in making the
assumption that people always behave "rationally." I.e., that
entrepreneurs maximize profit by equating marginal cost with marginal
revenue and that consumers "equate at the margin" so that the last
penny spent on every good and service provides the same amount of
"utility" (want-satisfaction).

What could be further form the truth than that?

vince norris

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 05:47:03 GMT, "Don"
wrote:

"paghat" wrote
"Don" wrote:
Unfortunately the Libertarian form of conservatism you seem to be
advocating is vastly too utopian & idealistic,

I have advocated nothing of the such and you might consider being less
presumptuous.
And you still haven't answered the question of, *Why should you pay for my
childrens education?*


How about because an uneducated populace would lead to many problems
throughout society? Assuming I live a nice, long life, your kids are
going to be helping to bail me out of the problems caused by mistakes
made by our parents and ourselves. I'm willing to pay so that they
have enough information to do a good job of it.

k
For more info about the International Society of Arboriculture, please visit http://www.isa-arbor.com/home.asp.
For consumer info about tree care, visit http://www.treesaregood.com/

"Babberney" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 05:47:03 GMT, "Don"
wrote:

"paghat" wrote
"Don" wrote:
Unfortunately the Libertarian form of conservatism you seem to be
advocating is vastly too utopian & idealistic,

I have advocated nothing of the such and you might consider being less
presumptuous.
And you still haven't answered the question of, *Why should you pay for
my
childrens education?*


How about because an uneducated populace would lead to many problems
throughout society?

Who's talking about *populace*?
I said, MY children.
If you want to pay for my kids education, come on over and bring your
checkbook, as he is homeschooled.

Assuming I live a nice, long life, your kids are
going to be helping to bail me out of the problems caused by mistakes
made by our parents and ourselves.

Nope.
My kid won't pay for your problems, that is YOUR responsibility.

I'm willing to pay so that they
have enough information to do a good job of it.

That is the root of socialism, did you learn anything at all in school?

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 20:39:37 -0500, vincent p. norris
wrote:

Economics is a subset of psychology - psychology applied to
matters of money, assets, liabilities, production, buying
and selling, that sort of thing.

That's not even in the ball park! Have you ever read an economics
text?

Yes, I have. I had to read one to help my ex-wife pass an
econ class. She didn't understand it, but I did.

The closest economics comes to being "psychological" (and it's about
as "close " as the North Pole is to the South Pole) is in making the
assumption that people always behave "rationally." I.e., that
entrepreneurs maximize profit by equating marginal cost with marginal
revenue and that consumers "equate at the margin" so that the last
penny spent on every good and service provides the same amount of
"utility" (want-satisfaction).

You just described applied psychology - just as much as
studying any other stimulus and response. Do people always
react the same to a given stimulus? No, of course not. For
one thing, they don't agree on economic values.

What could be further form the truth than that?

Almost anything. And I don't recall any economist claiming
that people always behave rationally. But they often do
behave rationally. Your point being...???

--
Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.

There are a whole bunch of people here who apparently think that Thomas
Jefferson was an ardent socialist. (Can you believe that Marxist/commie
actually thought that tax-supported schools should be a cornerstone of
democracy? Shocking, I tell you, shocking)
http://www.jeffersonlegacy.org/outreach.htm

"Jefferson was the prophet of the American faith in the powers of education
to secure the freedom and the happiness of the people. As early as 1778, in
his Virginia Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge, Jefferson set
forth a comprehensive plan of public education broadly based in primary
schools, rising as in a pyramid through secondary schools, with a state
university at the apex. The dual mission was, first, “to illuminate, as far
as practicable, the minds of the people at large,” and second, to ensure
that “those persons whom nature hath endowed with genius and virtue” —
Jefferson’s “natural aristocracy” — should be educated to the limits of
their abilities in order the better to serve the mass of citizens.

Quite beyond its practical benefits to the individual, education at all
levels had distinctly moral, social, and civic purposes. It should
cultivate virtue, teach the obligations of individuals to each other, and,
above all, raise up the informed and responsible citizens a democratic
government required. Regrettably, Jefferson’s plan never came to fruition
in Virginia; and although his influence was felt in other states, he finally
had to be satisfied with the achievement of the state university — the apex
of the pyramid without the foundation in the schools.

Jefferson’s faith in democracy was, at bottom, a faith in education.
Believing, as he said, “that the people are the only safe depositories of
their own liberty,” it was essential that they should be educated to a
certain degree and prepared to take part in public affairs; moreover,
government should be structured in ways that invited widespread citizen
participation. Empowerment of the people depended upon education. It was,
therefore, a paramount responsibility of democratic government.
Tax-supported public education assumed common schools shaping a common
citizenship and a common culture.

After his retirement as President, Jefferson preached that the future of
democracy hung from two hooks: first, general education to enable every
citizen to judge for himself how best to secure freedom and happiness, and
second, the establishment everywhere of “little republics,” which he called
“wards,” and compared to New England town meetings, to encourage due
participation in public affairs. The wards should be responsible for the
public schools. Jefferson distrusted concentrated power.

“What,” he asked, “has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every
government under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating of all cares in
one body.” Where power is dispersed, and common schooling is the rule, every
citizen may come to identify his own interest with the interests of the
whole. With impassioned eloquence, Jefferson declared: “Where every man …
feels he is a participator in the government of affairs, not merely at an
election one day in the year, but every day; where there shall not be a man
in the State who will not be a member of some one of its councils, great or
small, he will let the heart be torn out of his body sooner than his powers
be wrested from him by a Caesar or Bonaparte.”

If Jefferson was right, the health, indeed the salvation, of American
democracy depends upon the making of informed, responsible, and
participating citizens. Civic education, therefore, ought to be a central
theme in the conduct and curriculum of schools. This includes many things,
from the integration of the children of a pluralistic society in a shared
culture to thorough instruction in the history and workings of American
democracy.

In recent years, the achievement of scientific, mathematical, and cultural
literacy have been set forth as key goals of K-12 education. Civic
literacy, however, has been neglected. Yet in the vision of Thomas
Jefferson — the vision as well of Horace Mann and John Dewey among eminent
American educators — civic literacy is fundamental, morally, socially,
politically. By restoring the iron thread of civic learning and civic
purpose in our schools, we help to restore faith in American ideals and
institutions. The philosopher Santayana once remarked that in America “the
common citizen must be something of a saint and something of a hero.” There
is a Jeffersonian ring to that. It encapsulates a worthy idea."

Quoted from a letter to American educators from Merrill D. Peterson,
Chairman of The Thomas Jefferson Commemoration Commission.

"gregpresley" wrote
There are a whole bunch of people here who apparently think that Thomas
Jefferson was an ardent socialist. (Can you believe that Marxist/commie
actually thought that tax-supported schools should be a cornerstone of
democracy? Shocking, I tell you, shocking)
http://www.jeffersonlegacy.org/outreach.htm
It should cultivate virtue, teach the obligations of individuals to each
other,

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You can't get more socialist that that.
Of course that is exactly why Jeffersons Constitution fails, in its first
three words.
Jefferson was also the first president to completely ignore the boundaries
set forth in that document.

gregpresley wrote:

Jefferson’s faith in democracy was, at bottom, a faith in education.

But, of course, we are not and were not a democracy...despite the
attempts of the numerous fools and "theoretic politicians" who
patronize this species of government.

--
Charles Scripter * Use this address to reply: cescript at progworks dot net
When encryption is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir rapelcgvba.
Note: my responses may be slow due to ISP/newsgroup issues