|
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 18:04:05 -0800, Robert Sturgeon
wrote: On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:12:12 GMT, (George Cleveland) wrote: On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:46:20 -0500, Tom Quackenbush wrote: George Cleveland wrote: "Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." - John Stuart Mill OK, I have to confess ignorance here - I'm not very familiar with J.S. Mill. When did he write that & did he mean "conservative" in the same political sense that it's used today? I only ask because it seems that being conservative, rather than innovative, is a good survival strategy for those of us that aren't brilliant. IOW, reliance on the "tried and true" methods seems to be a safer bet than risking the unknown, which tends to have a high failure rate. FWIW, I'm all in favor of _someone_ risking the unknown, but if I were responsible for feeding my wife & kids, I'd rather it were someone _else_. R, Tom Q. These are good points. Obviously he was referring to what was considered conservative in his own time. And its not just the intellectually challenged who end up supporting the "Old Regime", whatever that is at the given time and place. Yes, but the Old Regime now is the New Deal setup FDR and LBJ saddled us with. The so-called "conservatives" aren't. The so-called "liberals" aren't. The words that we use to describe the political factions are exactly ass-backwards from the truth. Nope. The Old Regime are the Reaganites and the large corporations. They have been the peoiple in power for most of the last 150 years. The powerless in general receive no favors by sticking their necks out. If you're living close to the bone, any change can be just enough to send you into personal and familial disaster. Thats why revolutions against repressive regimes and economic systems are so rare. The oppressed have to literally reach the point where they have nothing left to lose. Revolutions usually occur when the lot of the ordinary people is improving. The truly hopeless seldom rebel. Who, by the way,can think of no American government in history that would qualify as "leftist". The New Deal certainly was (unless by "leftist" you mean "communist"). Nope again. FDR didn't propose anything that hadn't been proposed by the Progressive Party which was a spin off from the Republican Party. Most of FDR's reforms were modest compared to the rising leftist popular sentiment at the time. Robert Sturgeon, proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy and the evil gun culture. g.c. |
"Left wing kookiness"
"Bob Brock" wrote in message ... On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:30:59 -0500, "rick etter" wrote: "Bob Brock" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:23:02 -0500, "rick etter" wrote: "Bob Brock" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:25:29 GMT, Jonathan Ball \ \snippage... Grammar counts too. ============== Ah yes, the net spell/grammar checker last resort when you have nothing of substance to say... snippage... No, those who have nothing so say say nothing. You know, like you just did. Do you guys always talk this much not saying anything with any substance? Do you reenforce each other's self esteem all the time? I hope so. You guys need it. ==================== ROTFLMAO You haven't said anything yet to reply to, stupid. When you do, I will. So, why do you keep replying little puppet? ================ To highlight the stupidity and ignorance that is all too common with the knee-jerk hate-fill leftist idiots that make claims they cannot support. |
"Left wing kookiness"
"Jonathan Ball" wrote Not all leftists are "vegan", but all "vegans" are leftists. Get it, now? Be careful where you paint with that wide brush, you may paint yourself in a corner. BTW: Your ASSumption isn't even close. Bring on your *30 political issues*, I double dog dare ya. LOL |
"Left wing kookiness"
Xref: kermit rec.gardens.edible:65541 rec.gardens:259305 misc.survivalism:500893 misc.rural:115324 rec.backcountry:172220
Don wrote: "Jonathan Ball" wrote Not all leftists are "vegan", but all "vegans" are leftists. Get it, now? Be careful where you paint with that wide brush, you may paint yourself in a corner. Nope. One very articulate and obviously intelligent poster in alt.food.vegan thought he had disproved my contention, because he is a reflexive defender of Republican and conservative orthodoxy, and he said he was "vegan". However, once I induced him to look in on talk.politics.animals and alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, he realized, and freely admitted, that he had erroneously conflated following a "vegan" diet with BEING a "vegan". He no longer calls himself a "vegan", because he eschews animal products in his diet entirely for health reasons. BTW: Your ASSumption isn't even close. It's spot on. Bring on your *30 political issues*, I double dog dare ya. LOL I don't have a 30 point test, but the following 10 point quiz worked well enough two other times. When I posted this in alt.food.vegan, twice about a year apart, the self-styled "vegans" gave consistently leftwing answers 85% of the time or higher. One of the problems with this particular quiz is, it's possible to disagree with the statement from either leftwing or rightwing perspective. It's important, therefore, to add a few *honest* explanatory words in addtion to your yes/no or agree/disagree answer. State whether or not you're "vegan" or tend to agree with the tenets of "veganism", then answer yes or no, or agree or disagree, along with a short explanation of your answer. 1. Military service should be voluntary. (No draft) 2. Government should not control radio, TV, the press or the Internet. 3. Repeal regulations on sex for consenting adults. 4. Drug laws do more harm than good. Repeal them. 5. People should be free to come and go across borders; to live and work where they choose. 6. Businesses and farms should operate without govt. subsidies. 7. People are better off with free trade than with tariffs. 8. Minimum wage laws cause unemployment. Repeal them. 9. End taxes. Pay for services with user fees. 10. All foreign aid should be privately funded. |
"Left wing kookiness"
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 06:24:47 -0500, "rick etter"
wrote: "Bob Brock" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:30:59 -0500, "rick etter" wrote: "Bob Brock" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:23:02 -0500, "rick etter" wrote: "Bob Brock" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:25:29 GMT, Jonathan Ball \ \snippage... Grammar counts too. ============== Ah yes, the net spell/grammar checker last resort when you have nothing of substance to say... snippage... No, those who have nothing so say say nothing. You know, like you just did. Do you guys always talk this much not saying anything with any substance? Do you reenforce each other's self esteem all the time? I hope so. You guys need it. ==================== ROTFLMAO You haven't said anything yet to reply to, stupid. When you do, I will. So, why do you keep replying little puppet? ================ To highlight the stupidity and ignorance that is all too common with the knee-jerk hate-fill leftist idiots that make claims they cannot support. Oh come on....surely I can get one more post out of you. You know you have to do it, if for no other reason, it makes you feel somehow superiour. Your turn. |
"Left wing kookiness"
"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message news:egkEb.9234 I don't have a 30 point test, but the following 10 point quiz worked well enough two other times. When I posted this in alt.food.vegan, twice about a year apart, the self-styled "vegans" gave consistently leftwing answers 85% of the time or higher. One of the problems with this particular quiz is, it's possible to disagree with the statement from either leftwing or rightwing perspective. It's important, therefore, to add a few *honest* explanatory words in addtion to your yes/no or agree/disagree answer. State whether or not you're "vegan" or tend to agree with the tenets of "veganism", then answer yes or no, or agree or disagree, along with a short explanation of your answer. I am not a vegan 1. Military service should be voluntary. (No draft) agree 2. Government should not control radio, TV, the press or the Internet. agree 3. Repeal regulations on sex for consenting adults. agree 4. Drug laws do more harm than good. Repeal them. agree 5. People should be free to come and go across borders; to live and work where they choose. agree 6. Businesses and farms should operate without govt. subsidies. agree 7. People are better off with free trade than with tariffs. agree 8. Minimum wage laws cause unemployment. Repeal them. agree 9. End taxes. Pay for services with user fees. sounds lika a good idea, but it won't work. how would you pay for schools, public health programs, etc? 10. All foreign aid should be privately funded. disagree did I pass? |
"Left wing kookiness"
"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message news:egkEb.9234 I don't have a 30 point test, but the following 10 point quiz worked well enough two other times. When I posted this in alt.food.vegan, twice about a year apart, the self-styled "vegans" gave consistently leftwing answers 85% of the time or higher. One of the problems with this particular quiz is, it's possible to disagree with the statement from either leftwing or rightwing perspective. It's important, therefore, to add a few *honest* explanatory words in addtion to your yes/no or agree/disagree answer. State whether or not you're "vegan" or tend to agree with the tenets of "veganism", then answer yes or no, or agree or disagree, along with a short explanation of your answer. I am not a vegan 1. Military service should be voluntary. (No draft) agree 2. Government should not control radio, TV, the press or the Internet. agree 3. Repeal regulations on sex for consenting adults. agree 4. Drug laws do more harm than good. Repeal them. agree 5. People should be free to come and go across borders; to live and work where they choose. agree 6. Businesses and farms should operate without govt. subsidies. agree 7. People are better off with free trade than with tariffs. agree 8. Minimum wage laws cause unemployment. Repeal them. agree 9. End taxes. Pay for services with user fees. sounds lika a good idea, but it won't work. how would you pay for schools, public health programs, etc? 10. All foreign aid should be privately funded. disagree did I pass? |
"Left wing kookiness"
paghat wrote:
"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message news:egkEb.9234 I don't have a 30 point test, but the following 10 point quiz worked well enough two other times. When I posted this in alt.food.vegan, twice about a year apart, the self-styled "vegans" gave consistently leftwing answers 85% of the time or higher. One of the problems with this particular quiz is, it's possible to disagree with the statement from either leftwing or rightwing perspective. It's important, therefore, to add a few *honest* explanatory words in addtion to your yes/no or agree/disagree answer. State whether or not you're "vegan" or tend to agree with the tenets of "veganism", then answer yes or no, or agree or disagree, along with a short explanation of your answer. I am not a vegan 1. Military service should be voluntary. (No draft) agree 2. Government should not control radio, TV, the press or the Internet. agree 3. Repeal regulations on sex for consenting adults. agree 4. Drug laws do more harm than good. Repeal them. agree 5. People should be free to come and go across borders; to live and work where they choose. agree 6. Businesses and farms should operate without govt. subsidies. agree 7. People are better off with free trade than with tariffs. agree 8. Minimum wage laws cause unemployment. Repeal them. agree 9. End taxes. Pay for services with user fees. sounds lika a good idea, but it won't work. how would you pay for schools, public health programs, etc? 10. All foreign aid should be privately funded. disagree did I pass? No, you flunked miserably: you didn't explain your answers, and your statement that you're not a "vegan" is inadequate if not an outright lie: As a vegetarian household we're making among other things baked "nut balls" for which the main ingredients are eight kinds of chopped nuts (walnut, filbert, cashew, pecan, &c), bread, spices, mozerella, grated vegies, & egg to hold it together. We're additionally making some little tiny ones so that while we have our pasta & nutball course the ratties can be running about with their own little nutballs. http://tinyurl.com/333cb You were trying to game my quiz, you stupid bitch, but you can't get away with it. Someone so stupid she can't follow basic instructions can't get away with much of anything. |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
|
"Left wing kookiness"
In article . net,
Jonathan Ball wrote: paghat wrote: In article . net, Jonathan Ball wrote: God DAMN it, you are such a windbag! By gum! A talking nutsack! Any offers from Ringling Bros? No, but you *are* a windbag. Just on and on and on and on and on and... Since you suffer that gravely from an attention span disorder, maybe the discounted ritalin your mommy gets for you from a pharmaceuticals spammer isn't the real deal. -paghat the ratgirl -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/ |
"Left wing kookiness"
In article , the moke monster
wrote: Tell them veggies exhibit fear if you hook one up to a polygraph and start dicing up his friends. That should make them stop eating altogether. GW On the pseudoscientific urban legend of telepathic plants: http://www.paghat.com/telepathic.html The short of it is -- this is science of sort that exists only in the minds of theosophists & sasquatch hunters. -paghat the ratgirl -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/ |
"Left wing kookiness"
paghat wrote:
In article . net, Jonathan Ball wrote: paghat wrote: In article . net, Jonathan Ball wrote: God DAMN it, you are such a windbag! By gum! A talking nutsack! Any offers from Ringling Bros? No, but you *are* a windbag. Just on and on and on and on and on and... Since you suffer that gravely from an attention span disorder, Nope. maybe the discounted ritalin your mommy gets for you from a pharmaceuticals spammer isn't the real deal. For a self absorbed windbag, you don't even flame worth a shit, either. Just out of curiosity...do you correspond with 'Swan', the fetal alcohol syndrome worse half of 'Rat & Swan'? You write very much like that garrulous lump of human wreckage. |
"Left wing kookiness"
In article . net,
Jonathan Ball wrote: I don't have a 30 point test, but the following 10 point quiz worked well enough two other times. When I posted this in alt.food.vegan, twice about a year apart, the self-styled "vegans" gave consistently leftwing answers 85% of the time or higher. One of the problems with this particular quiz is, it's possible to disagree with the statement from either leftwing or rightwing perspective. It's important, therefore, to add a few *honest* explanatory words in addtion to your yes/no or agree/disagree answer. State whether or not you're "vegan" or tend to agree with the tenets of "veganism", then answer yes or no, or agree or disagree, along with a short explanation of your answer. 1. Military service should be voluntary. (No draft) Everyone under the age of 50 is too young to have been up for the draft. Does that mean that in your imaginary world every American under 50 is a lefty or a commy pinko because of the abolition of the draft? But on the other hand, all Israeli Jews must be rightwingers cuz they have no choice but to serve in the Israeli armed forces? Thanks so much for clarifying how you think! 2. Government should not control radio, TV, the press or the Internet. True conservatives believe the government should indeed keep its ass out entertainment & the press; & true liberals believe these liberties should be darned close to absolute. So a "yes" here means the respondent is EITHER a righty or a lefty. Unless you're paranoid, then it means what you "knew" it meant long before anyone answers. 3. Repeal regulations on sex for consenting adults. I see, Goldwater was a lefty. Actual conservatives want government out of peoples' private personal lives & deeply value privacy protection; actual progressives agree with conservatives on this. If you thought otherwise, then you're not talking about left vs right, but sane vs. crazy. 4. Drug laws do more harm than good. Repeal them. Yes, William F. Buckley believe the War On Drugs is the abject failure that has done more harm than good. No, Buckley is not a vegatarian or a liberal, nor are Ederkin, Greenspan, . The issue of decriminalization vs legality are themselves completely separate issues, & the FACT of existing laws' harmfulness is distinct from the QUESTION whether effective & constructive laws are possible. So you've raised for distinct issues for which you want a single yes or no -- this works only in simple minds. The war on drugs is a failure, period, unless the goal was to disenfranchise black america while letting the vastly larger drug problem in white america pass unprosecuted. THINKING Conservatives & liberals alike can agree a completely different legal attitude toward drug abuse is required. Only a few fringies (as many fringy conservatives such as the libertarians as far-out-man retro hippy liberals) want harmful laws supplanted with drug anarchy. Well, as point of fact Greenspan & Buckley seem to outright legalization over harmful laws, but a greater number of conservatives favor decriminalization. The REAL distinction between right & left on this issue is the right generally wouldn't fund medical treatment of addicts once imprisonment ceases to be the ineffective response. 5. People should be free to come and go across borders; to live and work where they choose. The actual progressive stance is that people should not have fewer rights than corporations. A growing percentage of conservative politicians, soon as all the corporations in their voting districts move across a border, are saying the same thing. 6. Businesses and farms should operate without govt. subsidies. Once again you ask two distinct questions at once that for a great many require two different answers, but in your scaled down simpleminded world no two questions have two answers. Commonly (by no means universally) progressives don't support corporate welfare, but do support small farm assistance. Conservatives don't support either one when speaking philosophically; but when they become Elected conservatives they keep whittling away farm subsidies for the small farmer in order to give bigger & bigger tax breaks to oil company chums & agribusinesses like Monsanto. 7. People are better off with free trade than with tariffs. Strangely a so-called "liberal" president pushed through that particular conservative agenda to give corporations more rights than individuals. One frequently finds conservatives & liberals in agreement that tarrifs are bad, free trade is good, but disagreements arise only when issues of protecting the environment or unionization are expected to be included. So the "left vs right" query here should've been either "Free trade is so important that all workers should be scabs" or "Free trade is so important toxic waste dumps across the border should stay legal." But if you're really positing that either the left or the right prefers a tariff system, that is considered a poor bandaid by both sides, though in fact tarrifs have been resorted to more often by right-leaning presidents including our current far-right unelected one. 8. Minimum wage laws cause unemployment. Repeal them. 9. End taxes. Pay for services with user fees. The crankier libertarian ideas are rarely supported by either conservatives or liberals, as both sides would answer that one NOT with a yes or no, but with a "what the **** are you on, bub?" One COULD however easily identify a STATISTICAL difference between left-of-center vs right-leaning presidents: Democrats have historically spent less than Republican presidents & attempted to cover it with existing taxes; Republicans have cut taxes & increased spending in order to indebt the next generation. Reagan was the biggest spender of all time until Bush arrived on the scene. But out here in the real world most us, left or right, just want the government to live within its means & not tax us to death. Apart from the crazier liberatarians who regard themselves as purist conservatives, nobody advocates a world in which the fire department only stops fires for citizens who can afford to pay for the service & police only answer calls from subscribers. The way you phrase these questions tag you as an amazing loon to even think these are issues. 10. All foreign aid should be privately funded. Appears you've either mistaken the fringiest conservatives such as libertarians for conservatives, or more likely you just don't understand even Politics 101 and have this series of crazy mixed up ideas so fungally rooted in your mind that you can't form rational yes/no queries. There may be (in principle, rarely in execution however) different ideas between left & right as to what foreign aid should consist of, but only crazies propose isolationism. THE REAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VEGAN & VEGETARIAN: All vegans are vegetarians, not all vegetarians are vegans. Vegans don't eat meat, fish, eggs or cheese or meat; vegetarians don't eat AT LEAST red meat, & vary as to whether their vegetarianism includes chicken, fish, eggs, or milk products; the airlines like the distinction Lacto-Ovo Vegetarian and Vegetarian, the latter they assume to be vegans. Reasons for these choices range from sentimentality toward animals, to health concerns (you'd be surprised how many men, right or left, are vegans within a week of open heart surgery), to ancient religious ideologies. Many moslems traveling in the west become vegans until they get back to their home countries, because they know meat is not killed cleanly & sacredly here, unless it's kosher, but in that case a Jew touched it, yuk -- most of these vegan Muslims seem to be pretty damned rightwing sad to say. A fringier group may be concerned with parity of equal rights between chickens & people but these are such a minority that I've only actually met one or two in a quarter-century of vegetarian activism -- not counting the newsgroup wackos who're probably chomping on cheeseburger even as they post what a jerk you are for exploiting your yorkshire terrier as a companion animal instead of letting it run wild with the wolves. -paghat the ratgirl -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/ |
"Left wing kookiness"
Jonathan Ball, a forger. Amazing. I thought you were just fantastically
stupid & I was even a little impressed you knew how to type, being that retarded. Now i see you are actually a morally reprehensible criminal who fakes IDs. If I were to be like you, I'd answer "your" post thus: Do you sit at your computer with a big plastic penis stuck up your ass? Jonathan's Balls answered: I sure do! It's the only time I'm happy! But thanks for at least making it clear you really don't have honest questions OR honest arguments for anything. -paghat the ratgirl In article . net, Jonathan Ball wrote: paghat wrote: "Jonathan Ball" wrote in message news:egkEb.9234 I don't have a 30 point test, but the following 10 point quiz worked well enough two other times. When I posted this in alt.food.vegan, twice about a year apart, the self-styled "vegans" gave consistently leftwing answers 85% of the time or higher. One of the problems with this particular quiz is, it's possible to disagree with the statement from either leftwing or rightwing perspective. It's important, therefore, to add a few *honest* explanatory words in addtion to your yes/no or agree/disagree answer. State whether or not you're "vegan" or tend to agree with the tenets of "veganism", then answer yes or no, or agree or disagree, along with a short explanation of your answer. I am not a vegan 1. Military service should be voluntary. (No draft) agree 2. Government should not control radio, TV, the press or the Internet. agree 3. Repeal regulations on sex for consenting adults. agree 4. Drug laws do more harm than good. Repeal them. agree 5. People should be free to come and go across borders; to live and work where they choose. agree 6. Businesses and farms should operate without govt. subsidies. agree 7. People are better off with free trade than with tariffs. agree 8. Minimum wage laws cause unemployment. Repeal them. agree 9. End taxes. Pay for services with user fees. sounds lika a good idea, but it won't work. how would you pay for schools, public health programs, etc? 10. All foreign aid should be privately funded. disagree did I pass? You were trying to game my quiz, you stupid bitch, but you can't get away with it. Someone so stupid she can't follow basic instructions can't get away with much of anything. -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/ |
"Left wing kookiness"
paghat the lying carpet-muncher dissembled:
In article . net, Jonathan Ball wrote: paghat the lying carpet-muncher dissembled: "Jonathan Ball" wrote in message news:egkEb.9234 I don't have a 30 point test, but the following 10 point quiz worked well enough two other times. When I posted this in alt.food.vegan, twice about a year apart, the self-styled "vegans" gave consistently leftwing answers 85% of the time or higher. One of the problems with this particular quiz is, it's possible to disagree with the statement from either leftwing or rightwing perspective. It's important, therefore, to add a few *honest* explanatory words in addtion to your yes/no or agree/disagree answer. State whether or not you're "vegan" or tend to agree with the tenets of "veganism", then answer yes or no, or agree or disagree, along with a short explanation of your answer. I am not a vegan 1. Military service should be voluntary. (No draft) agree 2. Government should not control radio, TV, the press or the Internet. agree 3. Repeal regulations on sex for consenting adults. agree 4. Drug laws do more harm than good. Repeal them. agree 5. People should be free to come and go across borders; to live and work where they choose. agree 6. Businesses and farms should operate without govt. subsidies. agree 7. People are better off with free trade than with tariffs. agree 8. Minimum wage laws cause unemployment. Repeal them. agree 9. End taxes. Pay for services with user fees. sounds lika a good idea, but it won't work. how would you pay for schools, public health programs, etc? 10. All foreign aid should be privately funded. disagree did I pass? I didn't notice when I replied before that you sleazily and unethically edited out your comment in which you identified yourself as a vegetarian: As a vegetarian household we're making among other things baked "nut balls" for which the main ingredients are eight kinds of chopped nuts (walnut, filbert, cashew, pecan, &c), bread, spices, mozerella, grated vegies, & egg to hold it together. We're additionally making some little tiny ones so that while we have our pasta & nutball course the ratties can be running about with their own little nutballs. http://tinyurl.com/333cb The statement is yours, lying slag. You posted it. Here's a link to another post from when you were using that posting e-mail address ): http://tinyurl.com/38n4q It has exactly the same overly precious, LONGWINDED, self-absorbed style. Yep: it's you, logorrheaic as ever. There was no forgery, you lying carpet-munching slag. |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 23:57:41 GMT, Strider wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:30:36 -0800, "Rico X. Partay" wrote: "Bob Peterson" wrote in message ... Junk science is junk science. Saying "it's too political so it must be wrong" is the same as saying "it's wrong because it's wrong." It's a completely conclusory, content-free statement you're making. Adherence to scientific methods do not allow for politics. Insertion of politics into science will bias the results of any study. Strider Do you therefore believe that good scientists are apolitical, or that only conservative scientists are able to keep from injecting their politics into their work? Either way, you are not convincing me so far . . . . Keith 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/ |
"Left wing kookiness"
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:21:05 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote: Frogleg wrote: Lurking behind EVERY "vegan's" - not vegetarian's - dietary choices is some kind of belief in animal "rights". An interesting point to focus on. The obverse, I suppose, must be that rightists believe the earth is here for people to exploit. We're not a part of the world; we're the reason for it. In that dichotomy, I confess I become a vegan (though I still eat cheese and, occasionally, eggs). Just because someone wrote a book once that says it's true don't make it so. 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/ |
"Left wing kookiness"
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 04:39:31 GMT, the moke monster
wrote: I suppose quite a few of them were or are vegetarian, though; there's a big difference. Yeah.. if they were lousy hunters. GW Yeah, I saw that bumper sticker, too. REALLY funny! 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/ |
"Left wing kookiness"
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:00:14 -0800,
(paghat) wrote: Since you suffer that gravely from an attention span disorder, maybe the discounted ritalin your mommy gets for you from a pharmaceuticals spammer isn't the real deal. -paghat the ratgirl Ah, paghat, just when I start to warm up to you, you always seem to degenerate to this sort of exchange. You're smarter than that, aren't you? 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/ |
"Left wing kookiness"
Xref: kermit rec.gardens.edible:65582 rec.gardens:259356 misc.survivalism:501075 misc.rural:115429 rec.backcountry:172281
Babberney wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:00:14 -0800, (paghat) wrote: Since you suffer that gravely from an attention span disorder, maybe the discounted ritalin your mommy gets for you from a pharmaceuticals spammer isn't the real deal. -paghat the ratgirl Ah, paghat, just when I start to warm up to you, you always seem to degenerate to this sort of exchange. You're smarter than that, aren't you? She isn't smart at all, just wordy. You shouldn't be confused so easily. |
"Left wing kookiness"
Greylock wrote:
Good science is apolitical. Facts are gathered, a theory is advanced, and if the theory is found to explain the facts the theory is accepted until further facts support or contradict it. Junk science starts with a theory and then selectively accumulates facts to support the theory. Inconvenient facts are ignored in the pursuit of proving the theory. No, you've omitted an important first step. Junk science first starts with a conclusion, usually one beloved for ideological reasons. Then a bogus theory is formulated that - quelle surprise! - predicts that conclusion, and the rest is as you laid out. See any of the (pseudo) scientific crapola posted in t.p.a. and a.a.e.v. by the irrational Irish blowjob artist Lesley, posting recently under the pseudonym 'pearl'. Good scientists are not necessarily apolitical, but proper adherence to the science and the facts does not allow for the insertion of political dogma. If you start with the theory, the dogma is built in. Most of the junk science being promoted these days is coming from the far left nutballs and the far right religious nutballs. Most of the press for the junk science goes to the far left nutballs. far . . . . Keith 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/ |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:08:40 -0800, Robert Sturgeon
wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:19:53 GMT, *snippage* The corporations have never lost control over the day to day lives of Americans. Their influence was moderated during the 30s but they regained their power during the second world war and by 1948 had succeeded in eviscerating the labor movement. By the 50s they suceeded in eliminating the most creative elements who were opposed to their rule. No American president, including FDR, has ever questioned the basic economic assumptions that guarantees the seat of priviledge that the ruling class believes it deserves. The "liberals" are the true conservatives (conserving the existing political order) and the "conservatives" and libertarians are the true liberals (supporters of more personal freedom). The times, they are a-changing. -- Robert Sturgeon, proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy and the evil gun culture. Libertarianism=Corporate Fascism. g.c. |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
In article , Greylock
wrote: Good science is apolitical. If one may define economics as political, the political impact on science is terrible. At the EPA and FDA for examples, careers have come to sudden ends because someone or another focused on findings that this or that product had been proven to be unsafe, & anyone who doesn't want their careers squelched soon learns to self-censor & give "good" spins to things that may be profitable if the harm is overlooked. The data itself, bought & paid for by the interested parties, may more often than not be accurate, but may well have been designed consciously or subconsciously to NOT assess the bad with the good, but to only assess the good. When receiving funds from an "interested party" who will renew grants only if "answers" please them, these answers tend somehow to be found. By and large doubleblind studies are apolitical & you can detect, from most peer reviewed & published data at least, what any bias might have been, you can tell that though they "proved" such-&-such had a health benefit they failed to factor in side effects, so some other study would be required to assess the bad, for which no funding is forthcoming from the interested parties. One of my favorite examples was a Davis University study that proved mulch from recycled tires killed all plantlife within one week because of the zinc content, but by the time the vendors of rubber mulch got their hands on the data, it was interpretted as "improves the quality of zinc deficient soils" & "suppresses weeds." The "spin" amounted to a lie though narrowly & literally it was true. The Davis research itself was funded by the rubber industry & was riddled with positive asides, but the data provided was unambiguous & conclusive: it rapidly killed all the plants. Even data presented in peer review publications, and which make it pretty clear that something very bad is in the making (regarding greenhouse effect for example), but by speaking statistically rather than in absolutes, there's always wiggle-room for politicians to claim a finding is the opposite of what it was. Politicians serving industrial interests ahead of public health do this as a matter of course -- so while it is often the case that the actual science was apolitical, by the time the scientific finding reaches the public in "pop" & "PR" contexts, it is so thoroughly politicized to "prove" diamatrically opposed conclusions that a public that rarely goes to MedLine or a Health Science Library for the original data never know quite what to believe -- & frequently end up chosing a side on the basis of their own politics instead of the never-seen complete data. Occasionally a company like Monsanto generates in-house data that is completely fabricated or so slanted as to be worthless, but looks real on the surface. Non peer-review journals & academic vanity presses produce intentionally fraudulant results that bewilder the public. Even "good" science tends to be so couched in so many qualifiers or undecipherable language that it can instantly be turned into "lies, damned lies, & statistics" by abusers of the findings, even when not by the complete findings themselves. The bottomline is that science as it reaches the public is politicized. It is less so for the extreme minority who rely on peer-reviewed journals, but for the majority these are awfully hard to track down, & the garbled versions in magazines or newspapers rarely bare much resemblance to the original. -paghat the ratgirl Facts are gathered, a theory is advanced, and if the theory is found to explain the facts the theory is accepted until further facts support or contradict it. Junk science starts with a theory and then selectively accumulates facts to support the theory. Inconvenient facts are ignored in the pursuit of proving the theory. Good scientists are not necessarily apolitical, but proper adherence to the science and the facts does not allow for the insertion of political dogma. If you start with the theory, the dogma is built in. Most of the junk science being promoted these days is coming from the far left nutballs and the far right religious nutballs. Most of the press for the junk science goes to the far left nutballs. far . . . . Keith -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/ |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
In article ,
(George Cleveland) wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:08:40 -0800, Robert Sturgeon wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:19:53 GMT, *snippage* The corporations have never lost control over the day to day lives of Americans. Their influence was moderated during the 30s but they regained their power during the second world war and by 1948 had succeeded in eviscerating the labor movement. By the 50s they suceeded in eliminating the most creative elements who were opposed to their rule. No American president, including FDR, has ever questioned the basic economic assumptions that guarantees the seat of priviledge that the ruling class believes it deserves. That strikes me as a wise assessment, if a sorry one. -paghat the ratgirl -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/ |
"Left wing kookiness"
paghat wrote:
In article , Greylock wrote: Good science is apolitical. If one may define economics as political, blah blah blah... [snip remainder of tedious, WINDY anti-market rant] So...I just KNEW we'd get a frank admission of your ardent leftist belief out in the open sooner or later. You didn't need to write several hundred words in order to do it, though. |
"Left wing kookiness"
paghat wrote:
In article , (George Cleveland) wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:08:40 -0800, Robert Sturgeon wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:19:53 GMT, *snippage* The corporations have never lost control over the day to day lives of Americans. Their influence was moderated during the 30s but they regained their power during the second world war and by 1948 had succeeded in eviscerating the labor movement. By the 50s they suceeded in eliminating the most creative elements who were opposed to their rule. No American president, including FDR, has ever questioned the basic economic assumptions that guarantees the seat of priviledge that the ruling class believes it deserves. That strikes me as a wise assessment, if a sorry one. It would. It's completely dogmatic, UNSCIENTIFIC leftist tripe doing a shitty job of masquerading as analysis. |
"Left wing kookiness"
paghat wrote:
In article , Greylock wrote: Good science is apolitical. If one may define economics as political, as a physicist I have a hard time defining economics (at least the areas you go on to describe) as science ... Maren |
"Left wing kookiness"
Maren Purves wrote:
paghat wrote: In article , Greylock wrote: Good science is apolitical. If one may define economics as political, as a physicist I have a hard time defining economics (at least the areas you go on to describe) as science ... She isn't describing economics. It's pretty plain she doesn't know anything about it. Economists will match and surpass your multiple regression skills with ease. |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
|
"Left wing kookiness"
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:13:56 -1000, Maren Purves
wrote: paghat wrote: In article , Greylock wrote: Good science is apolitical. If one may define economics as political, as a physicist I have a hard time defining economics (at least the areas you go on to describe) as science ... Economics is a subset of psychology - psychology applied to matters of money, assets, liabilities, production, buying and selling, that sort of thing. If psychology is a science (a highly questionable If), then so is economics. -- Robert Sturgeon, proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy and the evil gun culture. |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:46:23 -0800, Robert Sturgeon
wrote: On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 00:59:35 GMT, (George Cleveland) wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:08:40 -0800, Robert Sturgeon wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:19:53 GMT, *snippage* The corporations have never lost control over the day to day lives of Americans. If that was so, the corporations would not have allowed the imposition of social security taxes, collective bargaining, the SEC, high income taxes, fair housing laws, OSHA, EPA, the ADA, minimum wage laws, all the rest of the post-1933 nanny/security state. But all those - and more - WERE enacted, because the corporations did lose their power. Jeez, I couldn't have made a better case for strict regulation of corporations. Virtually every one of those "nanny" state regulations has made the lives of working people tolerable under capitalism. Without them the existence of capitalism itself would be in doubt. Revolution, *Red revolution* was on the agenda in the U.S. in the 1930s. Laissez-faire capitalism had failed. Roosevelt was able to deflect the demands for radical change by making humane reforms to an inherently inhumane system. Their influence was moderated during the 30s but they regained their power during the second world war and by 1948 had succeeded in eviscerating the labor movement. By the 50s they suceeded in eliminating the most creative elements who were opposed to their rule. No American president, including FDR, has ever questioned the basic economic assumptions that guarantees the seat of priviledge that the ruling class believes it deserves. In the 1930s, and still today, the ruling class consisted of the bureaucrats, think tank residents, Congress critters, university presidents and professors, lawyers and the rest of the operational personnel of the security state. Baloney. Ask yourself, "Whose decisions have a greater effect on my day to day life, my boss or my congressman?" If the corporations were really in control, there is no way Martha Stewart and the rest of the accused corporate types would be in any legal trouble at all. In the glory days of rule by the industrialists, the tycoons did much more outrageous things, and generally got away with them. Why would a competitor of Martha Stewart be any thing but pleased that she was in hot water with the feds? FDR's "brain trust" was not made up of corporate CEOs. JFK's "best and brightest" had McNamarra (sp?) from the corporate world, and he was a dismal failure. Same with LBJ - professors, lawyers, politicians. If you mean that not even FDR tried to eliminate the market system and the right to spend one's own time and money more or less as one sees fit - so long as you don't interfere with the governors' view of how public life should be conducted - you are of course correct. He was a control freak, not a communist. The question that hasn't been asked for almost a hundred years in this country is "Who creates wealth, and who has the right to gain the most from its creation?" -- Robert Sturgeon, proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy and the evil gun culture. |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:03:56 GMT,
(Babberney) wrote: On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 23:57:41 GMT, Strider wrote: On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:30:36 -0800, "Rico X. Partay" wrote: "Bob Peterson" wrote in message ... Junk science is junk science. Saying "it's too political so it must be wrong" is the same as saying "it's wrong because it's wrong." It's a completely conclusory, content-free statement you're making. Adherence to scientific methods do not allow for politics. Insertion of politics into science will bias the results of any study. Strider Do you therefore believe that good scientists are apolitical, or that only conservative scientists are able to keep from injecting their politics into their work? Either way, you are not convincing me so far . . . . Keith Good scientists are apolitical in their work. Unfortunately, liberals cannot help themselves and need to be segregated and marginalized for the good of the country. Strider 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/ |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
OK - so what? That is hardly news. The media lies to people, but the science - properly done - is not political. I know enough science and engineering to winnow through most of it in technical areas, but I have to work at medical subjects a little harder to feel comfortable with the answers. People who WANT the truth can generally get it, people who really prefer slogans and tabloid science, be it painted up ever so pretty, generally never bother to try to find out what the real science is. For the most part, right now, the worst offenders in the tabloid science racket are the liberals and their bullshit scenarios. When you trace the bullshit back to its source, it tends to devolve to some graduate student's computer projection which doesn't do anything else right, but the part that predicts what the liberals want, is touted as being the revealed word of God. It gets tiresome having to listen to the media, who uncritically publish the bullshit and just can't find the column inches to print the sober rebutttals by competent scientists. On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:07:58 -0800, (paghat) wrote: In article , Greylock wrote: Good science is apolitical. If one may define economics as political, the political impact on science is terrible. At the EPA and FDA for examples, careers have come to sudden ends because someone or another focused on findings that this or that product had been proven to be unsafe, & anyone who doesn't want their careers squelched soon learns to self-censor & give "good" spins to things that may be profitable if the harm is overlooked. The data itself, bought & paid for by the interested parties, may more often than not be accurate, but may well have been designed consciously or subconsciously to NOT assess the bad with the good, but to only assess the good. When receiving funds from an "interested party" who will renew grants only if "answers" please them, these answers tend somehow to be found. By and large doubleblind studies are apolitical & you can detect, from most peer reviewed & published data at least, what any bias might have been, you can tell that though they "proved" such-&-such had a health benefit they failed to factor in side effects, so some other study would be required to assess the bad, for which no funding is forthcoming from the interested parties. One of my favorite examples was a Davis University study that proved mulch from recycled tires killed all plantlife within one week because of the zinc content, but by the time the vendors of rubber mulch got their hands on the data, it was interpretted as "improves the quality of zinc deficient soils" & "suppresses weeds." The "spin" amounted to a lie though narrowly & literally it was true. The Davis research itself was funded by the rubber industry & was riddled with positive asides, but the data provided was unambiguous & conclusive: it rapidly killed all the plants. Even data presented in peer review publications, and which make it pretty clear that something very bad is in the making (regarding greenhouse effect for example), but by speaking statistically rather than in absolutes, there's always wiggle-room for politicians to claim a finding is the opposite of what it was. Politicians serving industrial interests ahead of public health do this as a matter of course -- so while it is often the case that the actual science was apolitical, by the time the scientific finding reaches the public in "pop" & "PR" contexts, it is so thoroughly politicized to "prove" diamatrically opposed conclusions that a public that rarely goes to MedLine or a Health Science Library for the original data never know quite what to believe -- & frequently end up chosing a side on the basis of their own politics instead of the never-seen complete data. Occasionally a company like Monsanto generates in-house data that is completely fabricated or so slanted as to be worthless, but looks real on the surface. Non peer-review journals & academic vanity presses produce intentionally fraudulant results that bewilder the public. Even "good" science tends to be so couched in so many qualifiers or undecipherable language that it can instantly be turned into "lies, damned lies, & statistics" by abusers of the findings, even when not by the complete findings themselves. The bottomline is that science as it reaches the public is politicized. It is less so for the extreme minority who rely on peer-reviewed journals, but for the majority these are awfully hard to track down, & the garbled versions in magazines or newspapers rarely bare much resemblance to the original. -paghat the ratgirl Facts are gathered, a theory is advanced, and if the theory is found to explain the facts the theory is accepted until further facts support or contradict it. Junk science starts with a theory and then selectively accumulates facts to support the theory. Inconvenient facts are ignored in the pursuit of proving the theory. Good scientists are not necessarily apolitical, but proper adherence to the science and the facts does not allow for the insertion of political dogma. If you start with the theory, the dogma is built in. Most of the junk science being promoted these days is coming from the far left nutballs and the far right religious nutballs. Most of the press for the junk science goes to the far left nutballs. far . . . . Keith |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
|
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
"Strider" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ... Ah, but they would describe the sky as a darkened haze on a clear afternoon. They would, in spite of evidence to the contrary, go on to blame Bush for the darkened sky. They would repeat this lie continually and people like you would come to believe it. Strider So you like demolishing self-built strawmen? Volker |
"Left wing kookiness"
"Jonathan Ball" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ink.net... Volker Hetzer wrote: "Jonathan Ball" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ink.net... I looked it up, you know? Have a look at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...5666?v=glance. Thanks for posting that. It helps to confirm that the author, Frances Lappe, is a leftwing extremist. So what exactly makes him that? It's a she. 'Frances' is a feminine name; 'Francis' is the masculine spelling. It's her raging anti-market beliefs. Can you imagine Kim Il Sung not eating meat or what exactly makes someone leftwing and extremist in your eyes? Not all leftists are "vegan", but all "vegans" are leftists. Get it, now? "veganism", which is a highly poltically motivated form of vegetarianism, is FUNDAMENTALLY an expression of collectivist/leftist thinking. As I said earlier to someone else, if someone tells me he's "vegan", I know EVERYTHING about his politics; you give me a list of 20 or 30 political issues that generally break down on a left/right political spectrum, and I'll correctly tell you the "vegan's" beliefs on well over 80% of them. You may think I'm kidding, but I have conducted some informal empirical research in usenet newsgroups before on this very claim, and I was absolutely right. Btw, having lived 18 years in east germany I can happily assure you that vegetarianism didn't play any role in that system. Nor in Chechoslovakia, Russia and Poland. I've never visited the other countries. As I said, leftists aren't always "vegan", but "vegans" are always leftists. As I said before in this thread, I have enough counter examples around myself, to express this clearly, conservative vegans. Whatever you state about veganism being political, it's wrong, because from a statistics point of view those two issues are simply unrelated. Volker |
"Left wing kookiness"
"Mike Warren" schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:8O2Eb.744054$9l5.242439@pd7tw2no... "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... I agree. I also try to eat "different" meat which doesn't produce as much CO2, like lobster but I still haven't gotten my government to subsidise this properly. Lots of Greetings! Volker |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:23:06 +0100, "Volker Hetzer"
wrote: "Strider" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ... Ah, but they would describe the sky as a darkened haze on a clear afternoon. They would, in spite of evidence to the contrary, go on to blame Bush for the darkened sky. They would repeat this lie continually and people like you would come to believe it. Strider So you like demolishing self-built strawmen? Volker I don't build them. I burn them. What color is the sky, Liberal? Strider |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
Xref: kermit rec.gardens.edible:65640 rec.gardens:259463 misc.survivalism:501562 misc.rural:115611 rec.backcountry:172445
Robert Sturgeon wrote: On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 02:23:58 GMT, (George Cleveland) wrote: (snips) If that was so, the corporations would not have allowed the imposition of social security taxes, collective bargaining, the SEC, high income taxes, fair housing laws, OSHA, EPA, the ADA, minimum wage laws, all the rest of the post-1933 nanny/security state. But all those - and more - WERE enacted, because the corporations did lose their power. Jeez, I couldn't have made a better case for strict regulation of corporations. Virtually every one of those "nanny" state regulations has made the lives of working people tolerable under capitalism. Without them the existence of capitalism itself would be in doubt. Revolution, *Red revolution* was on the agenda in the U.S. in the 1930s. Laissez-faire capitalism had failed. Roosevelt was able to deflect the demands for radical change by making humane reforms to an inherently inhumane system. Perhaps you don't realize it, but above you have made my case that the corporations did lose their power. "Laissez-faire capitalism had failed." Indeed it had. Except that it hadn't. First of all, there never was a period of "laissez-faire" capitalism. That's a myth perpetuated by leftwing teachers' unions in high school "history" classes for over 60 years. Secondly, the depression was NOT brought on by any "failure" in the market. The depression occurred because the Federal Reserve cut the money supply by some 30%. I don't mean they cut the growth rate of the money supply; they cut the absolute amount of money in circulation by 30%, leading to a massive and uncontrollable deflation. Milton Friedman basically won his Nobel prize in economics for showing this. As to whether industrial capitalism was more humane that the mixed economy of the New Deal/Great Society - that's purely a matter of opinion. I would choose the capitalists over the New Dealers, but it was in the past, right? The arrow of time is apparently a one way street. Their influence was moderated during the 30s but they regained their power during the second world war and by 1948 had succeeded in eviscerating the labor movement. By the 50s they suceeded in eliminating the most creative elements who were opposed to their rule. No American president, including FDR, has ever questioned the basic economic assumptions that guarantees the seat of priviledge that the ruling class believes it deserves. In the 1930s, and still today, the ruling class consisted of the bureaucrats, think tank residents, Congress critters, university presidents and professors, lawyers and the rest of the operational personnel of the security state. Baloney. Ask yourself, "Whose decisions have a greater effect on my day to day life, my boss or my congressman?" That's easy - my Congressman. I don't have a boss. On the other hand, my Congressman (I assume you mean - my Representative) is a Democrat and probably has less influence than my neighbor's dog. If the corporations were really in control, there is no way Martha Stewart and the rest of the accused corporate types would be in any legal trouble at all. In the glory days of rule by the industrialists, the tycoons did much more outrageous things, and generally got away with them. Why would a competitor of Martha Stewart be any thing but pleased that she was in hot water with the feds? Because that means they have good reason to fear for their own safety. FDR's "brain trust" was not made up of corporate CEOs. JFK's "best and brightest" had McNamarra (sp?) from the corporate world, and he was a dismal failure. Same with LBJ - professors, lawyers, politicians. If you mean that not even FDR tried to eliminate the market system and the right to spend one's own time and money more or less as one sees fit - so long as you don't interfere with the governors' view of how public life should be conducted - you are of course correct. He was a control freak, not a communist. The question that hasn't been asked for almost a hundred years in this country is "Who creates wealth, and who has the right to gain the most from its creation?" Oh, it's been debated lots. Surely you're not an advocate of the labor theory of value??? Really - don't bother to open that one. It's ridiculous and I will not respond. Been there - a waste of time and electrons. -- Robert Sturgeon, proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy and the evil gun culture. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:17 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter