Hail to the chief.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Aha, but...

Originally posted by Frosty
As for calling people wackos, I don't mean the average guy who disagrees with me, I'm glad to entertain any argument a more liberal sensibility is willing to make so long as it's within reason, I mean the way way not average type who'd rather brand me a bigot Satanist Nazi because I like nuclear power.

Speaking of which, and this is just an aside, don't you find it odd that the environmentalist movement backed the California legislature (every wacko is from California ;) )into such a corner over the power plant issue that despite the population of California double in the past few decades, no supplement to the power grid was ever added. And now they all whine about rolling blackouts. Everyone is such a me now, I want, I want, gimmegimme, it's sickening.
Click to expand...

Frosty, most Nazi's were not Satanists, they were protestants who slept with a bible by their bed side and one of their arguments agaisnt the Jews was the old jews killed jesus argument.
THe problem in California is not a lack of power, they have plenty, its just that they de-regulated the cost of power and the prices shot up %5000 and they dont want to pay it so instead they wine and will get gov. aid eventually. Again just because people STRONGLY disagree with you and you STRONGLY disagree with them doesn't make them any more Wacko than you.
Without the Environmentalist movement we would have serious ecological problems with no regualtion over polution, our water would be undrinkable, our air would be filled with clorine and sulferdioxide gasses and the rain would have a PH of 5 or 4, a ph that would kill most life forms.
Finally the Global Cooling bit, I never said that there wasn't any global cooling, but the fact remains that while the climate has changed in every which way, but new data which is far beyond the science of 30 years ago, shows that the change is more than can be expected from just typical changes in climate and whether.
 
but new data which is far beyond the science of 30 years ago, shows that the change is more than can be expected from just typical changes in climate and whether.
Click to expand...

That's the thing. We don't yet know what typical changes in climate amount to. 30 years is nothing in the scheme of the Earth. It really doesn't tell us if something is out of the ordinary or not.

TC
 
Re: Re: Aha, but...

Originally posted by Napoleon
Frosty, most Nazi's were not Satanists, they were protestants who slept with a bible by their bed side and one of their arguments against the Jews was the old Jews killed Jesus argument.
Click to expand...

Oh come on, if you really think that earned you any kind of ground in this debate you're kidding yourself, it's not a valid argument, and there's no one to say I thought or think Nazi were Satanists. I didn't and don't.

Originally posted by Napoleon
THe problem in California is not a lack of power, they have plenty, its just that they de-regulated the cost of power and the prices shot up %5000 and they dont want to pay it so instead they wine and will get gov. aid eventually.
Click to expand...

Don't let the political spin fool you, they only deregulated the cost to providers, not to consumers, so while provider overhead increased, yearly income decreased and their profit margin shrank to nothing.

And if they do ask for government aid, it'll come from your tax dollars, whether you live in California or not. It's so convenient, isn't it? The democrats love to twist things around to "prove" that their ideology is superior, let's go over the facts:

1- Customers pay the same they always have, but providers pay more, the democrats call this deregulation, but it isn't full deregulation, it's a deregulation specifically designed to bankrupt the power companies so the liberals can point to all the conservatives who wanted to deregulate that industry and go "NYAH NYAH!"

2- Companies may ask for aid, wouldn't that be grand? Then the democrats would have another excuse to tax the soul out of the nation.

The conservative point of view isn't bad, it just wants the federal government to keep its fingers out of the people wallets as much as possible, and that's not a bad thing. Which brings me to another point...

Originally posted by Napoleon
Again just because people STRONGLY disagree with you and you STRONGLY disagree with them doesn't make them any more Wacko than you.
Click to expand...

Again, you mistake my line of thinking for your own. You assume that people who strongly disagree with you are wacko, whether you say it or not. I'm sure you're appalled at the way I present things, which is why you're so vehement in your opposition of my point of view.

Fortunately, I do not think that way, my definition of wacko is anyone who exists on the very fringe of society, someone so far to the right or left that they must be categorized in a subset definition, neither Conservative, Moderate, or Liberal, but wacko. You're not a wacko, I'm not a wacko, but there are people who can be classified as wacko. And since the democrats use the term wacko so much, it can't be bad, since the democrats are always right and just. ;)

The typical liberal double-standard morality is quite amusing. One example - You're unoffended at people who scream about oppression of blacks, and of the unfair society we live in, of supporters of affirmative action and that bit. Why? Because you're open-minded, you want to let those people have their point of view, as is lawfully their right as Americans. However, you are deeply offended at people who do not feel that affirmative action is the proper action, and get all huffy and think of us as bigots. You try to stifle us from making our views known. You think this is right, but it isn't. To prove my point, allow me to illustrate a hypothetical situation:

The Nazi party in your town is going to hold a rally in front of City Hall, and the people of the town, offended, file for a restraining order, hoping to keep the Nazis from demonstrating and sharing their ideas. This is tantamount to censorship, and the worst kind of bigotry, it's just as bad as keeping blacks from going to white schools as so many wanted back in the 60s.

Now because I use such an example, many might think me a Nazi supporter - I am not. But if the Nazi party wishes to demonstrate anywhere by my front lawn, they have my permission, because there is no controlling legal authority keeping them from doing so, and a good thing too.

Originally posted by Napoleon
Without the Environmentalist movement we would have serious ecological problems with no regulation over pollution, our water would be undrinkable, our air would be filled with chlorine and sulfer dioxide gasses and the rain would have a PH of 5 or 4, a ph that would kill most life forms.
Click to expand...

Well there's really no way to prove that is there? And I'm not saying that we should abolish environmentalism altogether anyway, you're quite welcome to your point of view, I simply disagree and submit that the nation follow a more moderated path. We don't need to crucify ourselves in a zealous effort to combat a problem that 80% of the scientific community doesn't believe exists. Instead, we should commit ourselves to a path of preventing such occurrences should we ever expand to such a point where we truly can drastically affect nature.

On a final note, anything that might seem accusatory or insulting I greatly apologize for. While I may have said You this and You that, I really meant "You" to mean liberals in general as I assume you to be. Remember:

Conservatives are not bad, we're just conservative ;)
 
And in the next exciting episode of Wing Commander CIC : The Mailbag, we speak to someone who hates us because politics and crap are discussed at the chatzone. Yes folks, he hates us because of the chatzone. Hurrah!
 
Goes to show that there are many that dont have a clue about whats going on other than what they read or see on tv. Unfortunately our society believes what they tell you in newspaper and tv. What governs that, the federal government. Of course they are going to say good things to make it all pretty and bright. Its easy to say there isnt a problem when the problem is not in your backyard. Like I said, come to TX and see for yourself. Or better yet, just wait a couple of years, you Bushy boy fans will be sorry. Dont say I didnt warn you. Ask any Texan about Bush's envoronment policy. Just make shure you ask an everyday joe and not some paid off supporter. Oh and yes I agree with the powers at be here, if you wanna call them that, that this is rediculous. Alot of things here are rediculous! But where in this world are things not rediculous. Carbon dioxide definately depletes ozone, go back to an elementary science class whoever you are that said it didnt. And when you cut down all the trees that take in that carbon dioxide which exchanges that into oxygen for us to breath, whats left eh?

Quote from WCIV "This is the brain case..make good use of it"

RFBurns



[Edited by RFBurns on 01-22-2001 at 12:45]
 
I like to say some things "frosty"
I live in Europe by the way, so I have seen what over 2000 years of "progress" can do to, espacialy after the industrial revolution.
You are right about the ozone, its not Carbon dioxide but something else, besides the lack ozone does not gives global warning. but Carbon dioxide does.
The ozone protects us from UV rays, and that is a cause for skin cancer, its that better that global warning? No, its worse.
Global warning and other clima variations are happening to fast to be the work of "mother nature", its human induce.
Also what was Jr. first thing? Mineral rights over national parks, well if somebody find oil under yellow stone park we just hope that bush is not going to destroy a national park so that the federal budget is going to have one more sorce of revenue, because he can do that.
And the US have to come up with a better way to elect a president, Bush jr. won by less votes that Al Gore, is that democracy?
 
Actually, we are a democratic republic, not a true democracry. The Electoral college was put in to place to help even the playing field between states with large populations and small land area and those with small populations but lots of land. I would have liked to have seen a full recount of the State of Florida, but that isn't what Al Gore asked for initially. He wanted a recount in places where he felt he would have gotten more votes. It was a bad tactical decision on his part to not ask for a full recount of the state, and it cost him in the end. And Bill Clinton did not win a majority in 1992, merely a plurality. He did win more votes than George Bush or Ross Perot, and a lot of Repbulican feel that Clinton stole the election thanks to Ross Perot. The rules of the game say whoever gets 270 electoral votes wins. Bush won 271, Bush is president. Again, if Gore had initially asked for a full Florida recount, I think he would have been on stronger legal footing, and might have won it. He chose the wrong strategy and paid for it in the end.

I'm not sorry to see Clinton gone, but I'm not thrilled with Bush. However, I like his policies on the issues that are most important to me more than Gore's. Bush does come across as a bit of a dim bulb, but I don't have to wonder if some foriegn power could try to blackmail him for getting blow-jobs from the interns. I don't think I'd have to worry about that from Al Gore, either, btw. I do worry about Gore's evasiveness on campaign contributions and did enjoy one sign I saw outside the Supreme Court after the ruling that said Gore finally found a controlling legal authority.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top