On 1/26/07, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 1/25/07, Denny Valliant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thanks, that's much better, now we can dialog :) > > > Yup. I don't think capitalism alone will solve these particular problems > > (pollution, whathaveyou). And for sure not in time, if there is a "time". > > Nor do I think that we're "already doing" enough. > > Neither do I. But capitalism mixed with pressure from environmental > groups mixed with state imposed regulations work to an extent. Some > states may move slower and some faster. Asking the Fed to make blanket > rule changes could cause much damage to the slower moving states. They > might need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
Sweet. Yeah, some things are good for the Fed side (like abortion rights, which wouldn't get upheld in some states, yet is part of "core" America, and things of that nature (slippery slope? ;)). I'm totally in favor of more state power, in some things, but there is a great saying about "mob rule" by some nifty dood... was on the radio the other day... bah. Anyways, it's a tough balancing act. Lincoln had his work cut out fer 'em. Glad we agree capitalism alone isn't going to solve certain problems. > > And I'm pissed at how this Administration has screwed over our kids. > > Our kids probably have it better than any other countries kids do. This is a non-statement. I'm not relating to the rest of the world here, which last I checked, wasn't in too good of shape (by the numbers). I'm talking about how America /could/ have been, vs. how it is, and will now be- for a bit. WE WERE IN THE BLACK, ESSE! And who was it that took us there? Clinton! Someone who the old school (and apparently new school repub^h^h^h^h^h conservatives dislike. (but that's weird, if as you say, Neo-Cons are concerned as to how the US stands "globally"-- Clinton put us in a pretty good spot.)) > > Because of money and prestige. > > Money and prestige screws over our kids? You are fading out again. For want of money and prestige, the current power structure borrowed against our children's futures. WE WERE IN THE BLACK. As in, NOT IN DEBT (sorta, we still owed craploads and whatnot, but still). > > How come Tuna wasn't on the list of things with dangerous levels of > > mercury, even tho it has dangerous levels of mercury? (just for instance- > > there are a ton more crappy, underhanded things like that going on) > > I vaguely remember debating that on this list. The government > recommends you limit tuna and salmon to once a month because of the > high mercury. But they don't want to kill the tuna industry. The tuna industry that lobbied really hard to get off the list. What about those "other" industries? Why was Tuna special? And isn't that sorta anti-capitalistic --manipulating the market? > > Oh, /that's/ what neo-con is supposed to mean!?!? A more liberal con- > > servative? > > Usually it is a bleeding heart liberal that sees the wrong in his ways > and becomes a born again conservative. So Bush Jr., et al, were /liberals/? Wowzers! I've heard the "born again" in relation to them, but it seemed to be more religiously orientated. > > I thought it was that whole "we want the second coming" > > deal, all wrapped up with Israel and whatnot. Not giving a care in the > > world about WTF happens to America. > > Israel is the canary in the Middle-East coalmine. So caring about > Israel is caring about America. We just need people like you to > realize that. I don't buy that, sorry. By supporting Israel, we're getting all sticky with... stuff. Gross stuff. And I like how you avoided the whole religious aspect as to why Bush Jr. is so "concerned" with Israel. Bush Jr. IS pretty religious, right? That would be hard to refute at this point. So, since he had to pull his religion into it, we have to think about the aspects of his "faith". And don't tell me his faith isn't concerned with Israel, and not in a canary/mine-shaft way. I care about the world. Israel is a part of it, so I care, but I'm not all up in Israels butt. I don't think that "they're the good guys", if that's what you're trying to imply about 'em. Why do you think Israel is more important than any of the others? (since that show on PBS about the history of the region-- Turkey sounds pretty interesting. We'll have to ask O to the funky G to elaborate ;) > > Supporting a power-grab the > > likes of which *I've* never seen before. > > I guess that could be said of any group. Bush chose this group and > gave them power. His dad chose realists. Clinton chose ... nevermind. No, every group may /want/ power, or some other sorta glass-half-empty- type-of-deal, but not all are able to use people's emotions and tragic events to usurp things that rightly belong to others. Normally there are checks and balances. I must not remember when Clinton tried to say that legally he didn't have to answer to an entire arm of the government, as I thought we'd all been taught since grade-school. Well, there was that whole thing with congress... but at least there was some friction! My god, look how badly we get screwed when there's nothing but yes men! It's dispicable, and it's not "normal" as you try to imply by saying "everyone does it". I call BS! > > I don't think that neo-con will ever == liberal conservative for me. > > > > Any true conservative would have more problems with the current > > Administration than even a half-assed liberal. Unless I've got the > > whole "conservative/liberal" thing conflated. Totally possible, going > > off of what I thought a new-old'er was (neo con). It's so Orwellian! > > Bush is definitely not a true conservative. Neo-cons are about the > responsibility of being the worlds only superpower and making changes > in places like the middle east rather then sitting back and hoping > they don't notice us. That doesn't mean attacking for no reason as > many think, but to recognize the threats and act. And Ironically, the Neo-cons have taken us down several notches as "the worlds only super power". We might not be the "only one" any more. We certainly lost a good bit of moral ground, one of the best things we had going for us. Thanks alot, Neo-Cons! Way to protect and strengthen a great country! Woot! Soooo much better now!!! > > Not at all dahrling! I'll stick to gender neutral, or perhaps do that him > > for one sentence, her for another. Or use Hir. Heh. So much for my > > crusade to make gender neutral main stream, neh? Just looks silly* :-/. > > *her (or him) (s)he, etc.. Hrmm... we /are/ all "it"s, right? Solved! > > - Samuel Morris Ah! and thus, my joke about you being a manly man (I'd thought I'd caught a tail end of a thread where you said Sam could be a girl's name, and thus---) and loathe being girlie made not much sense. Heh. See, it was supposed to be all clever and whatnot. Bah. Not that a girl couldn't be named Samuel, if I'm /still/ jumping to conclusions. =] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Upgrade to Adobe ColdFusion MX7 Experience Flex 2 & MX7 integration & create powerful cross-platform RIAs http:http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;56760587;14748456;a?http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=LVNU Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:225961 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
