Why conservatives should vote for Kerry

[John Atkinson]

<A href="http://www.fortune.com/fortune/investing/articles/0,15114,611869,00.html">http://www.fortune.com/fortune/investing/articles/0,15114,611869,00.html</A>


Food for thought, eh?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Joseph Oberlander]

John Atkinson wrote:

(snip)

Old news.

Kerry is a good choice because first off, he's no real "liberal",
anymore than most of the career politicians are. Maybe somewhere
near the center.

The real reason, though, is to clog the congress up with in-fighting.

No, actually, this is a good thing. The less they are able to pass
and spend and impliment the better off we are. At least the conversion
to a nanny-state like the U.K. will have slowed down more.

Less laws, less controls, less paperwork and legal hurdles. Make
them work out every single decision instead of passing anything
their greedy hearts desire.

P.S. There's actual talk in Washington about creating a U.S.
version of MI-5. Homeland Security Agency. This is a wet dream
of those in power and has been since Hoover started his vision
of it with the CIA.

That they are even *talking* about creating a State Police is
just an example of how much these opportunists need to be
slowed down - so that at least we have time to stop them
from robbing us blind.

[Michael McKelvy]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
om...
> <A
href="http://www.fortune.com/fortune/investing/articles/0,15114,611869,00.ht
ml">http://www.fortune.com/fortune/investing/articles/0,15114,611869,00.html
</A>
>
>
> Food for thought, eh?
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

I may never know. When I click on the above link I go to Fortune, but
there's a message saying the article has been removed, renamed, or removed.

[Schizoid Man]

"Joseph Oberlander" >

(snip)

> P.S. There's actual talk in Washington about creating a U.S.
> version of MI-5. Homeland Security Agency.


Pray educate me on what the difference is between the Department of Homeland
Security and the hypothetical Homeland Security Agency.


This is a wet dream
> of those in power and has been since Hoover started his vision
> of it with the CIA.
>
> That they are even *talking* about creating a State Police is
> just an example of how much these opportunists need to be
> slowed down - so that at least we have time to stop them
> from robbing us blind.
>

[Schizoid Man]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message

> I may never know. When I click on the above link I go to Fortune, but
> there's a message saying the article has been removed, renamed, or
removed.


By professing your computer illiteracy, are you in some oblique way trying
to exemplify your pro-Chrisitan beliefs?

Look, if you want to call us 'liberals' godless for embracing science,
technology, evolution and progress, then don't beat around the bush.

In the meantime, you can read this:
http://www.fortune.com/fortune/investing/articles/0,15114,611869,00.html

;)

[Joseph Oberlander]

Schizoid Man wrote:

> "Joseph Oberlander" >
>
> (snip)
>
>
>>P.S. There's actual talk in Washington about creating a U.S.
>>version of MI-5. Homeland Security Agency.
>
> Pray educate me on what the difference is between the Department of Homeland
> Security and the hypothetical Homeland Security Agency.

Sure. :)

One is charged with security dealing with terrorism and external
threats. The other is a state police that covers everything
and overrides local authority.

Basically it would render the FBI moot and give the new agency
internal CIA-like powers. Truly nasty stuff.

[John Atkinson]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
et>...
>>http://www.fortune.com/fortune/investing/articles/0,15114,611869,00.html>
> When I click on the above link I go to Fortune, but there's a message
> saying the article has been removed, renamed, or removed.

The link works fine; the article has not been removed. Try cut'n'pasting
the URL above into your browser's address window.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Michael McKelvy]

"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>
> > I may never know. When I click on the above link I go to Fortune, but
> > there's a message saying the article has been removed, renamed, or
> removed.
>
>
> By professing your computer illiteracy, are you in some oblique way trying
> to exemplify your pro-Chrisitan beliefs?
>
As an atheist, I have no pro-Christian belifs.

> Look, if you want to call us 'liberals' godless for embracing science,
> technology, evolution and progress, then don't beat around the bush.
>
> In the meantime, you can read this:
> http://www.fortune.com/fortune/investing/articles/0,15114,611869,00.html
>
> ;)
>
It worked when I clicked on the above, it didn't work when I clicked on it
from Atkins post.

If you think I vote for anybody from the GOP, you are sadly mistaken.

If you think that I would be inclined to vote for a Democrat, especially one
as ****ed up as Kerry, you are even more mistaken.

[Michael McKelvy]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
om...
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
> et>...
>
>>http://www.fortune.com/fortune/investing/articles/0,15114,611869,00.html>
> > When I click on the above link I go to Fortune, but there's a message
> > saying the article has been removed, renamed, or removed.
>
> The link works fine; the article has not been removed. Try cut'n'pasting
> the URL above into your browser's address window.
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

I just tried it again from your previous post and it still didn't work. It
works from Schizo's, just not from yours.

[Michael McKelvy]

"The United Stupids of America"

Have you moved here? If not you're lying, again.

> wrote in message
...
> "Michael McKelvy" emitted :
>
>
>>>http://www.fortune.com/fortune/investing/articles/0,15114,611869,00.html>
> >> > When I click on the above link I go to Fortune, but there's a message
> >> > saying the article has been removed, renamed, or removed.
> >>
> >> The link works fine; the article has not been removed. Try
cut'n'pasting
> >> the URL above into your browser's address window.
> >>
> >> John Atkinson
> >> Editor, Stereophile
> >
> >I just tried it again from your previous post and it still didn't work.
It
> >works from Schizo's, just not from yours.
>
> Both posts contain the exact same link. John Atkinson kindly pointed
> out that cutting and pasting the URL would overcome the deficiency in
> your newsreader (clicking the link works fine for me) - however you
> apparently did not actually read his post prior to responding.
>
>
> --
> S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

[Schizoid Man]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message

> "Schizoid Man" > wrote in message

> > You're wasting your breath. He suffers from Bill O'Reilly syndrome -
> > fiercely right-wing and concurrent with conservative Republicans on
every
> > major issue, yet deluding himself and adamantly denying being a
> conservative
> > or ardent Republican.
> >
> Nice attempt at falsely pidgeon-holeing.

Typical McKelvy response. Denial without justification.

Instead of simply calling us 'liberals' treacherous and treasonous, would
you care, for once, to actually supplement your arguments with facts?

> > Among the more memorable McKelvy quotes:
> > "Clinton was the ****ing anti-christ. He let Bin-Laden slip through his
> > fingers."
> >
> > Of course, the fact that UBL is still absconding after slaughtering 3000
> > Americans and the current administration's inability to find him does
not
> > bother him in the least.
> >
> Not in coamparison.

Classic McKelvy. Your response begs elucidation.

This is a disturbing trend. It goes back to our spirited exchange about tax
cuts and the validity of supply-side economics and theories like the Laffer
Curve. After justifying your arguments with misstatements, statistical
fabrications and partisan spin, you began to stonewall my questions on the
holes in your theory and blind support for these tax cuts. What is your
degree in dentistry?

A small suggestion: back up with your declarations with lucid statements
that have their basis in truth and fact.

[Lionel]

dave weil a écrit :

> I'm willing to bet that bin Laden is found or killed in, say, July or
> August.

http://tinyurl.com/3frox

[Michael McKelvy]

"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>
> > "Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
>
> > > You're wasting your breath. He suffers from Bill O'Reilly syndrome -
> > > fiercely right-wing and concurrent with conservative Republicans on
> every
> > > major issue, yet deluding himself and adamantly denying being a
> > conservative
> > > or ardent Republican.
> > >
> > Nice attempt at falsely pidgeon-holeing.
>
> Typical McKelvy response. Denial without justification.
>
> Instead of simply calling us 'liberals' treacherous and treasonous, would
> you care, for once, to actually supplement your arguments with facts?
>

I don't beleive I've ever called liberals treasonous.
Treachery on the part of libeerals is simply a matter of historical record.
They claim to be concerned with the plight of minorities but they endorse
policies designed to keep them dependent. They make claims like the GOP is
cutting funds when they are increasing them, just not as much as the Dems
wanted. They categoricallystate that Saddam has WMD and then claim Bush
lied about them.

The list is endless

> > > Among the more memorable McKelvy quotes:
> > > "Clinton was the ****ing anti-christ. He let Bin-Laden slip through
his
> > > fingers."
> > >
> > > Of course, the fact that UBL is still absconding after slaughtering
3000
> > > Americans and the current administration's inability to find him does
> not
> > > bother him in the least.
> > >
> > Not in comparison.
>
> Classic McKelvy. Your response begs elucidation.
>
> This is a disturbing trend. It goes back to our spirited exchange about
tax
> cuts and the validity of supply-side economics and theories like the
Laffer
> Curve. After justifying your arguments with misstatements, statistical
> fabrications and partisan spin, you began to stonewall my questions on the
> holes in your theory and blind support for these tax cuts. What is your
> degree in dentistry?
>
> A small suggestion: back up with your declarations with lucid statements
> that have their basis in truth and fact.
>
>
>
I have done so on occasion, it doesn't matter to the Bush haters.

One note on my politics, which are consistently misinterpreted. I am not a
conservative Republican and I do not think Bush is a great President, I do
think he is a man of conviction and I do think he is right about the war on
Terror. What I like most about him is that he has got the Left going in
circles and that he has managed to steal virtually every issue that the Dems
used to own.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the Republicans are awful, the
Democrats are worse.

[Schizoid Man]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message

> I have done so on occasion, it doesn't matter to the Bush haters.

I am not one, if that's what you are insinuating. Just a truth seeker.

> One note on my politics, which are consistently misinterpreted. I am not
a
> conservative Republican and I do not think Bush is a great President, I do
> think he is a man of conviction and I do think he is right about the war
on
> Terror.

Stale. I already wrote that you praised the man's "moral clarity". How about
writing something we really don't know. Like what issues you disagree with
him on. The environment? The economy? Separation of powers (in the Cheney
enegy case)? A constitutional ban on gay marriage? Gun control? Tax cuts?
Partial birth abortion? Banning stem cell research? The infusion of 'god' in
every sentence uttered?

>What I like most about him is that he has got the Left going in
> circles and that he has managed to steal virtually every issue that the
Dems
> used to own.

So? He's doing what Clinton did 10 years ago. He stole Republican ideas - he
was tough on crime, balanced budgets and fostered in a very prosperous
decade. Oh wait, the 80s weren't that properous after all...

And Bush has truly stolen Democrat ideas. The deficit is sky high.

> I've said it before and I'll say it again, the Republicans are awful, the
> Democrats are worse.

Like I said, a Republican.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>
> > I have done so on occasion, it doesn't matter to the Bush haters.
>
> I am not one, if that's what you are insinuating. Just a truth seeker.


Then why are you endorsing (or so it seems) any Federal Democrat?

> > One note on my politics, which are consistently misinterpreted. I am
not
> a
> > conservative Republican and I do not think Bush is a great President, I
do
> > think he is a man of conviction and I do think he is right about the
war
> on
> > Terror.
>
> Stale. I already wrote that you praised the man's "moral clarity". How
about
> writing something we really don't know. Like what issues you disagree with
> him on. The environment?

I think the whole Eco babble bull**** is just that, the EPA should be
abolished. Simple laws that proghibit poisoning people out to be enough.

The economy?

Laisez Faire, thank you.

Separation of powers (in the Cheney
> enegy case)?

I'm on Cheney's side.

A constitutional ban on gay marriage?

Ridiculous.

Gun control?

More guns = less crime.

Tax cuts?

More please.

> Partial birth abortion?

Disgusting. Un-neccessary, but not the business of the government. I also
don't beleive the government shoudl fund any abortions.

Banning stem cell research?

Ridiculous. No research should be government funded unless for defense or
some legitimate function of government.

The infusion of 'god' in
> every sentence uttered?
>
His perogative.

> >What I like most about him is that he has got the Left going in
> > circles and that he has managed to steal virtually every issue that the
> Dems
> > used to own.
>
> So? He's doing what Clinton did 10 years ago. He stole Republican ideas -
he
> was tough on crime, balanced budgets and fostered in a very prosperous
> decade.

Clinton claimed all those things, I saw little evidence of him actually
doing anything about them. He only balaced a budget because the GOP got
control.

He had nothing to do with the prosperity of the 90's that I know of.

Oh wait, the 80s weren't that properous after all...
>
> And Bush has truly stolen Democrat ideas. The deficit is sky high.
>

But because it's from a member of the GOP it's a bad thing.

> > I've said it before and I'll say it again, the Republicans are awful,
the
> > Democrats are worse.
>
> Like I said, a Republican.
>
Wrong again. I voted for 2 Republicans in my life. Dole and McClintock.

I have never voted for a Democrat.

[Jacob Kramer]

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 21:02:13 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:

>I've said it before and I'll say it again, the Republicans are awful, the
>Democrats are worse.

So please, tell us what's so awful about how they're carrying out the
war on terrorism, specifically the Bush administration's actions
leading up to 9/11.


--

Jacob Kramer

[Jacob Kramer]

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 02:10:06 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:

>Laisez Faire, thank you.

Yes bring back child labor and 12-hour workdays! Fire escapes and
safety guards for machinery? Who needs em!

--

Jacob Kramer

[Michael McKelvy]

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 02:10:06 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
>
> >Laisez Faire, thank you.
>
> Yes bring back child labor and 12-hour workdays! Fire escapes and
> safety guards for machinery? Who needs em!
>
Any business owner who wouln't want to be sued.
>
> Jacob Kramer

[Michael McKelvy]

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 21:02:13 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
>
> >I've said it before and I'll say it again, the Republicans are awful, the
> >Democrats are worse.
>
> So please, tell us what's so awful about how they're carrying out the
> war on terrorism, specifically the Bush administration's actions
> leading up to 9/11.
>
>
It's been done awfully fast and awfully well.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Michael McKelvy -
. net> -
> mardi 27 Avril 2004 23:02 wrote:
>
> Hey McKelvy, it seems that you have received an invitation, will you
accept
> it ?
>
> Mickey, the republican party needs your sacrifice... ;o)
>
I don't do sacrifice.

[Jacob Kramer]

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 06:18:32 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:

>
>"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 02:10:06 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Laisez Faire, thank you.
>>
>> Yes bring back child labor and 12-hour workdays! Fire escapes and
>> safety guards for machinery? Who needs em!
>>
>Any business owner who wouln't want to be sued.

They couldn't be sued if there were laissez-faire. They wouldn't be
guilty of anything if there were no child labor laws or regulations of
workplace safety.

--

Jacob Kramer

[Jacob Kramer]

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 06:19:32 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:

>
>"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 21:02:13 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >I've said it before and I'll say it again, the Republicans are awful, the
>> >Democrats are worse.
>>
>> So please, tell us what's so awful about how they're carrying out the
>> war on terrorism, specifically the Bush administration's actions
>> leading up to 9/11.
>>
>>
>It's been done awfully fast and awfully well.

You are clearly guilty of the bias you see in others.

--

Jacob Kramer

[Schizoid Man]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>
> "Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message

> > On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 21:02:13 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >I've said it before and I'll say it again, the Republicans are awful,
the
> > >Democrats are worse.
> >
> > So please, tell us what's so awful about how they're carrying out the
> > war on terrorism, specifically the Bush administration's actions
> > leading up to 9/11.
> >
> >
> It's been done awfully fast and awfully well.


Awfully well? Where's Osama? Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Why
did we re-assign precious resources from hunting Osama and the real al-Qaeda
to go after Saddam and his non-existent nukes?

Fast, yes. Well, yes. Awfully well, not so sure.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 06:18:32 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 02:10:06 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >Laisez Faire, thank you.
> >>
> >> Yes bring back child labor and 12-hour workdays! Fire escapes and
> >> safety guards for machinery? Who needs em!
> >>
> >Any business owner who wouln't want to be sued.
>
> They couldn't be sued if there were laissez-faire.

You are mistaken.

They wouldn't be
> guilty of anything if there were no child labor laws or regulations of
> workplace safety.
>
Nobdoy can be forced to work anyplace they don't think is safe. Nobody can
be forced to do an unsafe task.

Child labor laws are the same. Nobody can force anybody to work. There are
however situations where tasks are suitable for children to perform and get
paid.

I would rather myself and my children work than create a monstrosity like
the welfare state.

> --
>
> Jacob Kramer

[Robert Morein]

On 4/29/04 17:03, in article
et, "Joseph Oberlander"
> wrote:

> You know, they said that we were terrorists in 1776.


Who's "they"? No one said any such thing.

The closest you'll get is "rebel", a long way from terrorist.

[Bruce J. Richman]

Robert Morein wrote:


>On 4/29/04 17:03, in article
et, "Joseph Oberlander"
> wrote:
>
>> You know, they said that we were terrorists in 1776.
>
>
>Who's "they"? No one said any such thing.
>
>The closest you'll get is "rebel", a long way from terrorist.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

"Johnny Yuma was a rebel".

Time to cue up some Man in Black - gone, but not forgotten.



Bruce J. Richman

[Jacob Kramer]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message et>...

> I don't know what he could have done differently based on what was known at
> the time.
> With hindsight being 20/20 I'm sure we can think of things but that's not
> really fair.

As a factual matter it's possible to point out mistakes without saying
they shouldn't have been made. If you are unable to do this, that
would show an unreasonable bias toward Bush.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
om...
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
et>...
>
> > I don't know what he could have done differently based on what was known
at
> > the time.
> > With hindsight being 20/20 I'm sure we can think of things but that's
not
> > really fair.
>
> As a factual matter it's possible to point out mistakes without saying
> they shouldn't have been made. If you are unable to do this, that
> would show an unreasonable bias toward Bush.

Not if I would hold the same standard for Democrat President or any other.

[Jacob Kramer]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message et>...
> "Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
> om...

> > > I don't know what he could have done differently based on what was known
> at
> > > the time.
> > > With hindsight being 20/20 I'm sure we can think of things but that's
> not
> > > really fair.
> >
> > As a factual matter it's possible to point out mistakes without saying
> > they shouldn't have been made. If you are unable to do this, that
> > would show an unreasonable bias toward Bush.
>
> Not if I would hold the same standard for Democrat President or any other.

That's very generous of you, but it was a Republican and not a
Democrat that was president. This allows you to blame a Democrat,
Clinton, and hold a Republican blameless, Bush. This is a double
standard and a bias that also doesn't make any sense from an empirical
view. Whether he make mistakes or not is an empirical question, not a
moral question. That you are unwilling to observe the mistakes he has
made is a very clear indication of your bias.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
om...
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
et>...
> > "Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
> > om...
>
> > > > I don't know what he could have done differently based on what was
known
> > at
> > > > the time.
> > > > With hindsight being 20/20 I'm sure we can think of things but
that's
> > not
> > > > really fair.
> > >
> > > As a factual matter it's possible to point out mistakes without saying
> > > they shouldn't have been made. If you are unable to do this, that
> > > would show an unreasonable bias toward Bush.
> >
> > Not if I would hold the same standard for Democrat President or any
other.
>
> That's very generous of you, but it was a Republican and not a
> Democrat that was president. This allows you to blame a Democrat,

I wouldn't blame anybody for 9/11 unless there was clear intel that was
ignored.
There wasn't

> Clinton, and hold a Republican blameless, Bush.

I don't hold Clinton at fault for 9/11 nor would I if he were president at
the time.
My beef with Clinton in this is that he let OBL slip through his fingers.
Having OBL in custody would not have prevented
9/11 in any case but it certainly would have been a demoralizing blow to Al
Quaeda.

This is a double
> standard and a bias that also doesn't make any sense from an empirical
> view.

It doesn't make sense because it is not my view. I can't say it any more
clearly than I have repeatedly done so.
The person(s) to blame for 9/11 are Al Quaeda and Bin Ladin, not anyone from
the U.S. governent. It would
have been nice if we had followed through on the recomendations made by the
Comission that Gore headed up,
but neither administration did.

Whether he make mistakes or not is an empirical question, not a
> moral question.

I think it's both.

That you are unwilling to observe the mistakes he has
> made is a very clear indication of your bias.

What mistakes do you think Bush made that led to 9/11?
Clearly you think there were some, but just ask yourself if
Clinton or any other Democrat wouldn't have made the same ones.
Remember the PDB that everybody was so excited about didn't contain any real
evidence
that was new or that a reasonable person wouldn't think were already been
handled.

[Jacob Kramer]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message t>...
> "Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
> et>...
> > > "Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
> > > om...
>
> > > > > I don't know what he could have done differently based on what was
> known
> at
> > > > > the time.
> > > > > With hindsight being 20/20 I'm sure we can think of things but
> that's
> not
> > > > > really fair.
> > > >
> > > > As a factual matter it's possible to point out mistakes without saying
> > > > they shouldn't have been made. If you are unable to do this, that
> > > > would show an unreasonable bias toward Bush.
> > >
> > > Not if I would hold the same standard for Democrat President or any
> other.
> >
> > That's very generous of you, but it was a Republican and not a
> > Democrat that was president. This allows you to blame a Democrat,
>
> I wouldn't blame anybody for 9/11 unless there was clear intel that was
> ignored.
> There wasn't
>
> > Clinton, and hold a Republican blameless, Bush.
>
> I don't hold Clinton at fault for 9/11 nor would I if he were president at
> the time.
> My beef with Clinton in this is that he let OBL slip through his fingers.
> Having OBL in custody would not have prevented
> 9/11 in any case but it certainly would have been a demoralizing blow to Al
> Quaeda.

You don't blame him but you blame him. This is a clear contradiction.

> This is a double
> > standard and a bias that also doesn't make any sense from an empirical
> > view.
>
> It doesn't make sense because it is not my view. I can't say it any more
> clearly than I have repeatedly done so.
> The person(s) to blame for 9/11 are Al Quaeda and Bin Ladin, not anyone from
> the U.S. governent. It would
> have been nice if we had followed through on the recomendations made by the
> Comission that Gore headed up,
> but neither administration did.

And furthermore it's not your view that you blame him but don't blame
him.

So you're saying Bush should have implemented some of Gore's
recommendations?

> Whether he make mistakes or not is an empirical question, not a
> > moral question.
>
> I think it's both.

It may have moral implications but those shouldn't stop you from
making an empirical observation. That you are unwilling to do so
reveals your deeply partisan understanding of fact.

> That you are unwilling to observe the mistakes he has
> > made is a very clear indication of your bias.
>
> What mistakes do you think Bush made that led to 9/11?
> Clearly you think there were some, but just ask yourself if
> Clinton or any other Democrat wouldn't have made the same ones.
> Remember the PDB that everybody was so excited about didn't contain any real
> evidence
> that was new or that a reasonable person wouldn't think were already been
> handled.

This is a hook designed to divert attention from your own
unsupportable bias to something you can make your silly little
arguments against. I have no interest in arguing about the specific
failings of the Bush administration with you because you have shown no
willingness so far to admit the possibility of even one failing. From
the start that rules out the possibility of a meaningful discussion.

That said, I haven't found much in the staff reports of the 9/11
commission to disagree with.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements.htm

These reports are highly readable, incredibly well researched, and
highly detailed. There were ****-ups too numerous to count at every
level of the Bush administration from the INS to the FBI to the CIA to
the cabinet and Oval Office. This was the most serious national
security failure in the history of the United States and calls not
only for serious restructuring of the government but also throws into
question the competence of much of the personnel in place.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
om...
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
t>...
> > "Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
> > et>...
> > > > "Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
> > > > om...
> >
> > > > > > I don't know what he could have done differently based on what
was
> > known
> > at
> > > > > > the time.
> > > > > > With hindsight being 20/20 I'm sure we can think of things but
> > that's
> > not
> > > > > > really fair.
> > > > >
> > > > > As a factual matter it's possible to point out mistakes without
saying
> > > > > they shouldn't have been made. If you are unable to do this, that
> > > > > would show an unreasonable bias toward Bush.
> > > >
> > > > Not if I would hold the same standard for Democrat President or any
> > other.
> > >
> > > That's very generous of you, but it was a Republican and not a
> > > Democrat that was president. This allows you to blame a Democrat,
> >
> > I wouldn't blame anybody for 9/11 unless there was clear intel that was
> > ignored.
> > There wasn't
> >
> > > Clinton, and hold a Republican blameless, Bush.
> >
> > I don't hold Clinton at fault for 9/11 nor would I if he were president
at
> > the time.
> > My beef with Clinton in this is that he let OBL slip through his
fingers.
> > Having OBL in custody would not have prevented
> > 9/11 in any case but it certainly would have been a demoralizing blow to
Al
> > Quaeda.
>
> You don't blame him but you blame him. This is a clear contradiction.
>

Not if you string a couple of neurons together. I don't blame Clinton for
9/11.
Capturing OBL would not have prevented 9/11.
OBL is a terrorist, therefore when he was offered up by the Sudanese, the
responible thing to do would have been to take him.
They are separate issues, no contradictions.

> > This is a double
> > > standard and a bias that also doesn't make any sense from an empirical
> > > view.
> >
> > It doesn't make sense because it is not my view. I can't say it any
more
> > clearly than I have repeatedly done so.
> > The person(s) to blame for 9/11 are Al Quaeda and Bin Ladin, not anyone
from
> > the U.S. governent. It would
> > have been nice if we had followed through on the recomendations made by
the
> > Comission that Gore headed up,
> > but neither administration did.
>
> And furthermore it's not your view that you blame him but don't blame
> him.
>
Do you think it was a responsible thing to do, to let OBL get away?
I don't, so on that issue I can find fault. I've said it at lest 3 times,
capturing OBL would not have
stopped 9/11, but he should have been taken into custody.

> So you're saying Bush should have implemented some of Gore's
> recommendations?
>
I'm saying both Clinton and Bush did not implement them.
Do try to follow along, won't you?

> > Whether he make mistakes or not is an empirical question, not a
> > > moral question.
> >
> > I think it's both.
>
> It may have moral implications but those shouldn't stop you from
> making an empirical observation. That you are unwilling to do so
> reveals your deeply partisan understanding of fact.
>
> > That you are unwilling to observe the mistakes he has
> > > made is a very clear indication of your bias.
> >
> > What mistakes do you think Bush made that led to 9/11?
> > Clearly you think there were some, but just ask yourself if
> > Clinton or any other Democrat wouldn't have made the same ones.
> > Remember the PDB that everybody was so excited about didn't contain any
real
> > evidence
> > that was new or that a reasonable person wouldn't think were already
been
> > handled.
>
> This is a hook designed to divert attention from your own
> unsupportable bias to something you can make your silly little
> arguments against. I have no interest in arguing about the specific
> failings of the Bush administration with you because you have shown no
> willingness so far to admit the possibility of even one failing.

I have no interest in playing your blame game.
I don't know what could have been done to prevent 9/11 that would have
not been opposed by the Democrats who would have filibustered it, and by the
ACLU
who are still trying to get the patriot act thrown out.

From
> the start that rules out the possibility of a meaningful discussion.
>
You're the one dancing. I don't have a problem with the Bush administration
over 9/11. I wouldn't
be blaming any other administration for it no matter who was in office. The
correct theing to do is fix what can be fixed to prevent
it from happening again and kill or bring to justice those who had anything
to do with perpetrating it.

> That said, I haven't found much in the staff reports of the 9/11
> commission to disagree with.
>
> http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements.htm
>
> These reports are highly readable, incredibly well researched, and
> highly detailed. There were ****-ups too numerous to count at every
> level of the Bush administration from the INS to the FBI to the CIA to
> the cabinet and Oval Office.

Of course there were, he's a Republican.

This was the most serious national
> security failure in the history of the United States and calls not
> only for serious restructuring of the government but also throws into
> question the competence of much of the personnel in place.

It also calls into question the hypocrisy of the left, since they would have
fought tooth and nail and have done, on anything that benefits national
security.
They have systematically voted against every weapons system, budget increase
or rule change that would help the U.S. gather intelligence or defend
itself.
Then they have the ****ing nerve to call those who choose to do something
about it, blood thirsty philistines.

[Jacob Kramer]

On Sun, 02 May 2004 00:17:45 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:

>"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
om...

>> So you're saying Bush should have implemented some of Gore's
>> recommendations?
>>
>I'm saying both Clinton and Bush did not implement them.
>Do try to follow along, won't you?

What suggestions of Gore's should Bush have implemented?

--

Jacob Kramer

[Michael McKelvy]

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 02 May 2004 00:17:45 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
>
> >"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> >> So you're saying Bush should have implemented some of Gore's
> >> recommendations?
> >>
> >I'm saying both Clinton and Bush did not implement them.
> >Do try to follow along, won't you?
>
> What suggestions of Gore's should Bush have implemented?
>
> --
>
I don't believe they were Gore's per se, but the commission recommended more
airport security, among other things, which the airlines balked at and so
the Clinton administration did nothing about it. We'll never know if given
time, the Bush administration might have.

[Jacob Kramer]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message et>...
> "Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 06:18:32 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 02:10:06 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > >> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >Laisez Faire, thank you.
> > >>
> > >> Yes bring back child labor and 12-hour workdays! Fire escapes and
> > >> safety guards for machinery? Who needs em!
> > >>
> > >Any business owner who wouln't want to be sued.
> >
> > They couldn't be sued if there were laissez-faire.
>
> You are mistaken.
>
> They wouldn't be
> > guilty of anything if there were no child labor laws or regulations of
> > workplace safety.
> >
> Nobdoy can be forced to work anyplace they don't think is safe. Nobody can
> be forced to do an unsafe task.
>
> Child labor laws are the same. Nobody can force anybody to work. There are
> however situations where tasks are suitable for children to perform and get
> paid.
>
> I would rather myself and my children work than create a monstrosity like
> the welfare state.

Here are some of the miracles of the unregulated free market in newly
liberalizing China:


May 5, 2004
Infants in Chinese City Starve on Protein-Short Formula
By JIM YARDLEY

UYANG, China, April 29 - The containers were sealed in plastic, each
filled with baby formula that Zhang Linwei and his wife fed to their
tiny daughter. Over time, as the baby ate more formula, her cheeks
grew fat as balloons, seemingly a sign of good health. Only later did
her parents learn it was a sign of starvation.

Their 5-month-old baby, Rongrong, died last August after doctors told
her parents that the low-cost milk powder they had been using was
fake.

They and hundreds of other parents here in central China unwittingly
bought bad formula, in which nutritional supplements had been replaced
with starch or sugar. Nearly 200 other babies, including at least 13
who died, now have what local residents call "big head disease."

It is a local scam that has resonated into a nationwide scandal, a
cruel reminder of how China's problem with fakes and counterfeits
extends far beyond knockoff brand clothes and pirated DVD's. With new
products filling shelves, consumer protection is often nonexistent,
particularly in the poorest regions, which often become dumping
grounds for cheap, unregulated goods.

Food safety is a recurring problem, with regular reports of poisonings
at school cafeterias and restaurants. Yet the baby formula scandal has
become blaring news in this nation of doting parents because of its
predatory, venal quality: manufacturers, unhindered by government,
reaped profits by marketing useless powder for infants.

"At the hospital, when I learned they couldn't save my baby I couldn't
help crying," Mr. Zhang said. "These babies are really innocent.
Whatever you give them to eat and drink, they will take it."

The scandal was publicized in a report on state television on April
19, and the next day Prime Minister Wen Jiabao sent a special
investigation team here. Officials arrested at least 22 people
involved in making and selling the formula.

Investigators blamed illegal manufacturers throughout China for the
problem and reported that 45 brands sold in Fuyang and elsewhere were
substandard. But as the government-controlled news media hailed
Beijing's response, another fact became known. Reports of the problem
had been percolating in Fuyang for almost a year without any
significant action being taken. A few parents like Mr. Zhang had even
pressed local disease control officials to test packets of formula.
His packet contained only 2 percent protein; the national standard is
about 12 percent.

Yet officials here in Anhui Province did not remove the fake formula
from the stores until April, after Prime Minister Wen ordered his
investigation, according to local parents and national media reports.
What is unclear is whether local officials knowingly allowed the
powder to be sold, perhaps for kickbacks. Officials in Fuyang declined
repeated telephone requests for interviews.

"Poor government administration is a key here," said Zhang Shouli, a
rural affairs advocate and market researcher who has traveled around
Fuyang. "Unless the government steps in, there are always people who
will produce those products."

Located in the impoverished wheat belt of central China, Fuyang is a
gritty railroad center with a reputation for corruption and little
government oversight. A former mayor was recently executed on charges
of corruption, including taking bribes. A local airport built at
enormous cost sits virtually unused.

The city also has many wholesale markets selling illegal or
substandard products. Zhang Linwei, the father, lives in one of the
villages outside Fuyang, where he earns about $60 a month making
bricks at a kiln.

His daughter Rongrong was born in March 2003, and since his wife, Liu
Li, could not produce enough breast milk, he began spending about $11
a month on formula. They chose a low-cost brand recommended by a
friend, and his daughter consumed a container every two or three days.

But when Rongrong was 4 months old she developed skin rashes, and her
face swelled. Alarmed, Mr. Zhang and his wife took her to an
unlicensed doctor, who did little.

They tried another brand of formula, but the baby refused to eat it.
Two weeks later they took her to the main hospital in Fuyang, where
doctors say her body was so underdeveloped that they could not find a
usable vein for a transfusion.

"The doctor said the baby had malnutrition due to milk powder," Mr.
Zhang recalled. After a week in the hospital, doctors told him to take
her home. She died the next day.

"She didn't grow," Mr. Zhang said. "From birth to death she had almost
no increase in weight."

Ms. Liu, the mother, collapsed in shock when her daughter died. "I'm
very sad," she said. "I didn't know this milk was bad."

The problem is concentrated in Fuyang, but sick babies have also been
reported in Beijing and in the southern city of Guangzhou. Government
news media reported that a spot check of baby formula in stores in
populous Guangdong Province had found that 33 percent of the brands
did not meet national standards. Some brands tested in Fuyang had less
than 1 percent protein.

The scandal has already brought calls for greater regulation, and the
official news media have reported that China's highest prosecutorial
agency intends to open a nationwide investigation of rampant
counterfeit products.

But such initiatives would require a level of accountability that is
often lacking. An immediate problem, exposed during the outbreaks of
SARS and avian influenza, is that China's Food and Drug Administration
has little real regulatory power.

A nationwide survey last year of 2,000 food products found that almost
20 percent did not meet national health standards. In March, the state
news media reported that of the 106,000 food companies in China, only
17,900 were licensed.

Most of all, consumers rarely feel empowered to complain.

"Local farmers and peasants don't know to pursue their rights," said
Gao Zheng, a local resident whose persistent efforts to push officials
in Fuyang helped publicize the scandal.

Mr. Gao, whose infant niece was hospitalized last year, said he had to
pay for local officials to test his baby formula and prove it was
fake. Earlier this year, he said, a local consumer protection official
arranged for a series of meetings with a baby formula distributor to
discuss reimbursing. But he said the meetings had been fruitless.

Outside the main People's Hospital in Fuyang, Zhu Wen, a migrant
worker, waited with his wife and their infant son. The baby's head was
swollen from months of taking Good Baby milk formula.

The father said the child's hair had fallen out and pointed to the
scaly, irritated skin on his son's scalp. He used Good Baby because it
cost half the price of other brands.

"These companies are taking advantage of our poverty," Mr. Zhu said in
a later interview away from the hospital. "They should be punished or
executed."

He said his family was still paying off other medical debts and could
not afford to take their son to a hospital when he first became sick.
This week they went to People's Hospital because of reports that sick
babies would receive free care. But he said doctors had told him he
must pay $120, almost two months' wages.

He was waiting to see if someone would help him. If not, he said his
only recourse would be to return home.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Michael McKelvy]

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
om...
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
et>...
> > "Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 06:18:32 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >> On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 02:10:06 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >Laisez Faire, thank you.
> > > >>
> > > >> Yes bring back child labor and 12-hour workdays! Fire escapes and
> > > >> safety guards for machinery? Who needs em!
> > > >>
> > > >Any business owner who wouln't want to be sued.
> > >
> > > They couldn't be sued if there were laissez-faire.
> >
> > You are mistaken.
> >
> > They wouldn't be
> > > guilty of anything if there were no child labor laws or regulations of
> > > workplace safety.
> > >
> > Nobdoy can be forced to work anyplace they don't think is safe. Nobody
can
> > be forced to do an unsafe task.
> >
> > Child labor laws are the same. Nobody can force anybody to work. There
are
> > however situations where tasks are suitable for children to perform and
get
> > paid.
> >
> > I would rather myself and my children work than create a monstrosity
like
> > the welfare state.
>
> Here are some of the miracles of the unregulated free market in newly
> liberalizing China:
>
>
That you compare China to the U.S. is a symtom of your disconnect from
reality.

> May 5, 2004
> Infants in Chinese City Starve on Protein-Short Formula
> By JIM YARDLEY
>
> UYANG, China, April 29 - The containers were sealed in plastic, each
> filled with baby formula that Zhang Linwei and his wife fed to their
> tiny daughter. Over time, as the baby ate more formula, her cheeks
> grew fat as balloons, seemingly a sign of good health. Only later did
> her parents learn it was a sign of starvation.
>
> Their 5-month-old baby, Rongrong, died last August after doctors told
> her parents that the low-cost milk powder they had been using was
> fake.

And you don't think theis sort of thing would be actionable here?

> They and hundreds of other parents here in central China unwittingly
> bought bad formula, in which nutritional supplements had been replaced
> with starch or sugar. Nearly 200 other babies, including at least 13
> who died, now have what local residents call "big head disease."
>
> It is a local scam that has resonated into a nationwide scandal, a
> cruel reminder of how China's problem with fakes and counterfeits
> extends far beyond knockoff brand clothes and pirated DVD's. With new
> products filling shelves, consumer protection is often nonexistent,
> particularly in the poorest regions, which often become dumping
> grounds for cheap, unregulated goods.
>
> Food safety is a recurring problem, with regular reports of poisonings
> at school cafeterias and restaurants. Yet the baby formula scandal has
> become blaring news in this nation of doting parents because of its
> predatory, venal quality: manufacturers, unhindered by government,
> reaped profits by marketing useless powder for infants.
>
> "At the hospital, when I learned they couldn't save my baby I couldn't
> help crying," Mr. Zhang said. "These babies are really innocent.
> Whatever you give them to eat and drink, they will take it."
>
> The scandal was publicized in a report on state television on April
> 19, and the next day Prime Minister Wen Jiabao sent a special
> investigation team here. Officials arrested at least 22 people
> involved in making and selling the formula.
>
> Investigators blamed illegal manufacturers throughout China for the
> problem and reported that 45 brands sold in Fuyang and elsewhere were
> substandard. But as the government-controlled news media hailed
> Beijing's response, another fact became known. Reports of the problem
> had been percolating in Fuyang for almost a year without any
> significant action being taken. A few parents like Mr. Zhang had even
> pressed local disease control officials to test packets of formula.
> His packet contained only 2 percent protein; the national standard is
> about 12 percent.
>
> Yet officials here in Anhui Province did not remove the fake formula
> from the stores until April, after Prime Minister Wen ordered his
> investigation, according to local parents and national media reports.
> What is unclear is whether local officials knowingly allowed the
> powder to be sold, perhaps for kickbacks. Officials in Fuyang declined
> repeated telephone requests for interviews.
>
> "Poor government administration is a key here," said Zhang Shouli, a
> rural affairs advocate and market researcher who has traveled around
> Fuyang. "Unless the government steps in, there are always people who
> will produce those products."
>
When companies like this are sued out of existence they tend to go away.
There would be scores of lawyers lining up to take such cases.

> Located in the impoverished wheat belt of central China, Fuyang is a
> gritty railroad center with a reputation for corruption and little
> government oversight. A former mayor was recently executed on charges
> of corruption, including taking bribes. A local airport built at
> enormous cost sits virtually unused.
>
> The city also has many wholesale markets selling illegal or
> substandard products.

So the laws meant to stop this aren't being enforced, and your solution is
what, more laws?

Zhang Linwei, the father, lives in one of the
> villages outside Fuyang, where he earns about $60 a month making
> bricks at a kiln.
>
> His daughter Rongrong was born in March 2003, and since his wife, Liu
> Li, could not produce enough breast milk, he began spending about $11
> a month on formula. They chose a low-cost brand recommended by a
> friend, and his daughter consumed a container every two or three days.
>
> But when Rongrong was 4 months old she developed skin rashes, and her
> face swelled. Alarmed, Mr. Zhang and his wife took her to an
> unlicensed doctor, who did little.
>
> They tried another brand of formula, but the baby refused to eat it.
> Two weeks later they took her to the main hospital in Fuyang, where
> doctors say her body was so underdeveloped that they could not find a
> usable vein for a transfusion.
>
> "The doctor said the baby had malnutrition due to milk powder," Mr.
> Zhang recalled. After a week in the hospital, doctors told him to take
> her home. She died the next day.
>
> "She didn't grow," Mr. Zhang said. "From birth to death she had almost
> no increase in weight."
>
> Ms. Liu, the mother, collapsed in shock when her daughter died. "I'm
> very sad," she said. "I didn't know this milk was bad."
>
> The problem is concentrated in Fuyang, but sick babies have also been
> reported in Beijing and in the southern city of Guangzhou. Government
> news media reported that a spot check of baby formula in stores in
> populous Guangdong Province had found that 33 percent of the brands
> did not meet national standards. Some brands tested in Fuyang had less
> than 1 percent protein.
>
> The scandal has already brought calls for greater regulation, and the
> official news media have reported that China's highest prosecutorial
> agency intends to open a nationwide investigation of rampant
> counterfeit products.
>
> But such initiatives would require a level of accountability that is
> often lacking.

It requires law enforcement. It requires people assume some responsibilty
for their lives.

An immediate problem, exposed during the outbreaks of
> SARS and avian influenza, is that China's Food and Drug Administration
> has little real regulatory power.
>
They had enough to lie about it and to quarentine people when the lies
became known.

> A nationwide survey last year of 2,000 food products found that almost
> 20 percent did not meet national health standards.

Once again nothing to with Laisez Faire, but with enforcement.

In March, the state
> news media reported that of the 106,000 food companies in China, only
> 17,900 were licensed.
>
> Most of all, consumers rarely feel empowered to complain.
>
We don't have that problem.

> "Local farmers and peasants don't know to pursue their rights," said
> Gao Zheng, a local resident whose persistent efforts to push officials
> in Fuyang helped publicize the scandal.
>
One of the penalties for not having a free press.

> Mr. Gao, whose infant niece was hospitalized last year, said he had to
> pay for local officials to test his baby formula and prove it was
> fake. Earlier this year, he said, a local consumer protection official
> arranged for a series of meetings with a baby formula distributor to
> discuss reimbursing. But he said the meetings had been fruitless.
>
> Outside the main People's Hospital in Fuyang, Zhu Wen, a migrant
> worker, waited with his wife and their infant son. The baby's head was
> swollen from months of taking Good Baby milk formula.
>
> The father said the child's hair had fallen out and pointed to the
> scaly, irritated skin on his son's scalp. He used Good Baby because it
> cost half the price of other brands.
>
> "These companies are taking advantage of our poverty," Mr. Zhu said in
> a later interview away from the hospital. "They should be punished or
> executed."
>
> He said his family was still paying off other medical debts and could
> not afford to take their son to a hospital when he first became sick.
> This week they went to People's Hospital because of reports that sick
> babies would receive free care. But he said doctors had told him he
> must pay $120, almost two months' wages.
>
> He was waiting to see if someone would help him. If not, he said his
> only recourse would be to return home.
>
> Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

Thank you for the irrelevant propaganda piece.

[Joseph Oberlander]

Of course, the question is - if you are THAT poor, why not
just breast-feed the child? We did with our son and it saved
an amazing amount of money(we weren't poor, just frugal),
plus he's really healthy. Healthier than both of us put together.

Heh.

[Jacob Kramer]

On Wed, 05 May 2004 20:23:44 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
> wrote:

>Of course, the question is - if you are THAT poor, why not
>just breast-feed the child? We did with our son and it saved
>an amazing amount of money(we weren't poor, just frugal),
>plus he's really healthy. Healthier than both of us put together.
>
>Heh.

It said in the story that one of the families discussed resorted to
formula because the mother was too poorly nourished to produce enough
breast milk.

--

Jacob Kramer

[Jacob Kramer]

On Wed, 05 May 2004 19:07:07 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:

>> May 5, 2004
>> Infants in Chinese City Starve on Protein-Short Formula
>> By JIM YARDLEY
>>
>> UYANG, China, April 29 - The containers were sealed in plastic, each
>> filled with baby formula that Zhang Linwei and his wife fed to their
>> tiny daughter. Over time, as the baby ate more formula, her cheeks
>> grew fat as balloons, seemingly a sign of good health. Only later did
>> her parents learn it was a sign of starvation.
>>
>> Their 5-month-old baby, Rongrong, died last August after doctors told
>> her parents that the low-cost milk powder they had been using was
>> fake.
>
>And you don't think theis sort of thing would be actionable here?

It would be, but I would have thought because of the Pure Food and
Drug Act. I.e. regulation. I thought before such regulation it was
pretty much caveat emptor. Am I wrong about this?

>> "Poor government administration is a key here," said Zhang Shouli, a
>> rural affairs advocate and market researcher who has traveled around
>> Fuyang. "Unless the government steps in, there are always people who
>> will produce those products."
>>
>When companies like this are sued out of existence they tend to go away.
>There would be scores of lawyers lining up to take such cases.

Again sued on what basis? Common law? I don't think this was too
common in the U.S. for adulterated food and harmful products before
regulation.

>> Located in the impoverished wheat belt of central China, Fuyang is a
>> gritty railroad center with a reputation for corruption and little
>> government oversight. A former mayor was recently executed on charges
>> of corruption, including taking bribes. A local airport built at
>> enormous cost sits virtually unused.
>>
>> The city also has many wholesale markets selling illegal or
>> substandard products.
>
>So the laws meant to stop this aren't being enforced, and your solution is
>what, more laws?

Well are you in favor of enforcing such regulations? I thought you
were opposed to them.

>> But such initiatives would require a level of accountability that is
>> often lacking.
>
>It requires law enforcement. It requires people assume some responsibilty
>for their lives.

Again, you are saying you are in favor of regulations and their
enforcement?

> An immediate problem, exposed during the outbreaks of
>> SARS and avian influenza, is that China's Food and Drug Administration
>> has little real regulatory power.
>>
>They had enough to lie about it and to quarentine people when the lies
>became known.
>
>> A nationwide survey last year of 2,000 food products found that almost
>> 20 percent did not meet national health standards.
>
>Once again nothing to with Laisez Faire, but with enforcement.

How is it laissez faire if you are enforcing regulations?

>Thank you for the irrelevant propaganda piece.

And thank you for your usual insightful, courteous discussion.

--

Jacob Kramer