Yikes!

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2...ian/index.html



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
Yikes!

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2...ian/index.html



At least you're consistent. You always go for distortions, half truths and
lies about political ideas you oppose.

I hear the CIA is running a sale on Anthrax spores.

Michael McKelvy wrote:


"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
Yikes!

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2...ian/index.html



At least you're consistent. You always go for distortions, half truths and
lies about political ideas you oppose.


Substitute the word "people" for "political ideas" and McKelvy has described
himself.



I hear the CIA is running a sale on Anthrax spores.



Thanks for sharing more details about your delusional belief sytem with RAO.
Evidence of your compulsive need to lie about others is always quite easy to
find.



Bruce J. Richman

In article ,
(Bruce J. Richman) writes:

Thanks for sharing more details about your delusional belief sytem with RAO.
Evidence of your compulsive need to lie about others is always quite easy to
find.



Bruce J. Richman

Another delusional person, seems you attract them like flies.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
Yikes!

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2...ian/index.html



At least you're consistent. You always go for distortions, half truths
and lies about political ideas you oppose.

**Which part of the article is incorrect? Be precise.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Trevor Wilson wrote:


"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
Yikes!

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2...ian/index.html



At least you're consistent. You always go for distortions, half truths
and lies about political ideas you oppose.

**Which part of the article is incorrect? Be precise.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au









You're asking the impossible, considering the object of your question.



Bruce J. Richman

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
Yikes!

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2...ian/index.html



At least you're consistent. You always go for distortions, half truths
and lies about political ideas you oppose.

**Which part of the article is incorrect? Be precise.


What's the point of the article aside from that the funds were paid?
If so, is that illegal? If not why care?

It's not made the news here, so I doubt there's anything illegal going on
and suspect that Clinton probably did something similar.

The other thing that's weird is who the people are that supposedly got the
money, they're all people who would have done what they supposedly were paid
for, for free.

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
Yikes!

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2...ian/index.html


Pro environmental policies are racist, note.
They drive up prices of basic commodities,
which hurts the poor, who are least able
to afford them, and a higher percentage of the
poor are disproportionately minorities. If you don't
like it, that's too bad, its the standard logic
of the left.







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
Yikes!

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2...ian/index.html



At least you're consistent. You always go for distortions, half truths
and lies about political ideas you oppose.

**Which part of the article is incorrect? Be precise.


U.S. legislators backed by the Christian right vote against these issues
with near-perfect consistency. That probably doesn't surprise you, but this
might: Those same legislators are equally united and unswerving in their
opposition to environmental protection.

It's not that they are opposed to Environmental protection, it's that they
feel there is enough place, perhaps in some cases too much.

Christian fundamentalists feel that concern for the future of our planet is
irrelevant, because it has no future. They believe we are living in the End
Time, when the son of God will return, the righteous will enter heaven, and
sinners will be condemned to eternal hellfire. They may also believe, along
with millions of other Christian fundamentalists, that environmental
destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually welcomed -- even
hastened -- as a sign of the coming Apocalypse.

Fortunately, we are protected from such lunacy by the fact that we have a
very strong Constitution and by the fact that these ideas are minority
opinions. I've not heard of a single legislator who believes the end is
near and that because of that, we should not protect the health of our
citizens from pollution.

And those politicians are just the powerful tip of the iceberg. A 2002
Time/CNN poll found that 59 percent of Americans believe that the prophecies
found in the Book of Revelation are going to come true. Nearly one-quarter
think the Bible predicted the 9/11 attacks.

Still a minority and most of the 59% would not tell you that we are near the
end of days. People have been predicting such things for centuries.

Like it or not, faith in the Apocalypse is a powerful driving force in
modern American politics.

No, it's not.

Tune in to any of America's 2,000 Christian radio stations or 250 Christian
TV stations and you're likely to get a heady dose of dispensationalism, an
End-Time doctrine invented in the 19th century by the Irish-Anglo theologian
John Nelson Darby. Dispensationalists espouse a "literal" interpretation of
the Bible that offers a detailed chronology of the impending end of the
world. (Many mainstream theologians dispute that literality, arguing that
Darby misinterprets and distorts biblical passages.) Believers link that
chronology to current events -- four hurricanes hitting Florida, gay
marriages in San Francisco, the 9/11 attacks -- as proof that the world is
spinning out of control and that we are what dispensationalist writer Hal
Lindsey calls "the terminal generation." The social and environmental crises
of our times, dispensationalists say, are portents of the Rapture, when
born-again Christians, living and dead, will be taken up into heaven.


And talk to any normal person on the street and they will tell you the
Christian right is a bunch of loonies and that religious broadcasting is a
load of B.S..

The majority of Americans are more liberal than the right wingers and are
not likely to be influencing public policy in any major way. Still they
have the right to try insofar as they don't violate the Constitution.
There's also a strong tradition of keeping one's faith separate from one's
job as a legislator or law enforcement type duties, as in the case of the
judge that the Senate wouldn't accept because of his fundamentalist views
even though when as attorney general, he fought in court for his state's
abortion law.

The rest of the article is largely made up of different religious views of
the end of the world and have little to do with American politics.
Politicians worry most about getting re-elected and if that means voting for
eco-protections they will, if it means voting against them, they will.
Mostly it's simply that the tight feels there are more than enough laws
already.

Sorry about this, I thought it was the other thread.

Seriously, check with the L.A. Times and New York Times and the Washington
Post, all newspapers with a decided Liberal bent. If they aren't making a
big deal out of the stuff you're so concerned about, it's because it's not a
big deal.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
Yikes!

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2...ian/index.html



At least you're consistent. You always go for distortions, half truths
and lies about political ideas you oppose.

**Which part of the article is incorrect? Be precise.


What's the point of the article aside from that the funds were paid?
If so, is that illegal? If not why care?

It's not made the news here, so I doubt there's anything illegal going on
and suspect that Clinton probably did something similar.

The other thing that's weird is who the people are that supposedly got the
money, they're all people who would have done what they supposedly were
paid for, for free.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
Yikes!

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2...ian/index.html



At least you're consistent. You always go for distortions, half truths
and lies about political ideas you oppose.

**Which part of the article is incorrect? Be precise.


What's the point of the article aside from that the funds were paid?
If so, is that illegal? If not why care?

It's not made the news here, so I doubt there's anything illegal going on
and suspect that Clinton probably did something similar.

The other thing that's weird is who the people are that supposedly got the
money, they're all people who would have done what they supposedly were
paid for, for free.


It's not right, not at all, but in the scheme of things,
inconsequential, except for the careers of the
commentators involved in this.
Some of the money was not paid direct, but
paid to consulting firms owned whole or in
part by the columnists. Those firms should
not be taking government money for
consulting work, especially for
advocacy work. Those involved
needed to decide if they wanted to be
consultants or commentators, not both.
If one wants to wear both pairs of shoes, one has
to always be aware of potential conflicts and avoid them.




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Clyde Slick wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
Yikes!


http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2...ian/index.html


Pro environmental policies are racist, note.
They drive up prices of basic commodities,
which hurts the poor, who are least able
to afford them, and a higher percentage of the
poor are disproportionately minorities. If you don't
like it, that's too bad, its the standard logic
of the left.


Environmental laws if implemented with the goal of a cleaner
environnment and good jobs, as opposed to just ****ing with
manufacturers for the hell of it (i.e. "forcing technology") create
jobs which may employ minorities. The poor tend to spend their limited
funds on junk food, booze, dope, et al, which is why they're poor in
many cases.

The far right is now just as insane as the far left if not more so,
seems to be the 'moral' (no pun intended) of the story.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Clyde Slick wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
Yikes!


http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2...ian/index.html


Pro environmental policies are racist, note.
They drive up prices of basic commodities,
which hurts the poor, who are least able
to afford them, and a higher percentage of the
poor are disproportionately minorities. If you don't
like it, that's too bad, its the standard logic
of the left.


Environmental laws if implemented with the goal of a cleaner
environnment and good jobs,

It is not the job of government to make laws to create jobs. If there is
money ot be made in cleaning things up, somebody will find a way to finance
it from the private sector and employ people.

as opposed to just ****ing with
manufacturers for the hell of it (i.e. "forcing technology") create
jobs which may employ minorities.

If it hurts the corporate bottom line then there will be less hiring of
lower skilled workers which tend to be poor and/or minorities.

The poor tend to spend their limited
funds on junk food, booze, dope, et al, which is why they're poor in
many cases.

They limit it to what they can afford. You're over generalizations are
insulting and wrong. Poor people tend to be poor because they are under
educated and there are too few 2 parent households, not to mention any push
to become educated enough. In African American neighborhoods getting good
grades can and spekaing well can get you into trouble with your peers for
"acting white." In Hispanic culture there is less emphasis on higher
education.



The far right is now just as insane as the far left if not more so,
seems to be the 'moral' (no pun intended) of the story.

They claimed the far right was behind the Welfare Reform Act, yet since it's
passage things have gone remarkably well and I don't hear anybody on the
left asking to change it back.

I'm no fan of the far right or the far left, I just prefer those on the
right because you always know where they stand.

They also would not sink to the level of the leftists who made cat calls
during the state of the union address as happened last night.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Clyde Slick wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
Yikes!


http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2...ian/index.html


Pro environmental policies are racist, note.
They drive up prices of basic commodities,
which hurts the poor, who are least able
to afford them, and a higher percentage of the
poor are disproportionately minorities. If you don't
like it, that's too bad, its the standard logic
of the left.


Environmental laws if implemented with the goal of a cleaner
environnment and good jobs, as opposed to just ****ing with
manufacturers for the hell of it (i.e. "forcing technology") create
jobs which may employ minorities. The poor tend to spend their limited
funds on junk food, booze, dope, et al, which is why they're poor in
many cases.

The far right is now just as insane as the far left if not more so,
seems to be the 'moral' (no pun intended) of the story.

According to the type of arguments commonly used by the left,
Social Security is also racist. Blacks get far less return on
their contributions than whites, due to shorter life spans. When
a SS recipient or survivor dies, there is nothing left to
pass on to their offspring. They also get lower benefits due
to the high 35 year benefit calculations.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

wrote in message
oups.com...

Clyde Slick wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
Yikes!


http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2...ian/index.html


Pro environmental policies are racist, note.
They drive up prices of basic commodities,
which hurts the poor, who are least able
to afford them, and a higher percentage of the
poor are disproportionately minorities. If you don't
like it, that's too bad, its the standard logic
of the left.


Environmental laws if implemented with the goal of a cleaner
environnment and good jobs, as opposed to just ****ing with
manufacturers for the hell of it (i.e. "forcing technology") create
jobs which may employ minorities. The poor tend to spend their limited
funds on junk food, booze, dope, et al, which is why they're poor in
many cases.

The far right is now just as insane as the far left if not more so,
seems to be the 'moral' (no pun intended) of the story.

According to the type of arguments commonly used by the left,
Social Security is also racist. Blacks get far less return on
their contributions than whites, due to shorter life spans. When
a SS recipient or survivor dies, there is nothing left to
pass on to their offspring. They also get lower benefits due
to the high 35 year benefit calculations.




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Environmental regulation has, or should have, as its purpose the
improvement of human health and safety, and is therefore not a jobs
program per se. I agree the government should not be in the business of
creating or destroying jobs. However, if environmental regulations are
not written with all their foreseeable consequences in mind, or
modified as previously unforeseen consequences become manifest, the
effect will be anti-industrial.

It is in the national security interest to maintain a manufacturing
base in the United States, and therefore, protection of domestic
manufacturing is a necessary component of national security. If we
learned anything at all from history, World War II would have taught us
that. The development of nuclear weapons, which finally ended the war,
was first and foremost a _manufacturing_ effort, more so than a
physics one even. It involved the construction of immense facilities to
separate isotopes of uranium in quantities big enough to build a
weapon, and to transmute an element that was not known even to exist on
Earth, again in weapon quantities. However, there was no doubt that the
United States would win against Japan even without the bomb: American
manufacturing had enabled Allied efforts to strangle Japan to the
point where it was a foregone conclusion the Americans would overrun
the japanese homeland, they were just determined to make it as
expensive and bloody as possible.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Environmental regulation has, or should have, as its purpose the
improvement of human health and safety, and is therefore not a jobs
program per se. I agree the government should not be in the business of
creating or destroying jobs. However, if environmental regulations are
not written with all their foreseeable consequences in mind, or
modified as previously unforeseen consequences become manifest, the
effect will be anti-industrial.

Yet the left constantly invents new eco crises that must be dealt with.
Global warming being just one example. While it may be true that some
warming is going on, it's only happening in the very coldest places on earth
and at a constant rate of approx. .5 degree ever 150 years or so. The ice
caps aren't melting and we aren't seeing anything in the way of wierd
conditions because of it. Nevertheless, the left wants to regulate CO2 in
such a way as to seriously damage our ability to compete.

Environemental regulation should have one criteria, that it is in response
to a real, not imagined or manufactured problem.

It is in the national security interest to maintain a manufacturing
base in the United States, and therefore, protection of domestic
manufacturing is a necessary component of national security. If we
learned anything at all from history, World War II would have taught us
that. The development of nuclear weapons, which finally ended the war,
was first and foremost a _manufacturing_ effort, more so than a
physics one even. It involved the construction of immense facilities to
separate isotopes of uranium in quantities big enough to build a
weapon, and to transmute an element that was not known even to exist on
Earth, again in weapon quantities. However, there was no doubt that the
United States would win against Japan even without the bomb: American
manufacturing had enabled Allied efforts to strangle Japan to the
point where it was a foregone conclusion the Americans would overrun
the japanese homeland, they were just determined to make it as
expensive and bloody as possible.

I don't see any real danger of our becoming incapable of large scale
manufacturing, only a reshuffling of what gets done here. We are it seems
at present at least, moving towards more technology based industry and less
manufacturing to be sure.

I'm not sure what the difference between industry and manufacturing
is, in the sense you suggest. Software? That is certainly technology
but not industry. It's akin to architecture or engineering perhaps, but
that brings up the idea that the United States will be the world's
provider of intellectual property and the lesser nations will build it
to our whims for a pittance. If that situation ever applied it
certainly won't be for long. People in India can write code, and do it
cheaper than we can. They can design a car, an airplane, a set of
extrusion dies, just as we can. And to the extent they use our IP,
they often aren't inclined to pay for it anyway.

CO2 emissions may not be a signiificant matter, but the sheer volume
of oil we import is. The fact is, we'd be better off if Saudi oil were
far more expensive. Agriculture would become more labor intensive and
raw food costs would go up. American lifestyles would revert to what
they were fifty years ago, as fast food operations-dependent on Mexican
immigrant labor which would be sent home under the groundswell of
nationalism an imploding economy would provoke, and dirt cheap raw food
costs-would grind to a slow halt. Rail would displace sleeper cab
linehaul trucking as the preferrred method of moving freight in
truckload quantities-rail and LTL trucking would have a renaissance,
along with their labor issues.

Some would consider it a beatific vision. Others, a nightmare. But I
think we would be better off.

wrote in message
oups.com...

I'm not sure what the difference between industry and manufacturing
is, in the sense you suggest. Software?

Yes, sort of, we have most of the people and resources for thnking up things
that are manufactured elsewhere

That is certainly technology
but not industry. It's akin to architecture or engineering perhaps, but
that brings up the idea that the United States will be the world's
provider of intellectual property and the lesser nations will build it
to our whims for a pittance. If that situation ever applied it
certainly won't be for long. People in India can write code, and do it
cheaper than we can. They can design a car, an airplane, a set of
extrusion dies, just as we can. And to the extent they use our IP,
they often aren't inclined to pay for it anyway.

CO2 emissions may not be a signiificant matter, but the sheer volume
of oil we import is.

And who has been keeping us and is keeping us from developing our own oil
resources at competitive prices?

The fact is, we'd be better off if Saudi oil were
far more expensive.

No, we'd be better off if finding and producing our own oil wasn't over
regulated to make it unprofitable. Then of course there's the nonsense of
drilling for oil in places like ANWAR.

Agriculture would become more labor intensive and
raw food costs would go up.

No reason for it to do so. Agriculture in places like Australia are not
done by nearly as much manual labor as they are here, simply because they
don't have the cheap labor we have. There's one reason why we haven't
adopted a more mechanical means of picking crops and that's because as long
as the politicians do noting about illegal immigration and labor is cheap,
there's no reason for Agri-business to upgrade.

American lifestyles would revert to what
they were fifty years ago, as fast food operations-dependent on Mexican
immigrant labor which would be sent home under the groundswell of
nationalism an imploding economy would provoke, and dirt cheap raw food
costs-would grind to a slow halt. Rail would displace sleeper cab
linehaul trucking as the preferrred method of moving freight in
truckload quantities-rail and LTL trucking would have a renaissance,
along with their labor issues.

Rail is another example of a business that was essentially regulated out of
business. It's far cheaper to move things by rail than by long haul truck.
Who knows how much faster high speed trains might have come into being if we
had not screwed the Railroads?

Some would consider it a beatific vision. Others, a nightmare. But I
think we would be better off.

If we could get a return to where morality was not something to be ignored
as it is today, we'd be better off still. Not in the sense that we should
adopt the same morality, but there used to be shame associated with many
things that are now considered no big deal, or else subsidized by tax
dollars. There would be a very strong disincentive to be an unwed mother if
there were government handout. Think about how businessmen were thought of
50 years ago, it was, with some few exceptions, considered honorable to be a
fair businessman who put out a quality product or service.

Michael McKelvy wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

I'm not sure what the difference between industry and manufacturing
is, in the sense you suggest. Software?

Yes, sort of, we have most of the people and resources for thnking up
things
that are manufactured elsewhere

Most of the ROW is converting over to software written globally and
instigated by an ethnic Swede from Finland. Most of the world's NC
machining hardware is from Europe and Japan. The biggest passenger
aircraft is Euro and the most profitable dedicated heavy cargo aircraft
is from the Ukraine. Most of the non-Open Source software in embedded
systems is from Canada. The number one American manufacturer of diesel
engines is phasing out its flagship engine for a US-built version of a
Mercedes engine. German printing presses absolutely dominate offset
printing. Jet engines and microprocessors are the last frontiers of
American superiority and it's a matter of time before they too are
superceded.


That is certainly technology
but not industry. It's akin to architecture or engineering perhaps,
but
that brings up the idea that the United States will be the world's
provider of intellectual property and the lesser nations will build
it
to our whims for a pittance. If that situation ever applied it
certainly won't be for long. People in India can write code, and do
it
cheaper than we can. They can design a car, an airplane, a set of
extrusion dies, just as we can. And to the extent they use our IP,
they often aren't inclined to pay for it anyway.

CO2 emissions may not be a signiificant matter, but the sheer
volume
of oil we import is.

And who has been keeping us and is keeping us from developing our own
oil
resources at competitive prices?

The fact is, we'd be better off if Saudi oil were
far more expensive.

No, we'd be better off if finding and producing our own oil wasn't
over
regulated to make it unprofitable. Then of course there's the
nonsense of
drilling for oil in places like ANWAR.

Agriculture would become more labor intensive and
raw food costs would go up.

No reason for it to do so. Agriculture in places like Australia are
not
done by nearly as much manual labor as they are here, simply because
they
don't have the cheap labor we have. There's one reason why we
haven't
adopted a more mechanical means of picking crops and that's because
as long
as the politicians do noting about illegal immigration and labor is
cheap,
there's no reason for Agri-business to upgrade.

I agree that illegal immigration is extremely destructive.

American lifestyles would revert to what
they were fifty years ago, as fast food operations-dependent on
Mexican
immigrant labor which would be sent home under the groundswell of
nationalism an imploding economy would provoke, and dirt cheap raw
food
costs-would grind to a slow halt. Rail would displace sleeper cab
linehaul trucking as the preferrred method of moving freight in
truckload quantities-rail and LTL trucking would have a
renaissance,
along with their labor issues.

Rail is another example of a business that was essentially regulated
out of
business. It's far cheaper to move things by rail than by long haul
truck.
Who knows how much faster high speed trains might have come into
being if we
had not screwed the Railroads?

Trucking and railroads were both regulated, then trucking was
deregulated. The American trucking industry is built on the fact that
there are people willing to live and work out of a sleeper cab 24/7 for
what works out to very little money per hour and a lot of
responsibility. And the fact that trucks pay for about 10% of the wear
they inflict on the interstate highway system. If the JB Hunts and
Schneiders and Swifts had to pay Teamster wages and if all revenue
Class 7 and 8 vehicles were honestly taxed for their road use it would
make railroads very competitive, overnight.


Some would consider it a beatific vision. Others, a nightmare. But
I
think we would be better off.

If we could get a return to where morality was not something to be
ignored
as it is today, we'd be better off still. Not in the sense that we
should
adopt the same morality, but there used to be shame associated with
many
things that are now considered no big deal, or else subsidized by tax

dollars. There would be a very strong disincentive to be an unwed
mother if
there were government handout. Think about how businessmen were
thought of
50 years ago, it was, with some few exceptions, considered honorable
to be a
fair businessman who put out a quality product or service.


I think they still are, just that less of the successful ones today
are meeting both of those conditions. We mostly hear about Microsoft,
Wal-Mart, McDonalds, businesses that deal ruthlessly with not only
their "competitors" but with everyone else as well and put out
marginal, slipshod products. Of course the American consumer is as much
to blame as they are, but that's a different issue.