Sad day for America

Wait a minute! Can we combine those two concepts? Can we pass a bill bar people who smoke from being in the government . . . and make it retroactive? All in the name of promoting good health you understand. :)

Mine has the 4.9, but the granny gear transmission. The lists didn't deal with any options such as that, so it was a one size fits all oversimplification.

You're talking about the proverbial "slippery slope". The problem occurs when there is no discerning between what is minimally necessary in the sense of "That goevernment is best which governs least" (first written by Thoreau in his essay "Resistance to Civil Government").

Consider the contradiction between the ideas of "keeping the government out of my bedroom" (talking about gay rights and other sexual subjects) or "Keep the government's hands off my uterus" (the feminist/pro-abortion crowd) and being for single-payor (government) healthcare, in which the gubmint essentially in many respects owns your body and knows everything about you (to use as they will).

Stop confusing him with facts. He's a Republican.

There are many bright Republicans (all of whom are outside this newsgroup).

Regulate and control are too different things. I don't think it is a good idea that quacks with names like chiropractors, homeopaths and naturopaths can sell their snake oil - unproven and sometimes dangerous treatments. The free-market economy didn't work so well with the mortgages, did it?

You mean the Germany which the US was fighting when my father and three uncles entered the war? The one the claimed my uncle's life?

Not all regulation is bad.

I met one once, but he became an independent because he didn't like being associated with tea-baggers.

Damn, Mike, you're beginning to sound like your son, Canuck57.

Damn, Mike, you're beginning to sound like your son, Canuck57. ______________________________________________________________________

His son? Is that why he re-posts everything Canuck57 writes?

I think the plan is to dissolve the United States into global government LONG before that. ASAP is their goal.

But what Global Government will that be?

Obungler's snubbing our friends and kissing Muslim ass all over the place.

Let's look at the other side of the coin: Where do you draw the line of the government involvement in and micromanagement of our personal lives? It sounds to me like once we violate any of the Constitution in that regard, your philosophy is that that barrier is now broken, there therefore now are no constraints, we throw the Constitution out.

The problem is that when government has the extra-Constitutional authority that it has taken on, it allows manipulation of information to achieve political goals (hidden agendas). The present day is full of examples in things such as "extinction of polar bears" and "global warming". Once a problem is identified and linked to a cause using false science, then anything that can in any way be associated with that cause is subject to restriction and taxation, never mind that the original premises that the controlled activity is linked is based on false/manipulated science invented purely to accomplish hidden goals.

Health care is a problem? OK - private property is no longer a valid concept - we'll confiscate what we need from those who have it (redistribution of wealth), Marxism rules, the Constitution drools.

The Constitution prohibits certain things precisely because those things are subject to manipulation by despots (see Declaration of Independence). Prohibiting things that otherwise may seem like the "right thing to do" are protecting against a much worse "evil" (can I say that word?).

Basically what I'm saying is that we are way down on that slippery slope and have no Constitution left by all the "logic" that is being applied in our political system.

Pick up and read a copy of Mark Levin's "Liberty and Tyranny".

Incorrect. My philosophy is that the proper place of government (that is the people) is to set up regulations so that people are protected from unfair and unsafe practices (e.g., lending laws and health laws).

You seem to make the assumption that there are hidden agendas and that global warming is not real. Fact is that the evidence overwhelmingly shows that our unintentional manipulation of the CO2 concentration can have drastic changes in the environment and that last changes have already occurrred.

That's human nature. Look how we let Bush run over us with anything linked to 9/11 and security.

However, as pointed out, it is not false science. It is false science to assume that we can dump CO2 into atmosphere and destroy our environment without consequences.

We already have a redistribution of wealth - from the poor to the rich. If you don't believe me, look at how the poor and middle class have barely got richer while the rich have become much richer over the last

Right, I am going to waste my time reading anything because you recommend it.

Jeff

In which branch of the military did you serve, dr_jeff?

Yeah - let's talk in 5 to 10 years if Obama's plans are implemented and see how that's working for everyone. Talk about unfair and unsafe - you ain't seen nothing yet.

As does anyone with a brain in their head. Where have you been the last year? (It was obvious way before that, but the sold out people cannot not even deny it any longer.)

That the whole thing has been a hoax by the people at the top with a lot of people at various levels of involvement having been suckered in.

Again - you apparently haven't been conscious of anything factual related to the subject for quite some time.

We can't do much about whatever happened then. We are in the here and now. I don't buy the logic that someone in the past broke rules, therefore the rules no longer apply, i.e., we violated the Constitution in the past, so therefore the Constitution is no longer the law of the land.

And only you and Al Gore still say that.

Let's see - CO2 - that thing that plants thrive on and in turn give off oxygen that we breath - that gas that has been falsely labeled as a pollutant by the people perpetrating fraud on us. The science doesn't suport what you're saying when the plotted data is put back the way it started before the Al Gore's of the world time shifted the two linked parameters. But of course you'll pretend to not know about that or deny that that ever happened.

And so therefore we should continue to abandon the Constitution - is what you're saying.

In addition, health care is a big reason why wages haven't

So you want to do away with the Constitution - yes - I understand that that is your position. You don't have to say it explicitly - it is obvious.

You have to be kidding. You think that by my suggesting something that it is therefore thought to be imperative that you do it? You can't be that stupid. But you're right - it wouldn't be a waste of time to read the thing that I recommended. But just so it is clear - you are under no compulsion to do so just because I recommend it. You seemed to be confused about that.

On 2010-03-31 17:54:35 -0700, Bill Putney said, in response to some dipshit:

On that same note, two Senators are demanding that NASA speak up:

in all fairness, scientist have been "vindicated" in their data manipulations and lies.

After a whole one day of testimony:

sure it was covered thoroughly.

dr_jeff wrote in news:QZ6dnS6ioeeYsi7WnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com:

there is NO global warming. It has been blasted to bits, all the supposed research was rigged. There is no evadence to show any global warmning at all. Quit drinking the dam coolade. Its all about the money no scientific proof at all. KB (ps there has been global cooling the last 20 years thought, how the heck does that fit into your plan eh)

I've seen enough with millions of folks losing their homes, thanks to the Republicans and Democrats who failed to regulate the housing and mortgage industries properly. Not to mention those guys who made off with billions of dollars from investors.

You have yet to support that there is a hidden agenda in any meaningful way. And you clearly have your mind made up about global warming. Mine is open to new facts and evidence either way.

Thanks for making my point.

However, I won't be continuing. You're not worth my time.

You can the same argument about feces and water. Plants use one as fertilizer and the other to grow and react with CO2. But I don't want too much of either around. CO2 has been called a pollutant by the US Supreme Court. You comment about being falsely label and penetrating fraud indicates that your mind is closed to evidence.

Nope, not at all.

You and I differ on this, I see. You have yet to explain why businesses should be responsible for paying for health care.

However, I back the constitution fully. While I disagree with your position, I don't question that you wish to back the constitution, either.

No, I am not. I chose the books I read from recommendations of people whom I trust and respect. I can't say either about you.

Please, you're not that important. Rather, I don't think your recommendation is worth the electrons it was written with.

But you can.

You turned by words around. Nice arguing technique.

I again, you turned my words around. Very nice. I am very clear that had I copy of your recommendation, the only thing I would use it for is if I were taking a walk in the woods and it was time for my large intestine to complete digestion of the previous day's meal. That task would find a worth choice for the those words.

Jeff

Bull.

Only in the minds of deniers.

You mean like the ice that is melting at the poles, the warmer climates around the globe, melting ice on tops of mountains, and the earlier springs and later falls?

You're entitle to put your head in the sand if you want to. You're a blind as those who deny that evolution exists. In fact, evolution is the central idea of biology.

jeff