"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:boe545$i0q$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <FV9qb.54150$Ub4.32412@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> I doubt many agree with you and your fascist buddies either.
> >> >
> >> >Do you even know what a fascist is Lloyd?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Yes, but you right-wingers obviously do not know what a socialist is.
> >
> >Fascism and Socialism have one thing in common... they view government as
> >able to give and take away rights according to their respective value
> >systems. That puts both of them on the opposite side of conservatism
>
> Cute, but zealots have claimed to be on the side of God throughout
history.
> The fact is, the political spectrum runs from communism and socialism on
the
> left, to fascism and Nazism on the right.
>

Yeah, I've heard that over and over again. But I believe that anarchy is
what resides on the very extreme right... the lack of any government at all.
What is it about Fascism and Nazism that makes them right of center? To me
it's where power resides: in government or with people. It's about who owns
or controls the means of production. To the exteme left, government owns or
controls the means of producton and to the right, private enterprise owns or
controls the means of production. Communism, Fascism, Nazism and to a
lesser degree Socialism all have one thing in common: Government control of
the means of production and power to control the distribution of wealth
where it sees fit.

This is in conflict with the distinctly American value of limited government
and free enterprise.

>
> >where
> >government is limited precisely because of it's belief in God given,
> >individual, indivisible, inalienable rights that government as no
> >jurisdiction over. Fascism and Socialism both reject that notion as
> >government is the vehicle to compel their values on people.
> >
> >Democrats are in a constant dance on the edge of socialism. Their values
> >include rejecting the unfairness of their being a large disparity between
> >rich and poor, which isn't a bad value.... but their answer is to use
> >government to compel "charity" or the "transfer of wealth" through taxes.
> >The effort includes finding "rights" to justify this, like rights to
> >employment, rights to minimum wages, rights of healthcare, rights to
> >shelter, right to education, ad infinitum, which rights have to be
"found"
> >in the constitution via "activist", "progressive" judges.
> >
> >
> And Republicans wanting to force Christian prayer in schools, displays of
the
> 10 Commandments in public buildings, telling a woman what to do with her
body,
> telling people which kind of --- to have -- none of these are trying to
compel
> people to act a certain way?

I can play this game. How's this: Democrats believe in outlawing religion,
the murder of innocent life and removing prohibitions of incest, child ---,
prostitution, polygamy, etc. How's that?

Conservatives are for none of the things you list... certainly not the way
you list them. But I am happy that you seem to agree with what I said
above, given you started your paragrapth with the word "And". That's a good
sign Lloyd! You're coming along!

 

> >The Brady Bill and assault weapons ban are a joke, if you actually got
out
> >of that ivory tower you're holed up in you might realize it. If it were
up
> >to you I could think of three people off the top of my head who might be
> >dead at the moment if they didn't have a firearm handy.
> >An Atlanta police officer's wife who killed her would be rapist.
> >A man who shot a would be carjacker on the northside of Atlanta somewhere
in
> >a Wal-Fart parking lot.
> >A wal-Fart employee in Florida somewhere IIRC who was being stabbed by
some
> >nutcase who was foiled by an old lady w/ a pistol.
> >
> >
> >
> And for each of those, there are family members shot in anger or
accidentally,
> suicides with a handy gun, children shooting children with a gun found in
the
> house, shooting of a neighbor the homeowner thought was a burglar, etc.

You forget that the government doesn't have the power to prohibit the right
of people to bear arms. Just because bad things happen with guns doesn't
mean the government has the power to prohibit them.

 

> >The Brady Bill and assault weapons ban are a joke, if you actually got
out
> >of that ivory tower you're holed up in you might realize it. If it were
up
> >to you I could think of three people off the top of my head who might be
> >dead at the moment if they didn't have a firearm handy.
> >An Atlanta police officer's wife who killed her would be rapist.
> >A man who shot a would be carjacker on the northside of Atlanta somewhere
in
> >a Wal-Fart parking lot.
> >A wal-Fart employee in Florida somewhere IIRC who was being stabbed by
some
> >nutcase who was foiled by an old lady w/ a pistol.
> >
> >
> >
> And for each of those, there are family members shot in anger or
accidentally,
> suicides with a handy gun, children shooting children with a gun found in
the
> house, shooting of a neighbor the homeowner thought was a burglar, etc.

You forget that the government doesn't have the power to prohibit the right
of people to bear arms. Just because bad things happen with guns doesn't
mean the government has the power to prohibit them.

 

> >The Brady Bill and assault weapons ban are a joke, if you actually got
out
> >of that ivory tower you're holed up in you might realize it. If it were
up
> >to you I could think of three people off the top of my head who might be
> >dead at the moment if they didn't have a firearm handy.
> >An Atlanta police officer's wife who killed her would be rapist.
> >A man who shot a would be carjacker on the northside of Atlanta somewhere
in
> >a Wal-Fart parking lot.
> >A wal-Fart employee in Florida somewhere IIRC who was being stabbed by
some
> >nutcase who was foiled by an old lady w/ a pistol.
> >
> >
> >
> And for each of those, there are family members shot in anger or
accidentally,
> suicides with a handy gun, children shooting children with a gun found in
the
> house, shooting of a neighbor the homeowner thought was a burglar, etc.

You forget that the government doesn't have the power to prohibit the right
of people to bear arms. Just because bad things happen with guns doesn't
mean the government has the power to prohibit them.

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:boe5a7$i0q$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <hNbqb.10739$9M3.9268@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
> "FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote:
> >
> >"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >news:3FA900DF.A19031A2@mindspring.com...
> >>
> >>
> >> Joe wrote:
> >>
> >> > "Nature doesn't extinguish fires started by lightening "
> >> > if this were true, there would be no vegitation on the planet. It
would
> >> > have burned off long before humans showed up.
> >>
> >> OK, you got me. I should have said something like "nature lets fires
burn
> >until
> >> rain storms put them out and doesn't fight them just becasue they are
in
> >> national forests or near populated areas or becasue they dump lots of
> >pollution
> >> into the environment." But I bet you understood what I menat in the
first
> >> place....didn't you?
> >>
> >> Ed
> >>
> >
> >What about all those greenhouse gasses that the fires have spewed into
the
> >air? Does that mean that the environmental groups that blocked any
thinning
> >of the forests are responsible for releasing all that CO2 and
contributing
> >to global warming. Its certainly put more CO2 into the air than my little
> >truck ever will or has in the 11 years I've owned it.
> >
> >
> CO2 put into the air by nature has been in balance for millions of years.
> It's man changing this equilibrium that's the problem.

You're right. With the unnatural extinguishing of forest fires by man,
we're doing our best to replace this lost source of CO2. We were doing a
darn poor job of it until the SUV!

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:boe5a7$i0q$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <hNbqb.10739$9M3.9268@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
> "FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote:
> >
> >"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >news:3FA900DF.A19031A2@mindspring.com...
> >>
> >>
> >> Joe wrote:
> >>
> >> > "Nature doesn't extinguish fires started by lightening "
> >> > if this were true, there would be no vegitation on the planet. It
would
> >> > have burned off long before humans showed up.
> >>
> >> OK, you got me. I should have said something like "nature lets fires
burn
> >until
> >> rain storms put them out and doesn't fight them just becasue they are
in
> >> national forests or near populated areas or becasue they dump lots of
> >pollution
> >> into the environment." But I bet you understood what I menat in the
first
> >> place....didn't you?
> >>
> >> Ed
> >>
> >
> >What about all those greenhouse gasses that the fires have spewed into
the
> >air? Does that mean that the environmental groups that blocked any
thinning
> >of the forests are responsible for releasing all that CO2 and
contributing
> >to global warming. Its certainly put more CO2 into the air than my little
> >truck ever will or has in the 11 years I've owned it.
> >
> >
> CO2 put into the air by nature has been in balance for millions of years.
> It's man changing this equilibrium that's the problem.

You're right. With the unnatural extinguishing of forest fires by man,
we're doing our best to replace this lost source of CO2. We were doing a
darn poor job of it until the SUV!

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:boe5a7$i0q$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <hNbqb.10739$9M3.9268@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
> "FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote:
> >
> >"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >news:3FA900DF.A19031A2@mindspring.com...
> >>
> >>
> >> Joe wrote:
> >>
> >> > "Nature doesn't extinguish fires started by lightening "
> >> > if this were true, there would be no vegitation on the planet. It
would
> >> > have burned off long before humans showed up.
> >>
> >> OK, you got me. I should have said something like "nature lets fires
burn
> >until
> >> rain storms put them out and doesn't fight them just becasue they are
in
> >> national forests or near populated areas or becasue they dump lots of
> >pollution
> >> into the environment." But I bet you understood what I menat in the
first
> >> place....didn't you?
> >>
> >> Ed
> >>
> >
> >What about all those greenhouse gasses that the fires have spewed into
the
> >air? Does that mean that the environmental groups that blocked any
thinning
> >of the forests are responsible for releasing all that CO2 and
contributing
> >to global warming. Its certainly put more CO2 into the air than my little
> >truck ever will or has in the 11 years I've owned it.
> >
> >
> CO2 put into the air by nature has been in balance for millions of years.
> It's man changing this equilibrium that's the problem.

You're right. With the unnatural extinguishing of forest fires by man,
we're doing our best to replace this lost source of CO2. We were doing a
darn poor job of it until the SUV!

 

my 2 cents if no one minds.

1st cent: We are headed into another ice age according to what I learned in my
geology and atmosheric science classes in college. It won't happen in our life
time, but it'll happen within 10,000 years. In my Atmosheric Science classes
we had to do computer labs. We had created a model that simulated increased
gasses into atmoshere. Yes it caused a small increase of about 1 degree (F)
on average of the whole earth in about 10 years. Most of the warming was done
over desert areas, while the poles actually decreased in temperature. This was
caused by the increase in clouds which was caused by the increased evaporation
which was caused by the small increase in temperature. We couldn't get the
average earth temperature to increase more than 1 degree (F) for more than 10
years. The higher the CO2 concentration the same results happened. Any
increase in temperature resulted in more clouds which in turn cooled the earth
back down to it's normal temp within 15-20 years. Interestingly the model did
show that Methane gas tended to raise the average earth temp the most. For
some reason with methane there was not an increase in clouds. Where is this
methane coming from? The biggest producer of methane gas on earth is cows.
Cow farts to be exact.

2nd cent: In the words of George Carlin..... How dare we think that we
could harm the earth. The earth put us here, and damn it it'll take us away.
If mother nature wanted to, it could just shake us off like a bad case of
fleas.

 

my 2 cents if no one minds.

1st cent: We are headed into another ice age according to what I learned in my
geology and atmosheric science classes in college. It won't happen in our life
time, but it'll happen within 10,000 years. In my Atmosheric Science classes
we had to do computer labs. We had created a model that simulated increased
gasses into atmoshere. Yes it caused a small increase of about 1 degree (F)
on average of the whole earth in about 10 years. Most of the warming was done
over desert areas, while the poles actually decreased in temperature. This was
caused by the increase in clouds which was caused by the increased evaporation
which was caused by the small increase in temperature. We couldn't get the
average earth temperature to increase more than 1 degree (F) for more than 10
years. The higher the CO2 concentration the same results happened. Any
increase in temperature resulted in more clouds which in turn cooled the earth
back down to it's normal temp within 15-20 years. Interestingly the model did
show that Methane gas tended to raise the average earth temp the most. For
some reason with methane there was not an increase in clouds. Where is this
methane coming from? The biggest producer of methane gas on earth is cows.
Cow farts to be exact.

2nd cent: In the words of George Carlin..... How dare we think that we
could harm the earth. The earth put us here, and damn it it'll take us away.
If mother nature wanted to, it could just shake us off like a bad case of
fleas.

 

my 2 cents if no one minds.

1st cent: We are headed into another ice age according to what I learned in my
geology and atmosheric science classes in college. It won't happen in our life
time, but it'll happen within 10,000 years. In my Atmosheric Science classes
we had to do computer labs. We had created a model that simulated increased
gasses into atmoshere. Yes it caused a small increase of about 1 degree (F)
on average of the whole earth in about 10 years. Most of the warming was done
over desert areas, while the poles actually decreased in temperature. This was
caused by the increase in clouds which was caused by the increased evaporation
which was caused by the small increase in temperature. We couldn't get the
average earth temperature to increase more than 1 degree (F) for more than 10
years. The higher the CO2 concentration the same results happened. Any
increase in temperature resulted in more clouds which in turn cooled the earth
back down to it's normal temp within 15-20 years. Interestingly the model did
show that Methane gas tended to raise the average earth temp the most. For
some reason with methane there was not an increase in clouds. Where is this
methane coming from? The biggest producer of methane gas on earth is cows.
Cow farts to be exact.

2nd cent: In the words of George Carlin..... How dare we think that we
could harm the earth. The earth put us here, and damn it it'll take us away.
If mother nature wanted to, it could just shake us off like a bad case of
fleas.