"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:boe62k$i0q$18@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <2Kiqb.11735$9M3.10343@newsread2.news.atl.earthlin k.net>,
> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >"Explain how increased taxes improve the economy."
> >It improves the economy by starting a recession (ex. the Clinton
> >Recession)... see the logic I followed there??
>
> Yes, those 8 years of gloom, doom, and recession. When the stock market
goes
> above 10,000, that's a sure sign of recession. When unemployment hits
record
> lows, gotta be in a recession!
>

Thank heaven for a Republican congress and for the fact that Clinton was
less devoted to liberalism (tax & spend) than he was to staying in power.
Of course we can't forget that that much of that booming economy was built
on unsound economic principles, like speculation and overstated earnings.
What did he call it? Irrational exhuberance!

> >
> >"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
> >news:rtriqvkhms3sfdqhscdi2qnno4u28o5iud@4ax.com.. .
> >> On Wed, 05 Nov 03 11:42:46 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >>We all remember that lying bastard Clinton ran in '92 on a
> >> >>middle class tax cut.
> >> >
> >> >And when Bush left the budget in much worse shape, to his credit, he
took
> >> >steps to get it under control.
> >>
> >> Would that be by instituting the largest tax increase in our history?
> >> Explain how increased taxes improve the economy.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Bill Funk
> >> replace "g" with "a"
> >
> >

 

> 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. <

Right, and my favorite Carlin explanation for the green agenda: "They want
to make the world safe for their Volvos!"

 

> 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. <

Right, and my favorite Carlin explanation for the green agenda: "They want
to make the world safe for their Volvos!"

 

> 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. <

Right, and my favorite Carlin explanation for the green agenda: "They want
to make the world safe for their Volvos!"

 

> 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. <

It is thus NOT a surprise that those who want to disarm the citizenry are
also the ones most adamant about the right of government to confiscate
wealth and property. (I'm not a gun owner...but maybe I should be!)

 

> 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. <

It is thus NOT a surprise that those who want to disarm the citizenry are
also the ones most adamant about the right of government to confiscate
wealth and property. (I'm not a gun owner...but maybe I should be!)

 

> 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. <

It is thus NOT a surprise that those who want to disarm the citizenry are
also the ones most adamant about the right of government to confiscate
wealth and property. (I'm not a gun owner...but maybe I should be!)

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:boe681$i0q$20@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <66mqb.54771$Ub4.47968@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >Thanks! Of course these are old arguments. Lloyd's arguments look like
> >cut/paste jobs from previous posts he's made. He always says the same
thing
> >over and over. And he always degenerates to name calling....
> >"right-winger", "fascist", "hate-monger", etc.
>
> Only when your side starts with the "socialist" or "communist" name
calling.
>
Ok. I'll hold you to that.


>
> >or self-agrandizement being
> >that he's such an intelligent guy....Phd and all.... "What are YOUR
> >credentials?" or "Take a science class!".
>
> If you're going to challenge established science, you need some expertise.
>

Face it Lloyd. There is no expertise that comes from taking a "science
course", whatever that is. The only course I've seen called "science" is at
my daughters middle school. Heck, I took 5 quarters of physics... not just
physics, but Berkely Physics... in college and that certainly didn't make me
an expert in physics.

In many areas, there is no level of expertise that gets to the real answers,
i.e, there's more we don't know that we do know; there's no "established
science" yet; or it's wrong. Just because one can wave a degree in
"science" around doesn't give you a level of expertise required to know the
answers to questions like global warming or economics or whatever.

For you to generalize your expertise because you have a phd is like
presuming there's money in your account because you have checks. The Phd's
I've worked with are usually people who have expertise in narrow, focused
areas. For them to claim expertise in any other area is like writing a
check on an account with insufficient funds.

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:boe681$i0q$20@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <66mqb.54771$Ub4.47968@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >Thanks! Of course these are old arguments. Lloyd's arguments look like
> >cut/paste jobs from previous posts he's made. He always says the same
thing
> >over and over. And he always degenerates to name calling....
> >"right-winger", "fascist", "hate-monger", etc.
>
> Only when your side starts with the "socialist" or "communist" name
calling.
>
Ok. I'll hold you to that.


>
> >or self-agrandizement being
> >that he's such an intelligent guy....Phd and all.... "What are YOUR
> >credentials?" or "Take a science class!".
>
> If you're going to challenge established science, you need some expertise.
>

Face it Lloyd. There is no expertise that comes from taking a "science
course", whatever that is. The only course I've seen called "science" is at
my daughters middle school. Heck, I took 5 quarters of physics... not just
physics, but Berkely Physics... in college and that certainly didn't make me
an expert in physics.

In many areas, there is no level of expertise that gets to the real answers,
i.e, there's more we don't know that we do know; there's no "established
science" yet; or it's wrong. Just because one can wave a degree in
"science" around doesn't give you a level of expertise required to know the
answers to questions like global warming or economics or whatever.

For you to generalize your expertise because you have a phd is like
presuming there's money in your account because you have checks. The Phd's
I've worked with are usually people who have expertise in narrow, focused
areas. For them to claim expertise in any other area is like writing a
check on an account with insufficient funds.

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:boe681$i0q$20@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <66mqb.54771$Ub4.47968@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >Thanks! Of course these are old arguments. Lloyd's arguments look like
> >cut/paste jobs from previous posts he's made. He always says the same
thing
> >over and over. And he always degenerates to name calling....
> >"right-winger", "fascist", "hate-monger", etc.
>
> Only when your side starts with the "socialist" or "communist" name
calling.
>
Ok. I'll hold you to that.


>
> >or self-agrandizement being
> >that he's such an intelligent guy....Phd and all.... "What are YOUR
> >credentials?" or "Take a science class!".
>
> If you're going to challenge established science, you need some expertise.
>

Face it Lloyd. There is no expertise that comes from taking a "science
course", whatever that is. The only course I've seen called "science" is at
my daughters middle school. Heck, I took 5 quarters of physics... not just
physics, but Berkely Physics... in college and that certainly didn't make me
an expert in physics.

In many areas, there is no level of expertise that gets to the real answers,
i.e, there's more we don't know that we do know; there's no "established
science" yet; or it's wrong. Just because one can wave a degree in
"science" around doesn't give you a level of expertise required to know the
answers to questions like global warming or economics or whatever.

For you to generalize your expertise because you have a phd is like
presuming there's money in your account because you have checks. The Phd's
I've worked with are usually people who have expertise in narrow, focused
areas. For them to claim expertise in any other area is like writing a
check on an account with insufficient funds.