In article <20031201224506281-0900@news.newsguy.com>, Del Rawlins wrote:
> On 01 Dec 2003 07:49 PM, Brent P posted the following:
>> In article <20031201190834633-0900@news.newsguy.com>, Del Rawlins
>> wrote:
>>
>>> We're going to pay for that eventually, and that is the main reason
>>> why I try to avoid goods made in red China as much as possible.
>>> Since I am a tool addict, this gets expensive. I will buy Taiwanese
>>> tools if I just can't afford the US made equivalent (my JET drill
>>> press is a good example of this, I couldn't even find a new American
>>> made drill press) on the theory that at least Taiwan is an ally, and
>>> the fact that their continued success can only **** off the
>>> communists. The quality tends to be better than the stuff from the
>>> mainland as well.
>>
>> Taiwan made stuff isn't the greatest generally but better than
>> mainland china. Hong Kong is about the same as Taiwan.
>>
>> One common practice is to make the production tolling in taiwan
>> or Hong Kong and then once there won't be any more tooling changes,
>> ship the tool to mainland china for production.
>
> So either way I am still subsidizing Red China's machine tool industry?
> Krap.

No, if it's made in taiwan, it's made in taiwan. Just agreeing that
the quality of the work is better in taiwan so usually the tooling is
done there rather in mainland china.

 

In article <Us5zb.282500$275.1000782@attbi_s53>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
health
>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for insurance
>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>
>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for health
>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>
>
Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and Japan,
spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover everybody?

 

In article <Us5zb.282500$275.1000782@attbi_s53>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
health
>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for insurance
>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>
>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for health
>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>
>
Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and Japan,
spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover everybody?

 

In article <Us5zb.282500$275.1000782@attbi_s53>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
health
>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for insurance
>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>
>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for health
>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>
>
Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and Japan,
spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover everybody?

 

In article <MK5zb.46$rE3.8@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> Yeah, that's a requirement for a grant, like your predecessors here
>> >> say. You have to say 'and if funded, this project will destroy
>> >> capitalism and further the crypto-communist agenda, destroying the
>> >> middle class life style of myself and others like me and my family'.
>> >> Bravo, you've figured it out. Down with science!!!
>> >
>> >This is the strategy of the left. When they find them on the wrong side
>of
>> >morality, they redefine morality. Now it's science. If you disagree
>with
>> >the "science" of global warming (and the global disaster it leads to)
>then
>> >you reject science. Likewise, morality is no longer fidelity, honesty,
>> >personal responsibility. It's now support for the policies of the left,
>> >like gay marriage and adopting the Kyoto protocol.
>>
>> Spoken like a good little creationist.
>>
>
>Who? Me? I don't buy into "Creation Science". But the lefts redefinition
>of "morality" and "science" is no different than what Creationists do to
>force fit science into Genesis. Only it's force fit of science (and
>religion) into anti-capitalism.

No, you reject facts that don't fit your dogma. That's creationism.

>
>> >
>> >The groups standing behind extreme environmentalists are Socialists and
>> >Communists. They are idealogical siblings to protect people from "evil
>> >corporations".
>> >
>> >
>> And the folks standing behind you and your ilk are Fascists and *****.
>Want
>> to call names? OK.
>
>Not at all. When you see who shows up to those anti-globalist
>(anti-corporate) demonstrations you see Socialist signs and booths all over
>the place. No "name" calling was intended. And if you're looking for nasty
>names to fit conservatives, you're really missing the mark with Fascist and
>****. Those are on the opposite side of the political spectrum, away from
>limited government.

So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what genders
can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.

>
>

 

In article <MK5zb.46$rE3.8@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> Yeah, that's a requirement for a grant, like your predecessors here
>> >> say. You have to say 'and if funded, this project will destroy
>> >> capitalism and further the crypto-communist agenda, destroying the
>> >> middle class life style of myself and others like me and my family'.
>> >> Bravo, you've figured it out. Down with science!!!
>> >
>> >This is the strategy of the left. When they find them on the wrong side
>of
>> >morality, they redefine morality. Now it's science. If you disagree
>with
>> >the "science" of global warming (and the global disaster it leads to)
>then
>> >you reject science. Likewise, morality is no longer fidelity, honesty,
>> >personal responsibility. It's now support for the policies of the left,
>> >like gay marriage and adopting the Kyoto protocol.
>>
>> Spoken like a good little creationist.
>>
>
>Who? Me? I don't buy into "Creation Science". But the lefts redefinition
>of "morality" and "science" is no different than what Creationists do to
>force fit science into Genesis. Only it's force fit of science (and
>religion) into anti-capitalism.

No, you reject facts that don't fit your dogma. That's creationism.

>
>> >
>> >The groups standing behind extreme environmentalists are Socialists and
>> >Communists. They are idealogical siblings to protect people from "evil
>> >corporations".
>> >
>> >
>> And the folks standing behind you and your ilk are Fascists and *****.
>Want
>> to call names? OK.
>
>Not at all. When you see who shows up to those anti-globalist
>(anti-corporate) demonstrations you see Socialist signs and booths all over
>the place. No "name" calling was intended. And if you're looking for nasty
>names to fit conservatives, you're really missing the mark with Fascist and
>****. Those are on the opposite side of the political spectrum, away from
>limited government.

So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what genders
can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.

>
>

 

In article <MK5zb.46$rE3.8@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> Yeah, that's a requirement for a grant, like your predecessors here
>> >> say. You have to say 'and if funded, this project will destroy
>> >> capitalism and further the crypto-communist agenda, destroying the
>> >> middle class life style of myself and others like me and my family'.
>> >> Bravo, you've figured it out. Down with science!!!
>> >
>> >This is the strategy of the left. When they find them on the wrong side
>of
>> >morality, they redefine morality. Now it's science. If you disagree
>with
>> >the "science" of global warming (and the global disaster it leads to)
>then
>> >you reject science. Likewise, morality is no longer fidelity, honesty,
>> >personal responsibility. It's now support for the policies of the left,
>> >like gay marriage and adopting the Kyoto protocol.
>>
>> Spoken like a good little creationist.
>>
>
>Who? Me? I don't buy into "Creation Science". But the lefts redefinition
>of "morality" and "science" is no different than what Creationists do to
>force fit science into Genesis. Only it's force fit of science (and
>religion) into anti-capitalism.

No, you reject facts that don't fit your dogma. That's creationism.

>
>> >
>> >The groups standing behind extreme environmentalists are Socialists and
>> >Communists. They are idealogical siblings to protect people from "evil
>> >corporations".
>> >
>> >
>> And the folks standing behind you and your ilk are Fascists and *****.
>Want
>> to call names? OK.
>
>Not at all. When you see who shows up to those anti-globalist
>(anti-corporate) demonstrations you see Socialist signs and booths all over
>the place. No "name" calling was intended. And if you're looking for nasty
>names to fit conservatives, you're really missing the mark with Fascist and
>****. Those are on the opposite side of the political spectrum, away from
>limited government.

So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what genders
can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.

>
>

 

Mr. Short-term Memory,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<dsLyb.384437$Fm2.396249@attbi_s04>...
> In article <b5b4685f.0312010936.1f31d963@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<nvOxb.342157$Fm2.345797@attbi_s04>...

> >> There's not less of it. In fact there is more of it. By moving production
> >> from the USA and other developed nations where there are strict
> >> environmental protections, where energy production is more streamlined,
> >> etc and so forth to nations where there is little to no regulation to
> >> protect the environment, the energy generation is at the turn of the
> >> 20th century, global environmental damage and CO2 released is increased.
>
> > Do you think that this will be speeded up by regulations
> > reducing CO2, making 'energy production more streamlined', which is
> > just another way to say making energy production more efficient?
> > Doesn't making energy production more efficient end up lowering the
> > cost of energy?
>
> What sort of babblespeak are you useing? There is no need to streamline
> anything in china. The communist state doesn't care about streamlining,
> they need to put people to work, lots of people. The people can't object
> to the pollution, because they'll just go to prison if they do.

 

Mr. Short-term Memory,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<dsLyb.384437$Fm2.396249@attbi_s04>...
> In article <b5b4685f.0312010936.1f31d963@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<nvOxb.342157$Fm2.345797@attbi_s04>...

> >> There's not less of it. In fact there is more of it. By moving production
> >> from the USA and other developed nations where there are strict
> >> environmental protections, where energy production is more streamlined,
> >> etc and so forth to nations where there is little to no regulation to
> >> protect the environment, the energy generation is at the turn of the
> >> 20th century, global environmental damage and CO2 released is increased.
>
> > Do you think that this will be speeded up by regulations
> > reducing CO2, making 'energy production more streamlined', which is
> > just another way to say making energy production more efficient?
> > Doesn't making energy production more efficient end up lowering the
> > cost of energy?
>
> What sort of babblespeak are you useing? There is no need to streamline
> anything in china. The communist state doesn't care about streamlining,
> they need to put people to work, lots of people. The people can't object
> to the pollution, because they'll just go to prison if they do.

 

Mr. Short-term Memory,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<dsLyb.384437$Fm2.396249@attbi_s04>...
> In article <b5b4685f.0312010936.1f31d963@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<nvOxb.342157$Fm2.345797@attbi_s04>...

> >> There's not less of it. In fact there is more of it. By moving production
> >> from the USA and other developed nations where there are strict
> >> environmental protections, where energy production is more streamlined,
> >> etc and so forth to nations where there is little to no regulation to
> >> protect the environment, the energy generation is at the turn of the
> >> 20th century, global environmental damage and CO2 released is increased.
>
> > Do you think that this will be speeded up by regulations
> > reducing CO2, making 'energy production more streamlined', which is
> > just another way to say making energy production more efficient?
> > Doesn't making energy production more efficient end up lowering the
> > cost of energy?
>
> What sort of babblespeak are you useing? There is no need to streamline
> anything in china. The communist state doesn't care about streamlining,
> they need to put people to work, lots of people. The people can't object
> to the pollution, because they'll just go to prison if they do.