Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

ABC News Surprised Americans support NSA

Bush NSA Wiretaps ABC News

  • Please log in to reply
93 replies to this topic

#41 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 16 May 2006 - 09:06 PM

Quote

Ogami: When there are calls to force auto makers to a certain fuel economy standard (say, above what SUVs could possibly drive with and still be SUVs), that's socialism in action. The liberal left can duck and dodge, and hide what they are, for all the good it will do them. It's socialism, plain and simple.

No, it isn't. Imposing standards and regulations on business does not equate to socialism. But that's unfortunately what current American conservatism (which is actually corporatism) would have people think.
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#42 Banapis

Banapis

    Tilting at Shadow Depositories

  • Islander
  • 2,222 posts

Posted 16 May 2006 - 09:42 PM

View PostSpectacles, on May 16 2006, 10:06 PM, said:

Quote

Ogami: When there are calls to force auto makers to a certain fuel economy standard (say, above what SUVs could possibly drive with and still be SUVs), that's socialism in action. The liberal left can duck and dodge, and hide what they are, for all the good it will do them. It's socialism, plain and simple.

No, it isn't. Imposing standards and regulations on business does not equate to socialism. But that's unfortunately what current American conservatism (which is actually corporatism) would have people think.
Well said.

Banapis

#43 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 16 May 2006 - 09:54 PM

Spectacles wrote:

No, it isn't. Imposing standards and regulations on business does not equate to socialism. But that's unfortunately what current American conservatism (which is actually corporatism) would have people think.

The sole purpose of increased fuel economy standards for SUVs (which was the legislation voted down two years back) is to enact penalties preventing automakers from making them and people from buying them. Socialism in action, courtesy of the nutjob left.

I still remember Presidential Candidate John Kerry condemning the evil SUV, because that played well to his shallow base. Then a disloyal reporter asked him about the SUV seen at the Kerry mansion. That was Teresa's SUV, Kerry answered.

The left wants to tell everyone else how to live, yet exempt themselves from their own draconian rules. Why is it so unacceptable to the Religious Left that the public be allowed to make their own buying decisions, to have a free market determined by what the consumer wants, and not what some nutjob group of leftist wackos want?

-Ogami

Edited by Ogami, 16 May 2006 - 09:54 PM.


#44 Eskaminzim

Eskaminzim

    Head eggs and butt toast

  • Islander
  • 559 posts

Posted 16 May 2006 - 10:15 PM

I know I'm gonna get slammed for this, but I'm still on post op medication and therefore have lost the will to resist:

The sole purpose of increased fuel economy standards for SUVs (which was the legislation voted down two years back) a consitutional amendment banning gay marriage is to enact penalties preventing automakers consenting adults from making them their own decisions and people from buying them. Socialism Religious fanaticism in action, courtesy of the nutjob left right.

I still remember Presidential Candidate John Kerry George W. Bush condemning the evil SUV lesbians and gay men, because that played well to his shallow base. Then a disloyal reporter asked him about the SUV   dyke seen at the Kerry mansion Oval Office. That was Teresa's SUV Chaney's daughter, Kerry Bush answered.

The left right wants to tell everyone else how to live, yet exempt themselves from their own draconian rules. Why is it so unacceptable to the Religious Left Right that the public be allowed to make their own buying sexual decisions, to have a freedom market determined by what the consumer consenting adults wants, and not what some nutjob group of leftist right wing wackos want?


Back to my drugged haze. Thanks for playing, everyone!

#45 Call Me Robin

Call Me Robin

    red-haired and proud

  • Islander
  • 970 posts

Posted 16 May 2006 - 10:29 PM

View PostEskaminzim, on May 17 2006, 03:15 AM, said:

I know I'm gonna get slammed for this, but I'm still on post op medication and therefore have lost the will to resist:

The sole purpose of increased fuel economy standards for SUVs (which was the legislation voted down two years back) a consitutional amendment banning gay marriage is to enact penalties preventing automakers consenting adults from making them their own decisions and people from buying them. Socialism Religious fanaticism in action, courtesy of the nutjob left right.

I still remember Presidential Candidate John Kerry George W. Bush condemning the evil SUV lesbians and gay men, because that played well to his shallow base. Then a disloyal reporter asked him about the SUV   dyke seen at the Kerry mansion Oval Office. That was Teresa's SUV Chaney's daughter, Kerry Bush answered.

The left right wants to tell everyone else how to live, yet exempt themselves from their own draconian rules. Why is it so unacceptable to the Religious Left Right that the public be allowed to make their own buying sexual decisions, to have a freedom market determined by what the consumer consenting adults wants, and not what some nutjob group of leftist right wing wackos want?


Back to my drugged haze. Thanks for playing, everyone!

ROFTLMAO!  Brilliant!  

This latest bogus right-wing talking point (standards = socialism) is the weakest yet.  And classic right-wing projection.  In fact, it's the right wing that is trying to impose its views on everyone, not the left, and about 70 percent of the country knows this.

Rights include responsibilities.  Corporations should have a responsibility to meet certain standards.  For example, a company that manufactures cribs, high chairs, and other baby products has a responsibility to make sure that its products meet certain standards for safety.  A factory has a responsibility to not pollute the surrounding area.  Therefore, holding corporations to certain standards is not "socialism."  It's plain old common sense.  In fact, I dare say that the idea of asking corporations to accept responsibilities of individual citizens is a benchmark of a liberal democracy.

The conservatives corporatists want to believe that if we just let the market work its magic, everything will be sunshiney and everything will be okay.  History has proven them absolutely wrong.  Look at the so-called Gilded Age, when a handful of very rich folks lived in luxury while men, women, and children worked under dangerous conditions.  Or the Great Depression.  Or Love Canal, or any number of instances where there was no check on corporations' behavior.

The current conservative  movement is unraveling.  If it wants to survive, it should really jettison its corporatist wing and recognize that the "free market" can't solve all the country's problems.

Anyway, it's a bad time for the 31 percenters.  As another poster pointed out, they're hanging on to their tired, boring cliches like their lives depend on it.  Kind of like the Marxists of yesteryear.
Of all the varieties of virtues, liberalism is the most beloved.
--Aristotle

The fanatic is not really a stickler to principle. He embraces a cause not primarily because of its justness or holiness but because of his desperate need for something to hold onto.
--Eric Hoffer

#46 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 16 May 2006 - 10:51 PM

Quote

The left is not socialist. That is an old right-wing myth. In fact, the American left has nothing to do with socialism at all. Socialism is when the government controls all means of production. It's something entirely different from American liberalism.
The views of the American left are pretty much indistinguishable from the out-of-the-closet-Socialists. On SUV's to literally every issue imaginable, socialism is the underlying principle guiding them. The only real divergence, is the extent each faction is willing to go to inflict artificial government choreographed "equality" on this country.

Btw Robin since you brought up "bogus talking points" I have to ask; is the word "corporatist" officially the new hotness, or will  "fundamentalist" be back Sunday after a well deserved week off?  :p    

-scherzo
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#47 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 16 May 2006 - 10:57 PM

Yeah and no free market works so well. We could make a system like the great leap forward. Or the cultural revolution. Then there are all those great and workable five year plans which made the USSR reknown for it's great humanitarian outcomes. Look them up there are huge mound of skulls connected to them all.


Free markets work within certain bounds. But the SUV's question is answered this way. You can make laws preventing owning these cars. And when you do why not the ownership of all cars. We see this same sort of social engineering with the smoking ban. We can get it to where people cannot be trusted to spend their money correctly so we will have the government these rules up for us.

You do understand freedom means being able to make your own choices free of influence.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#48 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 17 May 2006 - 04:16 AM

Great point, Eska. :)

Ogami, Scherzo, and G, I take it then that you're opposed to federal inspections of beef, poultry, pork? Air pollution regulations? Any and all inspections and regulations of business? Are, say, health department inspections of restaurants socialistic?

Are you opposed to any and all regulations of businesses?

There is a middle ground that it seems to me you're ignoring. Many people are for capitalism but are wary of its excesses, especially when businesses are run by unscrupulous types who care only about  short-term profits, the health and well-being of their customers and community be damned. Wanting there to be regulations in place to ensure that businesses act responsibly--not just profitably--is not socialism. I'd say it's realism.
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#49 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 17 May 2006 - 06:33 AM

Socialism has to do with people's personal incomes and government confiscation of money. The fact that socialist governments tend to also be rather controlling of businesses doesn't make excessive control and regulation a part of what socialism is. If you believe vehicle emission standards are a sign of too much regulation, then the word for it is not "socialism" but just "overregulation".

#50 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 17 May 2006 - 07:40 AM

Blademaster wrote:

I know I'm gonna get slammed for this, but I'm still on post op medication and therefore have lost the will to resist

Andy Rooney had a classic sketch on ERA, Gun Control, and abortion. Either you're for all three or you're against all three. Seems to fit your skit.

-Ogami

#51 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 17 May 2006 - 07:47 AM

Support for the NSA may not be quite as high as it appears.

http://www.cnn.com/2...suit/index.html

Quote

Attorneys Carl Mayer and Bruce Afran said that since the lawsuit was filed Friday they have been overwhelmed with calls from people wanting to join the suit.

"They are violating federal law, which mandates a minimum penalty of $1,000 for every person whose records have been disclosed," Afran said, adding that many who have called his office are "outraged" by the government's and phone companies' actions.

Quote

In a prepared statement, Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, added that the program will be a "central" topic of discussion in the deliberations over Gen. Michael Hayden's nomination to be the next CIA chief.

Hayden was NSA director when the surveillance program was authorized by President Bush in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

"It became apparent that in order to have a fully informed confirmation hearing, all members of my committee needed to know the full width and breadth of the president's program," Roberts said in a written statement. "This issue will be central to the committee's deliberations on Gen. Hayden's nomination and there was no way we could fulfill our collective constitutional responsibilities without that knowledge."

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#52 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 17 May 2006 - 07:48 AM

Call Me Robin wrote:

Rights include responsibilities. Corporations should have a responsibility to meet certain standards.

I hear the Internationalé playing...

It's a total lie to claim that increased fuel economy standards for SUVs is in any way intended to make better SUVs or a better environment. The goal is simply to extract more tax revenue out of auto companies, when they are "penalized" for being unable to make SUVs that meet the standards, which costs would then be passed on to the consumer.

It's almost as if the filthy rich Democrats in the Senate want no one but themselves to be able to afford SUVs. They already have theirs, they don't want the average citizen to be able to afford them. So tax them out of existence for all but the rich and powerful, typical solution from the "concerned" Democrats who want to "save" the environment.

Therefore, holding corporations to certain standards is not "socialism." It's plain old common sense.

What does this have to do with punishing American auto makers and American consumers for buying SUVs? That's what the law does, no matter how many good intentions you try to wrap around it. It's the old Democrat line: "We only want to heeeeeeeelp yoooooooou...."

Look at the so-called Gilded Age, when a handful of very rich folks lived in luxury while men, women, and children worked under dangerous conditions.

You mean like Senators Kerry, Kennedy, and Schumer? We know how they will vote on immigration reform, who knows how many hispanics they employ to care for the grounds of their lavish mansions. (Not that they'd hire such people to be on their actual staffs. The Democrats must maintain standards, you see...)

The current conservative movement is unraveling. If it wants to survive, it should really jettison its corporatist wing and recognize that the "free market" can't solve all the country's problems.

The above is your defense that the left is not about socialism? Yes, it's about environmental activism, the new front for the Communist party. Ask Mikhail Gorbachev, he heads one of the environmental groups. They haven't given up, they've just changed tactics.

Anyway, it's a bad time for the 31 percenters. As another poster pointed out, they're hanging on to their tired, boring cliches like their lives depend on it. Kind of like the Marxists of yesteryear.

A similar percentage believed in Herbert Hoover, yet not a single Communist system created by FDR ended the Great Depression, it took WWII to do that.

I'll take that percentage over the "concern" of the left, anytime.

-Ogami

Edited by Ogami, 17 May 2006 - 07:54 AM.


#53 G-man

G-man

    Is there a problem?

  • Moderator
  • 8,927 posts

Posted 17 May 2006 - 07:50 AM

Considering his skit was written around your post, you could be criticised for the same thing.

/s/

Gloriosus
the G-man Himself
Let me strive every moment of my life to make myself better and better, to the best of my ability, so that all may profit by it.
Let me think of the right and lend my assistance to all who may need it, with no regard for anything but justice.
Let me take what comes with a smile, without loss of courage.
Let me be considerate of my country, of my fellow citizens, and my associates in everything I say and do.
Let me do right to all, and wrong no man.
-- Doc Savage

Few people want to be moderated, most people see the need for everyone else to be moderated. -- Orpheus

#54 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 17 May 2006 - 07:51 AM

Godeskian wrote:

Attorneys Carl Mayer and Bruce Afran said that since the lawsuit was filed Friday they have been overwhelmed with calls from people wanting to join the suit.

You're comparing support for the NSA to people who want to make a fast buck off the issue? I guess there would be a lack of support, if you personally want to cash in over feigned outrage.

-Ogami

#55 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 17 May 2006 - 07:52 AM

G-Man wrote:

Considering his skit was written around your post, you could be criticised for the same thing.

I liked the Andy Rooney sketch I don't think I made any condemnation one way or the other, G-Man.

#56 G-man

G-man

    Is there a problem?

  • Moderator
  • 8,927 posts

Posted 17 May 2006 - 08:01 AM

Ogami --

The SUV argument is flawed.  

Firstly, automakers could meet the standards if they simply stopped litigating to have their own way, and simply worked to meet the standards.  This is analogous of the 1970's when US automakers simply refused to build fuel efficient cars; come the energy crisis, and suddenly fuel efficiency is in and the US automakers lost large shares of the market to the imports.  Then came the relaxing of the standards, and the automakers then chose to back off and went with larger, increasingly less fuel efficient vehicles, and then they get hit by this gas-hike.

Size, power, and fuel efficiency shouldn't be considered mutually exclusive.  Of course, US auto-makers appeal to the vanity of the public in order to sell their products.  Admittedly, the public buys them, but then the public will buy anything that's properly packaged; so why not a fuel efficient, reasonably powerful automobile with adequate passenger and cargo capacity for the average american family that is capable of withstanding a overwhelming 5-mph collision without resulting in thousands of dollars of damage to the automobile?

So, this isn't about making money by penalizing automakers; it's about requiring automakers to simply turn out a good product.

Saying that the free market would solve society's problems without regulation, is simply exposure of ignorance to the fact that this was already tried and why the regulations were put in place to begin with.

/s/

Gloriosus
the G-man Himself
Let me strive every moment of my life to make myself better and better, to the best of my ability, so that all may profit by it.
Let me think of the right and lend my assistance to all who may need it, with no regard for anything but justice.
Let me take what comes with a smile, without loss of courage.
Let me be considerate of my country, of my fellow citizens, and my associates in everything I say and do.
Let me do right to all, and wrong no man.
-- Doc Savage

Few people want to be moderated, most people see the need for everyone else to be moderated. -- Orpheus

#57 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 17 May 2006 - 08:02 AM

Ogami, imposing penalties against SUVs is an attempt at environmental protection ... although I would prefer it if the government set minimum mpg standards for all personal vehicles and limited their emissions rather than singling out a specific kind of personal vehicle.

Edited because after rereading your post, I see that you in fact denied that trying to penalize SUVs is an attempt at protecting the environment

Edited by Solar Wind, 17 May 2006 - 08:36 AM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#58 Call Me Robin

Call Me Robin

    red-haired and proud

  • Islander
  • 970 posts

Posted 17 May 2006 - 08:37 AM

I dunno, folks.  That's another talking point on the right.  You know: expecting rich auto executives to follow standards equals socialism.  Bush's corporate buddies don't need no stinking standards!  

It is correct to say that today's "conservatives" often sound like apologists for corporations, because they are.  

Quote

Saying that the free market would solve society's problems without regulation, is simply exposure of ignorance to the fact that this was already tried and why the regulations were put in place to begin with.

Well, yes.  Besides, "free" markets aren't really free.  Is it a free market if certain corporations squeeze out small upstarts and mom-and-pop stores?  Is it a free market when a corporation dumps radioactive sludge into the local water supply?  There's no freedom in that.  But then, there's a reason why this form of "conservatism" was dubbed the Marxism of the right.

Oh, and here's right-wing cliche: bring up wealthy Democrats while ignoring the fabulously wealthy Bush and Cheney clans and  right-wing sugar daddies like billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife (a descendent of turn-of-the-century robber barons who funded the whole Clinton witch hunt in the 1990s).  Not to mention laughably out of touch conservatives like William Kristol and John Podhoretz, both scions of well-to-do conservative families.  C'mon, folks!  That's another dog that won't hunt anymore.  In fact, not only will it not hunt, it was put down years ago.
Of all the varieties of virtues, liberalism is the most beloved.
--Aristotle

The fanatic is not really a stickler to principle. He embraces a cause not primarily because of its justness or holiness but because of his desperate need for something to hold onto.
--Eric Hoffer

#59 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 17 May 2006 - 09:18 AM

View PostSpectacles, on May 17 2006, 05:16 AM, said:

Ogami, Scherzo, and G, I take it then that you're opposed to federal inspections of beef, poultry, pork? Air pollution regulations? Any and all inspections and regulations of business? Are, say, health department inspections of restaurants socialistic?

Are you opposed to any and all regulations of businesses?

There is a middle ground that it seems to me you're ignoring.

In My posting I have pointed out that the whole SUV are evil and their owners need to be punished. Or those folks selling them need to be punished is unfair.  I have pointed out how this idea is trying to tell people how to spend their money.  This is not buying stock or bonds this is buying a car for ones own use.  If someone wants to buy a car which gets 5 gallons to the mile and has the cash to do it. Then so be it. No one made them buy the car.

Back in the 70's the riceburners came into the market place and became a great seller because they would go for 26 to near 30 miles to a gallon.  They were cheap and would go for miles.

This is how market fixed itself. You see the auto industry in the US was making expensive  poor gas milage cars at the time and the sudden influx of these cars woke them up. Under the thinking we have now we would have a law preventing people from buying a Toyota or Honda car. Rather than let compatition make the changes.

But hey lets tell people by law how much electrical power they can have. Or what they can buy at the Grocery. Maybe even who they can call on certain phones. That middle ground is what regulations eats for breakfast.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#60 Zwolf

Zwolf
  • Islander
  • 3,683 posts

Posted 17 May 2006 - 10:34 AM

Quote

Ogami sez: The left wants to tell everyone else how to live, yet exempt themselves from their own draconian rules. Why is it so unacceptable to the Religious Left that the public be allowed to make their own buying decisions, to have a free market determined by what the consumer wants, and not what some nutjob group of leftist wackos want?

Good luck convincing anybody of this.  Unfortunately, it won't work on me, because I live in a red state and grew up not even being able to buy books or magazines (and I don't mean porn, I mean anything ) on Sundays because of "blue laws" enacted by a bunch of *ahem* right-wing wacko nutjobs who wanted to make my purchasing decisions for me.  I also didn't get to see certain movies (and again I ain't talkin' porn, unless you consider stuff like Last Temptation of Christ to be porn) because right-wing wacko nutjobs wouldn't let them into town under threat of theater-arson.  Hell, we even had the freakin' safe-'nilla For Better or Worse comic strip censored out of our local paper because some right-wing wacko nutjobs didn't like a gay character in it and decided that if they didn't want to see it then nooooooobody should see it.   Thank the gods for mail order, or I'd miss out on a lot of books, movies, and music that right-wing wacko nutjobs don't allow to be sold around here.  I can't think of one thing that any "leftist" has ever stopped me from buying, but I can think of plenty that have been embargo'ed by the local right-wing Baptaliban morality-police.  Hell, our own Donald Wildmon won't even let ya watch Mighty Mouse.  Wotta leftist!


Quote

G sez: If someone wants to buy a car which gets 5 gallons to the mile and has the cash to do it. Then so be it. No one made them buy the car.

There's a funny, inconvenient lil' thing called "supply and demand," though.  If Billy Bob Inadequate is such a shickenchit that he thinks he needs a Hummer to make that ver'-ver'-dangerous trip to the grocery store, then that's fine.  But I don't think he should be rewarded for buying one... which is exactly what Bush did.   Tellya why.  It's because Bush is an oil man and so are his buddies - it's in their best interests that you use up as much gas as possible, 'cuz that's money in their pocket.  

O' course, he's not a very farsighted guy, and since gas prices shot up so much that it started to crush his approval rating, he's now saying we need to be better conservationists.  That's a big tune-change from a couple years ago, the time of the "big no."

If he really thinks we should conserve fuel more, how come the tax breaks go to the vehicles which suck up the most of it, instead of the ones that use the least?  That would be the walk that backed up the talk, wouldn't it?   But all the talk is for conserving, while all the incentives are for using-up.  Why is that?  Could it be, maybe, that there's not as much $cha-ching$ in talk?  Talk, after all, is cheap.  Gas, on the other hand, is upwards of two-eighty-nine-point-nine.  So he'd have us do our fuel-conservation in a rebated Ford Excursion.

Part of the reason that gas is as high as it is is because some people are using up more than their share driving these SUV's that they absolutely don't need.  I don't mind SUV's for people who have a real use for 'em, but waaaaaay too many people are driving them for no legitimate reason other than they're "popular" and they don't wanna be different.  They're having to fill up their own tanks, sure, but their overuse also makes my gasoline more expensive, and yours, too.   I'm not for stopping anyone from buying them, and I'm not for banning them, but I think if you do something that adversely affects everyone else, you surely shouldn't be rewarded for it.  In fact, they should pay more for it.   That's not "socialism" - that's just a fair price for what you want.  It's capitalism, if anything - them what wants the most pays the most.  If I want a bigger air conditioner, then my electricity bill's going to be higher.  Bigger air conditioners are more expensive - you don't get a tax break for 'em.  If I want that, then I have to pay for that, all across the board.  Why should the laws of the market be suspended for SUV's?

As inconvenient as it may be to the people who want to be rewarded for doing stuff that benefits no one but themselves - be they smokers or SUV drivers or whatever - nobody owes it to 'em to make those things easy or convenient for them.   What's the profit in your driving an SUV for me?  None.  Your overconsumption makes my gas prices go up.  Therefore, it's not in my best interest to help you get cheaper, less-efficient SUV's, since that would decrease my own profit-margin.  See?  Capitalism, not socialism.

Which brings me back to Ogami:

Quote

It's almost as if the filthy rich Democrats in the Senate want no one but themselves to be able to afford SUVs. They already have theirs, they don't want the average citizen to be able to afford them. So tax them out of existence for all but the rich and powerful, typical solution from the "concerned" Democrats who want to "save" the environment.

I'm for doing away with the SUV tax break for Democrats, too, y'know.  They're not doing me any more favors driving those things than the Republicans are.  

Cheers,

Zwolf
"I've moved on and I'm feeling fine
And I'll feel even better
When your life has nothing to do with mine."
-Pittbull, "No Love Lost"

"There are things that I'd like to say
But I'm never talking to you again
There's things I'd like to phrase some way
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'd put you down where you belong
But I'm never talking to you again
I'd show you everywhere you're wrong
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you."
- Husker Du, "Never Talking To You Again"



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Bush, NSA, Wiretaps, ABC News

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users