Sad day for America
in [Toyota]
|
From: Mike Hunter on 31 Mar 2010 11:08 In which branch of the military did you serve, dr_jeff? "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message news:Ov2dnbzpqOJOES_WnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > Mike Hunter wrote: >> In other words you think it is a good idea for the GOVERNMENT to control >> what or where YOU choose to eat, or what YOU choose to buy? > > 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? > >> How about where you live or what you say, is that a good idea as well? >> Try doing a search of the governments powers in Germany in 1939, dummy > > 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. > >> You are even more of a lefty loon then I suspected. IF you were still >> alive in 2084 you likely would be first in line to buy the book. Do you >> realize some of the outrageous things predict in 1984 already have, or >> soon will, come to pass....dr_jeff? > > >> "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message >> news:14udnfMiOLYljy_WnZ2dnUVZ_qudnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>> Mike Hunter wrote: >>>> Want more government regulations? You have not seen anything yet, >>>> wait till the government totally takes over our health care in 2014. >>>> >>>> It has already begun! The Government that CURRENTLY regulates >>>> trans-fats is trying to tax the "sugary" drinks that are killing our >>>> children. >>> They regulate drugs, requiring that the meet certain purity and >>> effectiveness standards. They regulate doctors, teachers and other >>> professionals, requiring that they don't have a serious criminal history >>> before they can go into the clinic or classroom. What a horror? What's >>> next? Requiring that priests don't molest children? And what right does >>> the federal government have to make sure that cars are safe? The nerve >>> of the government. >>> >>>> Next will come smoking regulations. One local major employer >>>> announced today they will test all new workers for nicotine, if you >>>> have it in your system they will not give you a job because it will >>>> further increase their health care costs under the new bill. >>> That's a local employer taking its health-care costs in its own hands. >>> Should we regulate that, too? >>> >>>> Three major US manufactures are telling us their health care cost will >>>> go up by millions of dollars a year, which will lead to higher prices >>>> for their products. What next will they not employ any new employees >>>> who are overweight? The federal government will start controlling >>>> what we eat for the same reasons. Can government control of the use >>>> of alcohol be far behind? >>> Well, if a business stops hiring fat people, isn't that the business's >>> decision? Are you saying we should regulate businesses? >>> >>> What if it is one of those three major US manufacturers? That would help >>> lower their health-care costs. >>> >>> That alcohol regulation would be good for you and stop your drunken >>> rants. >>> >>>> Not only will the government be telling you what you can eat, wait to >>>> you see what happens to your privilege to DRIVE when they start to >>>> restrict driving, or what you can drive to reduce the number injured on >>>> killed on our highways. >>> Legally, I may not drive a tractor-trailer, school bus or motorcycle. >>> You think this is a bad thing? >>> >>>> I suspect we will see a new "1984" book written called "2084," total >>>> government control of the lives of all those still alive at the time. >>>> LOL >>> Yeah, right. >>> >>>> "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message > >>>>> There is a big difference between good regulation and stupidity. Banks >>>>> encouraged to make loans that can't be repaid is stupidity. >>>>> >>>>> Jeff >>
From: Bill Putney on 31 Mar 2010 20:54 dr_jeff wrote: > Bill Putney wrote: >> dr_jeff wrote: >> >>> They regulate drugs, requiring that the meet certain purity and >>> effectiveness standards. They regulate doctors, teachers and other >>> professionals, requiring that they don't have a serious criminal >>> history before they can go into the clinic or classroom. What a >>> horror? What's next? Requiring that priests don't molest children? >>> And what right does the federal government have to make sure that >>> cars are safe? The nerve of the government. >> >> 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. > > 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). 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. >> 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". > > You seem to make the assumption that there are hidden agendas and that > global warming is not real... 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.) > Fact is that the evidence overwhelmingly... 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. > shows that our unintentional manipulation of the CO2 concentration can > have drastic changes in the environment and that last changes have > already occurrred... Again - you apparently haven't been conscious of anything factual related to the subject for quite some time. >> 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. > > That's human nature. Look how we let Bush run over us with anything > linked to 9/11 and security. 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. > However, as pointed out, it is not false science... And only you and Al Gore still say that. > It is false science to > assume that we can dump CO2 into atmosphere and destroy our environment > without consequences. 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. >> 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. > > 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 > 20 or years... 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 > gone up all that much. Companies pay so much for health care, they can't > afford higher raises. Yet, no one has explained why health care should > be paid for by employers. 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. >> 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". > > Right, I am going to waste my time reading anything because you > recommend it. 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. -- Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
From: Kevin on 31 Mar 2010 22:41 dr_jeff <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in news:QZ6dnS6ioeeYsi7WnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com: > Bill Putney wrote: >> dr_jeff wrote: >> >>> They regulate drugs, requiring that the meet certain purity and >>> effectiveness standards. They regulate doctors, teachers and other >>> professionals, requiring that they don't have a serious criminal >>> history before they can go into the clinic or classroom. What a >>> horror? What's next? Requiring that priests don't molest children? >>> And what right does the federal government have to make sure that >>> cars are safe? The nerve of the government. >> >> 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. > > 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). > >> 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". > > 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. > >> 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. > > 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. > >> 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. > > 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 20 or years. In addition, health care is a big reason why wages > haven't gone up all that much. Companies pay so much for health care, > they can't afford higher raises. Yet, no one has explained why health > care should be paid for by employers. > >> 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". > > Right, I am going to waste my time reading anything because you > recommend it. > > Jeff > 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) -- THUNDERSNAKE #9 Protect your rights or "Lose" them The 2nd Admendment guarantees the others --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: dr_jeff on 31 Mar 2010 22:54 Bill Putney wrote: > dr_jeff wrote: >> Bill Putney wrote: >>> dr_jeff wrote: >>> >>>> They regulate drugs, requiring that the meet certain purity and >>>> effectiveness standards. They regulate doctors, teachers and other >>>> professionals, requiring that they don't have a serious criminal >>>> history before they can go into the clinic or classroom. What a >>>> horror? What's next? Requiring that priests don't molest children? >>>> And what right does the federal government have to make sure that >>>> cars are safe? The nerve of the government. >>> >>> 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. >> >> 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). > > 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. 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. >>> 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". >> >> You seem to make the assumption that there are hidden agendas and that >> global warming is not real... > > 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.) 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. >> Fact is that the evidence overwhelmingly... > > 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. Thanks for making my point. However, I won't be continuing. You're not worth my time. >> shows that our unintentional manipulation of the CO2 concentration can >> have drastic changes in the environment and that last changes have >> already occurrred... > > Again - you apparently haven't been conscious of anything factual > related to the subject for quite some time. > >>> 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. >> >> That's human nature. Look how we let Bush run over us with anything >> linked to 9/11 and security. > > 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. > >> However, as pointed out, it is not false science... > > And only you and Al Gore still say that. > >> It is false science to assume that we can dump CO2 into atmosphere and >> destroy our environment without consequences. > > 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. 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. >>> 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. >> >> 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 20 or years... > > And so therefore we should continue to abandon the Constitution - is > what you're saying. Nope, not at all. > In addition, health care is a big reason why wages haven't >> gone up all that much. Companies pay so much for health care, they >> can't afford higher raises. Yet, no one has explained why health care >> should be paid for by employers. > > 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 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. >>> 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". >> >> Right, I am going to waste my time reading anything because you >> recommend it. > > You have to be kidding. 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. > You think that by my suggesting something that > it is therefore thought to be imperative that you do it? Please, you're not that important. Rather, I don't think your recommendation is worth the electrons it was written with. > You can't be > that stupid. But you can. > But you're right - it wouldn't be a waste of time to read > the thing that I recommended. You turned by words around. Nice arguing technique. > 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. 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
From: dr_jeff on 31 Mar 2010 22:57
Kevin wrote: > dr_jeff <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in > news:QZ6dnS6ioeeYsi7WnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com: > >> Bill Putney wrote: >>> dr_jeff wrote: >>> >>>> They regulate drugs, requiring that the meet certain purity and >>>> effectiveness standards. They regulate doctors, teachers and other >>>> professionals, requiring that they don't have a serious criminal >>>> history before they can go into the clinic or classroom. What a >>>> horror? What's next? Requiring that priests don't molest children? >>>> And what right does the federal government have to make sure that >>>> cars are safe? The nerve of the government. >>> 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. >> 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). >> >>> 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". >> 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. >> >>> 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. >> 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. >> >>> 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. >> 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 20 or years. In addition, health care is a big reason why wages >> haven't gone up all that much. Companies pay so much for health care, >> they can't afford higher raises. Yet, no one has explained why health >> care should be paid for by employers. >> >>> 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". >> Right, I am going to waste my time reading anything because you >> recommend it. >> >> Jeff >> > > there is NO global warming. Bull. > It has been blasted to bits, all the > supposed research was rigged. Only in the minds of deniers. > There is no evadence to show any global > warmning at all. 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? > 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) 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 |