Michael Day says:
================
Well, sweety, there's no such thing as an organized left either. Yet
the right condemns that invisible group as well.
==================

Michael, you have a great knock-out punch!

Cheers,
frtzw906
++++++

A Usenet persona calling itself Kegs wrote:

Scott Weiser writes:

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 10-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

To assume that the US is the only free and democratic nation is both naive
and a grotesque misrepresentation of facts.

Really? Cite me one single nation other than the US that is both democratic
and protects the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.

Switzerland

There we agree. Any others?


If you don't have a right to keep and bear arms, you are not, ipso facto,
free, you are a slave to your government because you do not have the
capacity to overthrow it should it become a tyranny.

You are fuill of ****

What a pellucid analysis of inconvenient facts. Not.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

OK, I guess I misread your question. Nonetheless, global or not, I'll
venture that most of us outside of the USA would prefer a president
more in tune with our own values.

Of course you would. But what makes you think that you represent most of
anything?

Like so many in the blue states, we
"don't get" the value systems of red state voters.

Stupidity is its own reward I guess.

We get New York. We
get LA. We understand SF, Boston, Seattle, and Portland.

You can have all of the above. Take them, please.

But we're left
scratching our heads at what goes on in Kansas.

Primates often scratch their heads when confronted with the manifestations
of intelligent thought.


You're of course right, whether or not a Kansas school board mandates
the teaching of creationism in science classes, is of no global
consequence to the rest of us. In a similar sense, whether women in
Afghanistan are required to wear a burka or not seems of little global
import. Or maybe not.

Indeed.


Perhaps you felt outrage at the sight of women in Afghanistan being
required to wear burkas. Now bottle that outrage and think about it.
That's the outrage many feel when they hear that intelligent science
teachers in Kansas are forced to teach religious doctrine in science
classes. This is SCIENCE fer crissake! This is about the scientific
method and a canon of knowledge derived through that method. The
dictates of the Kansas school board are as medieval as the dictates of
the Taliban. If you want religion, set up religion classes. But don't
ask science teachers teach what they know to be blatantly false.

Well, there's a difference between teaching that creationism is truth and
teaching that creationism exists as a theory. In case you missed it, the
requirements were not that creationism be taught as the only truth, but
merely that creationism be presented as an alternate theory to the theory of
evolution. Presenting both sides of a debate is called "academic inquiry,"
and it is through examination of the strengths and weaknesses of both sides
that truth and understanding is arrived at. Censoring one side of the
argument merely because secularist dogma dismisses the theory is just as
offensive as censoring discussion of evolution by theocratic dogmatists.

Besides, there is still a good deal of scientific debate about "intelligent
design" versus "random evolution." I've been reading a most interesting
science-fiction book called "Calculating God" by Robert Sawyer, that brings
up a number of questions about whether the Universe is the result of
intelligent design or not. I highly recommend it as a thought-provoking
essay on the subject.

I guess I still haven't answered your question regarding things of
major "global" import (I'll get to that another time, perhaps). Right
now I'm giving you an example of the visceral reactions your president
and his FC followers evoke in people around the globe.

Once again you falsely presume that the only people who agree with President
Bush are fundamentalist Christians.

We don't want to
be dragged back into the Dark Ages. we're quite comfortable in our post
modern world.

You've presented no evidence that this is the intent of the Bush
administration.


--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

Comrade Weiser states:
======================
The last thing you guys need is cowboy bravado.

It's served us pretty well so far, I see no need to change.
========================

Bravado: the last desparate actions of the vanquished (also an
indication of a waning intellect with nothing of substance to
contribute).

Cheers,
frtzw906
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Michael Daly wrote:
On 11-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

No, I merely point out that there is no such thing as the
"Christian Right"
as an organization. It's a sound-bite label attached to
conservatives in
general that is used as a device of demonization by the left.

Well, sweety, there's no such thing as an organized left either. Yet
the right condemns that invisible group as well.

Mike

Well it is nice to see you two sweeties getting along so well together,
since it is almost Valentine's Day. Should we expect to see Valentine
cards and a box of chocolate, maybe some flowers!

Now I don't want to bring up any sore points, but I would point out
though that Scott did not say that there is no organized right, or that
there are not organized conservative Christians. What he said, was that
there is not one monolithic organization that represented the
conservatives right and all Christians, which is what the media is
implying when they refer to the Christian Right. They like the image of
David and Goliath, and they do not see the right as David, -Bible
scholars that they are (not!)

There are definitely conservative organizations, some of which are
Christian, and the primary directives of the different groups are
similar enough to allow for communication and a great deal of
cooperation. But not all conservative Christians, and certainly not all
Christians belong to one of these groups. There are many Christians
that would not identify with these groups at all.

An Example: the Anti-abortion issue. Many Christian are anti-abortion.
Not just Fundementalist, but Catholic, Protestants, Pentecostal. There
are some Liberal Christians that have no problem with abortion. And all
of the above would not support the extremist that shoot doctors and
blow up clinics. There is a spectrum here, and we are not all in the
conservative camp.

Now as to the left, they definitely appear unorganized, so you are
right, or should I say correct, on this one, and I agree with frtwz
that this was a knockout blow. Our reference to the left as a monolithe
is also not totally correct, since I am sure there are a few little
cells in NYC, LA, and SF, that are very organized. However by and large
they appear disorganized as a crowd at a family reunion. All the same
family, but who's in charge. I guess Howard Dean? This should get
interesting! TnT

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott Weiser says:
===================
Once again, government support of industry is not socialistic.
AND
Welfare is socialism, which is why it ought to be done away with
======================

Government support of industry is welfare. Welfare is (according to
you) socialism. Thus, by your reckoning, government support of industry
ought to be done away with.

No, government support of industry is government support of industry, which
produces things that add to the nation's prosperity in return for the
economic protection and support. Welfare is a drain on the system consisting
of money given to people who produce nothing in return.


Please explain to the entrepreneur, trying to compete in your free
market, how agri-business (for example) deserves to be propped up but
his particular industry or firm doesn't.

That would be up to the Congress to decide. Perhaps it's because
agribusiness is a strategic resource that we cannot risk losing, and thus it
is more important than an entrepreneur trying to sell mousetraps or
tee-shirts.

If, for example, overseas competition in oil production and refinement
threatened to destroy America's capacity to recover and process oil, then it
might be appropriate for the government to support the oil exploration and
refining industry in order to preserve a vital national strategic resource.


I would have thought that you were of the opinion that the marketplace
should determine the allocation of scarce resources.

Within limits, yes. However, when a resource like domestic agriculture is
threatened, particularly by below-market product dumping on our markets from
foreign nations, it's necessary to ensure that US agriculture remains
strong, because once agricultural production capacity is lost, it's
extremely hard to impossible to recover, and it places our nation at
strategic risk for us to be dependent on other nations for our basic food
supplies.

I would have
thought that you would argue that government is in no position --
through central planning -- to determine what is or is not a prudent
use of society's scarce resources.

I'm not suggesting central planning, nor am I suggesting government control
of agriculture. I'm merely supporting price controls and subsidies for
American agriculture so that it is not driven into extinction by imported
goods produced by people paid slave wages. That's unfair competition, and
agriculture is a strategic resource that must remain viable in the US.


Apparently you do favor central planning and government intervention in
the marketplace. You have argued that government can (and even should)
make those choices.

Guess what? That makes you a socialist.

Hardly. I don't favor central planning, I favor government subsidies to
support domestic agriculture, which makes its own decisions about what to
grow and how to market it. Government protection of agriculture merely
ensures that American farmers don't go out of business because of low crop
prices. That's a necessary function of government.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

Michael Daly wrote:
On 11-Feb-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote:

I see them as two sides of the same coin, you don't have a
political
system without an economic system. They are joined at the hip. You
can't deal with one, without dealing with the other. Though I can
understand your fine line distinction.

There are democratic socialist countries, totalitarian capitalist
regimes
and everything in between. The choice of an economic system does not
dictate the political system.

Mike

Just for my CEU. certificate,

Totalitarian Socialist N. Korea, China, Ex-USSR

Democratic Socialist Britain, Canada, Germany,

Democratic Capitalist United States

Totalitarian Capitalist ?????????

Im sorry, I could not feel in the Blank, could you be so kind? Thanks
TnT

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Comrade Weiser emphatically asserts:
=========================
government support of industry is not socialistic. It's
merely the people of the US, through their duly elected
representatives,
choosing to support necessary strategic resources and production
capacity.
===============

Congratulations to Comrsade Weiser for so clearly articulating
fundamental socialist truths. In the name of The People, the Government
CAN and SHALL interfere in the workings of a so-called marketplace. In
the name of The People, and in Their strategic interests, the
Government must support production capacity in those industries judged
to serve The Peoples' interests.

Indeed. "To secure the blessings of liberty, governments are instituted
among men." Any government that cannot or will not intervene in commerce in
order to protect national strategic resources is pretty useless as a
protector of the nation's interests and the rights and safety of the people.
Democratic nations certainly recognize the concept of exigent circumstances.


As the determination of what is of strategic interest lies with The
People and their duly elected Representatives, all firms must be
prepared to either benefit or suffer from the Government's interference
in the marketplace.

Indeed, at need.

The Government will determination how scarce
resources, even tax resources, are to be allocated.

When necessary, yes.


The Government will do The People's bidding in all matters.

The government is the people, so it can hardly do otherwise.


Thank you Comrade Weiser for reminding us of the very essence of
socialism.

Wrong. The essence of socialism is "From each according to his ability, to
each according to his need." This is without regard for individual
enterprise or diligence. In socialism, there is no reward for hard work, and
the fruits of your labor are taken from you by the government and are
distributed to others without your input or approval, and without
compensation for your work. All persons in a socialist regime are required
(in theory) to give their all with no expectation of reward for the benefit
of the proletariat. This system has been proven unworkable in every
instance because with no expectation of reward, people simply do not choose
to work any harder than they absolutely must to avoid punishment. This
results in huge bureaucracies of enforcement and brutality as a motivator,
which is always completely ineffective in stimulating above-average
production.

In a democratic capitalist state, the free market rewards diligence and hard
work, and the government cannot "take private property for public use"
without paying "just compensation." At need, however, the government can
provide support, either in the form of protective legislation or cash
subsidies to industries and enterprises deemed essential to our strategic
needs in order to ensure that the strategic resources are kept available.

That's entirely different than having the government appropriate everything
you produce and give it to others without compensating you, as is done in
socialist systems.

Here endeth the lesson in Civics 101.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

Tovarich Weiser says:
===========
I'm merely supporting price controls and subsidies
============

Which implies central planning insofar as a central government decides
on the allocation of scarce resources, not Adam Smith's "invisible
hand".

As to how this is different from welfare to the poor, you have not made
clear. This is corporate welfare which, in the specific case of
agri-business, may well be driving TnT's sugar beet in-laws and other
ma and pa farms out of existence.

Further, we have yet to establish that orange groves in the desert
serve some sort of national interest. Seems like a bad idea if the the
price of the oranges doesn't reflect the true cost of growing them.
Wouldn't we be better off eating apples?

Ultimately, somebody has to pay the price of the water. Most likely it
is Henry Homemaker when he pays higher residential water rates. This
would be tolerable if our agri-business firms operated as non-profits.
As they don't, Henery Homemaker is subsidizing those who hold shares in
agri-business. That sounds like WELFARE to me.

Welfare to the poor further serves the purpose of reducing the nation's
income disparity. Check your history books for the consequences of
income disparity, Tovarich. You'll then understand why this is of
strategic importance to your government.

Cheers, comrade,
frtzw906

Tnt says:
========
Totalitarian Capitalist ?????????
=========

Nazi Germany springs to mind. Chile in a previous iteration.

Although, given the nature of this thread, I'm going to quibble with
you a bit. I'll contend that so long as nations confer welfare (both
individual and corporate), there exist absolutely NO capitalist
economies.

Like communism, capitalism is an interesting academic concept. I'm
reminded of my college physics texts which prefaced questions with
"assuming no friction" in order to make the theoretical concepts easier
to comprehend. In the case of both communism and capitalism, if you
could preface your explanations with "assuming no human avarice, ....
oh hell, let's keep it simple: assumimg no common human traits".

I find it interesting that you should label Canada as DS, and the USA
as DC. What lead you to that conclusion? In your mind, how is the USA
more capitalist than Germany?

Cheers,
frtzw906
++++++++++=