weiser says:
============
Just look at places like
Denmark, where the marginal tax rates are above 50%, and half the
nation is
on the dole, paid by the other half.
==========

why then do the danes keep electing governments that support what you
purport to be the case? have you ever been there? great education
system. great healthcare system. great elder care. clean streets.
relatively few ghettos. all in all a pretty awesome place to live.

frtzw906

weiser says:
======
Giving money to the poor is like giving a fish to a hungry man. He'll
eat
the fish and be hungry again in six hours
..====

give a corporation a subsidy, and it will only operate and provide job
creation so long as the subsidy is in place. as soon as the subsidy
stops, the firm packs up and moves to mexico.

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Once the Creationists acknowledge and explain fossil evidence I might
listen to them. Until such time, it is a fairy tale. The Evolutionists
at least have a plausible explanation.

Explain then, how it is that there are no as-yet proven sub-species links
between fossil record iterations of similar creatures, much less entirely
different species?

One can say that eohippus is the progenitor of the horse because of gross
similarities, but one cannot show how eohippus became horse through an
unbroken line of incremental evolutionary change in the fossil record. How
did the three toes become one hoof, and where are the intervening
proto-horses that demonstrate the incremental change?

While biblical Creationists of strict belief may actually subscribe to the
"God created heaven and earth in seven days" dogma, creationism as a
scientific theory is somewhat more flexible, both in process and timeline.

There are interesting facts of physics, such as the properties of freezing
water, that some believe are so unlikely to have occurred by random chance,
statistically speaking, particularly when combined with other, equally
unlikely physical properties of matter, that it is mathematically impossible
(or at least extremely improbable) that there is NOT some "intelligent
design" at work.

Whether or not God is the agent, and whether or not He popped everything
into existence during a long workweek is less important than examining the
inconsistencies found in physics and history that seem to defy random chance
as the organizing force of nature.

Teaching children about this disparity of thought is hardly propagandizing
them with "fairly tales." It's merely introducing them to other arguments
and teaching them to think critically by including *all* possible theses,
rather than excluding those that seem at first blush to be improbable.

Given the statistical unlikelyhood of life arising in the Universe by random
chance, theories of intelligent design certainly deserve discussion at
least.

And even if creationism is simply wrong, nothing is gained by censoring
mention of it. In fact, I argue that the very best way to destroy myths is
to hold them up to the withering light of reason. You can't do that if you
refuse to even mention the subject. That's as small-minded as a theocracy
that censors evidence that the earth revolves around the sun.

More information is never a bad thing, particularly for children who are
learning how to reason.

--
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 Michael Daly wrote:

On 12-Feb-2005, "BCITORGB" wrote:

To argue that the teacher is free to teach elsewhere is simplistic.

Where the teacher goes is irrelevant - the students aren't going
anywhere and will grow up at a disadvantage compared to those
in other countries. US children already trail the rest of OECD
countries in academic standings (particularly maths and science)
so any further degradation in knowledge and skill will make it
worse.

Since when does providing students with more information rather than less
make things worse?
--
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 Michael Daly wrote:

On 12-Feb-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote:

Christianity has another theory called Creation, also lots of info, not
all supported so still largely a theory. Never yet proven.

It's not a theory, it's a doctrine. It has been proven - to be false.

Actually, you're wrong. At best, the classic "God created the world in seven
days" version of creationism has been debunked. The theory of intelligent
design of the Universe has most emphatically NOT been proven to be false.


--
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 Michael Daly wrote:

On 11-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

China won't go to war with us,

They don't have to - they just have to call in the debt.

How do you propose that they collect it if we decide to repudiate it, as
virtually every other nation on the planet that owes the US money has done?

Do you think they will go to war with us?

Demanding payment is rather different from receiving payment. Just ask any
bill collection agency.

--
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

weiser says:
=========
"If you have two operating feet, get up and walk
out of the ghetto.
=========

did i say something about a ghetto here?

and, frankly, i don't give a **** about what the people in kansas want
to teach their kids. but from where i sit, their actions and similar
"ban the books" from literature classes actions in the US bible belt
look awfully similar to what the taliban was up to. great! have your
regious freedom (if that's what you think it is)! i think it's a
purposeful dumbing down of your children.

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 11-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

If Canada wants to legalize heroin poppy production, that heroin is likely
to find its way to the US. We have every right to use our economic and
political influence to prevent that.

Why don't you just use your border to do that?

Because it's a long and rugged border, and it's probably easier to use
economic and political pressure to get the offenders to fix the problem
themselves. That way we don't waste a lot of our money trying to compensate
for their policies.

--
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 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.

Thank God for that! I rejoice every day that the left can't get it's sh*t
together.

Yet
the right condemns that invisible group as well.

Well, we condemn the political philosophy and its practitoners, and find it
unnecessary to label them beyond "Leftists."

That says everything anyone needs to know about them.
--
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 Michael Daly wrote:

On 11-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Not true, but even it it were true, so what? Oil is a strategic resource.
Every nation on the planet wants to secure strategic resources for its own
use. That's the nature of nations. That's the history of the planet.

That's why Japan trashed US bases in Pearl Harbor and the Philippines
in Dec, 1941. I suppose you think that's justified.

In their view it was. Unfortunately, they grossly miscalculated our ability
and willingness to defend our resources. That's why, in fact, we intend to
maintain military superiority over every other nation on earth, no matter
what...so that we have the capacity to destroy any nation that tries to
invade us to appropriate our resources. And by having that capacity, and by
being willing to project military force outside our national boundaries at a
moment's notice, we deter attempts by others to use military force, not only
against the US, but against our allies. Thus, we rarely have to exercise
military force, because the threat is usually sufficient.

Every once and a while, however, some tyrant or terrorist somewhere gets it
in his pinhead that he can challenge our military without consequence and we
have to go exterminate them.

Such events are rare, but also serve as object lessons to other wannabe
tyrants not to screw with the US or its allies, because we can, and will,
kick their asses right back into the stone age if necessary.

Peace through superior firepower.

--
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