A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

weiser says:
==========
It's sheik to call subsidies "corporate welfare," but
it's also factually incorrect.
=========

notwithstanding the current american obsession with arabs, i'm going to
assume you mean "chic" (or perhaps "sheik" is just one more american
way of getting under france's skin.

Clever boy, you caught me!

in that case, you ought to know
that in german, sheiks are known as "pariser", but that's another story
completely).

but to the issue at hand: pedantic semantics! welfare is a "lifestyle
subsidy" and subsidies are "welfare for corporate shareholders".

I disagree. While welfare may be fairly described as a "lifestyle subsidy,"
business subsidies are not. They are intended to stimulate the economy.


no matter how many times you deconstruct it, it still amounts to "six
of one equals one half dozen of another",

I disagree.


welfare or subsidies: they both represent a government's decision to
redistribute a nation's wealth.

True.

welfare has -- in both cases --
positive short-term effects but can be, as you so eloquently point out
in your "what i'd do to wefare recipients" discourse, debilitating in
the long-term. if welfare serves to allow the individual time to
acquire skills necessary to become employable, or to permit a
corporation time to readjust to market conditions, it seems we're on
the same page on this one.

or would that be unbearable for you?

Not at all. I merely require that the intent of the grant be to stimulate
the economy, either through protection of existing businesses, creation of
new businesses (SBA loans) or improving the employability and capabilities
of the workforce...and that those objectives be carefully monitored and
achieved, so that NO ONE, corporate or individual, can scam the system.

--
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:
==============
As long as its temporary. Problem is that traditional welfare programs,
not
just in the US, but everywhere, become permanent "entitlement" programs
instead. Therein lies the problem
================

I knew we'd agree on something. I further contend that, like individual
humans, corporations also generally behave as they are rewarded. Thus
the agri-businesses growing oranges in the desert, using cheap water,
will never "get off their fat asses" to figure out how things might be
done more efficiently.

We apparently agree. Isn't that nice?

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

weiser says:
===========
Ireland wouldn't have had ANY schools if it weren't for the Catholic
church.
===========

do you mean to suggest that without the catholic church, the
gowvernment of ireland would not have provided some level of universal
education? that's hard to believe!

You'd better believe it. When Ireland was under the rule of the British (for
many hundreds of years) the British forbade Irish education. Moreover,
Britain brutally suppressed Catholicism for a long, long time and executed
priests who either engaged in religious duties or educated the Irish, which
priests did, in secret, for hundreds of years and at the cost of many lives.

There was a specific intent on the part of the British to keep the Irish
ignorant in order to keep them in subjugation. Remember that up until 1916,
there was no actual Irish government, it was ruled by the British using
pawns as a part of a sham assembly. Only after the Partition did most of
Ireland gain independence and a democratically elected government. Northern
Ireland remains in thrall to the British even today, and Catholics are still
persecuted, to this day, in Northern Ireland.


what isn't hard to believe is that catholic propaganda convinced the
irish that the church was best able to handle the job of educating the
masses. the catholic church knew well the dictum of the jesuits: "give
me the boy..."

Indeed. However, your argument fails when you assume that because the
Jesuits taught religion as a part of a young man's education that they did
not also teach science, mathematics or language.

--
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 15-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

If it is, care to explain why sharks are still sharks 400 million years
later? It only took 2 million years or so for man to evolve from monkey,
according to evolutionary theory, so why haven't sharks changed appreciably
in 400 million years. If evolution is "the truth," then the world should be
being run by incredibly intelligent sharks, who ought to have evolved far
beyond what they are today. They haven't.

Just because something can evolve, doesn't mean it has to evolve. If it
fits well within its current ecological niche, it can remain in its
current form. Sharks are top predators, they don't have much incentive
to move on.

Incorrect. The theory of evolution is that all organisms evolve continuously
in response to ecological challenges that causes various changes in form
that either survive or don't survive. Evolutionary theory holds that
evolution must be continuous because even if, for example, the shark didn't
change, some other species that the shark uses for food *would* change and
become a threat to the shark's existence in an evolutionary attempt to
advance the other species.

Thus, a prey species like, for example, dolphins, would be evolutionarily
stimulated to advance in order to compete against sharks, and the sharks
would be stimulated to advance in order to compete against the dolphins.

And yet sharks remain the same as they were 400 million years ago. This
makes the theory of evolution a theory, not an unassailable fact.
Creationism, or Intelligent Design is likewise a theory, one which is
supported by a number of facts about physics and mathematical probabilities.

Neither has been proven or disproven conclusively.

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 15-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

No, it's not. You don't understand the nature of rights or the function of
the Constitution. Rights are not granted by the Constitution, government
powers are limited by it.

If the constitution can be changed thru amendments, then the power is in
the hands of the politicians.

But the Constitution cannot be changed by amendments by politicians alone,
at least not directly. The process of amending the Constitution is a complex
and difficult one, deliberately. It requires a much closer tie to the people
than the enactment of any law, though it is subject to the representative
process. Keep in mind that what can be modified by amendment can be repealed
by amendment. The perfect example is Prohibition, which was repealed because
the people decided they didn't want it and they directed their elected
representatives to repeal it.

No constitution is cast in stone, not yours,
not anyone's.

True, but you fail to understand that the Constitution does not grant rights
to citizens. Those rights exist independent of and preexisting the
Constitution, and those rights will remain even if the entire Constitution
is repealed. It is up to the People to defend those rights, even against
their own representatives at need.

True, but it's extremely unlikely to be repealed,

Which contradicts your whining complaints about my supposed
misunderstanding of your constitution.

Unlikely is not the same as impossible. You still don't have
absolute freedom.

I never suggested that I did.


If those guns allow someone to overthrow the government, you
can't guarantee that the new goverment will be true to the original
constitution.

True. In fact, our Constitution holds within it the seeds of its own
destruction. It specifically says that it is the right of the People to
decide what form of government will best secure their liberties.

It could just as likely be overthrown by a bunch
of communists as by capitalists.

Well, while it's possible, it's actually extremely unlikely, given that it
would require the extermination of at least half of the population of the
country, who would likely fight to the death to prevent it.



More like 100-200,000.

Still a small fraction of 18 million.

The vast majority are doing nothing. In opposition is about
150,000 US and Brit troops. That's pretty close to one-on-one.

So what? The issue is whether a small fraction of the population who are
radical Islamists and supporters of Saddam dictate the will of the other 18
million Iraqis. The vast majority of those 18 million are civilians, not
soldiers or insurgents, and thus need do nothing. However, it should be
noted that hundreds of thousands of brave Iraqis who DO support the deposing
of Saddam and the move to democracy ARE doing something. They are enlisting
in the army, they are becoming police officers and elected officials, and
they are being killed every day by their "own people" for daring to support
democracy in Iraq. Millions more chanced death to go to the polls and vote,
and millions more chance death merely because they assist in the economic
and infrastructure recovery. Even workers in water and sewer plants, and
electrical workers are being killed by the insurgents because their work
proves the benefits of peace and democracy, while the insurgents want
anarchy and terror.

As time goes on, and as more and more Iraqis are killed by the insurgents,
support for them, and the concealment that comes with that support, will
disappear...and is disappearing today, and the insurgents will become
hunted, hounded outcasts and outlaws welcome nowhere and turned in by every
good, peace loving citizen. Then they will be exterminated and peace will
finally come to Iraq, through the everyday efforts of 18 million Iraqis
going about their daily business.

So, you're absolutely wrong in saying that the "vast majority are doing
nothing." By merely surviving, and by not taking up arms as insurgents, they
are doing a great deal, at significant risk to their own lives.


There is no National Guard in this country. It's a US thing.

Well, there you go. You're a slave who doesn't even know where to find the
arms needed to put down a tyrant. Ipse dixit, quod erat demonstrandum.

Just because there is no branch of the armed forces named "National Guard"
means nothing. We don't have a national police force called the FBI, nor
an intelligence agency called the CIA, nor a government called a Congress,
nor a lower house called a House of Representatives, nor states nor a lot
of other things you have in the US. We do have RCMP, CSIS, Parliament,
House of Commons and provinces. Different country, different names and
ways of dealing with it. It proves nothing.

It proves that you are slaves to those who do have guns.


We don't need guns, we got hockey sticks and we know how to use them.

Uh huh.
--
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 15-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Name one other country that has been involved in more wars and
invasions than the US since WWII.

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Bull****. They have been suppliers of arms (as has China) and
has involved themselves by proxy (like Cuba) but have not been
directly involved in as many as the US.

Nice try at evasion. You said, and I quote, "Name one other country that has
been INVOLVED in more wars and invasions than the US since WWII."

You did not say "Name one other country that has INVADED more countries
since WWII than the US." And had you said this, you would *still* be wrong.
I suggest you make a list of the number of "invasions" the US has made since
WWII. It's not very many at all.

Thus, my answer is correct and you are wrong.

--
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 15-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Ever wonder why they call it "science" fiction? There's often a lot of
science woven into the fiction.

As a person trained in science, I'd say there's a lot more fiction than
science in science fiction.

BTW - creationism isn't an alternative theory; it's bull****.
"Intelligent design" is just a refusal to accept reality.

Many scholars and other people on the upside of the bell curve from you
disagree.

There aren't many people on the upside from me

Wanna bet?

and few of them will
sink into the nonsense of creationism. "Intelligent Design" is just
a refusal to accept the fact that scientific principles don't prove
the existance of God.

Nor do scientific principles DENY the existence of God. There is a large
body of scholars who believe that the physical properties of the universe,
combined with statistical probability, provide substantial evidence of
intelligent design of the Universe.

The latter is good enough for many religions,
including the Roman Catholic Church. Just because a few fringe
fundamentalists believe in that nonsense doesn't make it an acceptable
field of study.

Hm. So, now any field of study that is "fringe" is not acceptable? What ever
happened to academic freedom of inqiry?

--
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 15-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Which produces many products the government uses, and provides us with peace
through superior firepower, something the EU can be thankful for, given how
much of our military technology they use.

The vast majority of military spending provides nothing. Just read
economist Joan Robinson.

It provides peace.


Oh, it usually gets consumed, eventually.

You're talking thru your hat. Better check on the history of
US agricultural supports and their "strategic" food stores.
They sit there doing nothing then get destroyed. Grains, butter,
oil seeds, you name it. All done for no other reason than to
prop up US prices and guarantee profits for big agriculture
companies.

Um, the primary reason for stockpiles is to provide food in the event of
crop failures and shortages, which is a feature of the combination of
agriculture and the environment. Once the food is spoiled, however, then it
must be destroyed and replaced. Some out-of-date stockpiles are converted to
other uses. Corn is a biggie, and it is used to create alcohol. Other
foodstocks are turned into animal feed or are recycled as compost.

--
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 15-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Your lefty-liberal "open border" and
"political refugee" policies are very scary, and it's been proven several
times that terrorists and other criminals have entered North America via
Canada. The 9-11 terrorists are hardly the only concerns here

The fact that Canada accepts more refugees than the US (but then, most
countries are more open to help others than the US) has nothing to
do with terrorism.

Unfortunately, you are mistaken.


If anyone gets into the US from Canada, the problem is at _your_ border.

Indeed. Which is why we ought not have an open border with Canada...because
you are careless about who you let in up there.

We do not check on who leaves our country - people are free to move
around here. If you are paranoid and want to keep people out, then fix
your own damned border.

That's precisely what I'm proposing.


The vast majority of illegal immigrants enter the US via the Mexican
border. Why would terrorists enter via Canada if the Mexican border
is so porous?

Because it's easier, physically. One can get to Toronto without any
scrutiny, and then it's a short car trip across the border to the US, rather
than having to walk a long way through the desert. Plus, a terrorist can
import weapons much more easily from Canada, once again because they don't
have to hump the Sarin precursors across the desert.


Corporate subsidies prop up ineffective and obsolete companies.

Sometimes. It's true that the programs have to be carefully assessed and
monitored, but the occasional abuse of the programs doesn't impeach the
overall benefits.

If you actually study the effects of government subsidies, you'll find that
_most_ of them prop up inefficient companies. Companies that are completely
viable can be dealt with by loan guarantees (like Chrysler 25 years ago),
not corporate welfare.

I dispute this assertion. While I agree that some companies are inefficient
to the point that subsidies ought to be withdrawn, the majority are not.



Steel [...] It's what caused Japan to go to war with us.

Read your history books, Japan went to war over oil.

You'd best reread yours. Japan went to war over steel. We embargoed the
export of steel to Japan and that's what triggered their aggression. We were
not exporting much oil to Japan prior to WWII.

The US
embargoed it and threatened to intervene if Japan tried anything
in the Pacific. Japan tried to secure oil in Indonesia and took
out Pearl Harbor and the bases in the Philippines to prevent
the Yanks from interfering.

Nope.


--
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 15-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Let's close the Canadian border entirely
and see how long you last without imports from the US, not to mention our
tourist money.

Canada has (and has had for a long time) a significant favourable trade
balance over the US. If you close the border, you lose 10% of your oil,
lots of natural gas, a lot of electricity in the northeast states,
pulp and paper, wood, cars and trucks and lots and lots of other goods.
The energy cuts alone would have you choking long before we would.

Nah, we'll just drill more wells here. Canada will suffer far more than the
US from a border closing.


There is more dollar value in imports across the Ontario-Michigan border
alone than to the US from any other country. Imports across the
river at Sarnia is greater than the imports from Japan to the US.

Nothing we can't do without.


Again, you're talking thru your hat.

I know you'd like to think Canada is essential to the success of the US, but
it's 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